Quad core testers are needed

[Skeptic 10]

More tests and less discussion :ok: There are already plenty of what if threads around. We need hard data even if ArmaMarkII is not 100% representation of actual gameplay.

id like to help but no one said where to put the pbo, ive tried the addons, and mission folder already.

See first post.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Skeptic

[von_paulus 0]

Let me ask you one thing... is a Core2Duo more "efficient" than a Core2Quad working in two cores?

For the record:

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 - 1680 x 1024

Normal Score - 2892

BlueStill CPU (@3.4GHz) and GPU are better than mine. Yet is score (2537) running at 2 cores is inferior to mine.

[Majormauser 0]

Be careful using unofficial English patch - it might be activating FADE copyright protection and messing up your performance. Proved to be BS. Updated first post.

What your saying Fade is not affecting aim when the english patch is applied...?

Thanks

Chris

[Skeptic 10]

What your saying Fade is not affecting aim when the english patch is applied...?

Thanks

Chris

I'm saying that English patch is unlikely cause of FADE - multiple reports of people trying it to run with/without and getting same results. Have no clue what else is causing aim/FADE issues. Not my place to be accusing people getting illegal copies.

Let me ask you one thing... is a Core2Duo more "efficient" than a Core2Quad working in two cores?

Let's keep this on topic - which is Quad core. 300pts diff might be the case of slightly different specs/settings. Ideally each test would be performed several times to get average score to remove fluctuations. But when we see 20% difference when going from two to four cores - it means something.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Skeptic

[Majormauser 0]

You should really have everyone run this at 1024x768 with everyone using different resolutions our OFP Marks will be all over the place.

[Skeptic 10]

You should really have everyone run this at 1024x768 with everyone using different resolutions our OFP Marks will be all over the place.

I think you have mistaken this thread with ArmAII-Mark thread. Here user is testing CPU performance between 4-1 cores. Not meant to compare everyone's score, but % improvement or lack thereof if using quad core.

[Majormauser 0]

I think you have mistaken this thread with ArmAII-Mark thread. Here user is testing CPU performance between 4-1 cores. Not meant to compare everyone's score, but % improvement or lack thereof if using quad core.

I got it I did not think it was measuring CPU power...cool.

Well here it goes

T1 -38.04

t2 - 38.21

t3 -31.73

t4 -46.58

t5 -25.16

OFP MARK - 3594.44 - 8 Cores

OFP MARK - 2575.98 - 4 Cores

Now this is really weird. I rebooted opened up all 8 Cores. Ran the test. Score was 3198. Then I restarted the Test and this is now my score

T1 -40.24

t2 - 42.35

t3 -36.05

t4 -51.83

t5 -27.64

OFP MARK - 3962.51 - 8 Cores

OFP MARK - 3909.35 - 8 Cores (restarted Test again)

1600x1024 (this was a rez someone else used)

8800 GT

3GB RAM

8 - Core MacPro 2.8Ghz

Windows 7

Edited June 5, 2009 by Majormauser

[Skeptic 10]

Need more testers.

[EDcase 87]

I think you'll get more testers after the 19th ;)

Me for one...

[redpoll 0]

Results taken from a second run, as explained by BlueSteel.

Cpu - Intel Core2Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz

Ram - 2GB DDR2 800

GPU - 8800GTS 640MB

OS - XP Pro SP2

Resolution - 1680 x 1050

Test 1 - 4 CPU Cores - 2790 OFPMarks

Test 2 - 3 CPU Cores - 2799 OFPMarks

Test 3 - 2 CPU Cores - 2641 OFPMarks

Test 4 - 1 CPU Core - 2175 OFPMarks

red = number of cores

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

But when we see 20% difference when going from two to four cores - it means something.

BlueSteel was alot more than 20% :butbut:

Sorry I'm not able to help with these test.....yet.

[SnR 1]

Going off my G15 Keyboard display, im seeing a huge difference.

C2D E8400 3.6ghz, both going spastic over 70%

With Arma 40%+

[bluesteel 0]

Results taken from a second run, as explained by BlueSteel.

