Jump to content

Armin2

Member
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Armin2


  1. The last patch was called "final", does that mean they are currently not working on further patches ?

    Especially Multiplayer is a mess performance wise. Singleplayer need optimization, too. In MP I can set it to highest or lowest details with only 5 fps difference.

    I played ArmA 2 with a HD4850 and now with a GTX 275 and there was almost no increase in performance. Still I can't believe that my 2x4GHZ dual core cpu is a "bottleneck".

    All in all and comparing it to other games like Total War Empire the performance seems to be at least 50% under what is reasonable. Of course there is no real comparable game atm but you can see bugs and strange fps drops and ridiculous performance issues around every corner.


  2. Crap, I guess I have to return my GTX ... The card is working but it has the same performance as my old 4850...

    Even in 3DMark I only have 20% more points than with my 4850. So something actually is wrong.

    Can graphics cards work but not at the full performance ?

    ---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 PM ----------

    All of these screenshots are taken with my system in the signature below.

    This is the settings I used and all the screenshots are resized from 1920x1080.

    settingsarma2.th.jpg

    Singleplayer:

    http://img189.imageshack.us/i/1arma2.jpg/

    http://img188.imageshack.us/i/2arma2.jpg/

    http://img44.imageshack.us/i/3arma2.jpg/

    http://img41.imageshack.us/i/4arma2.jpg/

    http://img30.imageshack.us/i/5arma2.jpg/

    http://img20.imageshack.us/i/6arma2.jpg/

    Multiplayer:

    http://img200.imageshack.us/i/multiplayer1arma2.jpg/

    http://img196.imageshack.us/i/multiplayer2arma2.jpg/

    http://img194.imageshack.us/i/multiplayer3arma2.jpg/

    http://img191.imageshack.us/i/multiplayer4arma2.jpg/

    http://img190.imageshack.us/i/multiplayer5arma2.jpg/

    http://img189.imageshack.us/i/multiplayer6arma2.jpg/

    http://img188.imageshack.us/i/multiplayer7arma2.jpg/

    http://img44.imageshack.us/i/multiplayer8arma2.jpg/

    http://img41.imageshack.us/i/multiplayer9arma2.jpg/

    http://img200.imageshack.us/i/multiplayer10arma2.jpg/

    http://img196.imageshack.us/i/multiplayer11arma2.jpg/

    As you can see the framerate is above 35fps in all of them and most of them are 45+.

    What score do you have in 3DMark06 (in case you know that) ?


  3. why should i fake that and how? sorry that you cant enjoy the game as i do, but calling my screenshots fake is ridiculous. what card do you have? what OS?

    Sorry but this just can't be right. I've got a C2D 2x4GHZ, 4GB Ram and 275GTX and I only get 15 fps in an EMPTY EDITOR while you get 30 fps at full warfarce action with a 4890 ?


  4. Whos talking about maxing it out ?

    The problem is: ArmA 2 + low details + High End hardware = 25fps (in multiplayer)

    That's unaccaptable. AND DON'T SAY: Turn down the details. It does 30fps at lowest details and 25 at highest details, so obviously the engine sucks not my computer.

    ---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

    http://www.pic-upload.de/view-2345981/arma2-2009-06-17-02-16-58-69.jpg.html

    SAPPHIRE TOXIC HD 4890 1GB GDDR5 PCI-E

    Core Clock: 1000 MHz

    Memory Clock: 1075 MHz

    1024MB /256bit GDDR5 memory interface

    Dual Slot Vapor-X Cooler with Heatpipes

    This HAS TO be a fake:

    Even in an empty editor with those settings I only get 15 fps:

    http://www.pic-upload.de/view-2350820/arma2-2009-06-17-20-34-45-86.jpg.html

    How should he get double the fps in multiplayer with even higher resolution with a 4890 ?


  5. I don't think so. The 4890 has 1 GB so there are some advatages at very high view range and AA settings. But both cards are too weak to give reasonable framerates at these settings.

    So as I play at 1280x1024 with AA only to high and 2km view distance the 275 should still be faster.

    In the benchmarks the 4890 had "less few" fps than the 275 in very high AA settings because of the higher VRAM. But that is not important because you couldn't play at such settings anyway.


  6. Yep tried that. In multiplayer I set everything to minimum and still I'm getting only 30 fps.

    The funny thing is: There is no real difference between very high and very low settings in multiplayer. It's always around 30fps.

    Vsync etc. has been checked of course.

    In singleplayer everything is fine.

    *edit*

    @ ch 123: Where did you get that information. According to tests the 275 is always at least 5% above the 4890. Usually it's about 9%.


  7. http://www.pic-upload.de/view-2344918/arma2-2009-06-16-22-17-34-04.jpg.html

    I'm still only getting 26 fps in moments like these. It sucks.

    2x4 GHZ, GTX 275, Win7 64, 4GB RAM

    SOMETHING REALLY SCREWS UP IN MULTIPLAYER:

    With my close to high end rig I am getting 30 fps in ULTRA LOW and 25 fps in ULTRA HIGH detail in multiplayer

    ArmA 2 totally doesn't behave like any other game.


  8. I just played the longest day online, 44 player online and right at the beginning (at the carrier) I get lousy 22 fps...

    Thats just retarded. I mean I have 35 fps in Crysis at full detail.

    GTX 275

    4GB

    2x 4 GHZ E 8500

    Win7

    I don't spend 700€ on a pc to get 22 fps in ArmA 2...


  9. ... and still having massive performance problems.

    Before I had a HD4850 which is about 50% slower than a GTX 275. The rest of my system is: 2x4GHZ E8500, 4GBRam, Win7 64

    So now I get around 30 FPS in Elektrowhateverthatowniscalled and in the woods with everything set to high except shadows and 1200m view range.

    The engine is sooo badly optimized. I can't find any significant fps boost. In every other game I have about 60% more fps.

×