ATTENTION: Nvidia 2xx series card owners

[poh 10]

The 2xx series of cards currently is broken for arma2 or something. If you have problems with arma2 and your 2xx series card, post in this thread: your specs, settings, and average FPS. I am trying to figure out the source of the problem.

HOWEVER: some users have reported great performance with the 2xx series, I would like them to also post their specs, settings, and average FPS.

[bluesteel 0]

I would like to know where you take that kind of information from. Just stating something is broken does not yet make me believe it.

I have a GTX 260, and my performance is not exactly stellar, but what I think is in a normal range for this kind of complex game. When I am not CPU-limited (which can happen during larger missions), my framerate is anywhere between 30 and 80fps; usually around 35-45fps during normal gameplay.

I play with visibility 3000, textures "very high", texture memory "default", anisotropic filtering "very high", landscape detail "low", object detail "normal", shadows "high", postprocessing "very high". Resolution 1680x1050.

System:

Core2Quad Q6600@3.4GHz

4GB DDR2 RAM

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 OC (192 Shadercores, 892MB RAM, drivers 186.18 WHQL)

Windows 7 RC x64

[soul_assassin 1723]

Same here GTX 260 runs abit worse then above but i have my settings cranked to the fullest :) with highest viewdistance and nothing can be set higher 1680x1050 res. No broken :P Heats up though.

[Maizel 10]

GTX 285, 24 FPS while looking at a wall in the second mission. >.>

And I don;t even have my settings up that high.

A mix of high and meds, on a FR of 100% No post processing.

But it dips as low as 10 fps when there's actually something going on

Edited June 23, 2009 by Maizel

[bangtail 0]

i7 975

Asus P6T6 Revo

12 Gigs Mushkin 12800 DDR3 RA

2 x Intel X-25 160 GB

2 x WD 1 TB "Black"

Plextor PX-B310SA

3 x GTX 280

NEC 2690WUXi Monitor

Auzentech Forte

Razer Mako speakers

X-52 Pro

Track IR 5

Win 7 Ultimate 64 (7232) w/ 182.50 WHQL drivers

Resolution - 1920 x 1200

View distance - 3000

Texture detail - High

Video memory - Very High

Anisotropy - Very high

Antialiasing - Off

Object detail - High

Terrain detail - High

Shadow detail - High

Post processing - Off

Fillrate - 125%

Hyper threading - Off

Using "Manhattan" as a test bed I never saw the FPS go below 23 and it can go as high as 90 depending on what is happening. There is an annoying stutter that is DEFINITELY attributable to HT as when it is disabled the stutter stops. I have also found that removing the -winxp switch with version 1.02 seems to help as well.

Hope that helps,

Eth

Edited June 23, 2009 by BangTail

[Maizel 10]

Meh, if I put down $600 bucks for my video cards alone, I wouldn't be satisfied with ~30 fps if there's action going on.

[bangtail 0]

Meh, if I put down $600 bucks for my video cards alone, I wouldn't be satisfied with ~30 fps if there's action going on.

I dont care about numbers tbh (unless they are impacting my enjoyment), I care about playable vs unplayable and its perfectly playable so I'm very happy.

BUT, there are definitely some issues that need to be dealt with as the FPS is very inconsistent with what is happening in the game.

Eth

[Maizel 10]

Oh, I put $250 for my single GTS 285. ANd it actually takes away from my enjoyment that I know this game should run alot smoother than it does.

[bluesteel 0]

GTX 285, 24 FPS while looking at a wall in the second mission. >.>

And I don;t even have my settings up that high.

A mix of high and meds, on a FR of 100% No post processing.

But it dips as low as 10 fps when there's actually something going on

What CPU do you have? ArmA 2 is extremely CPU-dependant. So if you do not have a quadcore CPU or a low clockrate, that will limit your framerate and not your graphicscard.

This is rather easy to test, just set the 3D resolution to a very low setting. If the framerate is still low, it is your CPU slowing you down and not the graphics card.

