ARMA 2 Demo Benchmarks - Page 3

**kevlarorc** · 07-03-2009, 03:51 AM

My overclock is the only thing keeping my computer capable of playing this game. I've found putting post-processing on low gives me up to 20 FPS increase but it looks horrid and the bloom blocks out half of what I should be able to see. I like it disabled.

Ka-Oz · 07-03-2009, 04:26 AM

problem is that demo is on utes island wich much less demanding than the chernaruss sland where u will spend most of the time, the fpsu will get on chernaruss will be lower.

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger · 07-03-2009, 07:49 AM

I was getting 26fps with a 4870. Ive overclocked the cpu to 3.2ghz since then so maybe it'll help some as I have dual core only

I have pp off aa off and shadows on normal, I dont think anything more is needed for those

Anything upto 80c on a cpu is fine, these latest gpu are ok for 100c Im told

**Ghost Dog** · 07-03-2009, 08:28 AM

That 's rather sad news. I 'm about to overclock my Q9450 from 2.66 to 3.2Ghz (yes Ghz not Mhz... that 'd be rather slow

). Hopefully the difference will be bigger in the full game. Just waiting for my Scythe Mugen 2 cooler to come in.

Thx for posting.

**Axis_Sniper** · 07-03-2009, 08:34 AM

How do you overclock your CPU?

**Bamboo** · 07-03-2009, 08:46 AM

Why did we start a new thread about this. We already had a thread about the benchmark demo and it was all about overclocking CPU and results.
Going to combine the threads.

**Ghost Dog** · 07-03-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axis_Sniper

How do you overclock your CPU?

You have to increase the Front Side Bus (FSB) speed or the Multiplier in the BIOS. Core 2 Duo and Quads can easily be overclocked. Mine runs stock at 8 (MP) x 333Mhz (FSB) = 2666 Mhz so if I increase the FSB to 400Mhz it will be 8 x 400 = 3200Mhz. You have to keep in mind that your memory will run at the same speed though, I now have 4GB of DDR2 which runs at 667Mhz, but since it 's DDR2 (double data rate) it actually runs at 333Mhz (same as my CPU FSB speed). I 'll be upgrading my memory to 4GB @ 800Mhz, keeping the relation between the RAM clock speed and FSB speed the same (1:1).

Not sure if you 'll understand any of this but hey... I tried

.

**Axis_Sniper** · 07-03-2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost Dog

You have to increase the Front Side Bus (FSB) speed or the Multiplier in the BIOS. Core 2 Duo and Quads can easily be overclocked. Mine runs stock at 8 (MP) x 333Mhz (FSB) = 2666 Mhz so if I increase the FSB to 400Mhz it will be 8 x 400 = 3200Mhz. You have to keep in mind that your memory will run at the same speed though, I now have 4GB of DDR2 which runs at 667Mhz, but since it 's DDR2 (double data rate) it actually runs at 333Mhz (same as my CPU FSB speed). I 'll be upgrading my memory to 4GB @ 800Mhz, keeping the relation between the RAM clock speed and FSB speed the same (1:1).

Not sure if you 'll understand any of this but hey... I tried

.

More of a hit and miss. I'll learn this someday, that's why I am taking classes for these things

Tobruk · 07-03-2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobruk

I have been playing with the FPS bench mark scenario in the demo--wonderful tool

Okay here are my specs:

i7 920
6gb Ocz1600 XML
ATI 4870 1gb
Coolit Domino

Game settings:

1650x1020
Everything on VeryHigh except
AA Low
Shadows High
Post processing low
Distance 2500

Recorded FPS @ 2.66 mhz (stock CPU setting)

32

Recorded FPS @ 3.8 mhz (OC)

37

I tried this with other combinations of settings where I was getting 50 fps at stock and 55 at 3.8 mhz.

Conclusion (in my case) overclock at this rate is worth 5 FPS

Of course this is only in the benchmark scenario.

