1.05 Benchmark Mission Results

[thr0tt 12]

1st = 37fps

2nd = 15fps

Settings:

VD: 4005

1680x1050 (3d/2d)

Normal Normal Very High

Normal Normal Very Small

Very High High 16:10 Wide

Low

[Relemar 10]

1st = 55fps

2nd = 11fps

[ubermachtig 0]

I'll post mine later today:)

I'd think, however, it would be better to see these scores compared with the ones previously achieved in 1.04 to see the difference.

[jasonnoguchi 11]

Did a test and found no change in performance between 1.04 and 1.05. ArmA2Mark average about 3000, which is the same as in 1.04 and I get mission 1 33 and mission 2 19 on everything very high except AA and AF on normal.

[helo 10]

1st= 47 fps

2nd= 17 fps

AMD X 4 @ 3.4 GHZ, 4 GB RAM, HD 4870 1GB, Win 7 x64, 1680 x1050 resolution,Texture Details and Graphics Memory @ Normal, Antisop. @ low , No AA , Landscape @ low, Object Details @ Very High, No shadows, post process effects @ low

[jw custom 56]

The performance increase is supposedly in big cities not fps increase!

[Zeron 10]

The performance increase is supposedly in big cities not fps increase!

oh please enlighten us, how do you measure performance increase if not in the stability and level of Frame per second.

[Ish 11]

1# 57

2# 26

edit/ Oh, I didn't even see the settings.. I just used my own heh.

Here's what I got with those settings.

1# 60 (Vsync)

2# 25

Game looked like crap with these settings though :p

Edited December 22, 2009 by Ish

[JesterOC 10]

In the demo I saw and used a benchmark mission, but I don't see on in the retail game.

Can someone fill me in on how to test?

Thanks,

JesterOC

[Ish 11]

In the demo I saw and used a benchmark mission, but I don't see on in the retail game.

Can someone fill me in on how to test?

Thanks,

JesterOC

1.05 seems to have had them.. Anyway, they're in the "scenario" section under SP.

[-=seany=- 5]

oh please enlighten us, how do you measure performance increase if not in the stability and level of Frame per second.

You can't, they only perf improvement was making the buildings cause less stutter when streaming from the HD when in towns, which is great. But, actual FPS performance is as bad as it ever was, disappointingly.

[jw custom 56]

oh please enlighten us, how do you measure performance increase if not in the stability and level of Frame per second.

Not sure if you have a problem reading but as i said "supposedly"!!

Personally i don't have a performance problem but people in the beta thread are reporting much smoother gameplay in larger cites!

I measure performance on how well the gameplay feels, stopped long time ago looking at fps ;)

[jumpinghubert 49]

old bench: 42

new bench: 22

Settings:

the new benchmark is limited by AI i think.

edit translated the settings:

sehr hoch = very high

hoch = high

niedrig = low

Edited December 22, 2009 by JumpingHubert

[GRS 10]

49 peaking at 62

20 peaking at 23

That is with a firefox browser open if that means anything... Some people say it helps to close it but I never really notice.

[demonlord89 10]

How can you get such FPS? got a gtx260, i7, 6 gig and getting around 30 fps on first benchmark with normal and high settings.

[JesterOC 10]

Do you have vsync on? That sounds like the problem.

[orangeman 10]

1st:28

2nd:15

My rig is:

GTX 260 (Latest drivers)

C2D e7300 @ 2.66 ghz

4 gb DDR2

Settings:

1440 x 900

Objects detail - high

Post process effects - disabled

AA and Anisotropic - disabled

Everything else - normal

View distance - 1200

Vsync - off

Does that seem normal for my rig? I feel like it should be performing better. Especially since I've received the same performance on the demo even when I didn't have the latest nVidia drivers.

[ziiip 1]

I ahve almost identical results with X3 720 and 4850HD. NOT cool.

[stk2008 14]

1st:28

2nd:15

My rig is:

GTX 260 (Latest drivers)

C2D e7300 @ 2.66 ghz

4 gb DDR2

Settings:

1440 x 900

Objects detail - high

Post process effects - disabled

AA and Anisotropic - disabled

Everything else - normal

View distance - 1200

Vsync - off

Does that seem normal for my rig? I feel like it should be performing better. Especially since I've received the same performance on the demo even when I didn't have the latest nVidia drivers.

damn maty that seems very low i have

Q6600 well thats better than your CPU and seeing as arma is CPU mad that helped me

8800gt you have way better GPU

I allso have 4gig of ram

I allso run at 1440x900

my settings are

Settings:

1440 x 900

Objects detail - normal

Ground detail - normal

Shadows - normal

Post process effects - disabled

AA and Anisotropic - disabled

Everything else - normal

View distance - 3000

Vsync - off

I get

results taken from very first run

test 1 35

test 2 19

[demonlord89 10]

Do you have vsync on? That sounds like the problem.

me?? vsync is turned off.

[oTTas 10]

1st - 45

2nd - 17

Shadows - high

graphics memory -high

Post process - disabled

AA - small

Everything else - normal

View distance - 2011

Resolution - 1680x1050

3D Resolution - 1680x1050

Core 2 Quad Q6700 @2.66GHz, 3GB DDR2, EAH4870DK 1G, Win7

Edited December 23, 2009 by oTTas

[astral54r 10]

test 1 40

test 2 16

Settings:

1280 x 1024

Objects detail - normal

Ground detail - v.low

Shadows - off

Post process effects - off

AA - off

Anisotropic - v.high

Textures - high

View distance - 3600

Vsync - off

Q6600(3.0),8800GT,8gbDDR2(800),Win7x64

[JesterOC 10]

me?? vsync is turned off.

Yeah sorry, when I read it I thought you had said that in either mode it was pegged to 30 which could indicate Vsync. When I read read it you said around 30 so... not so much. Sorry I did not have much better for you.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

first, around 22.

second, around 11.

Without addons, with our personal addon, and also by going from low textures to normal textures. Meaning that "low spec" addons and textures have in general little impact. But in EW "mini campaign", I was often around certain trees where FPS would drop to 5-10, which is not acceptable. Going to low textures fixed it completely. Problematic trees are thus not part of the benchmarks. Around normal for most, with AA off (high enough resolution so it can be avoided) and terrain detail (grass/bumps) high, and very high on PP effects.

Except for this issue with certain trees, the performance boost is for me "massive". Not in terms of FPS, but in "general smoothness". If I had 20FPS in 1.04, they were jerky, loads of stutters, and felt generally horrible. I still have about the same FPS, but verything now feels very very smooth. Don't forget we also have grass layer and highly increased drawing distance when you up the view distance. In 1.04, nothing would show up beyond about 2000 meters no matter the view distance which only covered the terrain. So for those that complain, your "bad frames" now covers a lot more that is being drawn.

Edited December 23, 2009 by CarlGustaffa

[Alex72 1]

More stutter around forests for me - even CTD when zooming into one.