Arrowhead E08: Benchmark

[jumpinghubert 49]

pls post all ingame graphicsettings, detailed hardware and graphic driver.

My system: signature. Latest nvidia drivers, xp-32bit.

Edited June 30, 2010 by JumpingHubert

[jumpinghubert 49]

same result with new beta patch.

[SPC.Spets 21]

sry, what beta patch? I have steam version, it updates automaticaly?

[dunedain 48]

sry, what beta patch? I have steam version, it updates automaticaly?

http://www.arma2.com/beta-patch.php

@JumpingHubert, would be better if people could read your settings. :D

[wingtip 11]

amd 3ghz dual core

vista enterprise 64 bit

gforce gtx280/1 gig ram

4 gigs system ram

700 watt supply

in game benchmark, averaged 28fps

most all settings low or off... pp off, shadows off

whats weird is the first few days it ran flawlessly...today it started goin to shit like arma 2 did for me which is why i ran the benchmark... i didnt run it when i first installed to compare to what i got today...

[Murklor 10]

amd 3ghz dual core

vista enterprise 64 bit

gforce gtx280/1 gig ram

4 gigs system ram

700 watt supply

in game benchmark, averaged 28fps

most all settings low or off... pp off, shadows off

Hm, I'm also running Vista x64, GTX280 with 4gb ram... Only difference is an E8200@3ghz.

I average 43fps at texture/AF high, AA/PP disabled, the rest normal and 16x10 res.

Me thinks you need to ditch that undefined AMD CPU ;)

[johncage 30]

i've got 54fps

but the game itself feels kind of like 20 fps.

[jumpinghubert 49]

http://www.arma2.com/beta-patch.php

@JumpingHubert, would be better if people could read your settings. :D

where is my brain...:D

sehr hoch = very high

hoch = high

normal = normal

niedrig = low

sehr niedrig = very low

[jakerod 254]

I had 7

[Killerwatt 0]

As posted elsewhere.

My sytem:

Antec Nine Hundred Two Case,

Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 Vapor-X 2GB,

Akasa PowerMax 850W Power supply,

Asus P6T Motherboard LGA1 366 Intel X58 ATX RAID SA,

Intel Core i7-920 D0 Step Processor (8M Cache),

Corsair XMS3 3GB (3x1024M B) DDR3 Memory 1600MHz,

Noctua NH-U12P CPU Cooler SE1366,

LG GH22NP20 22x DVDRW/ RAM,

Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB Hard Disk Drive 72 (Two),

SB Audigy SE OEM Creative Sound Blaster,

Windows XP Home Edition. updated to SP3

No overclocking done and everything running at stock speeds but I disabled the soundcard and use the onboard sound.

Game settings:

Texture Detail= very high

Video Memory= very high

anisotropic filtering= normal

antialiasing= normal

terrain detail= very high

object detail= very high

shadow detail= high

post processing= very low

Quality preference= very high

screen resolution= 1280:800

3d resolution = 1280;800

visibility= 3012

aspect ratio= 16-10

I ran the OA bench mark four times to give me an average and it gave me an average of 44.5 frames per second. That broke down to two tests at 45 and two tests at 44 in the following order.

1st test= 45fps

2nd test= 44fps

3rd test= 44fps

4th test= 45fps

Edited July 3, 2010 by Killerwatt

[sethos 2]

Specs are in the signature!

Settings:

( http://dl.dropbox.com/u/473845/ArmA/Untitled-1.png )

OA Benchmark:

1st run: 40

2nd run: 43

3rd run: 42

4th run: 43

Though, game is unplayable on Zargabad and other heavily populated areas with buildings.

[Joseph Archer 10]

You should try either the 1.50 - 1.52 patch or the beta Sethos.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

Specs are in the signature!

Settings:

[imghttp://dl.dropbox.com/u/473845/ArmA/Untitled-1.png[/img]

( http://dl.dropbox.com/u/473845/ArmA/Untitled-1.png )

OA Benchmark:

1st run: 40

2nd run: 43

3rd run: 42

4th run: 43

Though, game is unplayable on Zargabad and other heavily populated areas with buildings.

turn off post processing and put shadows at high. AF usually has no affect on my system, so try boosting that IF you can.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Placebo

[SPC.Spets 21]

Windows 7 32 bits

Phenom II 920

4GB ram

GTX 260 Core 216

1600 x 900

Average FPS: 39

[sethos 2]

You should try either the 1.50 - 1.52 patch or the beta Sethos.

