Fast PC, but Bad FPS Regardless of What I Do - HELP!?

[bangtail 0]

I'm either not communicating my point clearly, or you just don't get it.

A - The only reason I brought Crysis into this was to state that my pc is fast enough to run what was considered the most resource demanding game (perhaps it's now in second place) on very high settings. I am very well aware that they are two very different animals. I was just trying to set perspective.

B - With a pc that could run what was the most resource demanding game with all the eye candy on very smoothly, one would simply think that I could play Arma 2.

C - I never said I'm looking for 200 fps. But a consistent 35 fps would be great. And I don't even care if I can't get that on Very High settings. But not being able to get that at normal, or even low settings? THIS IS MY POINT. If you must, reread the very first post in this string.

So before you go off and insult some of us who would just like to play the game, try to comprehend the point being communicated rather than only seeing the word "Crysis" and minimizing the problems some of us are having with non relevant banter about how it's nonsense to compare the two. Or maybe you just need to turn the MJ coverage off already! ;)

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------

Thanks for the info. I figured they are working hard on it and hope it's something that can get fixed in a reasonable amount of time, cause it looks like they have a gem of a game here.

Regards.

What you are replying to was not directed at you.

Eth

[Yapab 10]

Brew Crew, your post is very clear and you have demonstrated serious problems with the campaign / city areas in ARAM2 which limit performance.

I dont know but maybe ethne is comfortable playing at 15 to 20 fps and for him its enough.. or maybe he just has a "freakish" pc which seems to not lag like 80% of the community.

Yapa

[bangtail 0]

Brew Crew, your post is very clear and you have demonstrated serious problems with the campaign / city areas in ARAM2 which limit performance.

I dont know but maybe ethne is comfortable playing at 15 to 20 fps and for him its enough.. or maybe he just has a "freakish" pc which seems to not lag like 80% of the community.

Yapa

80% eh? Did a survey of everyone who plays A2 did you?

I'm getting between 35 and 90 FPS. It has nothing to do with a freakish PC either, even on an old 6700 with 1 x GTX 280 it is running just fine. I've got a mate over playing right now on it. No complaints, no performance issues.

Eth

Edited July 3, 2009 by BangTail

[B-oodThorn 10]

@ Brew Crew - I have the same issues and i think BI are aware,so just hang in there for the next couple of patches and some nvidia drivers and im sure itll be fixed...soonish!

@ ethne - I think a rig of your stature is probably covering over the cracks afew of us are seeing ingame.Its also been noted people running very low spec pcs are getting good frame rates too(which is odd).

Maybe you should change your posting style because you seem to be giving the impression your constantly "bragging" that youre not getting any issues ;-)

[binkster 0]

thats why I can play every other game just fine in vista?:rolleyes:

Ok sorry I should have posted more info on what I have found with vista vs xp.

I ran ArmA2Mark on Vista with a q6600 oc to 3.2ghz with gtx285 and averaged 35fps or scored a 3500 on average.

So I thought my system was crap so I bought a Q9650 with Faster ram the Low Voltage 1150mhz OCZ 4gigs. And I had 2gigs to begin with.

Ran ArmA mark again in vista and Got the same exact FPS and Score.

Installed ArmA2 on my Xp Partition. Ran ArmA2Mark and averaged 56fps with a score of around 5600. Played some missions and I can feel the difference and see it. Feels so much smoother.

Sometimes FPS can hit over a 100 while flying.

That is why im saying vista has issues and xp is much better.

There are others with same expierence as me in the ArmA2Mark forums. Ive tweeked my sytem as much as I could and Ive played around with it since ArmA2 was released. After reading many troubleshooting post and other problems people with ATI cards have better performance with Vista than xp.

This to me makes me think that we are having issues with Nvidia drivers in Vista.

So for now anyone with a 2xx series card I suggest playing in xp cause your expierence will much better.

I will get some links soon to show you scores of vista to xp in the right threads.

ArmA2Mark Thread

XP vs Vista FeoFun

Xp Vs Vista SubTee

Vista Vs Win7 Porter

Xp Score Binkster

Win7 vs Xp64 ATI Card FOP

Xp vs Vista Binkster Before upgraded Ram

Edited July 3, 2009 by binkster

[evlbond 10]

I have same issue, regardless of settings fps 20-30, dont have a monster pc like some but it does the job for most games i play.

Core 2 Quad Q6600 (oc to 3ghz)

4gb 800mhz ddr2

GeForce 9800 GTX+

Win 7 64bit

I had the same problem with Warhammer online. Wonder if its related, was never able to sort it out and thus gave up on that game, hope it doesnt come to it on this one as i'm really enjoying the game even with some irritating bugs and not knowing how to do certain things :p

And the tank flipping 360 degrees forward when going over a small stone is awesome :p

[ste4lth004 10]

I think yous should get a 285 if possible not had any problem no crashes or graphic probs with any game yet on the 285

[bangtail 0]

ok thanks for sharing! I saw the ArmA II 'Basic Controls' Dev Diary, and the guy who was presenting that seemed like somone who cared

---------- Post added at 03:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 AM ----------

That's a very nice computer you have there Eth.

What does it run like in the main cities in campaign missions?

