Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

OUT FOX EM

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    53

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by OUT FOX EM

  2. Posted

    So even after reverting to stock clocks the performance is still bad, presumably until you reboot the computer. At least if I understand you correctly. If that is the case, logic dictates that the problem lies somewhere else. Think about it: fresh boot, stock clocks - good FPS. OC, then revert to stock clocks - bad FPS. It doesn't make sense. Therefore the framerate is almost certainly being affected by some other factor.

    Somehow, overclocking the GPU is having an additional unwanted effect on your system that you're not seeing, which will probably be hard to troubleshoot. Some questions come to mind:

    - Have you tested performance in other games after overclocking, then after reverting to stock clocks? It would be interesting to see if other games are affected in the same way.

    - What kind of power supply does the system have?

    - You say you've been monitoring clocks and temps while in-game. Have you also been checking the GPU and video memory load? Current versions of the software "GPUz" can do this.

    Yeah that's about right. If I use RivaTuner (or EVGA Precision) to set the clocks to factory settings, in other words override factory settings with ANY setting -- higher or lower than stock -- then I get the problem. If I never use RivaTuner at all then I don't have the problem.

    As for other games, this is a clean install. I haven't really installed much on there other than ArmA II and BF2 (for ProjectReality). PR runs fine either with the overclock or without it. The system uses a Corsair 750w PSU (this one).

    Next thing I'll try is overclocking before playing BF2, then reducing back to stock clocks via RivaTuner and see if it makes any difference in there.

  3. Posted

    I'm trying to squeeze the last drop of performance out of my brother's computer that I can, so I overclocked his CPU and his GPU. I ran all stress/torture tests to make sure the system is stable and that the temperatures are good, so I know that is not a problem.

    What IS a problem though is when I overclock his GPU, ArmA II's framerate takes a HUGE hit (up to 50%).

    Here's the PC specs:

    Intel Q9550 (3.8 GHz)

    4 GB Corsair Dominator DDR2 (1066 MHz)

    Nvidia GTX 260 216 (740/1586/1650 MHz)

    Asus P5E

    Windows 7 x64

    ArmA II Settings:

    Version: 1.05

    Visibility: 1600

    Quality preference: High

    Interface resolution: 1920x1080x32

    3D resolution: 1920x1080

    Texture detail: Normal

    Video memory: Default

    Anisotropic filtering: Normal

    Antialiasing: Normal

    Terrain detail: Normal

    Objects detail: Normal

    Shadow detail: Normal

    Postprocess effects: Low

    The odd thing is that when I use RivaTuner to overclock his GPU from 655/1404/1125 to 740/1586/1650, the framerate will go from 60-80 in the menu and 30-45 in the game, to 18-22 in the menu and 15-25 in the game. That's a 50% performance hit.

    I know the simple answer is "well then don't overclock it" but that doesn't help me understand why overclocking is killing performance, when it should in fact be just the opposite.

    Even odder still is if I use RivaTuner to set the clocks back to the stock factory clocks, my performance suffers just the same. Obviously this is not related to the clocks of the card, but the act of changing the clocks itself. For the record, I tried EVGA Precision and the same thing occurs.

    I've monitored the clocks and the temps while in-game and they're normal. The GPU is at 54C under full load in FurMark, and doesn't pass 51 in ArmA II.

    If anyone has any experiences like this, or better yet an explanation, why RivaTuner/EVGA Precision would kill performance even at stock clocks I'd love to hear it. Once I solve that problem I should see results from the higher clocks.

  4. Posted

    The numbers are there (albeit the details are sparse), you just have to look around. I have no doubt that the Flagship GT300 will be about twice as fast as a 285. It makes sense given the rumoured specifications and is now being backed up (albeit in limited form) by people who seem to have some insider info. The silicon has taped out so we should see some more concrete details soon.

