Arrowhead E08: Benchmark

[sethos 2]

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.

No, usually run my CPUs as stock ( Bad experience :P ) but decided to give it a try, upped it to 3.66 according to the POST and 3.8 according to CPU-Z ( What is it? ) and first benchmark run: 51FPS second: 53 Third: 54

And was actually quite smooth as well, holy shit - Cheers for the heads up man =D

[WhoCares 0]

No, usually run my CPUs as stock ( Bad experience :P ) but decided to give it a try, upped it to 3.66 according to the POST and 3.8 according to CPU-Z ( What is it? ) ...

The i7 CPUs have an internal dynamic clock control, clocking it down while idle (e.g. to something like 2GHz on desktop) and overclocking (by one clock multiplier step, iirc) under heavy load.

If you try to go to the limit with manual overclocking, you should disable the dynamic overclocking in the BIOS.

[sethos 2]

The i7 CPUs have an internal dynamic clock control, clocking it down while idle (e.g. to something like 2GHz on desktop) and overclocking (by one clock multiplier step, iirc) under heavy load.

If you try to go to the limit with manual overclocking, you should disable the dynamic overclocking in the BIOS.

That's SpeedStepping, something completely different. The actual report of top-end clock ie 3.66 and 3.8 in this case is just odd.

And both numbers are on idle load.

( And I've had to set manual OCing, so it doesn't do anything automatically )

Edited July 6, 2010 by Sethos

[odjob 0]

Core i7 930 @2.80GHz

Gigabyte X58A-UD3R

6GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1600 @1066

Sapphire HD5870 Vapor-X 1GB

Corsair 650w

HP ZR24W 24" 16:10

OA Beta 1.52.71900:

Resolution: 1920x1200

3d resolution: 1920x1200

View distance: 3553

Texture detail: High

Video memory: Default

Ansiotropic filtering: Very high

Antialiasing: Normal

Terrain detail: High

Object detail: High

Shadow detail: High

Post processing: Very low

Result: 52fps

Edit: Win 7 x64 Home Premium.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Odjob

[scruffy 22]

Core 2 Quad 9550

Gigabyte P35

4GB DDR2

Sapphire HD5870 Vapor-X 1GB

some 550W bequiet psu

HP ZR24W 24" 16:10

OA Beta 1.52.71900:

Resolution: 1920x1200

3d resolution: 2560x1600

View distance: 3027

Texture detail: High

Video memory: High

Ansiotropic filtering: Normal

Antialiasing: Disabled

Terrain detail: Low

Object detail: Normal

Shadow detail: High

Post processing: Disabled

Result: 50fps

[Reverend 10]

AMD 955 Black edition OC 3.6

Gigabyte MA79OX-UDP4

2XHD4850 1GB in crossfire (using 10.1 driver & .exe changed to ARMA 2)

off brand 700W power supply

4GB DDR2 1600

OA 1.52

Resolution: 1360x768 (playing through 720i Plasma)

3d resolution: 1360x768

View distance: 2038

Texture detail: Very High

Video memory: Very High

Ansiotropic filtering: Normal

Antialiasing: Normal

Terrain detail: Normal

Object detail: Very High

Shadow detail: Normal

Post processing: Normal

Result 53 fps

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

Intel Pentium D 3.20 GHz

Nvidia Geforce 8800 GT

2GB RAM

Corsair 550W Power Supply

Resolution: 1400x900

3d resolution: 1400x900

View distance: 1600

Texture detail: Normal

Video memory: Normal

Ansiotropic filtering: Low

Antialiasing: Disabled

Terrain detail: Normal

Object detail: Normal

Shadow detail: High

Post processing: Low

I got 17 FPS on v1.52.....Damn it. :(

Can't wait till I get my upgrade next year.

Anything I could do to substantially raise FPS without settings on low?

Edited July 17, 2010 by Devil Dogs SF

[maddogx 13]

Anything I could do to substantially raise FPS without settings on low?

Not sure what tweaks you've already tried, but here are some off the top of my head:

- Try the latest beta patch

- Make sure VSync is forced off in the NVidia control panel

- Defrag your hard drives

- Try out different "Render frames ahead" settings in the NVidia control panel

[kylania 568]

iCore 7 920 2.65GHz

6GB of RAM

Windows 7 64bit

Nvidia GTX 470

43 FPS but I got 54 FPS after adding -cpuCount=4 -exThreads=7 to my startup!

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Benchmark E08 taken at 3 different video options settings:

Operation Arrowhead version 1.52

43 fps @ normal

33 fps @ high and AA normal (my play settings)

14 @ fps very high and 3D rendering 150%

Nvidia driver 197.13

system

HDDs

run the game off 300 Gb WD

run OS (XP32bit) off 74 Gb WD

Edited July 18, 2010 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[Avoidable 10]

I don't have a screen shot but...

