Any Laptops that are capable of Running ARMA2:OA, Know of any?

[Simpledestruction 10]

I am currently thinking of buying a new laptop and wish to install Arma2:OA onto it. Does any one have any ideas to which ones will run it at mid-level graphics

My Budget is £800

Thanks

[Dead3yez 0]

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/224897

This is the best one I can find for £800. It should be able to run at low-medium(maybe).

[andersson 285]

Hi, I know this goes over your budget but it can be other users than have the same question but bigger budget. You dont mind I hope :)

I wanted a laptop for arma2 and wanted it small as I travel alot. I bought an alienware MX11 r2 (actually defined as netbook due to the small size)and upgraded it with i7 cpu and 4 gig ram. It runs arma2:co just fine and it looks good and the gameplay is fluent. Alot of reviews on internet if anyone want to know more. I like it very much!

@Simpledestruction. I know more users have arma2 on their laptops so you should get an answer for a less expensive laptop.

[gossamersolid 155]

This is a little under your budget and should play ArmA 2 at medium settings

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220700

[Simpledestruction 10]

cheers guys

[Laqueesha 474]

Hell, most PCs can't even run ArmA II at low settings, let alone a laptop. A really good gaming laptop will run you near 2000 pounds. But then again, a really good gaming laptop is the equivalent of a shitty desktop. ;)

Edited October 14, 2010 by Laqueesha

[andersson 285]

My alienware mx11 r2 cost 1150$ and runs arma2 really good. And its a netbook.

[gossamersolid 155]

Hell, most PCs can't even run ArmA II at low settings, let a lone a laptop. A really good gaming laptop will run you near 2000 pounds. But then again, a really good gaming laptop is the equivalent of a shitty desktop. ;)

I don't know what kind of PC you have, but mine runs the game quite fine at high settings (no PP) @ 1440x900

My laptop can also run arma 2 at low-medium @ 1440x900.

[TankCommander 3]

My ASUS G73JH runs Arma2 on high settings. With all the patches it even runs Chernarus at 5km view distance comfortably with grass and all that jazz enabled.

[liquidpinky 11]

I don't know what kind of PC you have, but mine runs the game quite fine at high settings (no PP) @ 1440x900

My laptop can also run arma 2 at low-medium @ 1440x900.

A ZX Spectrum could run it at that resolution.

[El Giggi 11]

I am currently thinking of buying a new laptop and wish to install Arma2:OA onto it. Does any one have any ideas to which ones will run it at mid-level graphics

My Budget is £800

Thanks

Mine is a HP Pavilion dv7-2010eg. Its now one year old and runs Arma 2 really nicely. Resolution on 1600x900, Everything on high/very high except Shadows, Post-processing effect and Ani-aliasing

The Specs are:

Intel Core Duo P8600 2,40 GHZ

4 GB Ram

ATI Radeon Mobility HD 4650 with 1GB

17,3'' screen

3,5kg

The Price was 900 Euro (786 GBP)

I heard the 2010 dv7's cost less and have better graphic cards.

[Simpledestruction 10]

Hell, most PCs can't even run ArmA II at low settings, let a lone a laptop. A really good gaming laptop will run you near 2000 pounds. But then again, a really good gaming laptop is the equivalent of a shitty desktop. ;)

Not sure what your are on about. My desktop could run Arma 2 pretty fine at mid-level graphics. In fact the only thing that caused it to glitch was having a draw distance of 6km or putting masses of tanks on the field to have them kill each other (Now that almost killed my desktop).

[Pyronick 21]

Or you could wait for the newer Intel Sandy Bridge processors available this month. The AMD Llano has unfortunately been postponed until 2011.

The newer Core i7 quadcores based on the Sandy Bridge architecture will have power consumption of the current-gen i5 dual-cores.

And it's IPC has increased, it will also have a proper integrated graphics processor. Not that you want to use it for ArmA 2 though.

[EDcase 87]

A ZX Spectrum could run it at that resolution.

Lets not go too far now...

It would probably take an hour to render a frame if it had alot of extra ram ;)

Back to topic:

If you want a laptop to play ARMA then you will have to spend over £1000

I got one from HERE that runs nicely with relatively high GFX settings.

My spec was:

i7 740QM @1.73GHz

4Gb ram

HD5870m (no longer available) Now only option is GTX260M

Edited October 12, 2010 by EDcase

[zago 0]

yea it's very hard to find a laptop with good specs for play this title and not much expensive to buy :(

I' m not sure but the best solution are asus gaming series or msi but I think all cost over 1000 Euro and also the problem is find a good reseller near located

[-)rStrangelove 0]

A laptop cooler underneath would come in handy too, just in case. If the laptop gets too hot it will clock down your CPU resulting in lags. Happened in my Acer.

