NVIDIA video card(s) owners read here!

[Potatomasher 0]

Technically that's what it should do, though I don't really trust FRAPS telemetry... I guess there's something peculuar to my setup... What OS are you using Potatomasher?

:)

Windows 7 64-bit

[DarthBeavis 0]

LOL... why do people feel the need to lie about the system specs, especially in a thread where they are important......

soooo a socket 775 CPU with DDR3, and your using triple channel with 8GB lol?

DDR3 = X58 since the memory controller is on the CPU Die, therefore ddr3 doesn't work with P45/48 Chipsets, nor will it!

i7 965 D0 stepping, 12 gigs of Crucial Ballistix Tracer DDR3, Quad SLI 295s, Asus Rampage 2 Extreme Mobo, all water-cooled

http://hardocp.com/news.html?news=NDAwMTAsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=

have a second rig with same specs but one 295, Rampage II Gene mobo, 6 gigs DDR 3 that are not triple channel

My old tri-sli rig (still have the three 280s but in other projects):

http://hardocp.com/news.html?news=MzcwMjEsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=

I posted specs in another thread but I do not want to be accused of lying. All of my GPUs came from sponsors so it is not like I am made of money . . . just lucky ;)

[PYCb 10]

man, so many posts of 20fps. i wish i could get that.

i've got:

vista home premium 32

core 2 quad q8200 at 2.33ghz

4gb ddr2 ram

Geforce G100 512mb

ive got the demo and ran the arma benchmark. i'll get results anywhere from 4fps to 19. Sometimes without any changes i get a higher fps..strange.

i've tried some of the suggestions...no noticeable improvements.

Is my gpu too shit?

[tankkiller01 0]

To put it lightly yes, there are quite alot of systems running gtx285s and gtx295s and are having trouble. That said you should be ok on the cpu side! ..

____________________

Intel core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.1Ghz

BFG Tech GTX 285 OC to core 674MHz. shader 1535MHz. mem 1247MHz

Asus P5N-D 750i

Corsair DDR2 XMS 800

EZ COOL 700W psu

Maxtor HDD

[hoak 0]

I think it warrants mention here again, not because it doesn't seem to work for anyone else but because it indicates something is amiss, and the performance that should be possible for people with similar hardware to mine (or better).

I have a very middle of the road PC:

· Intel Core 2 Duo E6859 @ 3Ghz

· Nvidia 680i Main Board

· Nvidia 8800 Ultra

· 2Gb Ram

The only difference is I'm running Server 2003 with the current 186.18 Nvidia driver, and March DirectX 9 Distro, and when I run in windowed mode at 1152*864 I can literally max all the settings and get playable frame rates over 30FPS. More practically speaking if I drop draw distance to 5000, and don't use Fillrate with maximum FSAA, I get frame rates in the 60's...

Yet I can't even sustain frame rates in the teens on low settings full screen, with scaling turned off at the same resolution of 1152*864, in fact there aren't any settings that offer satisfactory performance running full screen.

What this tells me is that if I am able to get this kind of performance windowed, I should be able to get even better performance in a full screen view port of the same resolution, because technically it's more efficient to render that way...

More importantly, for all the suffering Nvidia ArmA II would be Fans here; if this level of render settings and performance are possible on my system windowed, it indicates what should be possible for everyone with comparable hardware on any flavor of Windows; that this not currently the case strongly corroborates what others have said regarding ArmA II being very poorly optimized for our iteration of hardware or the game is bugged in some way on this generation of Nvidia hardware.

Edit: two other things I've noted are neither my GPU or CPU are ever maxed running ArmA II, in fact I can underclock my GPU and CPU with no performance impact on the game when run in a window...

:confused:

Edited July 1, 2009 by Hoak

[PYCb 10]

so arma 2 mainly has issues with Nvidia cards?

and can anyone recommend a card that would munch this game?

[tankkiller01 0]

well ....

8800gtx ------ comfortable

9800gtx-------- better

200 series ------ Even better ,

____________________

Intel core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.1Ghz

BFG Tech GTX 285 OC to core 674MHz. shader 1535MHz. mem 1247MHz

Asus P5N-D 750i

Corsair DDR2 XMS 800

EZ COOL 700W psu

Maxtor HDD

[lt.white 10]

My card can munch any game there is a bug or something that needs to be fixed bc im having a problem. My card is a BFG 8800 GTS oc 512mb

[MadTommy 0]

i don't have any real performance issues, everything on very high or high. average approx. 25 fps. (varies between 20 - 35 on Domination at 4km view & full grass)

260 gfx. (dual core Intel E8400 @ 3 Ghz)

Driver: 186.18

3.