[LT. Razgriz 10]

Q6600 on default 2.40GHz clock

eVGA GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked Edition (186.08 Beta drivers, got worse performance on both 182 and the non-beta 186)

4 Gigs of 800 DDR2

7200 RPM 750 Gig Seagate (Barracuda I think, not sure though)

Windows 7 X64 RC

Other irrelevant stuff

Textures/Video Memory/Post Processing on High with everything else on normal.

~15 to ~50 FPS in Campaign (mainly Razor Two/Manhattan) when I was playing on 1.01 Final. (Haven't played lately, waiting for my Steam version rather than installing 1.02 on my German.) I'll report back when I get my Steam/1.02 version on Friday/Saturday.

[Maizel 10]

What CPU do you have? ArmA 2 is extremely CPU-dependant. So if you do not have a quadcore CPU or a low clockrate, that will limit your framerate and not your graphicscard.

This is rather easy to test, just set the 3D resolution to a very low setting. If the framerate is still low, it is your CPU slowing you down and not the graphics card.

I7 920 3.4 Ghz.

Definitely not the problem.

[goldkid80 10]

stop talking ..... about those CPU bottleneckings it isn't people who got a GFX from 200 or ++ euro don't got some cpu from the junkyard.

CPU bottlenecking with modern cpu = not be optimised.

pls stop telling us the game is working without mayor issues it just isn't

IMO it's a beta release like arma was and still is

[Barso 10]

I am using i7 920 and GTX295 and the latest drivers 186 are useless with Arma 2.

When will this get fixed?

[neurojazz 10]

Solved a few issues here:

182.50 nvidia driver = GOOD - newer drivers = graphical grossness/flickering.

Leave default nvidia setting in the control panel BUT disable Vsync and the gtx flies :)

I tried with performance setting on the texture filtering and that helped also.

Using the -maxmem=2047 -winxp

i7 @ 4.00 D0 with Gtx295 on vista 64 - 6gig.

Get 140fps on intro screen - 30-44 in multiplayer

running at 1920*1040 (native) and 100% fillrate.

Hope that helps - the driver change reallY helped me get a better result.

Also remove your cfg file after making these changes and sort out the settings in game.

Turn fraps OFF = W O W :)

Edited June 23, 2009 by neurojazz

[Maizel 10]

I really hope they take a real effort to improve the performance on Arma II.

I just installed Arma + patches to see how that ran. With a machine that tops the recomended specs several times, it stil runs like relative crap.

I reeally hope they fix Arma II.

[bangtail 0]

I really hope they take a real effort to improve the performance on Arma II.

I just installed Arma + patches to see how that ran. With a machine that tops the recomended specs several times, it stil runs like relative crap.

I reeally hope they fix Arma II.

While I concede that A2 needs some work, A1 screams in Win 7 64/Vista 64 (and thats with ACE and some other addons).

Eth

[JohnyFrosty 10]

...................

Fillrate - 125%

Hyper threading - Off

..................

Eth

thanks, I'll try some of your hints.

I have

- i7 cpu 965@3.20Ghz

- vista home 64

- mem 6 gb

- nvidea gtx 280 (x2)

1- Maybe stupid question, but could someone tell me where I can find the Hyper threading? Not sure if it's on or off. My fps are about 32 multiplayer, but going to MHQ and arriving there first 5-10 secs are 2-6 fps....

My big problem is that I crash during Multiplay a lot :(

2- Tried SLI, but keep crashing then too.

3- I'll try the maxmem thingy too .....

4- I'm also in doubt about yes or no to manually changing arma.cfg file. I'm not sure about the pros and cons yet..

Edited June 23, 2009 by JohnyFrosty

[ProfTournesol 956]

thanks, I'll try some of your hints.

I have

- i7 cpu 965@3.20Ghz

- vista home 64

- mem 6 gb

- nvidea gtx 280 (x2)

1- Maybe stupid question, but could someone tell me where I can find the Hyper threading? Not sure if it's on or off. My fps are about 32 multiplayer, but going to MHQ and arriving there first 5-10 secs are 2-6 fps....