Cpu - Intel Core2Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz

Ram - 2GB DDR2 800

GPU - 8800GTS 640MB

OS - XP Pro SP2

Resolution - 1680 x 1050

Test 1 - 4 CPU Cores - 2790 OFPMarks

Test 2 - 3 CPU Cores - 2799 OFPMarks

Test 3 - 2 CPU Cores - 2641 OFPMarks

Test 4 - 1 CPU Core - 2175 OFPMarks

This looks like you forgot to change the affinity in taskmanger, check the first post for details. There should be a bigger difference when going from 2 to 4 cores, for example.

[redpoll 0]

This looks like you forgot to change the affinity in taskmanger, check the first post for details. There should be a bigger difference when going from 2 to 4 cores, for example.

Negative. I just tested again with both -cpuCount=2 and affinity 2 cores: 2685.51. Then I alt-tabbed and changed affinity to 4 cores: 2770.91. Alt-tabbed again 1 core: 1930.44

And yes, for the previous results I posted I shut down Arma2 and changed -cpuCount too (no reboot though). But I agree with you, there must be something wrong with the results. I also took a screenshot of the charts now:

4 cores (-cpuCount 2, affinity 4):

2 cores (-cpuCount 2, affinity 2):.

1 core (-cpuCount 2, affinity 1):

[NeMeSiS 11]

AFAIK ArmAmark was more of a videocard benchmark then a CPU benchmark, which would explain why there is no difference between 2 and 4 cores. 2 cores can handle the CPUload easily enough.

(Try testing with 1000 AI units in combat while not looking at the units themselves)

[Nowyoudie 0]

Hmm I could try this once the game's released in NA...

[Marduuhin 10]

Not quite a quad core, but still more than two..

CPU: AMD Phenom X3 @ 2,66GHz

RAM: 2GB

GPU: ATI HD 3850 (Club3D 256MB version)

OS: Vista SP1

Resolution: 1680x1050

Test 1 (No settings changed): 1915,40

Test 2 (-cpuCount=3, affinity on all cores): 1879,79

Test 3 (-cpuCount=2, affinity on 2 & 3. core): 1867,37

Test 4 (-cpuCount=1, affinity on last core): 1363,84

[yankeex86x 10]

Hi,

I've just ordered a copy of ArmA2 and It should be on the way...

I got a dual quad core opteron 2350 (2.0GHz) with a L1N64-SLI WS and 8GB of DDR2-667 with dual 8800GTS 640 SLI.

When the game will arrive I'll test the multicore capabilities of this game up to 8 cores, and in a matter of days I'll also get a Tyan S2915 which will have better NUMA and DDR2-800 support.

I also own both Arma Armed Assault and Queen's Gambit, but none of them uses more than one core at once....

I have to make a tip for the i7 owner, if the affinity is set to 3 or 4 cores when the hyperthreaing is enabled, you might be using only 2 cores, so be sure to disable the HT before setting the affinity.

I'm new on this forum and I hope to get and give help!!!

[Skodz 10]

Cool, these results make me happy about having a Q9550 @ 2.8 ghz :)

[PhatVybz 10]

my settings might have been higher then demanded

but my results are

test 1 -35.1197

test 2 -39.854

test 3 -31.9574

test 4 -44.2478

test 5 -16.61

OFPMARK =3355.78

i run 8 core i7 cpu 940 @2.93Ghz

6MB triple channel ddr3

vista sp1 64bit

ati 4890 crossfire enabled X2

anyway when they say multicore suport it means it support as many cores you want

this post is ridiculous ..just cpuCount=X if the game cant read the cores

and other target parameters

mine looks like this -cpuCount=8 -maxmem=2047 -winxp -noCB -nosplash

Edited June 15, 2009 by PhatVybz

[GLeek 10]

I7 isn't 8 core cpu . it's 4 , with SMT

[galzohar 31]

It's supposed to run better with 8 threads rather than 4, though I wonder if that setting (above 4) has any effect.

[Sam75 0]

the command -cpuCount=x doesn't work ?

why using task manager ?

[galzohar 31]

I didn't say it doesn't work, read the thread please... I just wondered if setting to more than 4 does anything or not.

[PhatVybz 10]

I7 isn't 8 core cpu . it's 4 , with SMT

dude my i7 is 8 core

whoever says im wrong should buy glasses

Edited June 15, 2009 by PhatVybz