yanquis 10 Posted October 18, 2009 my first run score on very similar system with a well-used copy of 7 is the same. however you should definitely upgrade to 7 for about 900 billion reasons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taxus 10 Posted October 18, 2009 So, Videos drivers : 9.9 (without Catalyst Control Center) Settings : All normal (including AA), Post-processing Low both resolutions 1680*1050 First time 3355 Second time 3935 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kMaN175 34 Posted October 19, 2009 (edited) ^ lower res and maybe some more/ddr3 ram. OC ur cpu I always thought it was not a good idea to OC a CPU in a laptop because it would get too hot. I did another test.... Dell XPS 1730 CPU - Intel Core Duo T9300@2.50GHz RAM - 4GB DDR2 800mhz GPU - 2 x nVidia 8800 GTX - SLI - 1GB OS - Windows Vista Home SP2 Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - High PostProcess Effects- Disabled Resolution - 1920x1200 Test 1 - 13.2755 Test 2 - 17.8834 Test 3 - 14.2122 Test 4 - 21.2728 Test 5 - 10.1857 Score - 1536.59 Edited October 19, 2009 by kMaN_(KYA) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jw custom 56 Posted October 19, 2009 Hi all, I'm wondering if my result is normal...Intel Core i7 860 @ stock G.Skill 4GB DDR3 PC12800 ATI HD Radeon 4890 1GB Asus P7P55D Vista 64-bit Test Settings : Video Memory - High Post Processing - Low Anti-Aliasing - Off All other settings - Normal Resolution - 1680x 1050 RESULTS : 3430 (HT disabled in bios) Is it normal for this computer? How can I increase the score (change Vista for seven)? Is the game limited by the GPU or CP first? Thanks and sorry for my bad english :) Compared to my score i would say yours should be higher! http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1465788&postcount=609 I see you are on Vista, not sure if that has anything to say but some do! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taxus 10 Posted October 19, 2009 Compared to my score i would say yours should be higher!http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1465788&postcount=609 I see you are on Vista, not sure if that has anything to say but some do! I did the test with same settings as your's and result is "horrible" : Settings : very high for all, AA (on high), resolution on 1680*1050 Result (second time) : 2800 !!! So, just one question : WHY with that configuration, I have this result? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jw custom 56 Posted October 19, 2009 (edited) I did the test with same settings as your's and result is "horrible" :Settings : very high for all, AA (on high), resolution on 1680*1050 Result (second time) : 2800 !!! So, just one question : WHY with that configuration, I have this result? Do you have PhysX and Vsync disabled? Again, maybe it's because of Vista(some seems to have performance problems on Vista). Edited October 19, 2009 by JW Custom Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yanquis 10 Posted October 19, 2009 I did the test with same settings as your's and result is "horrible" :Settings : very high for all, AA (on high), resolution on 1680*1050 Result (second time) : 2800 !!! So, just one question : WHY with that configuration, I have this result? taxus, thats what i get as well. id honestly recommened 2 simple things -- 1) upgrading to win 7 (tho after you use it for a few months, some or all of the speed bump may disappear), but mostly 2) just playing the game and seeing if you have problems there. arma 2 mark is a data point, nothing more. if i set my card (same as yours) to basic (default) settings, i can run the game with all settings maxed at a fair enough clip (tho id recommend turning some settings down for optimum performance), so im not too worried about why my arma 2 mark scores are always relatively low (though it is interesting). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0 Posted October 19, 2009 (edited) to amuse Taxus, I set my settings same as his for comparison. all V high, except for AA high. 3D render 100% 1600x900 xp32 191.03beta 300Gb WD Raptor HDD Edited October 19, 2009 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jw custom 56 Posted October 19, 2009 -Ziggy-;1467848']to amuse Taxus' date=' I set my settings same as his for comparison.all V high, except for AA high. 3D render 100% 1600x900 [b']xp32[/b] 191.03beta 300Gb WD Raptor HDD Yeah it could be that Vista holding him down! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taxus 10 Posted October 19, 2009 (edited) Thank you dudes for your advices :) It's sure that Vista is not a good thing for that game, but I think I have "discovered" the real cause of my bad result => it's simply my CPU frequency (I've got a i7 860 @ stock, 2.8GHz). I have overcloked (just a little : 10% => 3080MHz) my CPU and re-run the test (2 times), and the result is 7% higher (4357 at 3080Mhz versus 4056 at 2800Mhz). Arma II is VERY CPU(frequency)-limited. So, it's logical that a Quad core CPU OC at 4GHz (with the same GPU) is better than mine... I hope my explain is clear (i'm french and like all french I have a bad english :() EDIT : JW custom => I cannot disabled Vsync (I have an ATI graphic card), maybe with ATT but someone says that it's impossible despite ATT... I don't know how disabled PhysX. Yankis => I'll have Seven soon. Edited November 9, 2009 by taxus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yanquis 10 Posted October 19, 2009 well, that sucks for me then! i have a 3ghz CPU but i cant OC even if i went out & bought a good PSU & cooling (its from HP and they dont let you!). o well i have no complaints about the game, hopefully whenever the podunks aroudn here get 5870s in everything will be gravy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cygnus X-1 10 Posted October 19, 2009 Texture - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Resolution - 1920x1080 CPU - Q9000 2.0ghz OC@2.6 RAM - 6GB DDR2 800mhz GPU - Mobility HD 4870x2 OS - Windows Vista Home SP2 Score= 2701.31:cool: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Is1980 10 Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) Intel i5@ 3.2ghz , 4 gig ram , radeon 4890 , windows 7 64bits , Mods: Proper vegetation low ; Proper buildings low Resolution : 1920x1080 AA= low ; AF= normal; Textures= high ; video memory = very high ; post process= low ; shadows= high ; object details = normal ; land details = normal Score = 5198 ---------- Post added at 12:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 AM ---------- And now with everything Maxed out : all video options to their highest settings , visibility at 10.000m , everything on very high except anti-aliasing on High (as there is no very high ) : The highest image quality Arma2 can offer basically .... resolution is still 1920x1080 : Score = 3196 Edited October 20, 2009 by Is1980 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0 Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) And now with everything Maxed out : all video options to their highest settings , visibility at 10.000m , everything on very high except anti-aliasing on High (as there is no very high ) : The highest image quality Arma2 can offer basically .... resolution is still 1920x1080 : Score = 3196 view distance doesnt matter guy, the benchmark mission sets it. running mods during a benchmark = lol now try it with 3D render at 200%, if you want your claim to be honest ;) no AA Very High you say? maybe for you...:j: Edited October 20, 2009 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yanquis 10 Posted October 20, 2009 well, i finally figured out one thing that was holding me back, at least on the arma mark, thanks to a post of isis's on anotehr thread, and that is the maxmem 2047 setting. now i get a 3000 score instead of like 2400 on the settings i play it (everything very high AA normal). it was still very playable earlier but now hopefully it will be better! id recommend the maxmem setting to everyone if u havent tried it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Is1980 10 Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) -Ziggy-;1468093']view distance doesnt matter guy' date=' the benchmark mission sets it.running mods during a benchmark = lol now try it with 3D render at 200%, if you want your claim to be honest ;) no AA Very High you say? maybe for you...:j: [/quote'] I put everything maxed out on my system , with radeon 4890 there is no very high for AA ... I benchmarked the first one with the mod , cause i don't intend to play without Proper vegetation and buildings , it's too important for the smoothness of the gameplay . I benchmarked the settings i use 24/7 for playing offline/online for the first one .. For the second benchmark i disabled mods of course .. yes i shouldn't have mentionned visibility 10.000m , i know it's the test that sets it , just wanted to make clear i maxed out every video option available on my system What is render 200% ? how do you set this ? Edited October 20, 2009 by Is1980 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yanquis 10 Posted October 20, 2009 hmm u really think veg & buildings are that important eh? eesh, i know the buildings one took me right out of the gameplay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0 Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) What is render 200% ? how do you set this ? this setting is located just under your screen resolution most people, myself included, use 100% for a 1/1 ratio bench it at 200% but your score will go down :D quoted from [H]ard|ocp .com Interface Resolution/3D ResolutionThese two resolution sliders are interesting. The first, "Interface Resolution" actually determines which resolution for which your display will be configured. The "3D Resolution" option controls the resolution at which the games 3-dimensional view is actually rendered. If the 3D resolution is smaller than the interface resolution, the 3D picture will be up-sampled to match the interface’s size. If the 3D resolution is larger than the interface resolution, the 3D picture will be down-sampled to match the interface resolution. In practice, this has two interesting effects. If you choose a smaller 3D resolution than your interface resolution, you will see a nice performance increase at the expense of visual clarity. Since you are increasing the size of the rendered image, the resulting picture will be blurry. If you choose a larger 3D resolution than your interface resolution, you will achieve a supersampling anti-aliasing effect. This will reduce jagged edges on objects, textures, specular reflections, and everything else in the game. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/08/10/arma_ii_gameplay_performance_image_quality/3 here is an example of a benchmark with max settings and recording with fraps :computer: 44HnkA6ho58 Edited October 20, 2009 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Is1980 10 Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) Ok , Thank you Ziggy for taking the time to answer , good to know :) Yes Yanquis , it's important for me , because it means that i almost never experience "drops" in fps when i aim in crowded evnvironment , cities or big forest , it makes the game completely smooth . Without the proper mod , i have more or less the same fps , but when i'm in urban context , the fps are not perfectly stable when i turn around zooming or aim suddenly etc.. . Also i barely see any difference of texture quality with these mods Edited October 20, 2009 by Is1980 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kklownboy 43 Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) I put everything maxed out on my system , with radeon 4890 there is no very high for AA ...... For the second benchmark i disabled mods of course .. yes i shouldn't have mentioned visibility 10000m ,.. High is 8XAA that is #6 on NVDA.setting your VD over 4000k will lower your texture details, so you wont be at best IQ. Edited February 24, 2010 by kklownboy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yanquis 10 Posted October 20, 2009 Ok , Thank you Ziggy for taking the time to answer , good to know :)Yes Yanquis , it's important for me , because it means that i almost never experience "drops" in fps when i aim in crowded evnvironment , cities or big forest , it makes the game completely smooth . Without the proper mod , i have more or less the same fps , but when i'm in urban context , the fps are not perfectly stable when i turn around zooming or aim suddenly etc.. . Also i barely see any difference of texture quality with these mods thats very impressive if so, that is a huge difference. maybe i will try them again. i just thought that the buildings mod at least took me out of the game too much, but stable fps would be amazing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Is1980 10 Posted October 20, 2009 What do you mean by "took me out of the game" ? don't understand sorry m8 , English is not my first language Yes , it's impressive really , i also use the trick maxmem=2047 in conjunction with the "proper veg/building" mod . the fps are not higher but very stable like this , the only litttle drops i have is when for instance helis are flying over me or when many AIvehicles enter the city i'm in etc.. , but that's probably because it takes cpu power suddenly , probably nothing to do with video card . The only real problem with these mod is that some servers will reject you Thx for info Kklownboy , this is good to know ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yanquis 10 Posted October 20, 2009 well the building mod makes all the buildings look very fake imo; it was more distracting to me than a little FPS drop and not worth the tradeoff for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kklownboy 43 Posted October 21, 2009 well the building mod makes all the buildings look very fake imo; it was more distracting to me than a little FPS drop and not worth the tradeoff for me. they didnt change how the buildings look? it just changes when they show up and go away...hmmm i see user error. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yanquis 10 Posted October 21, 2009 i dunno when i ran it i tested in the russian city sweep mission and the building fronts were 100% 2D, very fake. maybe it was some kind of fluke or i was on shrooms at the time i dunno :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites