i7 + GTX295, what's the deal?

[Supernova 0]

I don't have any need to overclock but Im equally happy I can if I want to.

I dont really understand why you felt the need to comment as it has no relevance to the thread.

I spend the money I earn as I see fit and you don't HAVE to overclock to make good use of an "extreme" processor. You're just a show off who gets angry when people have better gear than you do.

Keep your opinions to yourself in future, I really dont care what you think about my implementation of hardware or my spending.

Eth

PS : Keep it ON topic.

Don't like my criticism too bad. You could have bought a i7 920 D0 and overclocked it to a 975 and used the money you saved on better components but according to you

"I spend the money I earn as I see fit and you don't HAVE to overclock to make good use of an "extreme" processor"

which really if you said that in an 'actual' computer forum community you would be laughed out of there. Oh and if you think im angry that you have a 975 you make me laugh. I've used every single i7 processor released to date and I've stuck with the 920 D0 because unless you are doing extreme overclocking with extreme cooling you really don't need an extreme cpu. How many world records have you broken with that cpu ? I'm betting none. Maybe if you also had more wits than money you would realize that extreme edition and non-extreme edition processors overclock roughly the same it is when you use liquid nitrogen for extreme overclocks its where the extreme edition cpu's shine really.

"Keep your opinions to yourself in future, I really dont care what you think about my implementation of hardware or my spending."

That's too bad because I couldn't care either.

Some additional points:

1. You are using a 975 and a stock cooler which is quite emberassing.

2. NF200 in x16/x16/x16 tri-sli takes a performance hit compared to x16/x8/x8.

3. My 920 D0 at 4.0ghz outperforms your 975 which is running at stock clock speeds.

4. You bought 12GB and probably had no reason to buy other than bragging rights. Heck you can't even utilize it fully I bet.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Supernova

[bangtail 0]

Don't like my criticism too bad. You could have bought a i7 920 D0 and overclocked it to a 975 and used the money you saved on better components but according to you

"I spend the money I earn as I see fit and you don't HAVE to overclock to make good use of an "extreme" processor"

which really if you said that in an 'actual' computer forum community you would be laughed out of there. Oh and if you think im angry that you have a 975 you make me laugh. I've used every single i7 processor released to date and I've stuck with the 920 D0 because unless you are doing extreme overclocking with extreme cooling you really don't need an extreme cpu. How many world records have you broken with that cpu ? I'm betting none. Maybe if you also had more wits than money you would realize that extreme edition and non-extreme edition processors overclock roughly the same it is when you use liquid nitrogen for extreme overclocks its where the extreme edition cpu's shine really.

"Keep your opinions to yourself in future, I really dont care what you think about my implementation of hardware or my spending."

That's too bad because I couldn't care either.

Some additional points:

1. You are using a 975 and a stock cooler which is quite emberassing.

2. NF200 in x16/x16/x16 tri-sli takes a performance hit compared to x16/x8/x8.

3. My 920 D0 at 4.0ghz outperforms your 975 which is running at stock clock speeds.

4. You bought 12GB and probably had no reason to buy other than bragging rights. Heck you can't even utilize it fully I bet.

Seriously, 15, maybe 16. I hope that you are not any older than that because your behaviour thus far is not that of an adult human being. I hope someone puts your rattle back in the pram soon.

Who are you to tell me what reason I have for buying things? I use CS4 extensively as well as Maya, 3DS Max etc etc (Hell, even Reason can eat 7-8 gigs) and I can easily push into most if not all of my RAM. I didn't just mindlessly spend $1000s on a PC so I could come on forums and try to talk down to people who use their PCs for more than just maxing out Crysis.

You're the one thats bragging about your gear (and the one who has to tell everyone what he has via his sig. Notice that I don't) and if it doesn't bother you then why are you trying to justify how much better your box is?

I have 3 unopened Noctuas in this room and a 950 and a heavily overclocked 920. You just decided you were going to get uppity because I have a better CPU than you. The fact is, I don't need to overclock this box - everything is running fine.

Nowhere in my original post did I say anything about stock clocks or cooling. These are all your assumptions and we are all aware of what happens when you assume.

Did I ever say I was trying to beat world records? I dont know why you have chosen to attack me because of the gear I chose to buy but give it a rest and take your meds! You sound angry, jealous and unstable.

Worry a little less about what other people have and a little more about your own gear.

As I've said before, this discussion has no place in this thread so go throw your little jealousy fit elsewhere. It's an ugly state of affairs when you let your jealousy get the better of you.

Eth

PS : Anymore nonsense and its ignore and report.

Have a good one :)

Edited June 20, 2009 by BangTail

[galzohar 31]

Nobody was telling you what to do. He was simply stating how much of a waste of money what you're doing is, which is true. Your money, though, so your right to waste it as you see fit. But this is a forum that other people also read, and saying that the PC you're using is not anywhere near what it can be in terms of performance per cash spent is for the best of everyone (except you, probably, since you don't listen/care/have way too much money to burn).

No reason to flip because someone posted that what you're doing is a big waste of money.

