choC 10 Posted July 24, 2009 Almost playable at max settings with Catalyst 9.7! Specs: Core i7 920 @ 3.8ghz Asus P6T Deluxe ATI HD 4870 512mb 6GB G.Skill PC-12800 DDR3 Asus Xonar Essence STX 24" Dell 248WFP @ 1920x1200 Win 7 64-bit (VSync Forced Off) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Juanmiguel 10 Posted July 25, 2009 Hi, sorry n00b question here, where exactly do I put the .pbo file? I've added it to the install folder /missions, /MPMissions and at user documents /missions but it doesn't show up in the single player missions menu. Thanks, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus052 0 Posted July 26, 2009 Just guessing you might be playing ArmA2 through steam.... if so... you need to go into your Steam folder, ie. Program Files > Steam > steamapps > common > arma 2 > Missions Put the PBO file in there.. I think your personal profile for ArmA 2 goes into into your My Documents folder which I had problems with initially. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
engel75 10 Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) CPU: Intel Ci7-920 @3,6 Ghz MB: Asus Rampage II Extreme RAM: 6GB (3x2GB) Kingston HyperX DIMM XMP Kit PC3-16000U @720 Mhz Soundcard: SB X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Professional VGA: ATI 4890 @901 Mhz VGA-Driver: Catalyst 9.7 HDD: Intel X25-M 80GB SSD DirectX 9 from 03/2009 * I forced V-Sync to off (with ATT) * Results show always the 2nd run Settings: OS: Windows 7 build 7201 64Bit ~ 5200 OS: Windows 7 build 7600 64Bit ~ 5610 OS: Windows XP sp3 32Bit ~ 4800 The winner is Windows 7 (I did not test Vista at all...) but even on Windows 7 ArmA2 does not run without reloadlags. I hope further patches will solve that... Regards, Flo Edited July 29, 2009 by engel75 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
engel75 10 Posted July 29, 2009 Specs: Core i7 920 @ 3.8ghz Asus P6T Deluxe ATI HD 4870 512mb 6GB G.Skill PC-12800 DDR3 Asus Xonar Essence STX 24" Dell 248WFP @ 1920x1200 Win 7 64-bit (VSync Forced Off) Switching V-Sync off gave me a 1000 point boost :dancered: Hmm our systems are very similar but mine is not able to reach the 40 FPS in the 5th test. My ATI HD 4890 has 1GB RAM what should be an advantage in this test. Did you decrease "sceneComplexity"? My system drops to 10 FPS in the 5th test when the distacne is reached to render all the trees - so no chance to reach 40 or more FPS. At which mhz is your RAM running? Did you OC the grafikcard? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doakwolf 10 Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) engel75, Can I ask - why's your RAM speed so low? With the i7 @ 3.6GHz I'll asume your BCLK is set to 180 so your RAM multiplier is @ 4x??? Why not increase it to 8x and have your RAM running @ 1440MHz or 10x for 1800MHz? The RAM can do up to 2GHz, can't it??? :confused: I'm not sure how much it will increase your system/ gaming performance but why buy such good RAM and run it at such a low speed? Jero. For the record (even though I'm not Choc who you were asking) my RAM is running at 1440MHz with my i7 @ 3.9GHz (186BCLK with CPU multi @ 21x). Crank it up and see if it may help your ArmA2-Mark score? EDIT: P.S. I don't know a whole lot about DirectX but why are you using v9? The ATI 4890s are DX10.1 so why not upgrade? Honestly, I'm clueless when it comes to DX and GPUs etc :D Edited July 30, 2009 by doakwolf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
engel75 10 Posted July 30, 2009 engel75, Can I ask - why's your RAM speed so low? With the i7 @ 3.6GHz I'll asume your BCLK is set to 180 so your RAM multiplier is @ 4x??? Why not increase it to 8x and have your RAM running @ 1440MHz or 10x for 1800MHz? The RAM can do up to 2GHz, can't it??? :confused:I'm not sure how much it will increase your system/ gaming performance but why buy such good RAM and run it at such a low speed? Jero. For the record (even though I'm not Choc who you were asking) my RAM is running at 1440MHz with my i7 @ 3.9GHz (186BCLK with CPU multi @ 21x). Crank it up and see if it may help your ArmA2-Mark score? EDIT: P.S. I don't know a whole lot about DirectX but why are you using v9? The ATI 4890s are DX10.1 so why not upgrade? Honestly, I'm clueless when it comes to DX and GPUs etc :D Hi, my ram is running at 720Mhz what is known as 1440Mhz. This is a kind of marketing. The real clock is 720Mhz but it is shown as 1440Mhz. You could use CPU-Z to see your real values. ArmA2 is a directx9 game. So even if you use Windows7 (what provides directx11) you will need to update/install the latest version of directx9 otherwise ArmA2 will give you an error (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=77880). I hope this cleared things up? Regards, Flo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
