Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Siddhi

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    19

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Siddhi

  1. Posted

    1) You can only compare CPU frequencies if they are in the same series, they are not, so benchmarks are all we have to compare them. But even with a single thread his would be better than mine. A 955 1mhz does not perform the same as an i7 1mhz. (Which is really shitty English, but really? I mean... Back when the P4 was big people fell for this and even then it wasnt true, though everyone believed it and P4 sales when through the roof)

    2)He doesnt have a HD4870m, good job on clicking my links/reading his post.

    Im not saying its a BI's fault, but A2 is definately underperforming on his system.

    I am trying to follow kklownboy's argument. I accept the first couple of assertions as plausible, but if I am forcing GT 650M why does the intel Gfx matter ? by the way when I have forced the intel card instead I get exactly the same performance although with a very strange "red snow" effect..

    If was the lack of power (why the hell would that matter when the system is so much more advanced then my old is a mystery) wouldn't I notice a difference when I e.g. switch battery modes and unlock the CPU in the BIOS? Because there is not even 1 FPS difference.

    Finally, I am TRYING to do my "homework" - I would very grateful for no -BS and knowledgeable BIOS or driver suggestions. For instance, maybe I should roll-back to older drivers? Otherwise I am uptodate with everything. And the BIOS options have pretty much all been used up.

    btw GT-650M is a great card that works for everything else and apparently also is usually fine for Arma2 ..

  2. Posted

    i have tried a number of games (that unfortunaty I am not really interested in), and the Laptop works great - GTA IV on max Levels etc.

    On some Level it is really is quite simply shit coding - and it Looks like BIS Support is pretty shit as well. Their "Support email" Forum is deactivated - i.e. you can try to send a message but nothing happens. i am trying other routes as well but i am pretty irritated by this lack of interest in a Problem that quite evidently applies to thousands of customers - and also once comitted fans.

  3. Posted

    Well, you could try to turn all settings to off/very low with minimal viewdistance on 800×600, then compare benchmarks again.. If the CPU-usage is still so low something is wrong, if its better then your GPU is holding your CPU back, and your only choice is to turn down settings.

    Also note that your CPU-usage will never be 100%, 1 core on 100% and 3 cores on an average of 25-50% is quite usual.

    I upped the power anyway I knew how - and the CPU remains exactly the same.

    Interestingly, there is also no difference between me using intel card and the Nvidia - in both I get 8FPS. However, using the Intel card I get a strange red "snow" over the screen, really weird...

    I have also tried -nocb as well as forcing a dual-core mode via parameters...still no dice. I even copied every single .cfg. that vaguely made sense, no difference.

    While the HD is a little slow the CPU never really runs high...it is simply not being used. I can't believe it's related to the power either.

  4. Posted

    To be honest i just compared his benchmarked specs to mine, and his CPU is a lot better then mine(http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html (I have a 955)), while my GPU is a tiny bit better (http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+HD+4870&id=30 vs http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GT+650M) than his..

    well, ARMA 2 was literally the first Thing I installed on a virgin System, after I killed some of Samsung bloatware...

    The CPU isn't even running at Close to capacity. When all 8 cores are going the cummulative max load is around 15-20%. When I deactivate all cores - I ran through all eight cores individually to see if that would make a difference - only 1 core ever hit 100%, with a laughable increase in FPS. When I disabled HT the 4 cores I had each maxed only 25%. The processor is absoutely top-notch for Laptop. And btw - the perfomence is substantially less then my four year old Sony Vaio i3.

    I will try to up the power, see if there is any difference ...

    I am wondering about screensize, however. Not that is a power issue as such - afterall the CPU is never maxed - but I just wonder if the Screen size is somehow to big. Grasping at straws here. I did a total reinstall just for kicks and no dice....

    I really wish there was a fix, I am not looking foward to ARma 3 as much as I absolutely love Chernarus...

  5. Posted

    How about reading more posts before such obnoxious comments about the community and the developers of this game?

