Best driver ATI 4890

[RunslikeCrap 10]

Hey guys,

whats your settings (ingame + CCC) and whats your armamark results?

And most important, which driver gives you the best performance, 9.7 seems to lower my performance or is it the patch 1.03 that decreases my performance?

Thx

[RunslikeCrap 10]

noone?

[Thunderbird 0]

I have a 4890 too and the problem is due to the patch 1.03, don't worry about your drivers.

The only current available solution to enjoy a decent gameplay is to get back to the patch 1.02 until BIS figures out a solution for the problem.

Regards,

TB

[-TwK-Danny 0]

Always use latest drivers for a 4890. Every driver released from ATi recently improves performance in games where you are CPU-limited, and ArmA2 is a very CPU-limited game. So just keep installing the latest.

For me its patch 1.03 that decreased performance. I used to be able and do anything in the editor with awesome fps, now i get lag by just running around in a small village where i didnt used to get any lag whatsoever...

[RunslikeCrap 10]

arma is a cpu limited game? my qaudcore q9300 never exceeds 50% usage. sorry but thats BS, arma is a gfx intensive game, especially video memory.

[-TwK-Danny 0]

But there are many missions during the campaign, where my HD4890 1GB gets exactly the same fps with everything on veryhigh (no AA), 1920X1200 and everything on verylow 640X480. Im talking 24fps vs 24fps - not even 1fps diffrence. That should suggest there is a bottleneck apart from graphics aswell.

Anyways, doesnt change the fact that new drivers are always better, and since ArmA2 is a new game, any newly released driver could optimze arma2 performance futher.

[NewfDraggie 10]

arma is a cpu limited game? my qaudcore q9300 never exceeds 50% usage. sorry but thats BS, arma is a gfx intensive game, especially video memory.

Boot up Red Harvest, check your CPU usage levels with a G15 or some-such way without minimizing your game, and report back here with what you find.

I, for one, have my Q6600 overclocked to 3.2Ghz and the bottleneck is certainly my CPU; during campaign it will range between perfect FPS and 50% usage and jittery slideshow at 100% usage for a few seconds, bursts of which occur every few minute or so.

Full computer hardware list: http://pastebin.ca/1477114

1.03 increased my performance.

[RunslikeCrap 10]

Boot up Red Harvest, check your CPU usage levels with a G15 or some-such way without minimizing your game, and report back here with what you find.

I, for one, have my Q6600 overclocked to 3.2Ghz and the bottleneck is certainly my CPU; during campaign it will range between perfect FPS and 50% usage and jittery slideshow at 100% usage for a few seconds, bursts of which occur every few minute or so.

Full computer hardware list: http://pastebin.ca/1477114

1.03 increased my performance.

did that max was 63% cpu and gfx is always at 99%. im using g15 and everest ultimate.

[kklownboy 43]

arma is a cpu limited game? my qaudcore q9300 never exceeds 50% usage. sorry but thats BS, arma is a gfx intensive game, especially video memory.

uhh it depends on your Resolution and VD filters ect. I can run a pretty high res( well 2048/1236,19xx/xxxx ect) and filters, and when i OC my CPU to 3.8 or above i can get 15fps more, so i guess what iam saying is I can create a bottleneck for CPU or GPU... And its better with 2gb of vram on a 64bit OS so you can use your extra ram (mine= 6gb total system RAM) for the OS as opposed to a 32bit XP where you whole ram is sucked up (3.5ish of a max 4gb) for Devices and the game.

Anyhoo ,in My CCC; all "use app settings" and highquality mipmap, Vysncs is on or off depends.

My game settings are all veryhigh except PP which is disabled, 100%FR, tho i do run shadows on high at times... HDR is set to 32, VD is 2400, or what ever the MP server/missions has it. I mostly run at 1600/1200 100refreshrate.

9.7s are the best driver so far. 1.03 is the best performance so far too, not really caring if i loose or gain a few FPS, its IQ/performance seems better...

i usually run in the 45/60fps, but 20s can happen and so does over 100...

[RunslikeCrap 10]

thx for the info, guys, i think my expectations are a bit too high, even with my 26'' monitor and 1980x1200 and 100% fillrate, i think the game looks crappy and i just hate the edges on buildings or whatever, so i usually run native resolution + fillrate 200 or 170. anti aliasing is sadly no option, because even minimal aa settings suck up performance like crazy, even with fillrate 100.

[kklownboy 43]

thx for the info, guys, i think my expectations are a bit too high, even with my 26'' monitor and 1980x1200 and 100% fillrate, i think the game looks crappy and i just hate the edges on buildings or whatever, so i usually run native resolution + fillrate 200 or 170. anti aliasing is sadly no option, because even minimal aa settings suck up performance like crazy, even with fillrate 100.

Yes your REZ is too much for your vidcard and for AA

I run quadfire 4870X2's. Your setup wont run Crysis and AA very well also. Its a recurring theme on the board, LCDs that are too big for the Game and Kit some people have. CF works fine, add another card It will double your frames.

[RunslikeCrap 10]

Yes your REZ is too much for your vidcard and for AA

I run quadfire 4870X2's. Your setup wont run Crysis and AA very well also. Its a recurring theme on the board, LCDs that are too big for the Game and Kit some people have. CF works fine, add another card It will double your frames.

well i can run crysis with abolutely anything maxed out, even AA/AF, just everything at 1980x1200. but its not really comarable, arma2 is way bigger than crysis.

and i think you got it wrong, i dont run fillrate 200 +AA i either run 200% OR minimal AA, but since AA is worse then fillrate, i skip AA completely.