Re: ARMA 2 Demo Benchmarks

**Bamboo** · 06-26-2009, 06:29 PM

Was board and decided to download the demo for the benchmark. Kind of interesting.
I ran once with my CPU at stock (a q6600 @ 2.4)
View distance at stock 1600 I think
High settings
Texture, Video mem, Shadow detail, post processing
normal settings
Anisotropic and Antaliasing, Terrain, Objects

FPS score was 21

So I rebooted and overclocked the CPU up to 3.0 or so.
Same settings as above gave me FPS=23
I upped the view distance to 3000, and the FPS=21
I upped the Objects and Terrain to High, and FPS=19

This is with 4 gigs of 1066 RAM and an 8800GTS 640mb gfx. card.
I tried to overclock the 8800, but Rivatuner says the drivers aren't recognized (they just came out like last week)

And the interesting thing is the CPU wasn't really straining in any of the tests.
I run a 2nd monitor so I can watch my CPU and RAM all the time, so here is a screenshot to show what it looked like pretty much the whole benchmark run.
This is just the 2nd monitor, the main monitor has the game running.

**Kaiza** · 06-26-2009, 07:50 PM

Seems the phenom II CPUs have some kind of problem with ARMA 2

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

**Grunt 70** · 06-26-2009, 11:23 PM

I pleasantly surprised with an approximate average of 30 fps. I ran the bench mark 4 or 5 times. Had 29 a couple of times, 31 once, 30 and I think 28 or 27. All settings on high, except AA and AF on normal and post processing off.

Considering the dud BI interactive laid with the orignal ARMA demo I'd say this is a victory for them. Its highly playable and very smooth. I've enjoyed the sp mission quite a bit 3 or 4 times and I'm having fun with the limited MP action.

I just wonder how much performance in the full game will match the demo.

**Grunt 70** · 06-26-2009, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Callaway

Any way to get the benchmark in the retail version? Is it just a mission?

Dont know if it's in the retail version but you could just download the demo...seems silly though...its' like 2 gigs...just for the benchmark thingy. but if you've got plenty of room it's a helpful tool.

**Delta Five Nine** · 06-27-2009, 01:38 AM

Unless it's hidden somewhere it's not in the actual game.

**Grunt 70** · 06-27-2009, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by Grunt 70

I pleasantly surprised with an approximate average of 30 fps. I ran the bench mark 4 or 5 times. Had 29 a couple of times, 31 once, 30 and I think 28 or 27. All settings on high, except AA and AF on normal and post processing off.

Considering the dud BI interactive laid with the orignal ARMA demo I'd say this is a victory for them. Its highly playable and very smooth. I've enjoyed the sp mission quite a bit 3 or 4 times and I'm having fun with the limited MP action.

I just wonder how much performance in the full game will match the demo.

I forgot to say I went with default view distance at first. Then I cranked it up to 3500 and the average score went down to around 27 fps or so. I lowered everything to normal but the best bounce seemed to happen when I lowered the view distance to 2400. I liked the eye candy on high settings though. Its purdy.

Its a fun and useful tool to play around with and I wonder if there is a way to port just this mission into the retail game. There must be.

**Sabre_Tooth_Tigger** · 06-27-2009, 09:06 AM

Which menu in the demo for the benchmark?

**Jorge.PT** · 06-27-2009, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

Which menu in the demo for the benchmark?

It's on the single player -> Scenarios menu.

Hope that helps.

**Jack Bauer** · 06-27-2009, 12:18 PM

I ran mine with my CPU at 2.9 (a q6600 stock @ 2.4)
resolution
1920 x 1080
3d resolution
1920 x 1080
View distance
10000
very High settings
Video mem, quality preference
High settings
Texture, , Shadow detail, Objects Anisotropic and Antaliasing
normal settings
Terrain
Low settings
post processing

after all of that i average 13-10 FPS.

i have one question thought as stupid as it sounds. does the size of your monitor matter? what i mean is on my graphics card, does the larger the monitor mean the harder my card has to work?? i have a 32" vizio plasma for my game screen and a 22" Westinghouse for my second monitor. would i get better FPS on my smaller LCD screen??

**Sorvete** · 06-27-2009, 12:37 PM

No, the size of your monitor doesnt affect the load on the GPU directly, just the quality of the image displayed... the bigger your monitor, the bad is the image quality... its like opening a 320x200 image on fullscreen... with bigger monitors, u use bigger resolutions, and that yes, is more work for your GPU

**Ghost Dog** · 06-27-2009, 01:11 PM

Yep, the size doesn't matter, the pixels do. A 20" and a 22" won't have different performance because they run on the same res (1680x1050).

**Jack Bauer** · 06-27-2009, 01:19 PM

cool. now another question.

does this benchmark take in account the most graphic intense part of the game.

i know that when i do the training and the other single player mission that i really do not notice all that much of the low FPS.

**Sabre_Tooth_Tigger** · 06-27-2009, 01:55 PM

The size of the actual screen is mostly an analogue factor not digital. Computers only care about numbers so the res you stated is the relevant factor to load on the graphics card, times the numbers together and you get the size in pixels.

you could take a pc display and project it onto the side of a house if you wanted and it'd be the same load as a 14" monitor to the computer.

The difference is if the res isnt high enough you will start to see each pixel separately the more the picture is blown up

640x480 on my 19" screen I think is only 300 pixels to describe each cm squared of screen space and it gets grainy

I think the AI and memory load might be most challenging part of the game. The benchmark is very rough and doesnt highlight different factors

**Mato** · 06-28-2009, 02:41 PM

one of my biggest problems with the FPS is when looking at bunch of trees... i get 18 - 23 fps... but everything else seems to be running at nicely 35-52 fps...

Benchmark avg is 36 fps

I run 1680x1050
View distance 3000
Shading 4
Post off
Video Mem Very High
Texture High
Object Med
Terrain High
Scene Complex 160k
No AA
Shadow Med

My Rig
Vista 32bit
Intel CPU e6750 2.66ghz (OC @ 3.2ghz)
PNY Nvidia 8800 GTS 640mb (OC)
4 Gigs of "SLI" ram DDR2 800

I noticed that the game really doesnt strain the GPU as it never reach any high temperatures as Anno 1701 does :S

and btw I think Demo's options are bugged... sometimes lower settings produce better quality and lower fps :S

**Tobruk** · 07-03-2009, 03:05 AM

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.

Thread Tools

Display