[Dynamic Echo 10]

My laptop handles it fine. It is a Dell Studio 17 which cost about £700, outfitted with an i5 540m @ 2.53 GHz, 4GB of RAM and an HD 5650m. It consistently maintains a good 35-40 fps on medium-high graphics at 1600x900, which is the screen resolution. I would definitely recommend a cooler though, I'm using one of the new Zalman coolers with a single great big fan, and this has cut about eight degrees off my average load temperature for the graphics card, and has also cur a few degrees from the CPU temp.

[janh 0]

ASUS Gamer series, they are just very good quality and I am very pleased with them. I have a 3 year old ASUS G1 with 2GB, a 2.2 GHz Cor2Duo and a Nvidia GT8600M.

Runs ARMA2 and OA just fine, viewdistance 5000m and details to normal. Just disabled post-processing effects and reduced AA etc., but I don't care about eye-candy. With the new ASUS G93 series, quad-core with a 1.5GB GTX460M, and 8GB RAM, it should be almost perfect.

Just keep in mind the ASUS Gamer series is not a real notebook anymore. 3.5 to 4.0kg, and realistically 1-2h max on internal power.

[Ripsaw5165 10]

The statements about laptops not be able to run games well are becoming old and moldy. A more accurate statement would be, "You can buy (or build/upgrade) much more performance in a desktop than a laptop/notebook...for the same money" The newer laptops with Quad Core processors and midrange dedicated videocards from ATi or nVidia can run all the newer games, even sims like Arma2 pretty decently. The Mobility versions of the various GPU's are usually same spec as the desktop versions and a Core i7 running full power in an notebook is as capable as a Core i7 running in a desktop. Where the desktop has the upper hand is that overclocking is possible, sometimes. Can't overclock a laptop... cooling options too limited and BIOS setup is usually bare bones and few if any configurable options.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Ripsaw5165

[EDcase 87]

...The Mobility versions of the various GPU's are usually same spec as the desktop versions...

I don't know where you heard this but its wrong. The mobile version of gpu cards are NEVER as powerful as the desktop version.

[Ripsaw5165 10]

I don't know where you heard this but its wrong. The mobile version of gpu cards are NEVER as powerful as the desktop version.

Its not completely wrong, okay? The difference is in the clock speed of the GPU and sometimes also the type of ram used. For instance, the ATi Mobility Radeon HD4650 in my HP DV7-2270us notebook has GPU clocked at 550mhz and use GDDR3 ram. The desktop Radeon HD4650 GPU is clocked only slightly higher at 600mhz in some OEM cards, and also use GDDR3 ram, but can run as high as 800mhz depending on the OEM manufacturer of the desktop card (often dependent on the cooling solution utilized). Same with memory clock. Against some desktop OEM cards the mobility's 600mhz memory clock not that much slower (e.g. 800 mhz on some desktop cards) but can be much lower when compared to some other OEM desktop cards (e.g. 1Ghz ram clock). Again, usually dependent on the cooling solution.

As far as the capabilities of the GPU they are the same instruction set and features, just running different speeds. So the performance is better desktop but base capabilities for DX10 or etc are same, which is what I meant.

Notebook have trump card in their deck and that is portability, and some users relish that feature myself included.

The real future for gaming is actually consoles anyhow, that is where the money is for developers so that is where the thrust is. Face it, it is only a minority of users anymore who relish simulations such as that represented by the ArmA series. Myself included as such a user. I go way back to the days of the original Falcon and then Falcon 3 and the legendary Falcon 4.0. EF2000 also. Give me realism over arcade any day, okay? My co-workers have a squad they want me to join for Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 but they all play on PS3 teamed in multiplayer after work on select evenings. Not for me. Maybe someday, but for now I enjoy ArmA series on my notebook, okay?

[EDcase 87]

They are base on the same architecture but the mobile versions are always cut down in some way to reduce size, power and heat.

I also play arma on my laptop with an HD5870M which is no way as powerful as a desktop 5870.

[kuIoodporny 45]

I play on Acer Aspire 7740G. Got quite decent FPS and the game looks better than on my PC with AMD processor.

[GoldenNugget 0]

I played ArmA2 with a Clevo M860tu.

It ran alright but I had to make many many tweaks and turn settings down to off or normal. The mission and island also made a huge difference on performance.

But yeah that laptop barely works now due to being too hot (ran at ~80-90C before I realized the heatsink was clogged up by dust.

I now have a desktop that runs ArmA2 pretty well now.

[kklownboy 43]

Its not completely wrong, okay? The difference is in the clock speed of the GPU and sometimes also the type of ram used. ..

Yes you only use slow ddr3 at a slow speed, but the real difference is the BUS, yours is only 128, which is half as much as a discrete card. Not even close to the desktop card. A 4650 desktop is more than twice as fast as a mobility.