scottw 0 Posted June 4, 2009 Just realised people wanted it set to normal so I re-run it. Same spec as before but no settings were: Fill Rate : 100% Textures Details : Normal Video Memory : Normal Aniso : Normal Terrain Detail : Normal Objects Detail : Normal Shadow Details : Normal PostProcessing effects : Low Score was 5407 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
froggyluv 2130 Posted June 4, 2009 C2D 8500 @3.5 4870 512mb 4 gigs mem vista 64 1400*900 Everything normal; fillrate at 100% -Result: 2762 Second test with everything high; fillrate at 150% -Result: 2666 Edit- Damn trini, looks like those i7's are pretty nice! Update: Ok, after disabling the 'Application control' in my CCC and putting the AA to x8 with everything set to 'Normal' I had 2 strange results: - Lowering the Bitfiller it's lowest setting (game looked terrible!): 3097 -Raising the Bitfiller to 87% (game looks quite nice): 3431 I have no idea why raising the BF upped the performance in this test but the game looked quite bad at 0%. I'm using the latest ATI drivers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mosh 0 Posted June 4, 2009 4 tests, 2100-2315 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal Post Process Effects- Low Cpu - X2 6400 (stock @3.2) Ram - 4 GB DDR 800 GPU - 8800 GT (185.85) OS - Windows 7 - 64 Resolution - 1680 x 1050 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alef 0 Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal Post Process Effects- Low Cpu - E6850 @ 3GHz Ram - 4 GB DDR 800 GPU - 8800GTS 512 OS - XP SP2 - 32 Resolution - 1600 x 1200 (nVidia driver version) = (score) ArmAII 1.02 185.85 = 2237.88 186.08 = 2583.51 190.15 = 2860.36 182.50 = 3065.52 ArmAII 1.03 190.38 = 3008.11 190.56 = 3115.42 Edited August 5, 2009 by alef 1.03 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahmedjbh 0 Posted June 4, 2009 guys for a fair test it would make sense to use same resolution and all other settings as the OP asked, otherwise this is a waste of time. You have to compare like to like. Some things I have noticed, XP seems to be good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
binkster 0 Posted June 4, 2009 guys for a fair test it would make sense to use same resolution and all other settings as the OP asked, otherwise this is a waste of time. You have to compare like to like.Some things I have noticed, XP seems to be good. I agree... the resolution needs to be a standard too but I wasnt sure that everyone would have the same option for resolution. The main reason why I wanted to port this mission over cause I bought a q9650 and it should arrive today. I just want to make sure I didnt waste my money going from q6600 to q9650... Also the scores are sensitive and will move + or - 200 for any reason. So with people making small changes and seeing the score change doesnt mean that its better or worse. I would say get a average of 3 to 4 times and then make your adjustments and do another average of 3 to 4 times to get a good feel on what the changes had made. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tomcat_ 0 Posted June 4, 2009 I agree... the resolution needs to be a standard too but I wasnt sure that everyone would have the same option for resolution. The main reason why I wanted to port this mission over cause I bought a q9650 and it should arrive today. I just want to make sure I didnt waste my money going from q6600 to q9650... Also the scores are sensitive and will move + or - 200 for any reason. So with people making small changes and seeing the score change doesnt mean that its better or worse. I would say get a average of 3 to 4 times and then make your adjustments and do another average of 3 to 4 times to get a good feel on what the changes had made. would be interested to see your results with the new CPU... from what i can gather from the results the C2D is the processor to have and the higher the speed the higher the fps...people with CPU@3ghz and 8800gt or 280gtx are almost getting the same fps! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ubascouser 0 Posted June 4, 2009 From what i can tell from my score and others my athlon dual core 6000+ is crap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted June 4, 2009 System Mobo - Gigabyte EP45-DS3L CPU - Q6600 (OC @ 3.2ghz) RAM - 4GB GEiL DDR2 800MHz GPU - NVidia GTX285 OS - Windows 7 x64 Resolution - 1920 x 1080 Settings #1 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Score - 3147 Settings #2 Texture Detail - Very High Anisotropic Filtering - Very High Terrain Detail - Low Objects Detail - Low Shadow Detail - Very High PostProcess Effects- Low Score - 3921 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purkka_fin 0 Posted June 4, 2009 so the more terrain detail and object detail seems decrease fps Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted June 4, 2009 so the more terrain detail and object detail seems decrease fps Insanely, yes. I recommend it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