Decision: For now I will continue to run stock CPU settings as the rig runs about 10-15 degrees cooler (was approaching 70 at 3.8 mhz on load during demo) and fans are quieter.

Sorry for starting a duplicate thread.

In anycase, the thing I find interesting about my benchmarks with and without OCing is that it appears that the CPU speed is not all that influencial. I think Bambo's experience also indicate this.

This runs counter to a link posted in this thread which suggests that a Dual Core with a higher speed would post a better score then a Quad core with a lower speed.

I saw a test run by PC gamer (?) that suggested it was more advantageous to have a Quad over high speed. I will try and find this link and post it.

Here is the link http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...CPUs/Practice/

This site also has other useful tests such as in game graphical setting comparisons http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...actice/?page=2

and GPU benchmarks

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...ared/Practice/

Mato · 07-03-2009, 12:43 PM

maybe try is out sometime http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=6153

im guessing there is some kind of CPU bottleneck and GPU bottleneck regarding this game as it will never run 100% usage unlike my other games, and beside there are a lot of bugs.

PCLiPSE · 07-03-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoomJuice

Would a quad core help more than a dual core in that case?

Quad or Dual doesn't matter. HOWEVER don't be fooled by this. Intel Quads are much better than AMD. So I mean. If you have an Intel E8400. That's like almost equivalent to my AMD X2 6400+...Even though Intel has a lower clock...doesn't mean it's worse.

ArmA is more of a GPU intensive game than CPU. I mean. Like I said. I own an AMD X2 6400+ at 3.2GHz...and I USED to have an 8800GT. And I lagged pretty badly. But now I bought an HD4890 1GB :P And like it just takes ArmA 2 beautifully.

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger · 07-03-2009, 06:49 PM

4890 has to be way more then double the power of a gt so I should hope so. Your cpu wasnt holding you back in that case but it will for some.

I just clocked my e6400 cpu from 2.1 to 3.2ghz and it raises the 26fps benchmark for 4870 upto 39fps

I'll double check that but seems about right as the % increase is just the same

(3.2/2.1) ~ = (39/26)

Tobruk · 07-03-2009, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

4890 has to be way more then double the power of a gt so I should hope so. Your cpu wasnt holding you back in that case but it will for some.

I just clocked my e6400 cpu from 2.1 to 3.2ghz and it raises the 26fps benchmark for 4870 upto 39fps

I'll double check that but seems about right as the % increase is just the same

(3.2/2.1) ~ = (39/26)

Wow (as previously stated) on my i7 920

(3.8/2.66) ~ = (37/32) first set of graphics settings and (55/50) on the second set.

I guess Ocing on a different cpu has a different level of effect.

**kevlarorc** · 07-04-2009, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PCLiPSE

ArmA is more of a GPU intensive game than CPU. I mean. Like I said. I own an AMD X2 6400+ at 3.2GHz...and I USED to have an 8800GT. And I lagged pretty badly. But now I bought an HD4890 1GB :P And like it just takes ArmA 2 beautifully.

I just bought a 4890 today off newegg upgrading from an 8800gt as well. Can't wait to see the difference. I've been doing benchmarks in some different games: Crysis, Far Cry 2, ArmA2, ArmA 2 Demo, 3dMark 06. Then I will do the same tests with the 4890 when it comes in and post up the FPS increase.
Heck, I suppose I should even boot up Vista and try out the Crysis benchmark with DX10 then try out the 4890 on it with the improved DX10.1

**Ghost Dog** · 07-04-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevlarorc

I just bought a 4890 today off newegg upgrading from an 8800gt as well. Can't wait to see the difference. I've been doing benchmarks in some different games: Crysis, Far Cry 2, ArmA2, ArmA 2 Demo, 3dMark 06. Then I will do the same tests with the 4890 when it comes in and post up the FPS increase.
Heck, I suppose I should even boot up Vista and try out the Crysis benchmark with DX10 then try out the 4890 on it with the improved DX10.1

Awesome, can't wait to hear the results. I 'm looking for the same upgrade

.