    Time will tell :)

    This just in,

    Lol, ATI is having a paper launch - pathetic

    Launch = September, Availability = October. I wasn't planning on buying one anyway, but that's weak.

    http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=137807

    Eth

    Where? I read both pages and that quote is the only post mentioning X13000. I also tracked down the original article in that thread, which is found here (in English):

    http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/08/13/gt300-have-nvio-chip/

    There's no mention of any scores at all on any of those sites, other than the quote in my last post. I think you shouldn't get your hopes up until some real scores do emerge.

    On the other hand, I definitely agree that a paper launch is pretty weak but they're in no need to rush, seeing as Nvidia currently has no DX11 competition yet.

  5. Posted · Edited by OUT FOX EM

    Honestly, the new ATI cards are about 2 weeks away and the flagship single GPU card is apparently boasting P18000 in Vantage. The Nvidia GT300 is rumoured to be hitting X13000 in vantage (which would translate into ~P25000).

    ** - X = Extreme settings (more demanding) P = Performance settings (less demanding).

    Source :

    http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=137758

    Apart from the fact that 2 x 295 isn't really going to help your cause (as the game is CPU limited and not GPU limited), even if you insisted on another 295, it would be smarter to buy it AFTER the new cards release.

    Eth

    I certainly hope that's true. However, I followed the chain of links, and even tried deciphering the Chinese translation, but I found nothing indicating those scores unfortunately. This was the closest I came:

    "G300 is slightly a bit of it, but also your head refers to the Vantage X13000"

    That's certainly nothing concrete.

    At this point I'll have to throw that into the rumor bin and wait until some real benchmarks comes out. I definitely do hope they're that good though...

  8. Posted

    Can it only run in 32-bit?

    ---------- Post added at 05:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 AM ----------

    Doesn't work, and where do i go to find the registry key?

    Honestly, if you're not familiar with the registry then you should not venture in there. It's an extremely dangerous place for someone who does not know what they're doing to be in. He told you where you could find the registry key and you didn't even realize it, so I know your experience in the registry is somewhere between zero and none. I strongly advise against doing anything in the registry at all, and just reinstalling ArmA II. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm trying to help, seriously.

  9. Posted

    I seem to have fixed my game now on Win7, it was running the best i've seen it by disabling HT and some other tweaks in this thread. Thanks to all. But really, disabling HT? Didnt anyone at BIS have an I7 or cpu with HT while developing? Thats a big thing to 'slip' by

    This game is so frustrating, if it was anything else it would've been binned on day one!

    That's what I'm saying. I'm glad I made this thread and was told to disable HT, because I definitely never suspected that as the culprit of the stuttering. The odd part too is it only happened in Windows 7 for me. :confused: In Vista HT didn't cause ANY stuttering at all. I can only hope that future patches and driver updates will resolve this problem, but I'm sure the developers are hard at work on their new expansion pack instead...

    :icon_rolleyes:

  12. Posted

    I'd like to say that installing the SLi patch over 190.38+ drivers is a backward step. And I would recommend AT least 190.38 for SLi and win7 as there is no need for any -winxp flags or renaming of exes..

    I have had the best success with Win7 & Arma2, only issue I had to contend with was the stutter that is introduced when HT is on with i7 (So i turn it off in the bios),.. anyway I found that crysis.exe trick gave lower fps then arma2 when using 190.38s.

    Well I don't know if you read the thread (or even just the first post) but those drivers didn't work for me. As others have said, all hardware/software combinations respond differently from one another, so what works for you won't always work for me (or anyone else).

  13. Posted

    Back once again, and I did what I did before -- installed 186.18 and renamed to Crysis64.exe. I decided this time not to install the EVGA SLI enhancement, as I can live with the file being named after Crysis... and that's what fixed it for me.

    Thanks for everybody's help. Hopefully my experience and everybody's advice in this thread will help someone else down the line.

    I'm off to play Crysis... oops I mean ArmA. :yay:

  14. Posted

    Just one further note. I installed 190.38 AGAIN, just to check them out and for me at least, these give 20 FPS UNLESS I use the -winxp flag.

    I don't need that flag with 182.50 but it seems to make a difference with these. I still don't like 190.38 but just a note for those who are using them.

    Trial and error :p

    Eth

    So here we are, nearing the end of 2009, and we still gotta trick the goddamn thing into thinking it's 2001.

    I actually had momentary success with the 186.18 drivers along with renaming ArmA2.exe to Crysis64.exe, believe it or not. That got me up to Vista framerates for one play session, but now I'm back down to where I was after I kept on tinkering. :banghead:

    I'm off to reinstall my drivers... again.

  16. Posted

    Damn it this is so frustrating. It's like ArmA 1 all over again... though what else should I have expected?

    The 182.50 drivers give me the exact same framerates as the 190.38's did, so I don't know what to do here.

    Hey, I just switched max pre-rendered frames to 8 like you suggested on this thread and I blew Arma Mark wide open with 7000+ scores back to back.

    Check it out. Page 54. My old scores with Max Pre Rendered frames 3 are on there on a previous post (same page). http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73610&page=54

    It's even more frustrating knowing this is where my computer should be! :mad: I was getting 6000+ on Vista.

    I'd be willing to bet if two systems were built exactly the same, with all the same components, ArmA would still perform differently on them. :icon_rolleyes:

    Well, I'm not going back to Vista just for ArmA, and I'm not going to partition and dual-boot for it either, so I guess I'll just keep on tinkering. I'm out of ideas here.

    Thanks for all the help guys. I got a lot more useful replies than I was expecting.

  17. Posted

    Ok, so I installed the EVGA patch, and it did help my framerate quite a bit. However, it's still not on par with Vista. I experienced something odd with AFR2 -- the framerate in the menu would start off over 100, and I thought I was home free, since that's how it was in Vista. Then once I closed in on the carrier it dropped to 50's and 60's. In-game I was getting less than 20 though, so that was a no-go. I tried all modes, and the default seemed to do the best for me.

    Also, ICE... what command line switches do you use in your shortcut (if any)? I've tried with and without -winxp, and it doesn't seem to affect anything for me personally.

    Stay away from 190.38. They don't downclock properly and they break user AA profiles (among other things).

    If you use nHancer, just copy the settings from the crysis profile into a new profile and set your pre-render to 8 and disable v-sync. I'm now getting the same performance under Win 7 as I do with XP (with HT off).

    Eth

    I don't use nHancer but I will try the 182.50 drivers once again and see what happens.

  18. Posted

    Just an FYI I am running drivers 190.38.

    I also have both 280's overclocked running 650/1404/1163.

    I also installed this:http://www.evga.com/articles/00463/

    Plus in your NV Control panel I changed my SLI performance mode from "Recommended" To "Force alternate Frame Rendering 2" This had a pretty big impact on my machine.

    Also I run HT off on the CPU

    Hope that helps a little.

    Thanks, I actually just came back to ask you the very questions you just answered. I disabled HT which put a stop to the microstuttering, thank God. I can deal with a lower framerate, but the jumping every other second was driving me insane. Now I just gotta work on getting my framerate back to where Vista was at the very least.

    I'm going to try out the EVGA patch and AFR2. Will be back shortly.

  19. Posted

    SLI working? Missing custom configs?

    Yes. No.

    Danny;1399895']Do you get lowered performance + microstuttering in all games?

    Do you use the -winxp flag in the shortcut to get sli working (if thats needed in 1.03 + latest drivers)?

    No. Yes.

    Turn off HT and use 182.50. The newer Win 7 driver sets from Nvidia are problematic.

    Eth

    I'll try that' date=' since that's about the only thing I haven't yet done.

    I just did a bunch of testing swapping back and forth between Windows 7 64 and Vista 64.

    The results blew me away. Windows 7 blew Vista out of the water.

    Results of my Arma Mark testing here page 54:http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73610&page=54

    Look at our computer specs. They're almost identical, and yet you have no problems in Windows 7. I definitely don't understand what's going on here, which is exactly why I created this thread. I want that same boost you've gotten.

