Just got my GTX460...New Game...!

[Shadow NX 1]

yes, especially if it is a 512MB HD4870.

Used one for the last two years and with the GTX460 you can go a good bit higher in the settings.

Only thing i rather not switch to High ( apart from post processing ) is textures which should stay on normal as i get texture loading otherwise.

Yet on Normal to me the textures still look excellent.

You will notice a nice difference in image quality also when it comes to sharpness and filtering.

Personally i use a Gigabyte GTX460 OC since two weeks now and with the right settings and a bit more OC ( mine was factory OCed to 715Mhz and i could still go to 835Mhz without any probs... some even managed 900 ) it performs very very well for its price and it also is very quiet ( at least my Gigabyte is ).

[spork 10]

@Coffeecat

Could you please run an Arma benchmarking mission and post the fps you get, as well as your exact in game video settings? I'm running a similar rig to yours, and i recently upgraded to a gtx 470 from a gtx 260 but the performance increase didn't seem that great. thanks.

[ArmAriffic 10]

For the record, I went from this to this. Yeah... It was awesome. :cool:

Your 2nd pic looks alien, what planet did you get your desktop? :)

[Atkins 10]

Seems like ppl got similar experience here than I. I went from HD 4850 to HD 4890 and my FPS stayed the same, crap, but now i can run the game with more eye candy and it doesnt look like doom anymore. Reducing eye candy will not bring any fps increase for me.

I am using e6750, usually soft OCed to 3.1ish...

[dale0404 5]

These are my settings:

This is the result from benchmarking (E08):

I have an I5 750 @ 2.67Ghz, GTX 460 1GB GPU, 4 GB of DDR3 RAM.

[CHB68 10]

Do you really note a remarkable difference between "high" and "very high" ? Tested it several times and apart from a massive loss of FPS I couldn't note an observable difference....at least nothing that would warrant such a decrease of frames. IMO there is also no huge difference between "normal" and "high" settings. Check "normal" settings with high or very high Anisotropic filtering and Antialiasing. It looks also fine......

my2cent ;)

[cotabucky 10]

Ive been having system issues.Thankfully My new i7 950 is way more stable than the i7 2600k.Now I am hoping Later tonight I have all my arma issues go away(gtx580 and memory swap).For me its been a bad stutter in gameplay and benchmarks. I hear more and more most people have a more flawless experience using Nvidia cards with ARMA2.That is my hope

[ziiip 1]

Oh boy, AA is a real killer. Are you sure about keeping on normal? I get a massive drop just from using low AA.

[Millenium7 0]

@Coffeecat

Could you please run an Arma benchmarking mission and post the fps you get, as well as your exact in game video settings? I'm running a similar rig to yours, and i recently upgraded to a gtx 470 from a gtx 260 but the performance increase didn't seem that great. thanks.

I added a 2nd GTX275 which added a grand total of 0fps, but allows me to run at 3840x2160 instead of 1920x1080 with almost no performance drop. On average I get maybe 15-20fps, 35fps on a nice smooth mission

I built a computer for somebody with a GTX460, 1 of them is only about 40% faster in an absolute best case scenario than a single GTX275 though on average about 15% faster yet it runs about 3x smoother than my comp. Why? i've got an X2 6000+, the one I built had a 955BE cpu

More cores, and more clock, forget the GPU for this game!

[supergruntsb78 67]

I added a 2nd GTX275 which added a grand total of 0fps, but allows me to run at 3840x2160 instead of 1920x1080 with almost no performance drop. On average I get maybe 15-20fps, 35fps on a nice smooth mission

I built a computer for somebody with a GTX460, 1 of them is only about 40% faster in an absolute best case scenario than a single GTX275 though on average about 15% faster yet it runs about 3x smoother than my comp. Why? i've got an X2 6000+, the one I built had a 955BE cpu

More cores, and more clock, forget the GPU for this game!

we will see, as i changed my 9800 gtx 512 mb(wich died 3 days ago) for a gigabyte 460 GTX 1024mb in combination with my q(uadcore) 6600 cpu (downloading arma 2 atm as i lost my downloads when the computer crashed when my GPU died.)

[SOSyourself 10]

580 GTX rocking my PC... absolutely awesome.

[desertjedi 3]

I had the MSI GTX 460 with the awesome Cyclone cooler (great cooling and VERY quiet) and was able to get 900Mhz stable on the GPU.

I now have a GTX 570 and found that it overclocks very well too.

With tools like MSI Afterburner, GPU overclocking is very easy compared to CPU overclocking. Often its just a matter of bumping up the voltage in very small increments and finding out what's stable/unstable and what leads to too much heat.

Keep in mind that overclocking both RAM and video RAM leads to very little increase in performance. And, you can kill both by applying too much voltage. I usually leave my system memory at TOTALLY stock settings and overclock my video RAM a little bit.

I run my E8500 at 4.0Ghz. And from what I've heard, the E8400 is usually good for about 3.8Ghz. CPU overclocking can be very complicated and one should do a good amount of research before doing it and pick the brains of guys on forums dedicated to overclocking.

[rangerpl 13]

Awesome, bro.

I have the 768MB version of the GTX460, what settings are you using in Arma? I'm having trouble getting the best performance-to-quality balance.

I lag like hell when I'm in Chernogorsk.