[bangtail 0]

Nobody was telling you what to do. He was simply stating how much of a waste of money what you're doing is, which is true. Your money, though, so your right to waste it as you see fit. But this is a forum that other people also read, and saying that the PC you're using is not anywhere near what it can be in terms of performance per cash spent is for the best of everyone (except you, probably, since you don't listen/care/have way too much money to burn).

No reason to flip because someone posted that what you're doing is a big waste of money.

Its just not relevant to this thread and has no place being discussed here. I have heavily overclocked PCs, this one just doesn't need to be. Furthermore, it's really none of your business what I spend my money on.

I've reported this thread as it is being continuously derailed. Your opinion on my hardware is not relevant to this thread.

Cheers,

Eth

Edited June 21, 2009 by BangTail

[Placebo 28]

This thread is for solving the issue in the title and first post, not to tell him what hardware he should or shouldn't buy.

[Cionara 10]

all I am after here is a playable version of the game

You already got it. When you have to play it on maximum details, it's your fault. No one guarenteed you can play it on everything maxed out.

I got a gtx280 and a Q9550 @ 3,75Ghz and it's very playable.

My settings:

View distance: 3000

Fillrate: 100%

Resolution: 1920*1080

Textures: Very High

Anisotropic Filtering: Very High

Landscape: Low

Objectdetail: Very Low

Shadows: Normal

Postprocessing: Very High

Edited June 20, 2009 by Placebo

[galzohar 31]

It's acceptable to claim something may be wrong and look for tweaks to work around it when you have a rather top-notch PC and still can't run stuff at max settings.

Cionara, note that it had been tested before that shadows on "high" actually gives better FPS than "medium".

[Philll 10]

This thread is for solving the issue in the title and first post, not to tell him what hardware he should or shouldn't buy.

Can you answer the question about what gear the devs use to get it running properly?

[bangtail 0]

It's acceptable to claim something may be wrong and look for tweaks to work around it when you have a rather top-notch PC and still can't run stuff at max settings.

Cionara, note that it had been tested before that shadows on "high" actually gives better FPS than "medium".

I'm starting to believe that it has something to do with the way Vista/Win 7 handles HT as it runs flawessly for me in XP 64 and is equally good under Vista/Win 7 with HT disabled. The only difference is that Vista/Win 7 does not detect the video memory or the non local memory properly in either scenario and there are options missing when I run the 185 or above drivers under Vista/Win 7.

I'll stick to XP 64 for now as I am very happy with the performance. The problems with Vista/Win 7 etc will get solved sooner or later :)

Eth

Edited June 21, 2009 by BangTail

[Philll 10]

You already got it. When you have to play it on maximum details, it's your fault. No one guarenteed you can play it on everything maxed out.

Once again the ignorance of some people is outstanding. I never asked to play it maxed, as you can see I set the options to normal on everything and low which indicates there's a fundamental problem and not just one isolated to 'max details'. Not everybody has it working, I am one of them, so if you aren't here to post anything constructive - go away.

[bangtail 0]

Once again the ignorance of some people is outstanding. I never asked to play it maxed, as you can see I set the options to normal on everything and low which indicates there's a fundamental problem and not just one isolated to 'max details'. Not everybody has it working, I am one of them, so if you aren't here to post anything constructive - go away.

Hey bud :)

Try turning off HT if you dont want to install XP. It should solve the problem. I realise this isn't the best solution but it worked for me.

Cheers,

Eth

[Philll 10]

I turned it off, didn't really help. I found my XP64 disc but I need to get around to formatting the Windows 7 HDD. So much effort for one game, I know plenty of people that wouldn't even bother :icon_neutral:

[bangtail 0]

I turned it off, didn't really help. I found my XP64 disc but I need to get around to formatting the Windows 7 HDD. So much effort for one game, I know plenty of people that wouldn't even bother :icon_neutral:

Yah, I hear you on that but it tends to be a necessary evil with OFP/ArmA. I found that turning HT off helped alot in Vista/Win 7 but I prefer to run under XP purely because I would rather not gimp my system (HT is so necessary for encoding etc) and it's a major inconvenience to have to keep entering the BIOS to enable/disable it :(

Good luck at any rate mate :)

Eth

[Jade77 10]

whats HT?

[bangtail 0]

whats HT?

Hyper Threading

[xmongx 0]

correct me if i am wrong as it is highly probable.

Youe are not installing a game when playing arma2, you are installing a simulation. The level of detail BIS has put into the game is astounding. If you are getting anything above 25 FPS you will be doing VERY WELL. Cast aside your expectations of what fps should be when playing arma 2 as they are irrelevant. Sweeping statements like "MY i7 plus GTX295 should be clearing 60 fps at all times" are cumbersome.

Even with that setup you would struggle to run ofp with FFUR/SLX 2.5 at a constant 60 fps+ frame rate.

You must try to be able to understand that no current hardware will give you that framerate, unfortunately this requires a level of intelligence not shown by many current posters.

I mean...come on...25 FPS+ = bad?

in a game of this scale? it seems retarded.

