Turkmenbashi 0 Posted June 4, 2009 Everything normal, post processing low, fillrate 100. resolution 1680x1050 E6600 @ 2.4 8800gt 512 2gb 800mhz Test1 - 26.3742 2 - 26.2152 3 - 19.9373 4 - 30.3874 5- 10.6816 overall - 2271.92 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Auss 208 Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) My results E8500 OC @3.90Ghz XFX 8800GT 2 GIG DDR2 @800Mhz Win XP Pro Res 1680x1050 everything Set too normal Fill set too 100% benchmark = 2935.86 *edit after installing new gfx drivers final benchmark - 3220 Edited June 4, 2009 by Aussie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=Spetsnaz= 0 Posted June 4, 2009 That's a pretty big difference between those 2 considering that Gonk has higher specs but has a lower score. Weird. Resoultion mate.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IceShade 0 Posted June 4, 2009 As per OP standard, everything normal, fillrate 100%, 1680x1050x32. E6750 @ 2.66 GHz GTX 275 2x 1GB DDR2 @ 667 MHz XP32 1: 32.0527 2: 34.6025 3: 26.4819 4: 39.4348 5: 21.8608 Overall score: 3088.65 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr burns 131 Posted June 4, 2009 It´s good to see the OFP Mark back in A2! E8200 @ 3.2 8800GT - 185.bla drivers 2 Gig Ram X-Fi I scored better than expected tbh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rista 0 Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) Everything on NORMAL except postprocessing on LOW, fillrate 100%.Resolution 1280x1024 C2D E6750 2.66GHz 1950pro 256MB 2GB DDR2 800 Windows 7 build 7022 Normal Score - 2245 [mg]http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7699/arma2z.jpg[/img] I just tried overclocking the processor to 3.2GHz and here are the results: Aside from test five, there's not much difference really. Most likely because my graphic card is the bottleneck. Edited June 12, 2009 by Placebo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bushlurker 45 Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) Specs... AMD x2 64 6000+ (3.0Ghz) Asus M2N32 Premium 4GB DDR2 800 Ram Nvidia 8800GTS 320mb OC + 8600GT 512mb Monitors = 26" + 2x19" portrait Windows 7 RC1 x64 Everything on Normal except.... Postprocessing on LOW Anisotropic OFF Fillrate 100% Resolution = 4096x1200 (Kegetys' SoftTH 1.08) Results... Test 1 - 10.953 Test 2 - 11.667 Test 3 - 10.4067 Test 4 - 13.1019 Test 5 - 10.0727 Final Score = 1124.02 Exact same rig with basically same settings (normal across the board/tartystuff off or low) gets me an average of 25-30 FPS in Arma 1... More than adequately playable..... Im Arma 2 its 10 FPS max..... Sad sad sad stuff... :( Edited June 4, 2009 by Bushlurker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mant3z 1 Posted June 4, 2009 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Resolution - 1680 x 1050 Normal Score - 2417,52 Cpu - AMD X2 64 6400+ (3.2ghz) Ram - OCZ 2Giga PC2 6400 Dual CH. Platinum Rev.2 (4-4-4-15) @800 GPU - PALIT HD4870SE OS - Windows7 RC2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
comarsky 0 Posted June 4, 2009 Hardware: Cpu - Q9550 Default (4x@2.8ghz) Ram - CORSAIR 2GB DDR3 1333Mhz GPU - Evga GTX280 OS - XP Pro SP3 HD - 7200 Rpm not defrag Resolution - 1680 x 1050 Default Settings Test: Fillrate - 100% Texture Detail - Normal Video Memory - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Score - 3454 High Settings Test: Fillrate - 150% Texture Detail - Normal Video Memory - High Anisotropic Filtering - High Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - High Shadow Detail - High PostProcess Effects- Low Score - 3130 (between tests results more similar) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-=seany=- 5 Posted June 4, 2009 Interesting to run but for me, in Arma1, it always gave wildly different results when repeating the test with the same settings making it pretty unusable, except for identifying really obvious performance issues. Still, thanks for updating it to the new version. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tomcat_ 0 Posted June 4, 2009 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - Q6600 OC (3.1ghz) Ram - 4GB DDR2 800 GPU - 8800GT OS - XP SP3 Resolution - 1680 x 1050 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Auss 208 Posted June 4, 2009 Mr Burns, I noticed on your memory Tab with CPUZ your running Asymetrical, you should be running Symetrical. You might wanna check your slots for correct placement Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