binkster 0 Posted June 4, 2009 @maddogx For me the first run is really bad compared to second. Was your first setting only from 1 run or did you average a couple? From what I gathered people with 4gigs of ram and same system as me are getting way higher scores. I only have 2gigs and this may be something to think about too. My q9650 just arrived I will post back here in a few to see what it can do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ubascouser 0 Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) MadDogX just done 4 tests with which you suggested and ive seen great improvements . Texture Detail - Very High Anisotropic Filtering - Very High Video mem- Very High Terrain Detail - Low Objects Detail - Low Shadow Detail - Low PostProcess Effects- Low visability 1521 100% fillrate 1440x900x32 Test 1 Test 2 Test3 Test4 old test all on normal 22.0333 23.6106 23.2505 26.1837 20.4292 26.7616 29.6989 29.9324 29.7385 25.165 23.2516 24.206 24.6028 24.479 21.9745 27.6116 29.0416 29.8954 30.326 27.0514 14.7304 25.319 25.456 24.995 18.0397 2287.77 2637.52 2662.74 2714.44 2253.2 Thx m8 this is now good, allthough its a shame about the lovely landscape but hope thats sorted in future patches now alls i need is a quad core and a better hdd. Edited June 4, 2009 by ubascouser missed out video Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
papoose244 10 Posted June 4, 2009 what are the most demanding settings ingame?and what does setting PostProcessing effects to low compared to very high do? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ziiip 1 Posted June 4, 2009 Specs in signature... Res: 1280*1024 Everything on normal: 2100 Everything on very high: 1950 :\ 4850 HD such a PoS already?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laqueesha 474 Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) 320MB NVIDIA 8800GTS Fillrate: 100% Viewdistance: 500 Terrain detail: Low Shadow: Normal All settings very high except for terrain detail and shadow. My score was 1662.5 :( Edited June 6, 2009 by Laqueesha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
von_paulus 0 Posted June 4, 2009 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - E6420 @2.11ghz Ram - Kingston 2x2GB DDR2 800 GPU - Asus G8800GTS (g92) 512MB OS - XP (SP3) Resolution - 1280 x 1024 Normal Score - 2623 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skeptic 10 Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) With recommended settings - specs in sig. FillRate Optimizer 100% Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low 2852 = 1920x1080 2876 = 1680x1050 Wow this sucks... Edited June 5, 2009 by Skeptic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
binkster 0 Posted June 4, 2009 Second Test on new processor FillRate Optimizer 100% Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - Q9650 OC (3.6ghz) Ram - CORSAIR Dominator 2GB DDR2 1066 GPU - Evga GTX285 OS - Vista Resolution - 1680 x 1050 Normal Score - 3218 With Higher settings and low terrain FillRate Optimizer 100% Texture Detail - HIGH Anisotropic Filtering - HIGH Terrain Detail - Low Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - HIGH PostProcess Effects- High HIGH Settings Score - 3564 Looks like Terrain kills FPS Im pleased with the results from a q6600 to q9650 And I still have room to OC since its only running around 35C Idle I havent checked underload. Im going to put ArmA2 on its own Partion and see if that can help. I will post results Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skeptic 10 Posted June 5, 2009 People with 4-5K score, how is your experience in MP/SP game? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HerrAnders 10 Posted June 5, 2009 (edited) Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Resolution 1920 x 1080 CPU: Phenom 940 @ 3,7Ghz RAM: OCZ 4 x 1GB DDR-800 GPU: 2 x 3870 Crossfire OC (Gecube + Asus) OS : Vista64 SP2 Normal Score: 3170,22 is this possible, i have more score as one with HD4890, and almost the same score as one with GTX285 ?? with my old 3870er! Edited June 5, 2009 by HerrAnders Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted June 5, 2009 @maddogx For me the first run is really bad compared to second. Was your first setting only from 1 run or did you average a couple?From what I gathered people with 4gigs of ram and same system as me are getting way higher scores. I only have 2gigs and this may be something to think about too. My q9650 just arrived I will post back here in a few to see what it can do. Both were only one run, but my #2 (which is the settings I always use) was actually done first, not second. I only put the "all normal" one as #1 because it was the one we use to compare. I'll do some more run-throughs later on and work out an average. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purkka_fin 0 Posted June 5, 2009 (edited) i found out on this site that gtx285 SLI or even gtx260 SLI really beats out 4870x2 like and old dog. in every test in other games. i ordered 4870x2 allready for 275€. and have 1 gtx260 so one more for sli would beat one 4870x2.crap. thougt id need new sli mobo because my p35 asus only have cf .sorry about OT here is the article: http://techreport.com/articles.x/16681/12 Edited June 5, 2009 by purkka_FIN new signature Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted June 5, 2009 @HerrAnders One of the main limiting factors for the score seems to be CPU power, and you have one major CPU :). Also your Crossfire seems to be doing its job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NATO1140 0 Posted June 5, 2009 Arma mark score 1516Specs below. ASUS A8N SLI-SE S939 AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2,2GHz 3Gb DDR PNY Geforce 9800 GT 120 ATA HD Win 7 x64 RC1 I need to have little chat with my wife about upgrading my crappy rig... So do I, but I'm getting married next week so its gonna have to wait for a while... Heh I have a similar rig, after I get back from USAF BMT I will buy a new rig. Thats a cool little program so at least I know what to expect out of my system before I buy it, I will post update with results later. phenom x4 2.3ghz evga 9600 gt 4gm ram xp pro Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