VISTA (64b) users may get way faster/smoother framerate in windowed mode with 186.18 drivers

I was getting oddly fluctuating fps.. and playing in windowed mode seemed to help, seems more consistent. None of the other 'fixes' made any difference.

[SgtMjr 10]

well ....

8800gtx ------ comfortable

9800gtx-------- better

200 series ------ Even better ,

Yup, my Q6600, 8800GTX with 186.18 drivers and some of the adjustments mentioned in these threads I get just around 29 FPS avg, which is barely acceptable, but playable. I feel for those hombres with the killer rigs and the 295GTXs that aren't doing much better:o

[-=seany=- 5]

9800gtx*2 186.18

VistaU64

I get about a quarter of the performance of full screen in -window mode, as expected.

[ste4lth004 10]

Awesome, thx for this, disabled in control panel and now my score jumped up 50 to over 5700 on arma2mark bench :).

[linnx88 10]

This definitely was a BIG boost for me!! I'm running a BFG Geforece 280 GX and just added 2 GB of RAM for a total of 4GB under Vista, Dual Core 2 E6700 @3Ghz. AWESOME performance with the tweaks and PhysX off!

[Mortal-K 0]

I found rolling back to 181.71 for Geforce 200 series works to increase FPS the new drivers slow down the game some how, It may be worth a try for some of you.

I got Win 7 64bit

8gig 800mhz ram

280GTX

9550 core 2 (quad)

[Radioactivest 10]

Yep, I rolled mine back to the 186.09 Beta drivers and I am getting 35-60 never above 60 because of VS ( I have it forced off in NV Control Panel, but it don't work). All very high settings 1650 - 1080 and 3600 view distance. I think this whole thing is a driver issue and hopefully is fixed soon.

BTW has anyone tried the 186.21 Drivers yet for Vista64 and W764? They were released a while ago but they have yet to become availible on Nvidia's official site. I am going to try this when I get home. The 186.09 drivers gave me some issues in other games and lock-ups.

[SG_Killian 10]

Intel E8400 @ 3GHz

Corsair Dominator DDR2 1066 - 8GB

EVGA GTX285 1GB (FTW version, factory OC'd)

1920x1200 @ Very High/High/Normal Settings

Drivers are @ 186.18

I'm having the same problems most others have had here.

My FPS would fluctuate between 22-45 (mostly staying between 22 and 28fps) in the first bit of the campaign. I would prefer it to stick to >30, but it was decent.

When I made it to Chernagorsk (sp?) at about the 3rd or 4th mission in, where you load in on top of the building in town... I get between 8-14fps when I look towards the town, and maybe 15-20 when looking away. I get the same FPS issues when playing multiplayer in and around that same town.

I also experience a number of texture/LOD issues. I've had an AI soldier standing maybe 6 feet from my guy, and his camo pattern was blotchy and blurred. I used the zoom key when looking at him, and the camo pattern sharpened up. When I zoom out, it would go back to blurry again. This was even more weird because the 3-4 other soldiers standing maybe 12 feet away from me had the detailed camo pattern. So, a texture that was 'closer' to me was showing the lower detail version than one that was farther away.

Oh, and my ArmA2.cfg file shows incorrect values for the VRAM. If I'm reading the number right, it's detecting my card has 256MB, when it has 1GB.

I've checked and tried all sorts of things recommended here.

Disabled V-Sync

Bumped Pre-Rendered Frames to 8

Lowered my resolution

Lowered my detail

Lowered my view distance

None of this seems to make any difference at all. I know my PC should perform better. MadTommy has the exact same CPU and similar RAM to mine. He has a GTX260 and I have a GTX285, but he manages to get decent FPS. The only thing I have left to try from his posts are to run in windowed mode, and lower my resolution to 1680x1024.

Can someone tell me what a 1GB video card should have for the ArmA2 config VRAM entries? I'll plug that in manually and see if it helps at all.

I really hope the 1.03 patch improves performance. Loving the game, otherwise.