engel75 10 Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) CPU: Intel Ci7-920 @3,78 Ghz MB: Asus Rampage II Extreme RAM: 6GB (3x2GB) Kingston HyperX DIMM XMP Kit PC3-16000U @900 Mhz (1800Mhz) Soundcard: SB X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Professional VGA: ATI 4890 @901 Mhz VGA-Driver: Catalyst 9.7 HDD: Intel X25-M 80GB SSD DirectX 9 from 03/2009 * I forced V-Sync to off (with ATT) * I used always the 2nd runs score OS: Windows 7 build 7600 64bit OS: Windows 7 build 7600 64bit Settings: Score: ~ 6988 Demo Benchmark: 70 FPS OS: Windows XP SP3 32bit Score: ~ 6085 Demo BM: 64 FPS And the winner is - Windows 7 Regards, Flo Edited July 30, 2009 by engel75 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doakwolf 10 Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Hi,my ram is running at 720Mhz what is known as 1440Mhz. This is a kind of marketing. The real clock is 720Mhz but it is shown as 1440Mhz. You could use CPU-Z to see your real values. ArmA2 is a directx9 game. So even if you use Windows7 (what provides directx11) you will need to update/install the latest version of directx9 otherwise ArmA2 will give you an error (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=77880). I hope this cleared things up? Regards, Flo Cool - thanks for the DX advice - I'm planning to install Win7 soon so it should help. That clears things up about your RAM.. I was thinking "why buy such premium RAM and run it at 1/3 of it's capable speed!". Still though, it should probably have been set to 1800 (900 per channel) from the beginning :D (IMHO!) Jero. Edited July 30, 2009 by doakwolf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
engel75 10 Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Cool - thanks for the DX advice - I'm planning to install Win7 soon so it should help.That clears things up about your RAM.. I was thinking "why buy such premium RAM and run it at 1/3 of it's capable speed!". Still though, it should probably have been set to 1800 (900 per channel) from the beginning :D (IMHO!) Jero. I just tuned my OC settings. RAM is now running @900 (1800) Mhz and CPU @3.78Ghz - and it changed a lot... (see above) I still think (just my opinion) ArmA2 has got a big problem with caching things and loading them from harddisk to the grafikcards RAM. The 5th Test of ArmaMark2 runs horrible at my system. Only the 2nd run gives me "OK" results but if the engine starts to render the trees my system sucks and framerate drops below 10 while the Harddisk starts to I/O like hell. Would be interesting what happens if someone with 12GB RAM or more stores the arma files in a ram disk... hmm maybe I am the stupid one buying 6 more GB of ram... :) ---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 AM ---------- I tested ArmA2 with a Ramdisk. I was only able to create a 4GB Ramdisk (my system has got only 6GB RAM) so I had to use "mlink" to create symbolic links from files located at the ramdisk to my arma2\addons folder like this: c:\mlink c:\arma2\addons\structures.pbo f:\structures.pbo I moved some of the pbo files to the ramdisk: buildings.pbo buildings2.pbo dubbing.pbo misc.pbo misc2.pbo misc3.pbo plants2_Bush.pbo plants2_Plant.pbo plants2_Tree.pbo Roads2.pbo structures.pbo I am not sure if these files contain the most important files for armamark2. So some content of ArmA2 was now loaded from RAM not the SSD. I hoped this would speed up things - BUT it didn't. Score ~ 6910 Also the laodlags still existed. Edited July 30, 2009 by engel75 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OutLord 10 Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) CPU: Intel Core i7 950 3.06GHz (Overclocked to 3.7GHz) Mainboard: Asus Rampage II Extreme RAM: 3 x 2GB