Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Bluterus

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    8

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Bluterus

  1. Posted

    It's the view distance that is the killer. I can get mid 50's on the benchmark but my view distance is set to less than 2K.

    10811.jpg

    I spend most of my time on foot so I see little advantage to having a very high view distance. It would be different if I spent a lot of time flying.

    Wow guess I shouldn't whinge too much then considering I run all very high. I don't fly really either but I like sniping and you need view distance for that or it just looks horrible.

  2. Posted

    My Current Specs:

    I7-950 @ 4.0Ghz

    EVGA X58 FTW3

    GSKILL DDR3 12GB 1600mhz

    SSD 60GB Sata 3 6GB/s for O/S

    WD 2TB Black for games pagefile and storage

    2x EVGA GTX570's 1280MB Overclocked to 800mhz

    Running OA using benchmark 1 on the Chernarus map I get average FPS 35 with these settings:

    1920x1080

    1920x1080 100%

    6300 distance

    8 AA

    Everything on Very high except HDR on Normal (Cant see a difference)

    If I turn the view distance down to 3000 and normal AA I get 55 FPS average.

    Anyone getting much better than this?

  3. Posted

    i find that in the bios also?

    It depends on what brand your motherboard is and what processor. I'd be leaving the CPU Core voltage alone and turn up the QPI VTT Voltage 0.025v as its more accurate and doesn't jump up in such large numbers. Then retest if still unstable turn it up to 0.050v retest till it works. My CPU required 1.3v on the CPU Core Voltage then plus 0.100V on the QPI VTT.

    This chart gives you Each brand motherboard definition of settings as some call it QPI VTT others CPU VTT etc

    http://www.techreaction.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Bloomfield_terminology.jpg

    Also check out this guide.

    http://www.techreaction.net/2010/09/07/3-step-overclocking-guide-bloomfield-and-gulftown/

  4. Posted

    Just installed Arma 2 on my rig and its looking and running very sad. FPS 22 and ugly.

    Here is my rig. What to I need to to to improve looks and performance.

    Mainboard : EVGA 132-CK-NF78

    Chipset : nVidia nForce 680i SLI SPP

    Processor : Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 @ 2666 MHz

    Physical Memory : 8192 MB (4 x 2048 DDR2-SDRAM )

    Video Card : Nvidia Corp NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+

    Hard Disk : WDC (250 GB)

    DVD-Rom Drive : ATAPI DVD A DH20A4H ATA Device

    Monitor Type : Acer P243W - 24 inches

    Operating System : Windows Vista Home Premium Home Edition 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2

    DirectX : Version 10.00

    Windows Performance Index : 5.6

    Thank you.

    Thats very good fps for arma 2 depending where you're getting this.

    I wouldn't be too concerned about getting more performance your card is most certainly your biggest bottleneck at the moment the 9800GTX they're a bit old and very underpowered.

    The 9450 was a good cpu with 12mb cache. Get an aftermarket cooler and overclock if you get up around 3.6ghz you will see probably a 10 fps jump.

    I use to run a q9550, asus p5q deluxe, ocz platinum 8gb ddr2, gtx275 1792mb i dont remember fps but I wasn't happy.

    I have a new system now

    I7-950 had to overclock from 3ghz to 4ghz to get my current fps

    evga x58 ftw3 board

    Gskill ddr3 1600 12gb

    2x evga GTX570 1280mb overclocked to 797mhz each

    Enermax 1020w PSU

    SSD sata 3 6.0gb/s main o/s drive

    2tb WD cavair black where the game is installed doesn't make a difference anyways.

    Under scenarios benchmark 1 when I run that I get an average of 35 fps at these settings.

    Res: 1920x1080

    3d: 1920x1080 100%

    AA: 8

    View Distance: 6300

    Everything on Very high incl post processing

    Vsync: off

    HDR: Normal as I can't see a difference between normal and very high

    If I turn the view distance down to 3000 and aa on normal I get 55fps average.

    With all that I still whinge and want more but where do we stop my system cost me a bucket load.

    My mates GTX285 can get 25fps in the same benchmark so I'd say just grab an old 295 on ebay they're selling for about $100 overclock the cpu and upgrade or downgrade from vista if you can as it will be holding you back.

    You can buy a windows 7 ultimate x64 cd key on ebay for about $50 and then just download an uncracked copy of windows 7 ultimate x64 from a torrent site and use your genuine key.

  5. Posted

    Thanks for your reply, I have noticed that the game dose not stress my CPU too much. It's not the limiting factor as looking at CPU trace after playing, the game never maxes any of the cores.

    Then having 6 of them running at 4GHz helps... but even when running at stock speed 3.2GHz the game dose not max the cpu.

    I still think it has more to do with moving large amounts of data about rather than chip speed. Running the game from an SSD also helps. ;)

    I have two graphics cards with a combined RAM of 2GB. However I think for playing ArmA having just the one with 2GB would be better. A friend of mine has much better luck playing the game on is 2Gb card even though it is less powerful than the pair I have. Again I don't think it's about processing the data but getting it to the right place in a timely fashion. That's where the SSD can really help, it's not like the data is different, it's just delivers more quickly.

    I'll be having a look at my RAM speed over the next few days. I'm currently running 8Gb at 1333. The RAM is suppose to run at 1600. There are issues running 4 slots at the full speed due to stability issues. Seeing as ArmA:2 doesn't use more than 2GB running the computer with 4Gb should be fine. So I pull 4Gb and ramp up the speed to see if it makes any difference.

    You do know that when you have SLI two 1GB cards do not total 2GB all you get is double the Processing power and video memory still remains as 1GB.