  20. Posted

    Well just like the title says, I "upgraded" to Windows 7 x64 (retail version from MSDN, not the Beta) expecting to get even better performance in ArmA II, since many users are getting a nice increase in framerate, and instead I was greeted with disappointment.

    On the menu alone, my framerate dropped from the 120's to below 50. In-game was almost as big of a drop, going from 60-80 down to 30-40, and even lower when things get hectic. Not only that, but microstuttering is now a problem, making the game pretty much unplayable. It's like watching a movie while pressing pause every 2 seconds. It's enough to make one go bald in 5 seconds flat.

    I've tried different drivers, from 182.50 to 190.38, and everything in between. Everytime I've changed drivers I've used Driver Sweeper to get rid of any of the leftovers. ArmA II was the only thing I installed after the upgrade, so it was definitely a clean install. I know it's not a "supported OS" yet :rolleyes: but that just means the developers won't troubleshoot it, not that it shouldn't work.

    Anyone else seeing similar problems to mine? Any solutions?

  22. Posted

    Jman;1366607']Incorrect I'm using the latest beta and it works perfectly' date=' I even turn off vsnyc using ATI Tray Tools advanced profile feature.

    The only reason ATI Tools does not work 'out of the box' in Windows 7 RC is because of it's strict driver signing rules. All that you need to do is put windows 7 into 'Test Mode' - it'll still work exactly the same but allow unsigned drivers to be installed and run.

    Download Drive Signature Enforcement Overrider 1.3b

    Source

    Back on topic: I've turned HT off and I certainly get more fluid movement although it's not attributed to an increase in FPS as it remains the same with HT on or off.

    I've been using the Driver Signature Enforcement Overrider for awhile on Vista x64 and Windows 7 x64 and it works great. Also, I ran this little utility to remove the watermark that appears in the corners and at the top. I've tried many different methods to get rid of that thing and this is the only one that truly works without any ill effects.

    I uploaded it here since it can be kinda hard to track down. The more mirrors the better I think:

    http://www.filefront.com/14067075/RemoveWatermark_20081210.zip

    And here's where I originally found it:

    http://uploaded.to/?id=tsyyhe

    Hope that helps.

  23. Posted

    Well, my opinion is that this isn't anything to do with overclocking. I've had this very same error using a rig that wasn't OC'd in any way whatsoever. In my case it was fixed by using the SLI 'patch'.

    Low GPU temps are a surefire sign that OC'ing isn't the cause anyway. If a GPU isn't running hot then that can't be the reason the GPU falls over.

    No, my opinion is that OC might exacerbate the problem, likely due to loading assets into GPU VRAM too quickly for the client to garbage collect in time. By scaling back the hardware you're artificially throttling its capability and that's what's slowing down the crash. You'll likely still get it but it will take longer.

    All IMHO of course.

    Artificial or not, the results are real. I haven't had a crash since I lowered my clocks -- neither has he.

    Problem? Who knows.

    Solution? Most definitely.

  24. Posted

    I bought a copy from NWS Online (http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/armaii.html) and everything looked fine until I heard the other members of my team talk. It sounded like German, but the box, manual, and in game setup, subtitles, etc. is in English? The language is even locked in English, but I still hear another language. I have even updated it to the new 1.02 patch. There is no publisher on the box (505 games etc.) or in the manual except Bohemia Interactive and IDEA Games, but I do see the GOT GAME LOGO (US Publisher) when the game loads. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

    That might be a blessing in disguise. You'll understand why once you hear the 15 year old's they got to do the voices in English.

  25. Posted

    Well it's no wonder! 32-bit XP will choke your system. It only has the ability to recognize 4 GB of RAM, total, including your video cards. I see you have two 8800 GTX's in SLI; that's 1.5 GB of RAM right there, leaving only 2.5 out of your 8 GB addressable by XP! And that has to be spread around for your OS, ArmA II, and anything else that might be running in addition. Needless to say, your performance will definitely suffer. That's not a good platform to test on.

×