1680 x 1050 interface... need a new monitor next :(

1680 x 1050 3D

VD 5000

Texture detail: High

Video memory: Default

Ansiotropic filtering: Disabled (set to 16x AF in CCC)

Antialiasing: Normal

Terrain detail: Normal

Object detail: High

Shadow detail: High

Post processing: Normal

Results in 57 FPS with Vsynch on. I'll update when I'm at home and can bench again with Vsynch forced off.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

new pc = new benchmarks

Arma2 expansion OA version 1.52

resolution 1600x900

Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit

Video driver 258.96

70 fps avg Normal

63 fps avg High

41 fps avg VHigh

*more info :rolleyes:

I have also tried the 72291 beta with shortcut parameters -nosplash -cpuCount=4 -exThreads=7 -maxmem=2047 (bios HT disabled) with no noteworthy performances differences from test above

Edited July 31, 2010 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[Dynamic Echo 10]

OK, I've done a quick benchmark, but I'm still fiddling with settings so this is far from final:

Visibility: 2506

Texture Detail: Very High

Video Memory: Very High

Anisotropic Filtering: Very High

Antialiasing: Low

Terrain Detail: Very High

Objects Detail: Very High

Shadows Detail: Very High

Postprocess Effects: Normal

Interface Size: Normal

Aspect Ratio: 16:10

Interface Resolution: 1680x1050

3D Resolution: 1680x1050 (100%)

EO8 Benchmark Avg. FPS: 45

My specs are the primary PC in my sig, I'll do some more benchmarks for this rig and my laptop later, but for now, StarCraft 2!.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Dynamic Echo

[vasmkd 12]

I ran my first OA E08 benchmark

System As signature and all CPU/GPU/RAM @ stock speed

Game settings:

Texture Detail= high

Video Memory= high

anisotropic filtering= low

antialiasing= low

terrain detail= normal

object detail= normal

shadow detail= high

post processing= very low

screen resolution= 1680x1050

3d resolution = 1680x1050

visibility= 2033

aspect ratio= 16:10

vsync = off

OS = Windows Xp 32 (will try 7 64 bit later)

Avg frames (FPS) = 46

UPDATE: Just tried these settings and no difference

Game settings:

Texture Detail= high

Video Memory= high

anisotropic filtering= normal

antialiasing= normal

terrain detail= high

object detail= high

shadow detail= high

post processing= very low

screen resolution= 1680x1050

3d resolution = 1680x1050

visibility= 2033

aspect ratio= 16:10

vsync = off

OS = Windows Xp 32 (will try 7 64 bit later)

Avg frames (FPS) = 46

Edited August 16, 2010 by vasmkd

[InfectiousShadow 10]

I ran it with the most recent beta patch and no mods to keep it as fast as possible.

See signature for system.

FPS: 57

Settings -

Game settings:

Texture Detail= Very High

Video Memory= Very High

anisotropic filtering= Low

antialiasing= Disabled

terrain detail= Very High

object detail= Very High

shadow detail= High

post processing= Very High

screen resolution= 1280x1024 :/

3d resolution = 1536x1224

visibility= 3018

aspect ratio= 4:3

Also with different mods I got a few different results, ACE gave me a 10 fps loss and Vopsound 2.3 also gave me a 10fps loss.

[liquidpinky 11]

Using the current 72716 Beta, which gave me a pretty decent performance boost to say the least. :)

Game settings:

Texture Detail= very high

Video Memory= very high

anisotropic filtering= very high

antialiasing= normal

terrain detail= very high

object detail= very high

shadow detail= very high

post processing= low

screen resolution= 1920x1200

3d resolution = 2400x1500 (125%)

visibility= 4750

aspect ratio= 16:10

vsync = on

OS = Vista Ultimate 64

Avg frames (FPS) = 31

[vasmkd 12]

My run was done with beta 72716

I ran my first OA E08 benchmark

System As signature and all CPU/GPU/RAM @ stock speed

Game settings:

Texture Detail= high

Video Memory= high

anisotropic filtering= normal

antialiasing= normal

terrain detail= high

object detail= high

shadow detail= high

post processing= very low

screen resolution= 1680x1050

3d resolution = 1680x1050

visibility= 2033

aspect ratio= 16:10

vsync = off

OS = Windows Xp 32 (will try 7 64 bit later)

Avg frames (FPS) = 46

Also i tried it with video memory at very high and settings as in spoiler but my FPS went down to 41. So i'm keeping the video memory setting at high instead of very high. I am wanting to try default but with default my system CTD as soon as i launch the game.

Probelm maybe due to a new GPU (GTX 460) and 1st drivers on nvidia site to support it are 258.96 and maybe a later beta will recognise my memory properly.

[gr1mR36p3r 10]

hi there guys :)

sorry for stepping in... I would like to ask you guys something about the benchmark.

It has been a while since I decided to try ArmaII, which I consider one of the best games ever designed.

So the day before yesterday I d/l the demo of ArmaOA (honestly I do not remember if it is Arma demo or ArmaOA demo) off steam.

I tried the single player and the chopper training, and gfx run smooth... but I was alone on the battlefield, so no surprise.

