tupolov 520 Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) ICE-Raver, Can you confirm a couple more settings for me: 1. Have you disabled HT on your BIOS? 2. What switches have you launched arma2.exe with? -maxmem? -winxp? 3. Are your OS's patched to latest from MS? 4. Do you have any CPU or Memory perf stats to see utilization? Cheers, T Edited August 14, 2009 by Tupolov Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ICE-Raver 10 Posted August 14, 2009 ICE-Raver,Can you confirm a couple more settings for me: 1. Have you disabled HT on your BIOS? 2. What switches have you launched arma2.exe with? -maxmem? -winxp? 3. Are your OS's patched to latest from MS? 4. Do you have any CPU or Memory perf stats to see utilization? Cheers, T 1. HT Disabled 2. No switches, I run the game as installed. 3. Vista is patched to SP 2, Windows 7 is also updated current 4. No I don't have anything logged to see utilization Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tupolov 520 Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) Windows XP SP3 32-bit Just thought I would share my results... PC: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 i7 920 CPU OC'd to 3.2 (BCLK 160MHz) ATI Radeon HD 4870X2 1GB GPU with ATI Catalyst 9.7 6 gig DDR 3 1600 Corsair Dominator Triple Channel RAM (WinXP 32bit sees 2.75GB RAM) 850 Watt Corsair PSU. HyperThreading - Disabled OS: Clean Build, with game installed patched to version 1.03, no anti-virus etc. ATI Control Panel Settings: Catalyst AI = Advanced AF = Application Controlled Antialiasing = Application Controlled Adaptive Antialiasing = Disabled Midimap Detail = Performance Triple Buffering = OFF Wait for Vertical Refresh = Always OFF arma2.exe -nosplash -world=empty -winxp -maxmem=2047 -cpuCount=4 Test 3 All settings Very High, AA off, 1920x1080, fillrate 100% OFPMark = 3756 (vs ICE-Ravers Vista64 - 3266 and Win7 64 - 4338) No switches = 3515 and default video memory = 3726 Switches and Video Memory selected as Default = 3730 Test 4 All settings Very High, Plus AA High (Very High isn't available?), 1920x1080, fillrate 100% OFPMark = 2770 (vs ICE-Ravers Vista64 - 2750 and Win7 64 - 2815) Test 5 All settings normal, PP High (default setting for Quality preference Normal), AA off, 1920x1080, fillrate 100% OFPMark = 5043 (vs ICE-Ravers Win7 64 - 7192 that was clocked to 4.2) No switches = 5090 and default video memory = 4698 Switches and Video Memory selected as Default = 5080 and PP as Low = 5324 Switches and Very High Video Memory (PP as High) = 5042... The first two results show how, even with increased screen resolution, WinXP 32 bit is beating Vista64. I'm not using two graphics cards either - just the dual GPU 4870X2 card. Also I'm only using 2GB of RAM. The final test is a funny one. Video Memory settings seem to make little difference. Looks better to have it as default in the last test. Clearly I need to upgrade to Win 7 64 bit and overclock the CPU a bit more! Edited August 15, 2009 by Tupolov Updating as I test Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scorpio9 10 Posted August 14, 2009 Hi zaira I do have some numbers I have worked with on visibility however I dont have them all compiled yet but I will share my raw data with you very quickly and if anyone else can help verify this i would appreciate it. if you are meaning Fill is the same as visibility. Visibility Benchmarks as to FPS penalty. This benchmark was done in a open field looking northwards towards a wooded treeline and mountains. Testing the impact that trees have on FPS. I carefully balanced the sweet spot to 60 FPS to give me a good scale and then increased in value until I reached a 2 FPS drop and then recorded the results. As you can see I found a penalty between 500 to 690 with 695 to 1260 being optimal and the drop in FPS from there. How this will scale with other systems and locations I have no idea. It was only to study the impact of Visibility on trees, how ever there does seem to be some changes to the vegetation in the foreground up to 50m I could not really tell if more was added or the vegetation was just turning or rearranging slightly. Vis. FPS Range 500 55 penalty 546 53 penalty 598 57 penalty 635 58 penalty 695 60 1260 1266 58 2370 2374 56 2925 2928 54 3300 3301 52 4070 4071 50 5020 5021 48 5659 5660 46 6375 6380 44 7410 7411 42 7865 7869 40 8609 8609 38 9415 9419 36 9999 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doakwolf 10 Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) So is there a general feel here the game's running better with higher OCs and HT disabled? If so, great! I have a C0/C1 stepping i7 920 and therefore it can't crack 4GHz with HT enabled but it sure does with HT disabled :D Maybe I'll start doing some more ArmA2Mark tests. That said, I've actually dropped my OC down (from what's in my sig) to 3.48GHz @ 1.25v (simply to have a more efficient PC) and I'm happy with how the game's running. Jero. Edited August 14, 2009 by doakwolf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ICE-Raver 10 Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) Test 4 All settings Very High, Plus AA High (Very