Already am running the Beta :)

turn off post processing and put shadows at high. AF usually has no affect on my system, so try boosting that IF you can.

I like PP so that's staying on, will try Shadows.

EDIT: Shadows down to high gave me a 45-46 results in the benchmark with little visual impact on the shadows - That's always something.

EDIT 2: Just to clarify unplayable; it's not "Low FPS" unplayable, it's MASSIVE Micro-stutters that is engine optimization based, nothing else.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Sethos

[tacticalnuggets 24]

Already am running the Beta :)

I like PP so that's staying on, will try Shadows.

EDIT: Shadows down to high gave me a 45-46 results in the benchmark with little visual impact on the shadows - That's always something.

EDIT 2: Just to clarify unplayable; it's not "Low FPS" unplayable, it's MASSIVE Micro-stutters that is engine optimization based, nothing else.

Just a warning, post process can eat a lot of frames. On my comp, area where i get 72fps, enabling pp drops it to 50. So it can eat a lot fps, but if you really need it for some reason then ok i guess. IMO it makes the game look worse in a sense everything is blurred. I much prefer the game without it on.

[sethos 2]

I already tried, the FPS gain is less than 10 ( Around 3-5 FPS in the Benchmark ) - It all depends on your hardware, what's stopping me at the moment is the game's bad coding.

And what PP adds is good - depth of field, the blur is natural because you don't see anything crisp and clear, ESPECIALLY not in an extremely warm area with 50 pounds of gear - It all adds to the immersion.

Not to mention it hides rough areas and the games shortfalls in graphics.

Bloom also gives a nice touch.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Sethos

[jumpinghubert 49]

@sethos

do you have set HDRPrecision=8 (cfg) and ingame postprocess effects to "normal"? In my case there is no optical difference from normal to veryhigh but big performance hit. Is your cpu overclocked? And try to rename the exe to enable dualgpu.

Edited July 3, 2010 by JumpingHubert

[sethos 2]

Hey,

Yes, my .exe is renamed and I am seeing activity across both GPUs ( Sub-50 on both, though ). I tried lowering PP to Normal as that keeps the DOF and Blur, though performance SEEMS unchanged, I haven't run a Benchmark yet.

As for cfg files, no, haven't looked into that yet.

[mrbinkels 10]

Specs are in the signature!

Settings:

[iG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/473845/ArmA/Untitled-1.png[/img]

( http://dl.dropbox.com/u/473845/ArmA/Untitled-1.png )

OA Benchmark:

1st run: 40

2nd run: 43

3rd run: 42

4th run: 43

Though, game is unplayable on Zargabad and other heavily populated areas with buildings.

Your settings my system, but running 1920x1200:

1. 39

2. 42

3. 39

4. 44

My settings my system

1. 47

2. 49

3. 47

4. 47

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edited July 3, 2010 by Placebo

[Placebo 29]

A number of you are forgetting to remove image tags when quoting, please don't :)

[jumpinghubert 49]

would be nice to see benches with GTX480/470 or HD5870. Settings at one´s own discretion.

[mrbinkels 10]

See my post on second page. I did not see any appreciable difference in running one 5870 or two.

[5133p39 16]

I already posted my benchmark results in other thread, so here is the link to that post.

[UncleKeith 10]

Specs are in the signature!

Settings:

[iM]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/473845/ArmA/Untitled-1.png[/img]

( http://dl.dropbox.com/u/473845/ArmA/Untitled-1.png )

OA Benchmark:

1st run: 40

2nd run: 43

3rd run: 42

4th run: 43

Though, game is unplayable on Zargabad and other heavily populated areas with buildings.

i have a slightly similar system to yours and i took those exact settings and scored 51fps.... and Zargabad plays fine (40-45fps in editor and 35-40ish in combat) is your cpu oc'd? if it isnt that was a big boost for me when i went from the 2.66ghz stock and pushed it too 3.9ghz in the old arma 2 bench i remeber a 11fps gain.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Placebo