electron-libre 10 Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) Here are my tests and spec : Spec : E6750 @ 3.20 (fsb 400) 3.2 Gb 800 HD 4890 1G Asus (Catalyst 9.5 and latest DX9) Creative Fatality Headset ( EAX and HWsound enabled) XP 32 bit sp3 res : 1680 x 1050 Fill Rate : 100% Textures Details : Normal Video Memory : Very High Aniso : Normal Terrain Detail : Normal Objects Detail : Normal Shadow Details : Normal PostProcessing effects : High Score : 3071 Fill Rate : 100% Textures Details : Normal Video Memory : Normal Aniso : Normal Terrain Detail : Normal Objects Detail : Normal Shadow Details : Normal PostProcessing effects : High Score : 3100 Fill Rate : 150% Textures Details : Normal Video Memory : Very High Aniso : Low Terrain Detail : Normal Objects Detail : Normal Shadow Details : High PostProcessing effects : High Score : 2794 Fill Rate : 150% Textures Details : High Video Memory : Very High Aniso : High Terrain Detail : High Objects Detail : High Shadow Details : High PostProcessing effects : High Score : 2478 Fill Rate : 150% Textures Details : Very High Video Memory : Very High Aniso : Very High Terrain Detail : Very High Objects Detail : Very High Shadow Details : Very High PostProcessing effects : Very High Score : 1841 observations : The performances where better with memory set on Normal rather than Very High. I do not understand the behavior of this slider. On very high settings i've got some ugly textures bugs Fill rate seem not to be the worst perfomances impact. I've got an overall poor score regarding to my specs. (Maybe the cpu is the achile's heel) Edited June 4, 2009 by electron-libre Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tomcat_ 0 Posted June 4, 2009 @electron-libre, what is your resolution m8? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purkka_fin 0 Posted June 4, 2009 now what graphicgard would be best for arma2 4870x2 or gtx295 there was one gtx295 score and it wasnt good at all below 4000. im looking one 4870x2 which is on sale now Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sata3d 0 Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) delete this please Edited June 4, 2009 by sata3d double post Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ez3kiel 10 Posted June 4, 2009 Can someone post with the Phenom X4 955 BE and a 4890 or 4870 please? PS: Keep the asked parameters and resolution. We can't compare Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
electron-libre 10 Posted June 4, 2009 @electron-libre, what is your resolution m8? I've edited. 1680 x 1050 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purkka_fin 0 Posted June 4, 2009 i think this test is partly due its high paced action harddrive test too. my hd reads almost whole time in the test begin/during the test . game is on new partition with plenty of space left. so fps drops if hd cant keep up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sata3d 0 Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low grafic memory - default ( in normal i have 3500 ) Cpu - q9550 OC (3.5ghz) Ram - sli nvidia 4GB DDR2 800 GPU - gigabyte 4870 1 gb OS - vin xp 64 Resolution - 1680 x 1050 Normal Score - 4262 whit normal setting in the grafic memory i have 3500 whit high setting in the grafic memory i have 3600 whit very high setting in the grafic memory i have 3900 Edited June 4, 2009 by sata3d Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king homer 1 Posted June 4, 2009 My system: Phenom X4 9950 @ 2,8 GHz 8 GB DDR2 1066 GTX260 XP x64 Resolution 1280x1024 Fill Rate : 100% Textures Details : Normal Video Memory : Normal Aniso : Normal Terrain Detail : Normal Objects Detail : Normal Shadow Details : Normal PostProcessing effects : Low Fill Rate : 125% Textures Details : High Video Memory : Very High Aniso : Very High Terrain Detail : Normal Objects Detail : High Shadow Details : High PostProcessing effects : Low Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
berowe 0 Posted June 4, 2009 Mah laptop: t7700 @ 2.4 8700M GT 2gb ram All settings as requested ~1529 Lowering resolution to the 12x7 or 12x9 I get 2200ish Dunno what I could do to speed her up. HD is full working on slimming it, can't add more RAM... I don't like the low res, but textures and LODs freak out at 1600. I can have major urban carnage going on at the lower resolutions, normal settings, and filter up to 133%, still fun! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warmaker_pp 0 Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) Q9450@3.6Ghz 8GB DDR2-1066 GTX285@stock 186.08 beta drivers WinXP Professional SP3 Resolution 1680x1050 Score 4725.36 Edited June 4, 2009 by warmaker_pp Forgot to add resolution Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yoma 0 Posted June 4, 2009 Would it be possible to log the results to arma.rpt? something like #start armamark# #test1:x# #test2:y# #test3:z# #test4:blabla# #end armamark# This way you could access the results from outside Arma. I'm toying around with an idea where this might come in handy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kamikaze666 0 Posted June 4, 2009 e4300 @ 2.8 ghz radeon 4890 1024 mb 2 gb ram windows XP sp3 all settings same as topic starter, 2600 :confused: why so low? is this game all about CPU? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