High isn't available?), 1920x1080, fillrate 100% OFPMark = 2770 (vs ICE-Ravers Vista64 - 2750 and Win7 64 - 2815) On your test 4 for me Very high AA is an option. AA High/Very High were 2 different settings. Probably SLI related. I never ran arma mark with AA set to high, only very high/normal. But yea, something is really up with Vista on this game. Some people run it great, for others (like me) it is a big turd. Edited August 14, 2009 by ICE-Raver Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zaira 10 Posted August 15, 2009 Hi zaira I do have some numbers I have worked with on visibility however I dont have them all compiled yet but I will share my raw data with you very quickly and if anyone else can help verify this i would appreciate it. if you are meaning Fill is the same as visibility. Visibility Benchmarks as to FPS penalty. This benchmark was done in a open field looking northwards towards a wooded treeline and mountains. Testing the impact that trees have on FPS. I carefully balanced the sweet spot to 60 FPS to give me a good scale and then increased in value until I reached a 2 FPS drop and then recorded the results. As you can see I found a penalty between 500 to 690 with 695 to 1260 being optimal and the drop in FPS from there. How this will scale with other systems and locations I have no idea. It was only to study the impact of Visibility on trees, how ever there does seem to be some changes to the vegetation in the foreground up to 50m I could not really tell if more was added or the vegetation was just turning or rearranging slightly. Vis. FPS Range 500 55 penalty 546 53 penalty 598 57 penalty 635 58 penalty 695 60 1260 1266 58 2370 2374 56 2925 2928 54 3300 3301 52 4070 4071 50 5020 5021 48 5659 5660 46 6375 6380 44 7410 7411 42 7865 7869 40 8609 8609 38 9415 9419 36 9999 Nice table showing clear corelation fps/VD. :) Could someone with i7 with 4+Ghz bench with this setings Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xclusiv8 10 Posted August 17, 2009 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - High Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - Q6600 OC (3.2ghz) Ram - OCZ Gold PC6400 @ 852mhz GPU - Asus 8800GTS 512 OS - Win7 x64 Resolution - 1440 x 900 Test 1: 35.5352 Test 2: 39.6092 Test 3: 35.5796 Test 4: 47.8851 Test 5: 13.4667 Xclusiv8's OFPMark is 3441.51 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0 Posted August 19, 2009 (edited) my rig :rolleyes: image is link xp 32 1600x900 resolution gfx driver 190.89 default settings: all normal, post processing low Edited October 18, 2009 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max255 59 Posted August 23, 2009 Just to show you that is something really wrong with my computer.... Settings: PP to low Everything other to normal (mean everything) 1680x1050 res ArmA2 Mark Score : 940 Specs: C2D E6420 @2.66GHz* 3.2GB 667MHz CL4* GF 9800GT OC (675/1550/1998) Seagete 7200.12 500GB (as ArmA 2 disk) *And now the bottleneck of hole rig (CPU and RAM can't run at any higher speeds, MoBo doesn't read all 4GBs of RAM too) Gigabyte GA-945P-S3 Motherboard But i really don't know if it's only MoBo holding me up... Wating for new one, but it's hard to explain my sponsors that i need new MoBo ASAP ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Potatomasher 0 Posted August 23, 2009 ;1416515']Just to show you that is something really wrong with my computer....Settings: PP to low Everything other to normal (mean everything) 1680x1050 res ArmA2 Mark Score : 940 Specs: C2D E6420 @2.66GHz* 3.2GB 667MHz CL4* GF 9800GT OC (675/1550/1998) Seagete 7200.12 500GB (as ArmA 2 disk) *And now the bottleneck of hole rig (CPU and RAM can't run at any higher speeds' date=' MoBo doesn't read all 4GBs of RAM too) [b']Gigabyte GA-945P-S3 Motherboard[/b] But i really don't know if it's only MoBo holding me up... Wating for new one, but it's hard to explain my sponsors that i need new MoBo ASAP ;) You're right, there's something wrong with your setup obviously. Try changing memory timings and see if that helps. I have similar setup than yours (you have slightly faster cpu & mem ) and i got 1860 arma mark score. I even used PP high setting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max255 59 Posted August 24, 2009 Well, problem is, if i change any setting the result may be totally opposite - my MoBo is so much fu**ed up. It's a miracle that it allow me to have CPU OCed to 2.66 (default is 2.13), sometimes it even don't accept FSB changes and i have double restart all the time... So i'm pretty happy with current setting, but still want to throw this Gigashit piece of crap far, far away... My memory have default speed higher than current - 800MHz CL4, but... Well, you know the "but"... And that is all - this isn't topic about PC problems ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thaFunkster 0 Posted August 28, 2009 Windows XP SP3 32-bitJust thought I would share my results... PC: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 i7 920 CPU OC'd to 3.2 (BCLK 160MHz) ATI Radeon HD 4870X2 1GB GPU with ATI Catalyst 9.7 6 gig DDR 3 1600 Corsair Dominator Triple Channel RAM (WinXP 32bit sees 2.75GB RAM) 850 Watt Corsair PSU. HyperThreading - Disabled OS: Clean Build, with game installed patched to version 1.03, no anti-virus etc. ATI Control Panel Settings: Catalyst AI = Advanced AF = Application Controlled Antialiasing = Application Controlled Adaptive Antialiasing = Disabled Midimap Detail = Performance Triple Buffering = OFF Wait for Vertical Refresh = Always OFF arma2.exe -nosplash -world=empty -winxp -maxmem=2047 -cpuCount=4 Test 3 All settings Very High, AA off, 1920x1080, fillrate 100% OFPMark = 3756 (vs ICE-Ravers Vista64 - 3266 and Win7 64 - 4338) No switches = 3515 and default video memory = 3726 Switches and Video Memory selected as Default = 3730 Test 4 All settings Very High, Plus AA High (Very High isn't available?), 1920x1080, fillrate 100% OFPMark = 2770 (vs ICE-Ravers Vista64 - 2750 and Win7 64 - 2815) Test 5 All settings normal, PP High (default setting for Quality preference Normal), AA off, 1920x1080, fillrate 100% OFPMark = 5043 (vs ICE-Ravers Win7 64 - 7192 that was clocked to 4.2) No switches = 5090 and default video memory = 4698 Switches and Video Memory selected as Default = 5080 and PP as Low = 5324 Switches and Very High Video Memory (PP as High) = 5042... The first two results show how, even with increased screen resolution, WinXP 32 bit is beating Vista64. I'm not using two graphics cards either - just the dual GPU 4870X2 card. Also I'm only using 2GB of RAM. The final test is a funny one. Video Memory settings seem to make little difference. Looks better to have it as default in the last test. Clearly I need to upgrade to Win 7 64 bit and overclock the CPU a bit more! You should be getting much better scores than that? Thats my opinion. Maybe the 2G is holding you back, but I wouldnt have thought it would matter THAT much. Ill be interested to see your Win7 results..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ceeeb 147 Posted August 28, 2009 SCORE 4242.38 Resolution - 1680x1050 Aspect Ratio - 16:10 Texture Detail - Normal Video Memory - High Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Antialiasing Filtering - Disabled Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Interface Size - Small CPU - E8400 (3800MHz) RAM - 2x2048MB DDR2 (475MHz) GPU - ATi HD4890 1GB OS - WinXP SP3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
buliwyf 4 Posted August 29, 2009 SCORE 4656.91 Resolution - 1920x1200 Aspect Ratio - 16:10 Texture Detail - Normal Video Memory - High Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Antialiasing Filtering - Disabled Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Interface Size - Small CPU - i7-975 EE (4x3333MHz) RAM - 3x2048MB DDR3 (1333MHz) GPU - NVIDIA GTX295 1792 MB OS - Win7 64bit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Backlash -OGN- 10 Posted September 5, 2009 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - E6850 3 ghz Overclocked to (3.6ghz) Ram - 4 gig Kingston DDR3 1333mhz GPU - MSI 260 GTX 216core Clock 700mhz Memory 1105mhz OS - Vista 32bit Resolution - 1600 x 1200 Score - 2791 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tankkiller01 0 Posted September 5, 2009 Score 3207 Visability - 1530 Texture - High Video Mem - High Af - Normal AA - Low Terrain - Normal Objects - Low Shadows - High Post Process - High ____________________ Intel core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.0 Ghz BFG Tech GTX 285 OC to core 683 MHz. . mem 1247 MHz Asus P5N-D 750i 4 GB Corsair DDR2 XMS 800 EZ COOL 700W psu Maxtor HDD Windows Vista 64bit ARMA 2 MARK 3207 with high and med settings Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thaFunkster 0 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) All settings Normal, except Postprocessing: Low Anti-Aliasing: Disabled Resolution 1600x1020 Its funny, in this game FRAPS will be telling me I am averaging 35-45 FPS, but to my eye it still looks jerky, why is that? My system: Core 2 Duo e8400 @ stock HD 4850 512MB @ stock 4GB DDR 2 Ram Win XP Home. -------- We really need some standard settings here so we can compare. I set mine to what it looked like the concensus for a standard was, others should do the same. ( However, we should prob use 1280x1024 as standard because some may run low res monitors). Edited September 6, 2009 by thaFunkster Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gamer 10 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) Have made some tweaks recently that has finally brought my game up to spec for the hardware I am running. Not sure if any of this info will be helpful to others but here are some points to consider. HT off Moved my swap file to my two spare drives, each drive has a 2-4gb swap. SSD has no swap file. This resolved my jerky/studdering gameplay. Using ATT to turn off vsync (massive improvement with this, FPS is up and mouse lag is gone) Using Windows 7 Professional 64 RTM Using Cat 9.8 No switches in my start shortcut For this test CPU was 'only' running at 3.8ghz, both GFX are overclocked to 800mhz on all four cores Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Fill rate 100% Resolution - 1680 x 1050 For my normal multiplayer settings (1600x1200) I get a score in the high 8k's. Can do a run and screen shot as such if needed ;) Edited September 6, 2009 by Gamer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thaFunkster 0 Posted September 6, 2009 omg, with that system I would not have thought Vsynch would make a diff anyway... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shooter McGavin 10 Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) score: 3475 thats 2nd time running, always use 2nd stat. it's much like going to a webpage you've already been to, thus loads faster. its not cheating. i ran many different gfx options. each setting i ran the app fully, then restarted mission and record its results, change to next setting, reboot arma2 and try next setting. best result happened to be my preferred settings. Interface Resolution: 1900x1200 3D resolution: 1900x1200 (100%) Texture Detail: normal Video Memory: very high AF: high AA: off Terrain: normal Objects: normal Shadow: normal PP effects: low Interface size: very small Aspect ratio: 16:10 widescreen i wish i could get ATT to work so i could disable vsync. the CCC vsync option doesnt seem to be working. p.s. no screenshot thanks to vista Edited September 7, 2009 by Shooter McGavin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doakwolf 10 Posted September 7, 2009 always use 2nd stat. it's much like going to a webpage you've already been to, thus loads faster. its not cheating. No, it's not cheating because it's not a competition - but it doesn't give an accurate rating to compare to other user's results on this thread (unless we all use run #2). When playing the 'game', there is no opportunity for the PC to 'pre load' the textures prior to entering a town or new part of the map etc (unless it is, in fact, coded that way, somehow) so using your second score in ArmA2-Mark doesn't give an accurate result, IMO. But that said, half the ppl on this thread are quoting first run scores and the other half quoting second run scores so it's impossible to compare specs and see how your PC is going compared to other's. My 2c :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gamer 10 Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) score: 3475thats 2nd time running, always use 2nd stat. it's much like going to a webpage you've already been to, thus loads faster. its not cheating. i ran many different gfx options. each setting i ran the app fully, then restarted mission and record its results, change to next setting, reboot arma2 and try next setting. best result happened to be my preferred settings. Interface Resolution: 1900x1200 3D resolution: 1900x1200 (100%) Texture Detail: normal Video Memory: very high AF: high AA: off Terrain: normal Objects: normal Shadow: normal PP effects: low Interface size: very small Aspect ratio: 16:10 widescreen i wish i could get ATT to work so i could disable vsync. the CCC vsync option doesnt seem to be working. p.s. no screenshot thanks to vista I had to jump through a few hoops to get ATT installed on W7, you might need to do the same with Vista, not sure. The problem for me in W7 is that ATT uses an unsigned driver. First off you need to disable UAC (User account control) in windows control panel/user accounts. Then reboot Then go to start menu/run type 'cmd'. You will then see 'cmd' on the top of the start program list, right click and choose 'run as administrator'. Once opened type or copy and paste the following into CMD and press enter: bcdedit /set testsigning on bcdedit /set loadoptions DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS That will turn off unsigned drivers and allow you to install the ATT driver. Hope that helps. ;) Edited September 7, 2009 by Gamer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mlenser 10 Posted September 7, 2009 No, it's not cheating because it's not a competition - but it doesn't give an accurate rating to compare to other user's results on this thread (unless we all use run #2). When playing the 'game', there is no opportunity for the PC to 'pre load' the textures prior to entering a town or new part of the map etc (unless it is, in fact, coded that way, somehow) so using your second score in ArmA2-Mark doesn't give an accurate result, IMO.Doesn't the first run get slowed down by disk access and is not a true representation of the actual video performance? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thaFunkster 0 Posted September 9, 2009 Ok, my previous results as per last page were ~2800- Same settings today, having downloaded Win7: ~3800! Thats over a 30% increase. My FPS in the spin test went from ~30 to 50 While my FPS in 'Space Capsule' went from ~14 to ~30! Pretty impressive. The main factor is the new catalyst drivers which take full advantage of Win 7. I have also overclocked my processor from 3G to 3.6, but this will only make a slight difference, as those test wont bu pushing the cpu as much as GPU. To prove, I will later on re-do both tests with the OC, and post screenies to prove it. Recommend Win 7 to all struggling XP users! Now I can use FSAA and still play smooth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