[Robinson 10]

I am somewhat lucky with ArmA II so far, but probably not coming close to the performance I should get.

With everything set at high, I receive 30-50 FPS. Usually an average of 40 FPS.

Computer Specifications:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz

4 GB DDR2 800MHz

GTX 275 896 MB (ForceWare: 186.18, PhysX: 9.09.0428)

Creative Soundblaster X-Fi XtremeGamer (Driver: 2.18.0013)

Windows 7 RC1 (64-bit)

[KJT 0]

When I made it to Chernagorsk (sp?) at about the 3rd or 4th mission in, where you load in on top of the building in town... I get between 8-14fps when I look towards the town, and maybe 15-20 when looking away. I get the same FPS issues when playing multiplayer in and around that same town.

Oh, and my ArmA2.cfg file shows incorrect values for the VRAM. If I'm reading the number right, it's detecting my card has 256MB, when it has 1GB.

Can someone tell me what a 1GB video card should have for the ArmA2 config VRAM entries? I'll plug that in manually and see if it helps at all.

I have similar problems. My VRAM is autodetected correctly (I have 1GB and in config localVRAM=1073741824) but nonlocalVRAM is not - it only shows 128 MB - and I think that is the problem. But it only matters if I try to play with high or very high textures, with normal textures I can play quite normally.

But in Win7 I don't have that problem (there I have nonlocalVRAM=1878288384). And clearly I have less texture related problems in Win7.

I don't think you can manually overwrite VRAM or nonlocalVRAM settings - they are always autodetected (because Arma2 replaces any values you put there with the default values it uses).

Try to download some program that monitors video memory like MemStatus (google it). It shows how much video memory is used for textures (peak values). It should be easy to check how much of your VRAM is actually used.

-KJT-

[nzjono 10]

I am somewhat lucky with ArmA II so far, but probably not coming close to the performance I should get.

With everything set at high, I receive 30-50 FPS. Usually an average of 40 FPS.

Computer Specifications:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz

4 GB DDR2 800MHz

GTX 275 896 MB (ForceWare: 186.18, PhysX: 9.09.0428)

Creative Soundblaster X-Fi XtremeGamer (Driver: 2.18.0013)

Windows 7 RC1 (64-bit)

What resolution? Cant really compare FPS until we know what resolution you run the game at. Also what is your view distance set at?

[nuggetz 0]

After downloading these drivers from GURU 3D and disabling physics and running an SLI profile, the game appears to be running a lot better for me. I had massive issues before and these seem to help.

I'm running Win7 64bit and had to limit my system ram via MSCONFIG due to the texture corruption issue but things seem to be a lot better right now with these drivers. Just wanted to share this in case anyone wants to give these drivers a try. I have SLI'd 8800GTXs.

Here's the link.

http://downloads.guru3d.com/GeForce-ForceWare-186.21-Win-7-|-Vista-(64-bit)-download-2320.html

[nuggetz 0]

I have similar problems. My VRAM is autodetected correctly (I have 1GB and in config localVRAM=1073741824) but nonlocalVRAM is not - it only shows 128 MB - and I think that is the problem. But it only matters if I try to play with high or very high textures, with normal textures I can play quite normally.

But in Win7 I don't have that problem (there I have nonlocalVRAM=1878288384). And clearly I have less texture related problems in Win7.

I don't think you can manually overwrite VRAM or nonlocalVRAM settings - they are always autodetected (because Arma2 replaces any values you put there with the default values it uses).

Try to download some program that monitors video memory like MemStatus (google it). It shows how much video memory is used for textures (peak values). It should be easy to check how much of your VRAM is actually used.

-KJT-

Can you make the arma config file read only and see what happens? I haven't tried as I'm still trying to figure out what my vid card memory number is supposed to be. If I have 2 cards, each with 768MB of memory, what should be in the file?

[SgtMjr 10]

Anything in the notes on this driver version specific to ARMA? (too lazy to go read it myself :D)

[HaVoK-G2 0]

nuggetz, Did you get Windows 7 working with the EVGA enhancement 13 somehow? Or Did you get ArmA working with SLi some other way?

Also wern't these originally meant for mobile GPU's?

Edited July 3, 2009 by HaVoK-G2

[screamingeagles 10]

This game doesn't support sli so dont bother

[blackettle 10]

Why is this not available from nvidia.com?