    Maybe you'd care to tell us about BIS' general management that we don't know?

    domkum, probably more then 50% of your recent Posts have involved linking to your previous post, which itself a rip-off of other Posts without however you crediting the OP. You have nothing to offer to help us. please troll someplace else. and i very, very much hope that you are not part of BIS - otherwise that company should have its bookvalue slashed.

    @horus:

    at this Point I am ready to believe anything, but 1 question then: when I load the benchmarking scenaro, the HD does constantly max out in individual bursts. However, when I re-load the Scenario (which starts up much quicker) the HD is not used, I persume because the scenario is in the cache. However there are still no differences in Frame rates despite the fact that the HD is not being accessed. Keep in mind I do have 8GB SSD as well.

  6. Posted

    how about reading my post before making obnoxious comments.

    but for those who apparently just want to push their post numbers: yes I did read the friendly sticky, and, as I said: it did not work.

    @more helpful poster:

    thanks..did o/c all that already, but you think that previous patches to the game would have handled our CPU/Cards better??

    Actually I do think BIS has a responsibility here, but going by their general management FU (Greece et al) I am going to presume they only respond to something a little more drastic then a couple of thousand customer complaints.

  7. Posted · Edited by Siddhi

    These systems are GPU limited in normal gameplay conditions, low CPU load should be expected. The 650M isn't a great card.

    Arma definitely loves SSDs. I have replaced my stock HDD with an SSD (I only have one slot), and upgraded my RAM to 2x4GB 1600-CL9. I have installed a clean copy Windows 7, and only re-installed a few Samsung programs (Easy settings, SW update) as most of them are bloated and unnecessary. I have turned off Hyperthreading In BIOS.

    To play, I turn windows power mode to high performance, and turn on Samsung Turbo mode using Fn+F11 (although I have never been able to find out exactly what this does!).

    To force Arma to run on GPU or APU, right click on your Arma shortcut. You should get a "Run with graphics processor..." option.

    For reference, my average benchmarks running High preset at 1366x768:

    B1 : 40

    B2: 20

    E08: 37

    Using the 3610QM APU at 1366x768:

    B1: 9

    Using 2049x1182 3D resolution (the closest I can get to 1920x1200)

    E08: 21

    I of course also did the right-click "run with graphics processor" option, no difference... I really think it is just not coming on.

    CPU loads of 5% on muliti-core and 20% for a single core can't be right. Also, my RAM use is stable at 40%.

    I deactivated hypherthreading - not an iota of difference.

    Haven't tried:

    There is an option in BIOS for enable/disable/auto ACMH (sp?) which is somehow related to the OS.

    No idea why Samsung Turbo would be of use as my system is not even running close to capacity but I could try

    The HD does max out on tr often, but when you "reload" a scenario (such as the benchmarking scenario) it does not react at all, presumably because the scenario itself is in the cache. Makes no difference to my FPS.

    I very much appreciate your help ceeb - but any other ideas.

    Also, COULD I TROUBLE SOMEONE FROM BIS SUPPORT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE because sure as heck it is a BIS-caused problem and deserves some attention.

    Do I need to write to the CEO Marek Španěl to get BIS to take responsibility??

    Thank you kindly.

  8. Posted

    The 3615QM is a good CPU, I have a 3610QM and it's performance is close to my two year old overclocked desktop (I7-950). My laptop (Samsung, 3610QM, GT 650M, SSD) and get ~35fps using the high graphics preset (and play with 40-60fps using lower settings).

    However I use Windows 7 and my screen is only 1366x768. If you are using 1920x1080, that may be too much for the 650M, try using a lower resolution. Otherwise, check Arma is using your Nvidia card rather than the CPU/APU graphics (if I run Arma using mine I get 5-10fps)

    WoW - I would kill for 35 FPS on high, currently I have around EIGHT (no shit).

    How did you get that performance? As far as I can tell, my CPU is not being used AT ALL. 5% load!! I have tried deactivating all but 1 core, and then seeing which core would be "best", but even running in "single core" mode the load does not go over 22%. Now I do have a fairly slow HD but I know that is not the problem (the benchmarking scenarios, once loaded for the first time, run of the build-in SSD cache that I have, and I still have low performance).