DDR3-1600 Hard Disk Drive Seagate 500GB (weakest link I think still get alot of stutters) Video Cards: 2 x Zotak nVidia GeForce GTX285 AMP! Case: CX-01B-B-SL Power Suppply: Chieftec CFT-1200G-DF All on Normal PostProcess Effects- Low res: 1680x1050x32 Cant find "Fill Rate"? WinXP Pro Score: 6309.75 My best scores are with Xp Pro as opposed to win7. Also enabling SLI with the 186 drivers and nvidia patch didnt improve performance at all. My Win7 score: (5556.6 Couldnt get screenshot to work) Edited August 3, 2009 by [Ice] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chronicbucks 10 Posted August 3, 2009 can anyone help me get this baby going?? my system i7 920 @3.8 6gb ddr3 1600 Gigabyte UD4P GTX 275 Superclocked edition 23" 1080p 1900X1080 i have only begun to play this game, i am on the first level, and i cant seem to get any better fps than like 23-30 once i hit the city of chernogosk, or whatever it is. I have tried turning physix off, changing the max rendered frams, turned off v-sync. The game still stutters when i run, or look quickly from left to right....is this to be expected?? is the gtx 275 not enough to run it?? or is there something i can tweak?? is this something that will be fixed with a later patch?? or do i need to go drop 200 and get another gtx 275 and go SLI? this game looks amazing, and all i want to do is play it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doakwolf 10 Posted August 3, 2009 ^ I find disabling post process FX helps....and I prefer how it looks too without all the blur. Runs much smoother. Jero. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hamis 0 Posted August 3, 2009 is this something that will be fixed with a later patch?? or do i need to go drop 200 and get another gtx 275 and go SLI? Hopefully it will be patched.For most of the players sli/crossfire doesn't work,so stay with single card.I have read this topic kinda lots and came to conclusion that best card for this game is ati 4890.Though there is something wrong possibly with models of buildings,so nothing but patch might help in cities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FraG_AU 10 Posted August 6, 2009 1.03 patch results anyone? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cowboylane 10 Posted August 6, 2009 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low res: 1680x1050 OS- windows vista black v2 RAM- 4GB processor- intel® pentium® dual CPU E2200 @ 2.20GHz, 2200 Mhz, 2 core(s) logical processor video card- NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT SCORE test 1- 13.8366 test 2- 15.9712 test 3- 14.2492 test 4- 17.7253 test 5- 10.2204 OFP mark is - 1440.66! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kremator 1064 Posted August 6, 2009 Significant drop in Arma2Mark with 1.03 With 1.02 and everything on Very High except PP(off) and AA(low) I was getting over 4000. With the new patch I'm down at 3000. That plus there is a lot of stuttering ingame now. Wierd. PS have confirmed that having Hyperthreading OFF gives me another 800 marks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katrician 0 Posted August 6, 2009 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low PSU - Corsair HX 450 Watts Mobo - Gigabyteâ„¢ MA790XT-UD4P Cpu - AMD Phenomâ„¢ II X3 720 Black Edition hdd - SAMSUNG SpinPoint F1 HD753LJ 750 Go Ram - 2x1 Go G.Skill DDR3-1333 PC3-10600 GPU - SAPPHIRE HD4870 1GB with Catalyst 9.6 OS - Microsoft Vista 64 bit Basic Resolution - 1024 x 768 Game loaded first run of the test patched to 1.03 TEST ONE 26.4993 TEST TWO 28.6555 TEST THREE 25.6165 TEST FOUR 29.0065 TEST FIVE 12.5241 ------OFPMark 2446.04!------------ Second run of the test immediately following the first test TEST ONE 30.2349 TEST TWO 29.8068 TEST THREE 27.7512 TEST FOUR 33.3797 TEST FIVE 20.4109 ------OFPMark 2831.67!