What is it's performance when everything is cranked up? (I would have thought you would be running it with max everything)

The texture detail is a deal breaker. Even under XP if I put it above "normal" it causes texture lag.

The campaign runs fine (In the cities as well) and I have actually moved Object detail and Terrain detail to "Very high" now with no adverse effects.

I don't like post processing which is why it's off. On "Very high" it knocks of a few frames to be sure but I find it intrusive.

@ Bloodthorn

I'm not bragging about anything. People are asking how my rig performs and I am answering them. I had problems under Win7/Vista as well and I've never said the game is perfect. It needs some work, there is no doubt but it is certainly NOT unplayable in my experience and it runs flawlessly under XP64.

Cheers,

Eth

Edited July 3, 2009 by BangTail

[evlbond 10]

I think yous should get a 285 if possible not had any problem no crashes or graphic probs with any game yet on the 285

Is my gfx card not good enough? I could buy a new one but i didnt really think i required a better one!

[bangtail 0]

Is my gfx card not good enough? I could buy a new one but i didnt really think i required a better one!

That card should be fine :)

[evlbond 10]

Great, thought so. If anything i need to replace the hdd for some higher RPM but cant see that increasing FPS after initial load.

[bangtail 0]

Great, thought so. If anything i need to replace the hdd for some higher RPM but cant see that increasing FPS after initial load.

Honestly, even on SSDs I can get the texture lag if I put the texture detail on anything above "normal".

Fast HD's are always a good investment but they probably won't help your A2 performance much (unless you are on some very slow HDs).

Eth

[evlbond 10]

This one althow not purchased from there just matched the products code.Link 10,000 i believe is the fastest going atm so not to far off.

Edited July 3, 2009 by evlbond

[bangtail 0]

This one althow not purchased from there just matched the products code.Link 10,000 i believe is the fastest going atm so not to far off.

That's fine, nothing wrong with that drive.

Eth

[ubascouser 0]

Im also having trouble with my I7 in arma mark it will only hit 3050.My athlon 6000+x2 would hit 2400 this cant be right i expected more.

[binkster 0]

Im also having trouble with my I7 in arma mark it will only hit 3050.My athlon 6000+x2 would hit 2400 this cant be right i expected more.

I see your running vista... Check this post out.

I would like more to test in both vista and xp...

[evlbond 10]

I think ill try installing Arma2 on my gf;s comp its much older equip and on xp, will be interesting to see if it runs better lol.

[Henry Rollins 10]

Brew Crew I have almost the same setup as you do. Our computers are monsters and should kill this game however I have poor FPS even after upgrading to Windows 7. Also the instability is an absolute killer. I CTD about every 15 minutes no matter what my settings are. Many time the terrain turns white which basically means it will crash any second. My comp is liquid cooled giving me massive overclocking ability and my core temp is usually around 80 degrees F. Bottom line is Poor FPS performance and Massive instability.

[Winkl_BOttOm 10]

Actually the 182 drivers didnt do anything for my 295s , i didnt read everything in this post , but if you are in the 2XX series or have 295s , the drivers didnt make a difference .

[ste4lth004 10]

Im also having trouble with my I7 in arma mark it will only hit 3050.My athlon 6000+x2 would hit 2400 this cant be right i expected more.

I know in my bios i turned off threading or hyper threading, and all the cpu throttling crap, to stop my fps dropping ingame, and dont worry so much m8 you made great choice with that cpu, but if i was you i would sell my granny to get a 4890 or gtx285 to go with that i7920:).

[binkster 0]

I think ill try installing Arma2 on my gf;s comp its much older equip and on xp, will be interesting to see if it runs better lol.

Would be much better if you can do a dual boot on yours?

[evlbond 10]

Would be much better if you can do a dual boot on yours?

Wouldnt i have to install xp 1st then win 7 over it? or can i install xp after win 7 for dual boot?

[binkster 0]

Wouldnt i have to install xp 1st then win 7 over it? or can i install xp after win 7 for dual boot?

I know with vista they had some programs you can use to make a dual boot. Forgot the name ill search and edit in this post.

Thats what I did.. Only thing is make sure you have your partition sized the way that you want cause I know vista formats different than xp so after you install xp you cant change the size...well this was my problem later on.

Vistabootpro is what I used.... Not sure though what can be used with win7 though....

[ubascouser 0]

Binkster sorry m8 forgot to update my sig im allready using xp pro sorry for the confusion

also ste4lth004 would a 4890 be that much of an improvement over the 4870 1 gig im just thinking about money at the minute as this just cost me over 400 quid.This new board is crossfire so ill probably get another 4870 down the road thx for the replys guys i hope i find a way of gettin up there with the big boys.

[binkster 0]

Binkster sorry m8 forgot to update my sig im allready using xp pro sorry for the confusion

also ste4lth004 would a 4890 be that much of an improvement over the 4870 1 gig im just thinking about money at the minute as this just cost me over 400 quid.This new board is crossfire so ill probably get another 4870 down the road thx for the replys guys i hope i find a way of gettin up there with the big boys.

You have room to OC with that rig. Try boosting to 3.0 or 3.2 and see what that can do for you. From what Ive read in the arma2mark thread every 100mhz can get you 1 to 2 fps more.

Edit: Also I see you have an ATI card... People said that vista has been better with ATI rather than xp.