    The resolution question is interesting one as I am on 17inch widescreen - I could knock that down. However I am sure that my cores are not running at anything anyway, the 650M isn't really going anywhere as it is. I "forced" the card to deal with the game via the NVIDA pannel but I don't think it made any difference.

    I do have Windows 8 but I am running in -winxp so that should be fine as well.

    Any suggestion on how to force the 650m on, besides doing via the NVDIA pannel?

  9. Posted

    Okay, I have been playing Arma and all OFP predecessors back to 2001. It is practically the only FPS I play, and the reason why I decided to upgrade my old Vaio i3 laptop to a new i7 17-inch screen. So I put a lot of money into a new system and it is a total abject fail - I have FPS around 8-12 on the benchmarking.

    This is my system:

    Samsung 700Z7C-S03 (WIN 8)

    :: Processor

    Intel Core i7-3615QM 2.3 GHz (Intel Core i7)

    :: Mainboard

    Intel HM76 (Panther Point)

    :: Memory

    8192 MB, 4096MB + 4096MB (soldered)

    :: Graphics adapter

    NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M - 2048 MB, Core: 835 MHz, Memory: 1000 MHz, GDDR5, ForceWare 295.55

    :: Display

    17.3 inch 16:9, 1920x1080 pixel, Chi Mei, Anti-glare / matte, glossy: no

    :: Harddisk

    Seagate Momentus SpinPoint M8 ST1000LM024, 1000 GB 5400 rpm + SanDisk iSSD P4 8GB

    I have tried EVERYTHING. I have of course activated -winxp, I forced NVIDA to run (or at least told it to on the nVIDA panel), started playing with maximum memory, deactivating threads and cores switches, put up to everything to maximum detail, tuned it down- nothing! Still stuck with around 10 FPS no on the benchmark scenario no matter what. There does seem to be a slightly faster subjective performance when I deactivate all threads bar 0, but the FPS rating still stays the same. Yes, I also went into the cfg. file and changed the values to 0. Nothing worked - although after game runs once it always goes back to 1 for strange reason.

    No matter what - the CPU never uses more then 10-15%, the RAM 20% - the system is simply not being used at all. I think it is a problem with i7-3615QM but I have no clue what to do about it.

    I really got my rig for DayZ and Arma3 but if BIS does not finally patch their engine to make it forward compatible then all this for the dogs.

    I would be eternally grateful if someone would have something new and knowledgeable to say that would help - b/c I am at my wits end.

    cheers

  11. Posted · Edited by Siddhi

    mostly interesting comments, but before we go to ultimate solider :

    - as someone from an european draft army i can say with no insult to russians that the marksmanship difference between a russian draftee and US best-of-the-best-of-the-best is very high. i am not talking about SPETZNAZ. in a number of armies i have delth with it is in article of faith that the *only* thing the US military does very well (go on flame me for it Americans) is marksmanship - what they are shooting at not being the issue here, the fact is that they tend to hit it....this is especially valid for moving targets and FUBA,which are very expensive to train for and where "Reacton shots" have to practiced dozens of times to get somewhat right...something few armies do with "normal" troops btw.

    btw, another issue that irritates me that should have been fixed: firing when moving. old soviet motorized infantry assault tactics were based (actually even timed) around the charge with full auto fire from hip. Obviously they do not hit much, btu great for suppression.

    - i am not a tread head but i have seen leopard 2's stuck in a forest before. as said is not impossible to drive through a LIGHT wood forrest - just very difficult and very risky (getting stumped, throwing tracks, etc.). for wheeled APCs it is completly impossible. You can't take a 20degree incline on wet wood with wheels - you will just slide off.

    - on 81mm motors: a direct hit on a BMP might take one out, but that is a big might. i don't even know how a mortar shell can "direct hit" a tree - the branches will most set the fuses off anyway. also for all of you who think trees offer cover for artillery - BS. every infantryman knowns that being in a woods under arty fire is hell - the woods tends to magnify their effects (splinters). they protect against observation however which is the point. in any case the explosions and the blast ranges in Arma2 for the arty is just way off. it does not look like 81mm, it looks nearly like 120mm IMO. i am sure youtube can offer some videos for those need evidence.

    thanks for the suggestions on the mods, i will have a go once i get around to finishing the campaign. kind of irritated that everyone is giving me stick for taking away the RPG from the priest. i mean, does anyone think in RL any soldier would have acted differently? what, disobey orders - AND leave weapons in the hands of potential terrorists who can use them to knock out your vehicles? not really.

    the comment btw of Russian army being "diamond-headed wooden spear" is a good one IMO. and yes...the game is trully awesome...but then again either we want a military simulator or a game, and sometimes i get confused....

  12. Posted · Edited by Siddhi

    ...and obviously the game is trully awesome.

    A couple of observations however from someone with a bit of experience, not only with OFP but the real deal..

    1. the "trees as thick as matchsticks" is a bit irritating from a RL PoV. A LAV cannot go cruising trhough a forest, it can'T even do that with an orchard of peach trees. Even tanks can'T do that, at least not for very far and not with serious risk of throwing a track or getting "stumped" (hanging off a tree stump and losing traction). I agree it is much more fun cruising through the bushes, but a "middle way" would somehow be nice here...

    2. in the manhatten mission the 81mm is really, really overpowered. I have never seen 155mm in action, but that could be what it looks like (minus the missing craters). 81mm and 107mm mortors are a lot more "tame" then that, certainly does not knock trees over or destroy APCs (at least easily).

    3. at the same time, tank armour is underpowered - quite a lot. Even half-a-dozen Tandem HEAD RPGs should not be too much of a problem for a T-90. in the game i flank.shot a T-90 with an RPG from close range and caused critical damage, with a dead driver and the crew bailing. I can leave with a mission-kill on a T-90 after a Metis ATGM shot, but not a RPG pls...

    4. having achieved a MK on the T-90 i decided i whant a total kill, so I shot the thing again, expecting to have to relaod after the blast takes me out. well, i started a little campfire, and the secondary explosions (of a T-90) happened only about 4m away, and that was it. Guys i totally understand downplaying explosions for the sake of RL but it can be exagerated. If a tank ammo goes (and you don'T have blow-out pannels like the M1A1) you better be more then a couple of meters away. This happens a coupl of times btw. Interestingly IMPO however this works for the BMP perfectly....I have hesitated a couple of times after having hit a bmp waiting for the secondaries, as you would in RL.

    5. finally, quality of enemy: in OFP nothing was worse then being taken out by a resistance farmer with an ak.47 at 500m with a headshot, who has never heard of "supression" and couldn't care less. This hays been much improved. Also, sometimes enemy reactions seem very authentic..it does take the odd chap (russians, usually) a couple of moments to see you as well. Then however their marskmanship is pretty good... REALLY good. the resistance can even be better, i am still getting taken out at 200m by a farmer with an Ak-47 with his first couple of shots.

    This is really an issue guys. Personally I used to shoot my RL assault rifle not too disimilar to how I shoot in the game - not great shakes by any means, but I get them down("them" in RL being moving target range). The enemy always seems to be nearly as good as I am - in some circumstances better (playing at "regular") However a crack US soldier (I am not an American btw) I shouldn't be slightly better, he should be MUCH better shot. I mean like 3-4 times better probability of kill compared to a farmer with an ak (who can be good, I know), and 2-3 as good as the russian regular army. Basically in RL you would expect someone shooting a "reaction shot" (i.e. unaimed) at 50m to spend a couple of bursty or half a mag, and to miss most shots. In the game on aveage you are dead by the third shot of the enemy. I have head stories from african peackeeepign opperations with someone firing a full AK mag at a near-stationary target not more then 20m away and missing with every shot. Seriously give the yanks their due ... marksmenship they know! A lot better then an old REMF like me :)

    Great game of course...however I think I am going to have to take it to ACE...