    CPU does make a huge difference I've run the benchmark 1 with lots of different settings. Overclocking the cpu makes a huge difference I went from 27fps average at 3.08Ghz to 44fps average at 4.0Ghz.

    SSD makes no difference to fps except for load times my fps remained the same on the ssd or normal HDD. The game is actually more stable on a Sata HDD than my SSD. Also my HDD is just a 7200rpm Sata 2 drive and the SSD is a Sata 3 6.0GB/s and there was no difference.

    If you're running a 970, 980x or 990x do some benchmarking in arma then crank up the mhz and watch the frame difference.

  6. Posted

    Hi people so I'm a little annoyed at arma because it is so demanding!

    I bought arma when I had a q9550, asus p5q deluxe, 8gb ddr2 1066 and a gtx 275 1792mb. It wasn't enough to run the game fair enough. So the day GTX 570's came out I upgraded.

    Current Specs:

    CPU: i7-950 @ 4.0Ghz

    MB: EVGA X58 FTW3

    RAM: 12GB Gskill Ripjaws 1600 8-8-8-24-2N

    GPU: 2x EVGA GTX570 1280MB@GPU 797mhz/3900mhz Ram/1594mhz Shader

    HDD: SSD OCZ Agility 3 60GB sata 3 6.0GB/S for O/S and Arma

    Secondary HDD: 2TB WD Caviar Black for games page file and storage

    PSU: 1020w Enermax Revolution 85+

    Now with my cpu on stock clocks 3.08Ghz the game at 6300 view distance, AA 8, everything on very high, 1920x1080 and 100% 3D running benchmark 1 I got an average fps of 27.

    Then when I overclocked the cpu to 4.0ghz I got 34 fps.

    Then when I dropped the view distance down to 2500 I get 47 fps.

    I was thinking of buying a 980x and overclocking it to see if I get more performance as it seems the CPU is the bottleneck but looking at arma 2 benchmarks the 980x doesn't fair much better than the 950 in arma 2. So I'm guessing since when I turn down the view distance I get more FPS that I need more video ram.

    My build cost me a fortune and can run any game in max graphics, full AA at 1920x1080 even in stereoscopic 3D except arma. Funny thing is with arma if I turn the AA right down, Turn a video card on or off or enable 3d vision it makes about 1fps difference. This also leads me to believe I need more video ram as the extra GPU makes no difference and the extra GPU adds no ram so maybe thats the key to running it better.

    Also my mates i5 2500k with a gtx285 pulls very similar FPS like within 1 or 2 frames yet in most other games my two 570's are easily 40+ fps higher than his 285.

    So what should my next upgrade be a more video ram or cpu?

    Also can anyone run this smoothly at max graphics as it seems impossible!

  7. Posted · Edited by Bluterus

    This game is epic! How the hell can they recommend these video cards.

    Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT / ATI Radeon 4850 with Shader Model 3 and 512 MB VRAM or faster

    I wasn't happy with arma performance at 1920x1080 on my q9550 with 8gb ddr2 1200 and gtx 275 1792mb so I upgraded.

    New system specs:

    CPU: i7-950, 3.06Ghz, 8MB Cache

    Ram: G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 12GB (6x2GB) PC-12800 (1600MHz) 8-8-8-24-2N@1.6V

    MB: EVGA X58 FTW3 - 132-GT-E768-KR

    GPU: SLI 2x EVGA GTX570 1280Mb 797MHz Core / 3900MHz Memory / 1594MHz Shader

    HDD: 2TB Western Digital Black Drive for OS and Games 2TB Western Digital Green Drive for videos, music, downloads

    Monitor: Acer GD235HZ 23.6" 3D Vision Monitor 1920x1080 Dual Link DVI

    OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64

    PSU: Enermax Revolution 85+ 1020w 76A Max on 4 12v rails and SLI Certified

    I tested on the chernarus benchmark the one at night over the Krasnostav airbase with all the explosions and these were my results.

    Res: 1920x1080

    3D: 200% 3840x2160

    AA: 8

    View Distance: 10,000

    All Settings: Very High

    Vsync: OFF

    Average FPS: 20

    Res: 1920x1080

    3D: 100% 1920x1080

    AA: 8

    View Distance: 10,000

    All Settings: Very High

    Vsync: OFF

    Average FPS: 35

    To be honest I'm not very happy with those results. I spent like $1500k and I can't run this game max is there something wrong with my pc or is it just not good enough?

  8. Posted · Edited by Bluterus

    I have a GTX275 1792mb EVGA man. Its not much more than the 896mb XFX and has way more video memory.

    I paid aussie $415 or US $355 whereas the XFX is aussie $325 or US $278

    There'd be no difference in games like Team fortress 2, COD, farcry 2 but in games like GTA4, ARMA 2 the 1792mb makes a huge difference when the view distance is cranked up.

    My GTA4 uses 1690mb video memory at 1920x1080 max everything.

    Check these out The radeon 4890 1gb overclocked to 915mhz on farcry 2 dx10 8x aa ran 25fps at 2560x1600

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/overclocking-the-radeon-hd-4890/4

    Whereas the 1792mb gtx275 pulls 33 fps at the exact same settings not overclocked running at 630mhz. Also pulls higher in 3d mark vantage with stock speeds over the overclocked 4890.

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/evga-geforce-gtx-275-1792mb-review/10

    Mines overclocked to 743mhz so will pull even more fps again.

    Although if you can't afford the extra man go for the 4890 its pretty much enough to run most games except gta4 with max view distance and arma with max view distance.

    I'll test mine tonight when I get home with fraps and see what it gets at the moment I'm running max everything at 1920x1080 with view distance at 3600 and runs great.

×