------------ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kozzy420 21 Posted August 6, 2009 (edited) Are everyone scores from there first try or 2nd? Definatly seems like you get a boast your 2nd time 1st Test Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- High (basically everything on normal except Post Proc) Score = 3762.09 2nd Test Texture Detail - High Anisotropic Filtering - High Terrain Detail - High Objects Detail - High Shadow Detail - High PostProcess Effects - High (Everything on High) Resolution = 1680x1050 Score = 2951.46 - Intel Core 2 QUAD CPU Q6600 (4 CPUs) - 4GB Ram GSkill - EVGA NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 - 500 GB (have not done a defrag in awhile though, doing one tonight) - ASUS P5Q - 650W PSU Corsair 1.03 patch Going to try running a few more tests two times in a row :) Edited August 8, 2009 by kozzy420 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scorpio9 10 Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) ArmAII Mark Score 5369.26 Rig - Intel i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz - ASUS P6T V2 Delux - 6 GB GSKILL 1600 DDR3 - EVGA NVIDIA GeForce 280 GTX 1 GB - CORSAIR 750 PSU - 1TB HDD - 650W PSU Corsair -ACER 22" LCD Monitor 1.03 patch http://armaman.com I am planing to a move to RAID 0 to solve some of my stuttering issues I just upgraded from a 8800GT to the 280GTX just for this game. Even though I have a decent score I still believe Bohemia could optimize their engine so people will not have to throw down a wad of cash just to play their game and experience it at a higher level of detail then we are seeing now. With that said this is a top notch game and I do understand there is alot of over head to run it, but when i only see 30-40% utilization across all 4 of my cores (with Hyper Threading turned off) Im sure people who have rather good duel cores should be able to run this game with ease. The real problem i see here is the Graphics engine needs alot more optimization. NVIDIA has a good habit of fine tuning there drivers for the latest and most demanding games and I have seen alot of their new driver's deliver 10-30% increase in performance however Im not sure if this is true for ATI since Im not a fan of ATI. Edited August 11, 2009 by Scorpio9 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kremator 1064 Posted August 8, 2009 @Kozzy440 ..... you are meant to run the EXACT same test the 2nd time ! Then that is the result you quote ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Greg 0 Posted August 8, 2009 Vis - 1618 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - High PostProcess Effects- None res: 1280x800 (100%) OS- Windows 7 64 RC RAM- 4GB processor- Intel Q6600 2.4ghz @ 2.88ghz video card- nVidia Geforce 8800 GT SCORE test 1- 40.1899 test 2- 40.3155 test 3- 37.3335 test 4- 51.6573 test 5- 28.3416 OFP mark- 3956.85 I have just started playing at low res 1280x800 instead of 1650x1080. It keeps frame rates high even when zoomed through sights and in urban areas. Not sure if I will keep the settings but you can see they produce reasonable frame rates that look good, if a little blocky. I'm also using AA on Normal which looks quite pleasant at this resolution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex72 1 Posted August 8, 2009 Has anyone with Win7 tested to Mark scores with and without a USB stick (ReadyBoost)? Im going to. Just to see if it does anything at all. It feels smoother to me, but it might just be psychological. Im not at home so i cant test. But will do and report scores later. Alex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazhoe 10 Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Normal Cpu - Intel Core 2 quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33 GHZ 2.34 GHZ = 4.67 GHZ??? Ram - 4GB GPU - Nvidia Geforce 9800 OS - Vista Resolution - 1600 x 1200 3D Resolution - 1200x900 I couldn't change fillrate, it's not in my video options. Is this less than I should be getting? Any tips to improve it? Edit: Also changing both my resolutions to 1280x720 and putting post processing to low the score only went upto 2134.86. Edited August 8, 2009 by jazhoe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kozzy420 21 Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) @Kozzy440 ..... you are meant to run the EXACT same test the 2nd time !Then that is the result you quote ! Ok, thats what I did after reading thru this thead. Its crazy how much of a boost you get when doing it a 2nd time! Also a defrag seemed to improve a litte :o Went back and changed the scores I got after doing them two times right after each other. Edited August 8, 2009 by kozzy420 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