    Siddhi

  15. Posted

    hi chaps,

    a generous fellow austrian on this forum tried to help me out with my laptop Arma2 requirements, but i missed the opportunity so to speak and would like to ask the round again.

    Two Toshiba A500 options:

    A500 1F7 ( 2,2 Ghz T660; 4 GB DDR3; GT 220M)

    A500 1Gp (2,13 Ghz i3-330M, 4 GB DDR3 RAM; GT 330M)

    i KNOW the -1GP will play Arma2 fine but I would really, really like -1F7: not only because of cost but also because of the DVB-antenna in :rolleyes:.

    So:

    1. Will I be able to play the 1F7 fine on MEDIUM (not high)

    2. How big a performance difference do you think there is between the two rigs..

    Cheers!

  17. Posted · Edited by Siddhi

    @Siddhi - a friend of mine bought a toshiba laptop last week and it sounds similar

    to the one you mentioned.

    Since I am Austrian and in Vienna I would be very, very interested in the your friends machine !! Could you PLEASE find out where he bought it and what it is? This may be it...:yay:

    PS:

    Is this it? Toshiba Satellite L555-10Z (notice: 4650 card not 4670 )

    Core 2 Duo T6600 2x 2.10GHz • 6144MB (1x 2048MB und 1x 4096MB) • 320GB • DVD+/-RW DL • ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 1024MB • 3x USB 2.0/Gb LAN/WLAN 802.11bgn/Bluetooth • HDMI • 5in1 Card Reader (SD/MMC/MS/MS Pro/xD) • Webcam • • 17.3" WXGA++ glare LED TFT (1600x900) • Windows 7 Home Premium

    man u might just rocky my world

    PPS:

    how much difference does 6MB RAM really make? Isn't it less important than CPU and Card?

  18. Posted

    The 330 isn't even that much slower if you look at the scores of nvidia cards with about the same specs. (It's at about 80% of the radeon). I wouldn't recommend acer laptops' date=' they've got good specs for a reasonable price but the build quality isn't that good. That said you can probably get 2 acers for the price of 1 alienware.[/quote']

    Yes i have heard that of acer ad nausem, think I will have to go for the Samsung or the Toshiba listed above...do you think I can do Arma2 at stable medium details here? Mostly prolly single-player play here btw, so I guess 30 FPS or so would be sufficent..

    Cheers, S

  19. Posted

    hi guys, have been trying to find an authoritative answer to this question for ages and it ain't easy....yes it is a "which notebook will run Arma2" question, mind you at Medium details is sufficent! And before you ask yes it has to be a notebook..

    Theoretically the 5650 graphic card should be able to rock the house, right? Even at high levels of detail:

    Acer Aspire 7740g

    Intel® Core™ i3-330M Prozessor

    2,13 GHz

    500 GB

    4 GB DDR-3-RAM

    44cm / 17 Zoll

    1600 x 900

    ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650

    however, i think a lesser powered notebook should be able to do at least medium details, such as:

    Samsung R580 010

    Intel® Core™ i3-330M Prozessor

    2,13 GHz

    320 GB

    4 GB DDR-3-RAM

    40cm / 16 Zoll

    1366 x 768

    NVIDIA GT330M 1024MB mit max. 2298 MB

    or even the Toshiba Satellite L555-10K:

    Core 2 Duo P7450 2x 2.13GHz • 4096MB (x 2048MB) • 500GB • DVD+/-RW DL • ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 1024MB

    What do you think guys? Yes it has to be a laptoop, but I only played OFP for 10 years and reckon Arma2 might be just the same one true love. Btw yes I know alienware will do it, but the point in the minumum decent, and not the maximum affordable. Looking foward to some suggestions!

    Oh btw, there is a great site for testing graphic cards and different games (http://www.notebookcheck.com/Welche-Spiele-laufen-auf-Notebook-Grafikkarten-fluessig.13827.0.html). Which of these games ist best comparable to Arma2? CoD Modern Warfare2, maybe?

    Cheers, S

×