My big problem is that I crash during Multiplay a lot :(

There isn't any stupid questions. HT is in the BIOS.

[kklownboy 43]

I really hope they take a real effort to improve the performance on Arma II.

I just installed Arma + patches to see how that ran. With a machine that tops the recomended specs several times, it stil runs like relative crap.

I reeally hope they fix Arma II.

your a troll now, but any ways with ARMA1 i get awesome play, ACE ect mods all VH 1600X1200 100hz. Now with ARMA2 i can even play 1920/1440 200% fill, i can even play 20/15 200% fill...

Now the missions have spikes and lows, theres a bug when saving games... I loose my frames and have to alt-tab in and out ,goes right up to nice frames... But will still do the high low. This is with big rez.. if i use 1280/1024, wow butter, easy game.... If i turn off the PP is a easy 15fps gain at uber high 20/15 rez, tho i like the blur, but no jaggies is very very nice. 200% or 150%. I use 32HDR...( thanx BIS, couldnt use AA and 32hdr with my ati setup on ARMA1) 16HDR is nice too, but 8 isnt so nice. The water is fantastic at high rez 32hdr..

But you see i have a system that CAN run 1920/1440, , and has no issues at 16/12 or 16/1050, 200%!, I have four cards, going 780hz with GDDR5... Not one card doing 680hz with GDDR3. I can and have mimic your specs, and i have to run under 16/12 to use even 133%, and i have a GB of faster vidram too. So no you dont have a rig that can push this game they way you want.

Play at 1400/900 the sweet spot for your card and OC your CPU to the real OC of 3.6(lowend) or 4.0 (full on).

I am sure BIS will keep making the game easier to run, and soon there will be a bunch more players on the forums who will ask for advice to run the game at 1920/1200 with only 3.0cpu and a 260/285 or 4980/4850, and not have jaggies... and i am sure you will troll around saying it sux, and your rig is great and its the games fault... NOT,

the game runs as well as you balance your H/W to your display, relative to how much pain you can handle with the IQ. well off for some MP.

[nzjono 10]

your a troll now, but any ways with ARMA1 i get awesome play, ACE ect mods all VH 1600X1200 100hz. Now with ARMA2 i can even play 1920/1440 200% fill, i can even play 20/15 200% fill...

Now the missions have spikes and lows, theres a bug when saving games... I loose my frames and have to alt-tab in and out ,goes right up to nice frames... But will still do the high low. This is with big rez.. if i use 1280/1024, wow butter, easy game.... If i turn off the PP is a easy 15fps gain at uber high 20/15 rez, tho i like the blur, but no jaggies is very very nice. 200% or 150%. I use 32HDR...( thanx BIS, couldnt use AA and 32hdr with my ati setup on ARMA1) 16HDR is nice too, but 8 isnt so nice. The water is fantastic at high rez 32hdr..

But you see i have a system that CAN run 1920/1440, , and has no issues at 16/12 or 16/1050, 200%!, I have four cards, going 780hz with GDDR5... Not one card doing 680hz with GDDR3. I can and have mimic your specs, and i have to run under 16/12 to use even 133%, and i have a GB of faster vidram too. So no you dont have a rig that can push this game they way you want.

Play at 1400/900 the sweet spot for your card and OC your CPU to the real OC of 3.6(lowend) or 4.0 (full on).

I am sure BIS will keep making the game easier to run, and soon there will be a bunch more players on the forums who will ask for advice to run the game at 1920/1200 with only 3.0cpu and a 260/285 or 4980/4850, and not have jaggies... and i am sure you will troll around saying it sux, and your rig is great and its the games fault... NOT,

the game runs as well as you balance your H/W to your display, relative to how much pain you can handle with the IQ. well off for some MP.

Ummmm thanks for all your advice although half of your post was numbers and acronyms. It looked like a bunch of gobblegook to me, can you please keep any advice threads on settings and the like clear and simple to follow.

I appologise if English is your second language as it appears is the case.

