Armin2 10 Posted June 16, 2009 ... and still having massive performance problems. Before I had a HD4850 which is about 50% slower than a GTX 275. The rest of my system is: 2x4GHZ E8500, 4GBRam, Win7 64 So now I get around 30 FPS in Elektrowhateverthatowniscalled and in the woods with everything set to high except shadows and 1200m view range. The engine is sooo badly optimized. I can't find any significant fps boost. In every other game I have about 60% more fps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ssgwright 10 Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) i got crappy performance with windows 7 but it improved drastically going back to vista 64... it's weird all my other games run better on windows 7? I just gotta say I absolutely LOVE THIS GAME all the detail put into it is just amazing good job bohemia!!!! I'm running a 4870x2 and I get and average of 60fps everything very high 125% detail and 3600 view 1920x1200(i have to use the -winxp command though) can't wait for them to implement real crossfire. Edited June 16, 2009 by ssgwright Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armin2 10 Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) I just played the longest day online, 44 player online and right at the beginning (at the carrier) I get lousy 22 fps... Thats just retarded. I mean I have 35 fps in Crysis at full detail. GTX 275 4GB 2x 4 GHZ E 8500 Win7 I don't spend 700€ on a pc to get 22 fps in ArmA 2... Edited June 16, 2009 by Armin2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armin2 10 Posted June 16, 2009 http://www.pic-upload.de/view-2344918/arma2-2009-06-16-22-17-34-04.jpg.html 26FPS in that moment... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoBF2boy 10 Posted June 16, 2009 ... and still having massive performance problems.Before I had a HD4850 which is about 50% slower than a GTX 275. The rest of my system is: 2x4GHZ E8500, 4GBRam, Win7 64 So now I get around 30 FPS in Elektrowhateverthatowniscalled and in the woods with everything set to high except shadows and 1200m view range. The engine is sooo badly optimized. I can't find any significant fps boost. In every other game I have about 60% more fps. get a ati 4890, no probs here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armin2 10 Posted June 16, 2009 The 4890 is about 10% slower than a GTX 275. Or do you have more than the shown 26fps in that specific situation ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Porter_ 10 Posted June 16, 2009 The 4890 is about 10% slower than a GTX 275. you can't just make a blanket statement like that. the two cards trade blows depending on the game. some games favor the GTX 275, others the 4890. at the moment it seems ARMA favors ATI cards...but there's not much out there to concrete this information. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
11aTony 0 Posted June 16, 2009 What about if you set it to medium or low? Still low fps? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 16, 2009 The HD4890 performs somewhat better in ArmA II than the GTX 275, but not by a huge margin. In most other games the GTX275 is a better choice, so it's a better choice all round. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armin2 10 Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Yep tried that. In multiplayer I set everything to minimum and still I'm getting only 30 fps. The funny thing is: There is no real difference between very high and very low settings in multiplayer. It's always around 30fps. Vsync etc. has been checked of course. In singleplayer everything is fine. *edit* @ ch 123: Where did you get that information. According to tests the 275 is always at least 5% above the 4890. Usually it's about 9%. Edited June 16, 2009 by Armin2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damagerix 10 Posted June 16, 2009 The HD 4890 is the best graphic map for ArmA 2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 16, 2009 *edit*@ ch 123: Where did you get that information. According to tests the 275 is always at least 5% above the 4890. Usually it's about 9%. There's a benchmark carried out by one website (a link to which is floating around somewhere inside the chaos that is the System specs thread) that shows the HD4890 being faster than both the GTX 275 AND GTX 285 for ArmA II. As has pointed out above, graphics card performance can vary significantly from game to game. What may be the fastest card for 99% of games may not be the best for one in particular. But I personally would prefer the GTX275 as it's faster in games other than ArmA (and is more power efficient, less hot etc) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armin2 10 Posted June 16, 2009 I don't think so. The 4890 has 1 GB so there are some advatages at very high view range and AA settings. But both cards are too weak to give reasonable framerates at these settings. So as I play at 1280x1024 with AA only to high and 2km view distance the 275 should still be faster. In the benchmarks the 4890 had "less few" fps than the 275 in very high AA settings because of the higher VRAM. But that is not important because you couldn't play at such settings anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Porter_ 10 Posted June 16, 2009 according to this review the 4890 tops both the 275 and 285. again, this is just one review but it's all we have to go on right now. you could also look through the ArmAII-Mark thread to get a better idea of how different systems perform. reports in that thread vary a lot though, so it still doesn't give a clear picture. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sk3pt 0 Posted June 16, 2009 (and is more power efficient, less hot etc) Only when idle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armin2 10 Posted June 16, 2009 In that benchmark they put the fillrate to 150%. Also it was pre patch. I still guess that on low resolutions like mine they should be around even. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Porter_ 10 Posted June 16, 2009 quick question for you Armin2, if you wouldn't mind: are you running Vista? if so, have you verified that you can disable vsync? if so how did you go about doing it? i have an ATI card right now and it's driving me nuts. i have yet to find a way to disable vsync in vista while playing ARMA1. better yet, is there an in-game vsync option in ARMA2? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KJT 0 Posted June 16, 2009 Set texture to normal. That helped me most. I have ati 4890 and E6750 @ 3.4 GHz. With texture high/very high I had FPS dropping and buildings popping in cities quite often when turning around. Now fps is more consistent, between 30-40 in cities and higher elsewhere. My P5K does not support PCIE 2.0 - and that maybe good to have with Arma2 (usually it does not make much difference). I checked with MemStatus that Arma2 consumes 750 MB of texture memory in less than minute (and rest of 1GB memory is probably reserved for frame buffers). And after that memory is swapped. -KJT- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoBF2boy 10 Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) The 4890 is about 10% slower than a GTX 275.Or do you have more than the shown 26fps in that specific situation ? http://www.pic-upload.de/view-2345981/arma2-2009-06-17-02-16-58-69.jpg.html SAPPHIRE TOXIC HD 4890 1GB GDDR5 PCI-E Core Clock: 1000 MHz Memory Clock: 1075 MHz 1024MB /256bit GDDR5 memory interface Dual Slot Vapor-X Cooler with Heatpipes Edited June 17, 2009 by NoBF2boy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Porter_ 10 Posted June 17, 2009 http://www.pic-upload.de/view-2345981/arma2-2009-06-17-02-16-58-69.jpg.html SAPPHIRE TOXIC HD 4890 1GB GDDR5 PCI-E Core Clock: 1000 MHz Memory Clock: 1075 MHz 1024MB /256bit GDDR5 memory interface Dual Slot Vapor-X Cooler with Heatpipes that's a big difference. what CPU do you have? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoBF2boy 10 Posted June 17, 2009 that's a big difference. what CPU do you have? got a q9300, 4 gig, win7, 9.6 driver. and this scene is warfare too btw. of course i get under 30 at some points (big battles in chernogorsk) but never under 20. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FraG_AU 10 Posted June 17, 2009 My suggestion is turn Post Processing to low, and shadows normal, as well as object detail/terrain detail to normal but leaving AF, and Texture very high was best on my gpu. I am running a gTX295 which is only in single gpu mode for this game (I hope only because of drivers), so getting pretty much your performamce. Be patient, this is really a "beta" so hopefully with next patch or two things will be fixed up and drivers will support this game better. If not ARMA will go on the shit heap and I'll pick it up in 2 years when they invent hardware to run it... But they better get it right soon if they want to make a profit with these games :P The HD4890 performs somewhat better in ArmA II than the GTX 275, but not by a huge margin. In most other games the GTX275 is a better choice, so it's a better choice all round. ^^ gtx275 is not faster then the 4890? What the? Where did you get that from?! http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3575&p=7 ^^ Compares OC'ed GTX275 and OCed 4890 and stock also. Where does the GTX275 beat the 4890? In many cases the 4890 beats the GTX285. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armin2 10 Posted June 17, 2009 http://www.pic-upload.de/view-2345981/arma2-2009-06-17-02-16-58-69.jpg.html SAPPHIRE TOXIC HD 4890 1GB GDDR5 PCI-E Core Clock: 1000 MHz Memory Clock: 1075 MHz 1024MB /256bit GDDR5 memory interface Dual Slot Vapor-X Cooler with Heatpipes Damn that's unfair... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0 Posted June 17, 2009 Just upgraded to a GTX 275 me too Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armin2 10 Posted June 17, 2009 Obviously the wrong decision as I did it only for ArmA 2.:butbut: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
