MacBradley 10 Posted June 29, 2009 It seems that everyone with a Phenom II is having trouble running this game. Some benchmarks were done at... http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/ ...and just like people have been reporting here, the Phemon II's seem to be performing slower than processors that normally can't even come close to their peformance. For someone who bought this game having specs better than the recommended ones, my money is basically thrown away. The game is near unplayable, which shouldn't be the case with a 3.45Ghz quad core, 4 gigs of RAM, and a gtx260. I highly suggest optimizing the performance of the Phenom II's since their are almost incompatible. If not, it would be wise to state that they run bugged with Arma II. A customer spending money on a product they can't use when they are under the pretense they can, is a customer lost. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahmedjbh 0 Posted June 29, 2009 i have a 955 and it runs really well. im using 4 gigs ddr3 at 1333 and a 4890. running everything on very high, and i never dip below 30 fps Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
<-Falco-> 10 Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) I have a Phenom II 940 @ 3,6 ghz (with NB @ 2400 MHZ for higher mem bandwidth), 4 gb ddr2 @900 mhz with timings 4-4-4-12 and a ATI 4890 @ 900-4000 mhz. While I was on Vista SP2 64 bits my performance was horrible, bellow 30 fps...always, and worse. Since I installed Windows 7 my performance increased really a lot, now, 30 is my lowest, but, (there is always a but...), in the campaing city, in the attack, fps really drop bellow 30 and is not very playable...same thing happen in one of the city stand alone missions of the game, horrible performance. (IA problems with performance? looks so) Game really needs optimization, I dont know what the problem is but, there is a problem, that is for sure. If I am not wrong, I think the IA is the one messing around with performance, because no matters if i change my video setting (in that kind of mission) I always get the same fps, so it isnt GPU limited...CPU limited them? Dont think so, my CPU is not a limited one, is quite powerfull, them the problem remains to the game...it isnt well coded, thats all. Well, we all hope that 1.03 fixed all this problems related to performance (graphic corruption as well) Anyways, once the game is fixed...I WILL HAVE TONS OF FUN :p Edited June 29, 2009 by <-Falco-> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Murklor 10 Posted June 29, 2009 the Phemon II's seem to be performing slower than processors that normally can't even come close to their peformance. How do you figure? The Phenom II in that benchmark pretty much perform as expected: vastly inferior to Core i7, about equal to Core 2 quad and just a notch better than Core 2 duo (well not all, but generally). Even in synthetic benchmarks there are areas where a "mere" Core 2 Duo can beat the living snot out of the highest end Phenom II, dont mistake cores for performance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahmedjbh 0 Posted June 29, 2009 btw that benchmark site is bs. I have almost exactly the same setup , except i have a stock 955, and im running everything on very high, never dip below 30. using xp64 and 1.02 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoOB 0 Posted June 29, 2009 I have a Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition (2,8 gHz, running at 3.2), 4 gigs of RAM and a 4870x2. Since the latest build of ARMA 2 I run at about 30-40 FPS with everything set at high, except terrain detail and post processing. View distance at three kilometers... So really, I have no complaints about the optimization for Phenom II's, however the engine still needs to be optimized better overall - Texture jump-ins and LOD switches need to speed up.... And most importantly to myself, Crossfire/SLI needs to be implemented fully. With the -winxp flag which enables crossfire I can add an extra 10 FPS to my min/max numbers, but then I don't get sound or any HDR effects. Summa summarum, ARMA II needs performance tweaks overall - Nothing processor specific I beleive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IronTrooper 0 Posted June 29, 2009 btw that benchmark site is bs.I have almost exactly the same setup , except i have a stock 955, and im running everything on very high, never dip below 30. using xp64 and 1.02 Maybe it's because you have windows xp. I have vista and in the campaign fps go definitely below 30. I'd like to see some PII in different OS's test. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
longers 10 Posted June 29, 2009 i have a 955 and it runs really well.im using 4 gigs ddr3 at 1333 and a 4890. running everything on very high, and i never dip below 30 fps that is exactly my setup and it runs like shit my 955 is running at 3.8ghz as well... maybe it's because i am running it on Windows 7 64 bit ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
<-Falco-> 10 Posted June 29, 2009 that is exactly my setup and it runs like shitmy 955 is running at 3.8ghz as well... maybe it's because i am running it on Windows 7 64 bit ? No, in fact, Windows 7 RC 64 performs pretty well for me, in vista SP2 x64 the game is just horrible... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LJF 0 Posted June 30, 2009 I have a Phenom 2 X4 810 overclocked from 2.6 to 3.0 and a Saphire 4890 - yeah, this is in my sig actually. I have W7 64 and I run at high-very high with 30-60 fps. Seems OK to me, though that's a "kind of" OK, could be better I suppose, though I'm not much of an expert on these things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
<-Falco-> 10 Posted June 30, 2009 I have a Phenom 2 X4 810 overclocked from 2.6 to 3.0 and a Saphire 4890 - yeah, this is in my sig actually. I have W7 64 and I run at high-very high with 30-60 fps. Seems OK to me, though that's a "kind of" OK, could be better I suppose, though I'm not much of an expert on these things. Yeah right, but...wait to see how well performs in some missions of campaing xD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