An i7 920 overclocked with a GTX295 is a high end machine that should be able to get much better framerates than we are all getting. It appears SLI is not working for many of us.

So basically you just popped into this thread to abuse most of us and our machines and mouth off on how great your computer is. Yes, excellent all my Armed Assault 2 problems have now been solved, thanks again ...mate

By the way "your a troll' does not make sense. Again please don't be offended if you are not a native English speaker

[Alienfreak 0]

@kklownboy

Dude... some formatting can save the day.

And how did boosting the HDR from 8 to 32 affect your performance?

[ambroisec 10]

hello excuse me for my english but i m french

i have exactely the same problem with arma 2 my system is following:

-core 2 duo x6800 extreme 2.93 ghz

-asus striker 2 extreme

-graphic card :gtx 295

-4 go ddr3 12800 ocz

running windows vista 64 with last driver 186.18

and the game is not fluid at all the fps are 15 to 28 max

i dont understand at all

have an idea

i bought this config for play arma 2 and i m very furious.....

my processor it is good or i must change it?

[lordpezz 10]

I have played the game on both XP x64 and Vista x64 Ultimate. Both systems fully udated for drivers etc. Must admit that my Vista sucked for playing the game.. Got a lot of stuttering. On the XP system the game plays a lot smoother.

Quad core Q6600 (GO) @2.4

Nforce 650i Ultra

4GB 800 RAM

260 GTX 216 core @ stock speed

[Balgorg 10]

your a troll now, but any ways with ARMA1 i get awesome play, ACE ect mods all VH 1600X1200 100hz. Now with ARMA2 i can even play 1920/1440 200% fill, i can even play 20/15 200% fill...

Now the missions have spikes and lows, theres a bug when saving games... I loose my frames and have to alt-tab in and out ,goes right up to nice frames... But will still do the high low. This is with big rez.. if i use 1280/1024, wow butter, easy game.... If i turn off the PP is a easy 15fps gain at uber high 20/15 rez, tho i like the blur, but no jaggies is very very nice. 200% or 150%. I use 32HDR...( thanx BIS, couldnt use AA and 32hdr with my ati setup on ARMA1) 16HDR is nice too, but 8 isnt so nice. The water is fantastic at high rez 32hdr..

But you see i have a system that CAN run 1920/1440, , and has no issues at 16/12 or 16/1050, 200%!, I have four cards, going 780hz with GDDR5... Not one card doing 680hz with GDDR3. I can and have mimic your specs, and i have to run under 16/12 to use even 133%, and i have a GB of faster vidram too. So no you dont have a rig that can push this game they way you want.

Play at 1400/900 the sweet spot for your card and OC your CPU to the real OC of 3.6(lowend) or 4.0 (full on).

I am sure BIS will keep making the game easier to run, and soon there will be a bunch more players on the forums who will ask for advice to run the game at 1920/1200 with only 3.0cpu and a 260/285 or 4980/4850, and not have jaggies... and i am sure you will troll around saying it sux, and your rig is great and its the games fault... NOT,

the game runs as well as you balance your H/W to your display, relative to how much pain you can handle with the IQ. well off for some MP.

BIS should realise that spending upward of £1500 on a pc to run their game is gonna do more for the console market than for the PC.

You defend the huge resources this game has as if developing a game that looks no better than others on the market, but with a mountainous performance hit is a good thing.

Why is it that console owners spend £400 max, and can play all the games that are developed for their platform for the next few years.

Well done you got your self a pc that can run a poorly optomised game well !, a game that appears to have less scalability that its competitors.:confused::butbut::eek:

[MadCatChiken 10]

AMD Phenom II x4 940 @3.2ghz

Leadtek GTX280 1gb slightly overclocked (182.50 drivers)

8gb Corsair 800 DDR2 RAM

Windows 7 x64 RC

I run the game fine at around 35fps on maxed details 1680x1080. I found the newer nvidia drivers to suck, told to use 182.50, good advice the driver improved fps tenfold. Oh my view distance is 4000m