I then saw the "benchmark" mission and launched it. At the end of the sequence I got a "58 fps medium" result, which IMHO was kind of good.

But I still have a doubt: when I tried the WIC benchmark, that was a real mess! explosions, planes strafing, dozens of troops... Arma demo was quite "light" if you know what I mean. Only 1 explosion, 1 tank and a chopper, a few soldiers...

so my question is: how reliable is it?

If I buy the game and find myself in a city environment, maybe fps will drop down to a point the game is unplayable. I just built my new rig which costed me a bunch of $$... I will not be able to afford a new one for a while and I just do not feel about buying a game if I cannot run it at full detail...

so the 2 questions are:

1 can I trust the benchmark result to give me an idea of how good the game will run?

2 with my rig, do you think I can run it in 1680*1050 high (not "highest") detail? do you think I may run it FullHD (1920*1080 or whatever it is :) )

my rig:

PhenomII X4 965 @3.6

Asus CrossHair IV

Ati 5870 Toxic , 2Gb

8Gb Ram (maybe OCZ, I do not remember :/ should be @1Gh though)

Win7 64

thanx for your time and attention :)

Giulio

ps. Crysis and Crysis Warhead run smooth on 1680*1050 and high detail, some occasional hitchup or tearing, but overall is great

pps. world in conflict runs excellent on 1680*1050 and full detail

Edited August 27, 2010 by gr1mR36p3r

[zaira 10]

hi there guys :)

sorry for stepping in... I would like to ask you guys something about the benchmark.

It has been a while since I decided to try ArmaII, which I consider one of the best games ever designed.

So the day before yesterday I d/l the demo of ArmaOA (honestly I do not remember if it is Arma demo or ArmaOA demo) off steam.

I tried the single player and the chopper training, and gfx run smooth... but I was alone on the battlefield, so no surprise.

I then saw the "benchmark" mission and launched it. At the end of the sequence I got a "58 fps medium" result, which IMHO was kind of good.

But I still have a doubt: when I tried the WIC benchmark, that was a real mess! explosions, planes strafing, dozens of troops... Arma demo was quite "light" if you know what I mean. Only 1 explosion, 1 tank and a chopper, a few soldiers...

so my question is: how reliable is it?

If I buy the game and find myself in a city environment, maybe fps will drop down to a point the game is unplayable. I just built my new rig which costed me a bunch of $$... I will not be able to afford a new one for a while and I just do not feel about buying a game if I cannot run it at full detail...

so the 2 questions are:

1 can I trust the benchmark result to give me an idea of how good the game will run?

2 with my rig, do you think I can run it in 1680*1050 high (not "highest") detail? do you think I may run it FullHD (1920*1080 or whatever it is :) )

my rig:

PhenomII X4 965 @3.6

Asus CrossHair IV

Ati 5870 Toxic , 2Gb

8Gb Ram (maybe OCZ, I do not remember :/ should be @1Gh though)

Win7 64

thanx for your time and attention :)

Giulio

ps. Crysis and Crysis Warhead run smooth on 1680*1050 and high detail, some occasional hitchup or tearing, but overall is great

pps. world in conflict runs excellent on 1680*1050 and full detail

Generaly anyone is limited with cpu. You can play multi or with editor with few AI and everything works great. But, alot of ai missions and campaign, kill any system to sub 30 fps without i7 @ 4+ GHz.

If you want to see what will game realy look like in heavy fights with alot of ai, use arma 2 benchmark 2. If you are interested in average fps, use edian of arma2 benchmark 1 and benchmark 2. Operation arrowhead benchmark E8 is practicaly similar with arma 2 benchmark 1.

E8, and Bench 1 just dont replicate real FPS you will have, not to mention fps drops.

I have about 50 fps in bench 1 and E8, and in real mission, like conteratack sp mission or campagin im stuck at 25.

P.S having high hopes in zambezi and sandy bridge, if they will clock to 5+, i think you can play at everything maxed, till then im fine with my q6600 @3.6

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

to make a silly point in another thread I recorded the E08 benchmark mission at very high video settings.

0QBZUOT4xj0

[zaira 10]

-Ziggy-;1732381']to make a silly point in another thread I recorded the E08 benchmark mission at very high video settings.

0QBZUOT4xj0

How much do you get at arma2 benchmark 2;)

:D

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

thats more of a stress test than a benchmark.

actually, I already recorded that with my last hardware setup, avg 10 fps, i doubt it would make any difference with my new hardware.

that 'mission' is useless as a true benchmark.

A6uNn0xmNYE

Edited August 27, 2010 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[gr1mR36p3r 10]

thanx for reply guys you gave me something to think about :)

please do not hate me :) but I would like to ask you another question... Zaira, you typed you get about 25 in campaign... well, can you still enjoy the game, or it gets too slow to feel the action?

whatever, as for now my card is empty, but most probably in september I will buy the game :asd: it is not just a game it is an experience, and I do not want to miss it :) !