thr0tt 12 Posted December 22, 2009 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Relemar 10 Posted December 22, 2009 1st = 55fps 2nd = 11fps Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ubermachtig 0 Posted December 22, 2009 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jasonnoguchi 11 Posted December 22, 2009 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
helo 10 Posted December 22, 2009 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jw custom 56 Posted December 22, 2009 The performance increase is supposedly in big cities not fps increase! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeron 10 Posted December 22, 2009 JW Custom said: 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ish 11 Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JesterOC 10 Posted December 22, 2009 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ish 11 Posted December 22, 2009 JesterOC said: 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-=seany=- 5 Posted December 22, 2009 Zeron said: 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jw custom 56 Posted December 22, 2009 Zeron said: 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 ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpinghubert 49 Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRS 10 Posted December 22, 2009 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
demonlord89 10 Posted December 22, 2009 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JesterOC 10 Posted December 22, 2009 Do you have vsync on? That sounds like the problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orangeman 10 Posted December 22, 2009 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ziiip 1 Posted December 22, 2009 I ahve almost identical results with X3 720 and 4850HD. NOT cool. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stk2008 14 Posted December 22, 2009 orangeman said: 1st:282nd: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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
demonlord89 10 Posted December 22, 2009 JesterOC said: Do you have vsync on? That sounds like the problem. me?? vsync is turned off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oTTas 10 Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
astral54r 10 Posted December 22, 2009 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JesterOC 10 Posted December 23, 2009 demonlord89 said: 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarlGustaffa 4 Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex72 1 Posted December 23, 2009 More stutter around forests for me - even CTD when zooming into one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites