Hiikeri

I have played since, Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis (2001) since 2002, and even then we also dream about something superb future PC, who has so great performance that OFP is running greatly (=60+fps in ALL time). Then cames Arma2 and i buy much, much more CPU power, and much more GPU power and everything else...to hope a great running gaming experience. But, its newer running great, becouse Its Bohemia Interactive game. Now, 2013, with Arma3, we are a same situation. We just hope that "we" has a MAX PC, but forget IT! Its newer been happen, BI:s games are ~5 years front of us. i think we have now PC who can play original OFP greatly. :) Or somekind of medium settings > 100fps on ARMA2 (2009).

I know that, about 3 years ago, with Arma2, i upgraded GTX460 to GTX560Ti and fps increase was about 1-3fps, 40 > 41-43fps. i had that time AMD Phenom II @4.0Ghz. Then i upgraded CPU to i7-2600k and fps increase was on stock i7 something +20fps, overall 60+fps. After overclocking ([email protected]) it rises more ~10fps, then i got 70+fps (on Arma2). 1. i5/i7 @4.5Ghz... ++++ 2. DDR3 2133Mhz... +++ 3. Tweaking (Arma3, Win and Steam) ++ 4. GPU (r7950 > faster or GTX670 > faster) + 5. Win + Arma3 on (separate) SSD, or A3 simply on the RamDisk. I think that is formula to great fps. And MP, the most important thing is greatly running "HIGH FPS" server...

Its in the picture, 11-12-11-30-1T, my memory default latencies. My memory specs (2x4Gb Kingston HyperX Predator) are actually 2400Mhz at those same latencies, but my Sandy Bridges memory controller cant handle it. I havent tried over 1.20V VCCIO. yet.. :) Someones buy 400usd video card and basic 1600 memory and he got..lets say 50fps. And someone else buy a 350usd video card and 2133-2666 memory, and he got 55fps, with same CPU and money. That's my point. 95% all other games works just perfectly on 1600Mhz DDR3, only 0-2fps more with 2133 DDR3. But, ARMA3 seems to be totally different game, engine needs to have extremly fast main memory. Those my tests/graph shows it.

Holy shit that main memory speed is a huge impact to FPS. I just make a comparison a different DDR3 speeds, look at the results. :don3: 1333Mhz > 2133Mhz (same latencies) give me about +30% more FPS (46>60fps). In another hand, Memory 2133Mhz+CPU stock > [email protected] gives me almost same impact (47>60fps). So memory speed has a same fps increase than overclocking my CPU @5.2Ghz.

My current system gives me these FPS: beta (stable, NOT develoment) v0.70xxxxxx I play MP in High settings. Or sometimes Very High -2000 distance, 2xAA, HDR:Off, PP:Off, PIP:Low, Shadows:High > gives almost same fps than straight High presets, only in totally great fps server.

Remember that Shadow Details must be always at least High settings. Always, even when someone plays in Lowest settings. Shadows Details: Low-Standard setting = CPU calculates shadows = FPS drops High-Ultra = GPU calculates shadows = Is always better than above setting. Dont OC with stock cooler if you dont know absolutely 100% sure what you are doing, if you OC you got massive temps and if yours MB safety systems fails, example bug in firmware its not impossible than yours CPU takes a massive hit. Every ones who knows something about OC:ing, suggest for sure that change your cooler before OC:ing.

Arma2 engine usable max memory is limited to 2Gb, so 4Gb Main memory > 8Gb doesnt give you a single frame more, or not a smoother gaming. 4Gb is enough, Max 2Gb for game (ever that size?) and 1-1.5Gb for Windows+backround programs. Arma2/OA uses only 850-900Mb Display Adapter memory at normal playing situations, even at Very High details + 1920x1080 resolution > 1Gb card is enough. SSD is one and great answer to get a smoother playing experience, even at slow fps. Buy a cheap, ~30Gb SSD and install Arma/OA that drive only. If you have Steam version, install games normally (C:\) and after that move your Arma2 + OA to the that drive (SSD) using SteamMover program.

I dont recommended SLI in this game, many problems, but if you cant solve that, it peaks yours FPS pretty nicely. Or maybe not. Shadow, you will get 50% fps:s if you change your CPU to Sandy Bridge @4-5Ghz... What ever yours GPU are! Go a shop, buy a 2500k+MB and OC it to 4.4-5.0Ghz and buy a GTX570 and you will se awesome sharp 2d desktop and then this games rolling something like me, 1920 x Very High Details 60-80fps @OA BM08, in game it means ~60-100fps, alltime! These details! :bounce3:

Dont worry about that Intel/P67 Sata2 issue. My P67 mobo is 4 Sata3 ports, thats enough for me. I have 1 SSD, 2 HDD and 1 CD/DVD player, so those all my drives are Sata3 connection so no problems, ever. That Sata2 bug issue is only Sata2 ports. I think 4 working ports is enough for me! But some P67 MB:s has only 2 Sata3 ports, thats why i buyd this my MB, and this is one of the fastest P67 MB's. Asrock Extreme 4. My earlier MB was too Asrock. Rock solid and great overclocking capabitiluty...maybe not right writed :) ...but you understand. Asrock was last year 3rd biggest MB manufacturer after Asus and Gigabyte. Asrock is going to the stars! Great Mobo! Search tests, Asrock Extreme 4.

