what is a good GHz to have

[snake22brawl 10]

What is a good GHz to have to play this game?

[Beagle 684]

The higher the better. At least 3ghz on dual core and I won't go lower for quad core as CPU is more important as anything else in ArmA II.

[snake22brawl 10]

will 3.000 ghz run well, or will it glitch (with dual core)?

[Beagle 684]

will 3.000 ghz run well, or will it glitch (with dual core)?

It plays quite well in my configuration but you have to live with viewdistances not above 3000m in populated missions or campaigns.

But don't expect more than 30fps with high video settings.

[max power 21]

It depends on what you mean. Are we talking stock clock settings or overclocking some specific processor? Fast computers are usually stable unless you're stressing them.

[Beagle 684]

It depends on what you mean. Are we talking stock clock settings or overclocking some specific processor? Fast computers are usually stable unless you're stressing them.

I talk about all stock settings. I don't like to buy new components every year so I stopped overclocking when affordable CPUs went beyond the 2GHz clocking in 2002.

Yeah back inthe time when we pushed 750MHz Pentiums IIIs to 1 GHz we had pretty unstable systems ;)

Edited May 19, 2011 by Beagle

[max power 21]

I talk about all stock settings. I don't like to buy new componets every years so i stopped ovrclocking when affordable CPUs went beyond the 2GHz clocking in 2002.

Yeah back inthe time when we pushed 750MHz Pentiums IIIs to 1 GHz we had pretty unstable systems ;)

Snakebrawl asks whether it will glitch at 3 ghz, so it sounds like he's asking about overclocking.

[Rough Knight 9]

I have my E8400 overclocked to 4Ghz, and it runs very well.

I think the biggest difference was noticed in boosting my RAM speed however. Overclock was unstable with my 800Mhz dual channel memory. I upgraded to 1066MHz and noticed a big difference.

[BasileyOne 10]

will 3.000 ghz run well, or will it glitch (with dual core)?

optimal[in "$/per fps-GFX" rate]is 4x cores CPU's. 6x cores [untested on G34 AMD and Intel E7]and higher cores shows less benefits in present engine builds.

Arma2 seems enjoyed both fast IEEE-754[read - AMD] and SSE2[read - intel], higher clocks and cache size[due to heavvy textures swapping on nowadays-ram-equipped-size GPU's], but generally iNtel CPU's lead this time. more average IPC's, 2/5x more faster SSE2, but worser RAM controller[AMD chips have TWO intependent 64-bit controllers instead of ONE two-three-channel in iNtel, which give you [in "unganged" mode, ie 2x64 instead of 1x128 in "dual-channel] about 1.6x more RAM copy speed at cost of ~10% RAM read speed.

saying this as fellow AMD cpu's user for ~15 yrs[from amd286 times].

but bulldozer can change that dramatically - [breathtaking]improved shedluer/prefetcher - more micro/nano-ops decode speed, [considerably]better prefetch, [finally]more or less well-performing FPU and etc, 1.8x higher[potentially in same constraints]better freqs scalability and etc and etc. but to be fair, "8x cores" Bulldozer could be compared to 4x SB in terms of FP[tnx, to improved, but nmbr-limited FPU units].

[Guest]

Sticky topic here:

- Will my PC Run this? What CPU/GPU to get? What settings? System Specifications

Please search before posting!