What is wrong with this review - 5870X2 cannot run Arma2??

[wasserkool 1]

http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=855&page=11

There must be something wrong with this review. How can ARma2 not run properly at 1280X1024 resolution?? The reviewer's system must be messed and he is using a Core i7 920..

[S-M 10]

LOL, i run mine at 1024x768 and i have had my fair share of shitty running!

I would increase the size by my monitor will not accept a higher res (although a nice new one is due at xmas :D )

[-BBE- Soul Assassin 0]

With almost identical scores my first reaction is that only 1 GPU was active when he ran ArmA. But then I'm not an expert...

[Mr Sarkey 0]

Ha ha ha, what a funny review.

In ARMA 2, we see that the 5970 OC struggles to keep playable framerates up at only 1280 resolution

39.2 FPS is a more than playable framerate, especially if everything is cranked up to very high settings. Seems like this guy has been playing too much COD etc and is expecting to pump out 100 FPS just like that.

[no use for a name 0]

i run mine at 1280x1024 and even have my 3D res at 125% with high-very high settings on my GTX260+ and still get ~40FPS in the editor. My chokepoint is my CPU which only holds me back when there's hundreds of AI running around. Something is definitely screwed with that review. Maybe he forgot to turn off hyperthreading :p

[doakwolf 10]

*I haven't read the review*

Don't you need to run the -winxp switch for ArmA2 to utilise multi GPU cards? Perhaps that's what they did wrong? It could explain the slightly lower score for the X2 because the X2 will have a slightly lower clock speed I'd imagine (compared to the 5870).

Jero.

EDIT: just read it and I'm now convinced they would have seen different results with the -winxp switch. Pitty, because I'd like to see the proper results. Also, I wonder what version of ArmA2 they used... If they'd patched it with the latest update?

Edited November 19, 2009 by doakwolf

[zaira 10]

What i s wrong with this review, is that n00b that wrote it didnt even write what setings he uses (atleast he could take screanshoots).

Another point that he is a n00b is that he tests at 1280*1024 resolution high end video cards.

Just n00b reviewer, he even tests crysis warhead at gamer setings.

IMO he probably tempered with both 3d rendering at 200# and AA maxed.

[Guest]

Yep, the reviewer is not making a good impression on himself. You can't review something you know jack sh*t about lol!

[maddogx 13]

To be fair, he's reviewing a gfx card, not Arma2. Many people know of Arma2 as a hugely performance hungry game, so they test hardware performance with it. You can't expect everyone to know all the tweaks.

Edited November 19, 2009 by MadDogX

[zaira 10]

To be fair, he's reviewing a gfx card, not Arma2. Many people know of Arma2 as a hugely performance hungry game, so they test hardware performance with it. You can't expect everyone to know all the tweaks.

But what is point of reviewing the vidiocard using a game test unless u write with what setings and where (meaning, what demo u used, or test) u used.

Bit offtopic...

There is no pint of testing video card such as that at resolution such as 1280, that implys he doesnt know anything about how games work or perform. As there is corelation between video resolution, cpu usage and gpu usage. Meaning that it is pointless testing GPU at low resolutions (CPU bottleneck), or CPU at high resolutions (GPU bottleneck).

He doesnt know basics.

[zyklone 1]

People nowdays seem to think 100+ FPS is what you need to play a game. :)

[Colt45_GTO 10]

the reviewer didn't put up any other system specs like CPU, RAM etc. so his test is futile.

yes running A2 for the test is a fair test on any card, but without the above specs its pointless.

[Mudkip 0]

But what is point of reviewing the vidiocard using a game test unless u write with what setings and where (meaning, what demo u used, or test) u used.

Bit offtopic...

There is no pint of testing video card such as that at resolution such as 1280, that implys he doesnt know anything about how games work or perform. As there is corelation between video resolution, cpu usage and gpu usage. Meaning that it is pointless testing GPU at low resolutions (CPU bottleneck), or CPU at high resolutions (GPU bottleneck).

He doesnt know basics.

When an experiment is conducted for the purpose of determining the effect of a single variable of interest on a particular system, a scientific control is used to minimize the unintended influence of other variables on the same system. Such extraneous variables include researcher bias, environmental changes, and biological variation. Scientific controls ensure that data are valid, and are a vital part of the scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

[Kayjay 10]

People nowdays seem to think 100+ FPS is what you need to play a game. :)

well actually 60 is where it should be to be "playable" or smoothest experience other than 100+frames. Arma 2 for some reason does not readily reach 60 frames.

[HmoobSoldier 10]

If you looked through the whole review they did mention their test setup and why they went with 1280x1024. Here's what they had to say on that:

"Gaming tests were run at 1280x1024 and 1680x1050. We normally also run all tests at 1920x1200 resolution but we ran into driver and BIOS flashing problems which prevented us from conducting tests at that resolution. When these issues are sorted out, we'll look to update the results. Faced wtih missing the launch and waiting for additional results, or publishing the information we have on-time, we decided to hit the launch date and go with our best effort. Our apologies, we're as disappointed as you."

As someone mentioned this is a video card review so they're not going to spend a lot of time trying to tweak the game to get maximum performance.

[fantsu 10]

Well that computer can't run ArmA2, that is for sure.

I think that there isn't actually any computer in the world that can.

But yes... "running" means huge frames.

Huge frames in ArmA2 means 20FPS, some other games... well 600 or something.

:bounce3:

[jumpinghubert 48]

IMO he probably tempered with both 3d rendering at 200# and AA maxed.

:D epic fail

[kklownboy 43]

... Try these two;

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/777-7/dossier-amd-radeon-hd-5970.html

http://hardocp.com/article/2009/10/25/asus_eah5870_video_card_review/6

to compare the two.

---------- Post added at 09:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 AM ----------

well actually 60 is where it should be to be "playable" or smoothest experience other than 100+frames. Arma 2 for some reason does not readily reach 60 frames.

Depends on my settings. If i use 1280/1024 iam all over 60+fps and beyond with AA and all VH...

But they must have 200%, so they are showing 2048/1536~ and 8XAA...which correlates with all the reviews. And i see a difference with pure 20/15@100% (lowerfps), than 12/10@200%(higherfpds) IMO 100% 2048/1536 is nicer IQ, but see with the newer Ati cards your getting 8AA now usable.. my 4870X2s still stay at 4Xaa at HD resolutions

Edited November 20, 2009 by kklownboy

[Kayjay 10]

http://gamevideospot.com/2009/10/ati-radeon-hd-5870-arma-2-game-play/

A video for those that are interested

[Bulldogs 10]

I was pulling 42 fps under normal load (28 fps under heavy load) with a 9800gt and was worried that if I upgraded my monitor (was using 1280x1024) that I would lose a lot of frames, but upgraded the monitor eventually to a 24" 1920x1080 native and lost about 2-3 fps.

---------- Post added at 10:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 PM ----------

"Gaming tests were run at 1280x1024 and 1680x1050. We normally also run all tests at 1920x1200 resolution but we ran into driver and BIOS flashing problems which prevented us from conducting tests at that resolution. When these issues are sorted out, we'll look to update the results. Faced wtih missing the launch and waiting for additional results, or publishing the information we have on-time, we decided to hit the launch date and go with our best effort. Our apologies, we're as disappointed as you."

This completely voids all benchmarks. If there are BIOS issues preventing you from running at a certain resolution (which there are very, very few issues which would cause this) then those same issues force your card to run at about 5-10% of it's full potential.