Edited June 21, 2009 by xmongx

[OverDawg 10]

Yes. You are wrong. If this game isn't able to produce reasonable fps on a high end machine with modest ingame quality settings something is wrong. Especially since the results vary this much.

[xmongx 0]

o.k., if you must i am wrong.

i do not care.

If you want to be wowed by your super ace hardware boot up a less demanding game.

Graphical fidelity is of little consideration to this game, as you can see by changing graphics settings with no effect, you are cpu limited even with an i7. That being said you should be able to get decent performance out of the engine (25 fps+) as demonstrated by the 1700+ AI video running on a 3.8 8400.

Did you play ofp in 2001, do you understand what the engine does?

what is your reasonable fps?

Edited June 21, 2009 by xmongx

[Philll 10]

if you want to be wowed by your super ace hardware boot up a less demanding game.

Again.. What part of this concept are you having trouble with:

People with 9800's are getting better performance

An i7 with a GTX295 still struggles with LOW DETAIL, again LOW DETAIL. Thats LOW resolution, LOW post processing effects, NO FSAA, LOW terrain / objects etc, DISABLED post processing effects and so on. Get it?

Why do you, and some other people, keep suggesting I am trying to max out the game? I am quite happy to play on medium all round.

[xmongx 0]

my computer has 512 shades of red.

what nvidia driver do you use?

180.25 or below is reccomended.

I am not necessarily saying that maxing out the game is bad with a good gpu, the game is cpu limited and always will be.

what fps do you consider bad?

Edited June 21, 2009 by xmongx

[bangtail 0]

o.k., if you must i am wrong.

i do not care.

If you want to be wowed by your super ace hardware boot up a less demanding game.

Graphical fidelity is of little consideration to this game, as you can see by changing graphics settings with no effect, you are cpu limited even with an i7. That being said you should be able to get decent performance out of the engine (25 fps+) as demonstrated by the 1700+ AI video running on a 3.8 8400.

Did you play ofp in 2001, do you understand what the engine does?

what is your reasonable fps?

Indeed, OFP was the same type of animal. That said, there are some large inconsistencies. Im very happy with the performance under Win XP but there are some serious issues with Vista/Win 7. I know they will get sorted but I also understand why many people are a little bit frustrated.

Cheers,

Eth

[xmongx 0]

Bugger!!!, I was under the impression that win7 ran better than xp.

I can understand why vista runs like shit as its a very bloaty OS and should not be used for gaming.

Mind you ARMA2 is 32 bit software, and may run worse on a 64-bit OS, although looking at the back of my box vista is an optimal OS (but so is a 4000 X2...heh!!)

Edited June 21, 2009 by xmongx

[Philll 10]

what nvidia driver do you use?

180.25 or below is reccomended.

Did you even read the original post or any posts thereafter? I tried 7 versions of nVidia drivers.

I am not necessarily saying that maxing out the game is bad with a good gpu, the game is cpu limited and always will be.

CPU bound? i7 @ 3.8ghz, what that shouldn't be enough?

what fps do you consider bad?

Bad? Under 30. But the fps isn't the problem, its the FPS drop every few seconds, for a few seconds.

Bugger!!!, I was under the impression that win7 ran better than xp.

I can understand why vista runs like shit as its a very bloaty OS and should not be used for gaming.

Mind you ARMA2 is 32 bit software, and may run worse on a 64-bit OS.

Oh well, that did it. You officially don't read and have no idea what your talking about. And please stop editing your posts every 3 seconds, it's increasingly harder to reply.

[xmongx 0]

CPU bound? i7 @ 3.8ghz, what that shouldn't be enough?

Bad? Under 30. But the fps isn't the problem, its the FPS drop every few seconds, for a few seconds.

I edit my posts because i am drunk and shit a speeling, believe it or not i am trying to help.

Please tell me you ran a good defrag after instaling arma2?, if not try googling JKDEFRAG (its free and good) or using the CMD prompt function CONTIG to make sure all the files in your arma 2 directory are contiguos.

You will not get over 30-FPS in the campaign or CPU heavy custom missions even with an i7@ 3.8 you may need to accept that.

I'm sorry i missed the root problem (pausing every so often), this is most likely caused by no good defrag after installing arma2 (windows defrag will not cut it), badly configured swapfile (over 1.5x your physical ram) or bad memory allocation. If you have over 2gb ram try adding -mamxmem=2047 to your shortcut.

You can see by the lack of similar threads to yours that the problem does not lie with the game, its either your over optimistic excpectaions or a badly optimised system.

Edited June 21, 2009 by xmongx
for philll

[Philll 10]

lol you really are incredible. Defrag? I won't even spoil this one for you, go read everything I wrote and I'll see if you can figure out why I didn't defrag.

You will not get over 30-FPS in the campaign or CPU heavy custom missions even with an i7@ 3.8 you may need to accept that.

AGAIN you do not read, I said SP missions are fine and it's mainly a campaign problem. I get 60+ constantly on the first scenario mission, so you need to accept your talking out of your ass.

Please stop posting, you really really have no idea.

Edit: Oh ffs you've edited your post again, I'm not even going to bother anymore.