Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Bulldogs

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2039

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Bulldogs

  1. Posted

    I've currently got a AMD Phenom II 970 X4 processor, running in the 3.5 ghz range according to Dxdiag. 8 Gigs of ram.

    I've also got an ATI HD5770 card. My question is, am I in one of the rare-ish situations where a new GPU would offer better performance increase over a new CPU? The card is stock for my PC (prebuilt because Im a coward) I've been advised by a friend that the Geforce 660 is a very good card overall for the price-conscious.

    Also was advised to get a new case, and was advised the Cooler Master HAF 932 is pretty much totally sufficient for all my needs if GPU heat is a concern. Going from an ATI 5770 to Geforce 660 would be a big heat difference I'm told, and my current case may have troubles.

    CPU use seems to be evenly distributed across all 4 CPU's, and maxes out at 40-45% used at max. Does this mean the CPU is sufficent?

    Any input on the suggested changes would be appreciated!

    A new graphics card would help performance a fair amount but you still will be bottlenecked by the CPU. If you want to be able to run perfectly smooth in heavy battles you'll need to upgrade your CPU but in standard fights your CPU should fair fine as long as you upgrade the graphics card.

    That said, if you upgraded your CPU to a Core i7 and kept the 5770 you would not notice an increase in performance unless you are playing on very low graphics settings.

    ---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

    I currently have an i7 950 (clocked at 3.8 Ghz) with a nVidia GeForce GTX470. I'd like to upgrade my machine and was wondering, what would be the true bottleneck for ArmA as I'd like to increase my FPS. Would I better be getting a new gfx card or CPU?

    The GTX470 will be your bottleneck if you are looking to increase FPS on higher graphics settings.

    The best way to look at it is if you are having issues with low fps and lowering your graphics settings increases your fps then your bottleneck is your graphics card. If a certain mission is slowing you down and adjusting your graphics settings has no effect then it's likely caused by the CPU or hard drive. If you're hard drive is excessively reading then the issue is likely your hard drive. If your issue is multiplayer that's likely due to the netcode and you'll just have to wait for it to be fixed.

    I am currently running a Core i5 with a ATI HD5850 and have no issues unless I crank the graphics settings right up including Anti-aliasing and long view distance (or just enable Post Processing, my card hates Post Processing), so the Core i7 950 shouldn't have an issue.

  5. Posted

    There seems to still be a lot of confusion about this.

    There is no performance difference between nVidia and ATi card under Physx. The difference between the two is that if you have an nVidia card you can turn on hardware physics. This doesn't increase performance, it enables extra "eye candy" features.

    That's not to say that Hardware physics can't use non eye candy physics, as seen in the nVidia power packs, but games released on the Market do not require a Physx compatible card to play the game or change gameplay.

  6. Posted

    Oh wow, this is the most inane arguement I've seen here.

    Did you read any of mine or other anti proponents of Physx arguements at all or are you just talking out of your ass? We're saying if you want to add physics to the engine, use a universal api that doesn't work only on one part of the market.

    Yep, Physx works on all parts of the Market, just not every feature works outside of nVidia. I don't know of a physics engine that fully utilises hardware physics on ATI and nVidia based cards, but if you have one in mind that's easy to implement into the RV engine then feel free to let BIS know.

  7. Posted

    If Physx didn't sell to nVidia and instead worked a multi-platform license then we wouldn't have these problems and we could have heavy GPU based physics, but since nVidia own the rights then no game developer (BIS included) will develop a commercial game that uses more than strapped on GPU physics options because they can't alienate a crowd.

  8. Posted

    In the end it comes down to not, "why use Physx?", but instead "why not use Physx?"

    Physx is a physics engine, like every other physics engine out there. The bonus of Physx is that it grants nVidia users bonus features, those features being disabled if you don't use an nVidia card.

    But AMD/ATi users still get standard CPU based physics and minor GPU faced physics (ie; grass movement).

    NVidia users get bonus features. If any other physics engine was used then it would be standard CPU based physics without the extra features to nVidia users.

    So basically saying that using Physx is unfair because of the nVidia advantage is like saying that it's unfair for one kid to starve while another eats, then solving the problem by taking the food away so they both starve.

  9. Posted

    Havok suddenly became the only alternative to Phyx now?

    There are a tonne of other physics APIs out there, bullet, dmm, etc etc.

    Hence why I said "Havok for example", as in, it's just one of many physics engines but Physx being the only one that takes full advantage of GPU physics processing.

  11. Posted

    It's just a bit of a moot point. While there may be some small features that you can't use without an nVidia (physx) card, you can still play the game perfectly fine without those minor details with an ATi card.

    The alternate being that they'd use a different physics engine (like Havok for example) that purely uses the CPU and it'd still be the same for ATi users only nVidia users would not get a bonus.

    It's kind of like saying, "I don't own a ferrari so no one in the world is allowed to drive a ferrari"

  13. Posted

    Physx is run as standard from the CPU (Both AMD and Intel). The more dramatic Physx calculations can't be run by the CPU so they are run by Physx compatible cards (nVidia cards).

    That said, a large number of Physx games don't give you those extra, nVidia only, options. But those that do are hardly game changing (as they need to allow for compatability with non-nVidia cards). So it's usually things like realistic water modelling and such, but sometimes games have physx only levels, like Unreal Tournament 3, and they show some true potential, just a pity Physx is hardware proprietry.

  15. Posted

    Keep in mind that if it was only a map release, then this whole hacking thing would be pretty elaborate (even though it's a very big map release) and why would they have the Astute class sub, and the recruitment message about Miller.

    Definitely record the presentation tomorrow. I wouldn't be surprised if someone "hacked" the presentation.

  17. Posted

    I get the feeling that England will be invaded and Miller will be on the sub (astute) when it happens, using the sub to carry out guerilla warfare. Keep in mind that the Astute doesn't need to refuel.

    Although that's speculation of course, but it sounds like it's at least some resistance based thing.

  24. Posted

    nope, beaten

    ChuckNorrisDidntHaveToSolveThisPuzzleItSurrenderedToHim500.php

    ChuckNorrisHackedp8h8500.php

    ChuckNorrisIsGayAsHell500.php

    ChuckNorrisKilledThisPuzzleThreeDaysAgo500.php

    ChuckNorrisSolvedThisPuzzleThreeDaysAgo500.php

    ChuckNorrisWasHere500.php

×