Shadow NX, i just replaced my GTX460 to GTX560Ti. And when i get 1st time to Windows desktop, my jaw dropped! WOW! Picture quality was absolutely better than 460! 560 is about 10% faster than 460 with same clocks in OA, but only 1-2% faster in original Arma2. Did you see my tests on page #660? But as you see my tests, 460 is pretty enough if you have CPU power to top level, like a Intel i7 Sandy Bridge @5Ghz. You are waiting 2Gb 560Ti card? Why? More memory only helps when yours cards, lets says 1024Mb memory ends! Arma2 in my 1920x1080 + Very High settings takes about 850-900Mb so 2Gb card dont help a single frame. With more memory in card means you can play it sharper resolutions, but if you wanna play 2560x1920 resolution, 560Ti:s dont play that resolution even a 10Gb memory becouse its GPU isnt fast enough those resolutions + details. More memory DOESNT make yours card more powerful, GPU only means. But if you play those 2560x1920 resolution + Very High details in 1Gb card and yours memory ends those settings and fps is, example 30 and yours playing is cut-ting-in-the-pieces, sry i dont know how to say that, i mean in 30fps you should be a pretty smooth gaming and game is still cutting-in-the-pieces... ..becouse yours card memory ends and that example you will get smoother gaming experience with 2gb memory, but still same 30fps. Hard to say what i mean, i hope you understand. Think, you play old Quake3 with low-details and 640x480 resolution and you will get 200fps. All that details with that resolutions data are yours card memory, let's say it takes 300Mb. And then you buy 2Gb card, and same resolution and details you WILL get same fps, extra memory didnt help at all, nothing!

b.1974.

Those HW you get great results. 2500k difference to 2600k is only -100Mhz and no Hyper Threading on 2500k. Its recommended that HT is disable when playing A2/OA, i heard that it gives a couple fps more so 2500k thats not issue. And of course 2500k CPU:s overclocking potential is massive too, 4.4-5.0Ghz and GTX570 is of course more powerful than my 560Ti. Maybe i buy second 560Ti to SLI and then this machine flyes pretty well. Maybe 100fps on Very High+1080 settings? :)

Wanna OA high FPS? Buy a Intel i7 Sandy Bridge and forgive baby AMD CPU! Arma2

Those are DEFAULT settings, so Very High defaults viewing distance are 3600.

36, in 2 months > 37.

W7 is absolutely winner, and powered with Intel i7 Sandy Bridge CPU = High FPS!

Arma2:OA > Very High + 1920x1080. It seems that OA is a little bit more GPU game than original Arma2, but just a little. CPU is still the most precious thing. Must buy some day another 560Ti to the SLI, maybe then 100fps those settings! :coop: It's fun to play Very High Settings that resolution. Hail to the Sandy! Intel i7 "Sandy Bridge" 2600k @5.0Ghz HT, nVidia GTX 560Ti @950/2500, 8Gb G.Skill DDR 1600Mhz, Intel SSD, W7U-64 SP1 RTM

Some results from my tests in last week, it shows what CPU means this game: Sandy Bridge RLZ! Straight from Steam install, no game tweaks. Only Nvidia Control Panel optimized for Arma2.exe. More testing results is coming.. ---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 PM ----------

Buy a GTX 5xx series for Arma2! Why? Becouse 5xx series is nVidias 1st series ever, what makes full hw acceleration for FP16 textures, and Arma2/OA engine uses those textures (DX9). All previous nVidia cards, example GTX480 makes those FP16 calculations at half-speed (FP16<>FP32 translation?). And 480 is so much louder and hotter than a hell! :mad: And its power consumption is so much much more than a GTX560Ti. ATI cards has been a long time full FP16 supported.

I think it increases multipliers if you have 1 or more cores disabled? Example 3 cores (1 must be then manually disabled) you have 1x multiplier more than 4 cores.

Arma2 is ~10-20% faster on W7(64) than Vista(64). Also OA is ~10-20% faster than orig. Arma2. Changing Vista/Arma2 > W7/OA is about 20-40% more fps. Arma2+OA uses max 2Gb from main memory? I think so. So 4Gb is enough, no extra speed 4Gb > 8Gb. I buyd SSD, gaming is much smoother now.

PhysX > CPU = Disabled. When yours GPU usage is low, let's say 30-70%, it means that yours GPU is working 100%, but IT has reserved power aka. it waits a CPU to get something eatable. =Yours GPU eats all data what yours CPU can process. You'll need more powerfull CPU. and of course... When yours GPU usage is high, example 100% at all time, then GPU eats what it can. =Yours CPU is so powerfull that yours GPU is shaking. Then you'll need more powerfull GPU. Think yours example, you overclocked CPU and its faster, of course GPU usage rises becouse it has more to eat. So, you must have much more powerfull CPU to get GPU usage to 100%. Buy a Intel i7 "Sandy Bridge" @ 5Ghz and look yours GPU usage then. :) Btw2, i ordered today i7 "Sandy Bridge" 2600k, MB + 8Gb DDR3 and GTX560Ti. I think my GPU usage is then pretty high. :o Sry my english, its not my native language, but you understand what i mean?

OA 08E: Benchmark Quality Preference: High (AA/PostFX > Disabled & Video Memory > Very High) + 1920x1080 (100%) gives me 78fps with AMD 4-Core, DDR2 and single GTX460, i think that's Ok? My settings Some Benchmark pics: http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/662/74894185.jpg http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7228/69845679.jpg http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1423/91637353.jpg Results