Just a quick question before i buy myself a new PC

[joshfox0 0]

would somthign with these specs

# Intel Pentium D 820 Dual Core Processor

# 2.8GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2 x 1MB Cache

# 1024MB DDR RAM

# 256MB nVIDIA GeForce 6200 SE Graphics

be able to play armed assault at a reasonable setting or will i have to shell out more (by reasonable i mean low detail levels and high view distance)

Thanks for any replys

Josh.

[bravo 6 0]

I tryed the same and the answer was:

Nobody knows till minimum requirements are announced. Take a look at VBS's system reqs and chances are you'll have a good idea.

well i guess we have to ask who has VBS1..

looks like ARMA will run like VBS1.

edit:

<ul>VBS1 -> CPU 2Ghz (Amd) 3Ghz (intell), 1Go ram, 10Go HardDisk, good GPU (6600 or above)

network is handfull too (for coop ...)

hope this helps..

[joshfox0 0]

not being computer literate i can't make heads nor tails of that. heh, i'll put off my purchaise till after the specs are announced then. can we assume that'll happen around the time of E3?

[brataccas 0]

I think VBS is all about how fast your CPU is not so much the GFX card to run smooth I think

[DBR_ONIX 0]

Any (most anyway) new PCs you can buy will run ArmA fine

It's based of a 5 year old engine remeber.. No matter what they do to the engine (Espically if they optimize it), it will run perfectly on todays hardware!

One thing, a lot of people prefer AMD for gaming, so if thats the primary purpose t'is prob a good diea to go for an AMD (You'll not notice any difference for a lot of non-gaming stuff)

Thought, to be honest, dual-core is still more than enough for games, so no matter what CPU manufacture you use, you'll amost certainly see no difference.. The human eye cannot tell the difference between 100 and 110 FPS in a game..

- Ben

[Zorbtek 0]

You could assume Armed Assault will have nearly the same requirements as Battlefield 2.  Bravo 6, Armed Assault will be nothing close to VBS1, both are completely different in many many ways.

Battlefield 2 stats:

CPU

Recommended: Pentium 4 or Athlon XP

CPU Speed

Recommended: 2.4 GHz

CPU Speed

Recommended: 2.4 GHz

System RAM

Recommended: 1 GB

Video Card

Recommended: 256 MB DirectX 9.0 compliant video card (GeForce FX 5700+/Radeon 8500+)

------------------

TES: Oblivion is currently is the only game that requires the most demanding machine power.

TES:O's stats:

CPU

Recommended: Pentium 4 or Athlon XP or better

CPU Speed

Recommended: 3 GHz

System RAM

Recommended: 1 GB

Video Card

Recommended: 128MB Direct3D compatible video card (NVIDIA GeForce 6800+ / ATI Radeon X800+)

--------

Considering that AA could be in between the two, your computer should and probably will be able to run AA.  

However, your graphics card could be a little better if you really want ArmA's visuals to shine.  I would look more into graphics cards.  You can get all "yippee" about cpu speed and all this, but really it all comes down to your card, the thing the game needs most.

[fireship4 0]

Have a look at The AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors, they are slightly more expensive but eg the 3800+ performs better than the intel d 820, googled a review

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardwar....,00.htm

Also the 6200 is low-end, I would advise to stay well away, or at least check out some reviews of them the internet. you can pick up a 6800 for neary the same price in some instances.

Another option would be to get an SLi bord and put on two ok cards.

Check back here with your revised list so we can make sure you haven't made any big mistakes.

Also if you are able to choose each component, list the other ones like motherboard, hard drive etc.

[Metal Heart 0]

Yeah, why put a completely crap gfx card on a kick-ass dual-core system, doesn't make any sense if you're going to play games with it.

[eJay 1]

Do not forget new graphic card. This GF 6200 is crap. Seek for GF 7900 GTX/7800 GT/Radeon X1900XT. Spend less money for processor (suggesting Athlon 3000+ 64-bit with great overclock).

[Placebo 29]

Really this should be closed, there are more than enough system requirement threads, however I'll move it to OT until Josh has sufficient information.

[joshfox0 0]

Really this should be closed, there are more than enough system requirement threads, however I'll move it to OT until Josh has sufficient information.

Thank you placebo i'm rather useless with computers and figured that people on here would be best placed to help me

[Heatseeker 0]

I tryed the same and the answer was:

Nobody knows till minimum requirements are announced. Take a look at VBS's system reqs and chances are you'll have a good idea.

well i guess we have to ask who has VBS1..

looks like ARMA will run like VBS1.

I doubt it, because the ARMA engine version must be much more upgraded and we can see by the lighting, shadows, mapping and texturing that Arma will put more use on the graphics card than OPF/VBS did . Dont forget that OPF/VBS are still DX8 apps and use the same engine.

From what we have seen and the feature list (more units per map, streaming, etc) i think ARMA will be somewhat demanding on the GPU, by those pics i wouldnt want to run it with a 6200, i think a 6800 should be good or atleast a 6600GT.

I predict 2gig CPU/512 RAM minimal, 3gig CPU/1 gig RAM recomended .

[Blake 0]

ArmA code is certainly optimized from OFP days, just think that OFP:Elite runs fine on crappy 733mhz CPU Xbox and that game is pretty much based on Armed Assault code.

I believe Armed Assault will be less CPU intensive and leans more towards fast video cards. CPU limits start to show when you experience slowdown ("lag") with huge amounts of troops on the map

but I believe BIS has improved code so that more units can be put on the map.

Today OFP relies almost entirely on CPU since even poorest semi-modern video cards can run it and you don't even notice hardly any difference in frame rate between 640x480 and 1152x864 resolutions for example. In Armed Assault I believe the relation between screen resolution and performance shows more.

I have XP 2600 AGP system and I'm still wondering wheter just to upgrade my Radeon 9600 card or refurbish the enire machine for Armed Assault. Idea of buying just reasonably fast AGP video card now and then make full upgrade sometime in the future when seriously faster processors hit the market is also appealing. I have a habit of not upgrading CPU until I get at least 2 x computing power compared to the old CPU at an affordable price.

[stgn 39]

Is there eny new computer hardward which is not compatible with OFP, thinking of buying a new computer soon and and i want the best posible that will still run OFP. And do enybody know what they are if there is eny.

STGN

[Zorbtek 0]

With a 9600 you will be able to play Armed Assault fine

[Scarlet_Pimp 0]

Arma will probably require quite a powerful computer a video card, when you consider how much strain operation flashpoint one of the mods running puts on modern pc's, I can't play FFUR with everything on max and I have a 6800gt gig of ram and 2.4 gig athlon 64. I wouldnt think of upgrading now though with direct x 10 just round the corner any money spent on a high end direct x 9 card will be wasted since it wont support direct x 10, I would wait for the game to be released then get a modern CPU with either a low end direct x 9 card or directx 10 card if its out by then.

PS you may need windows vista to take advantage of direct x 10, but direct x 10 is supposed to be 10x faster than 9.

[echo1 0]

would somthign with these specs

# Intel Pentium D 820 Dual Core Processor

# 2.8GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2 x 1MB Cache

# 1024MB DDR RAM

# 256MB nVIDIA GeForce 6200 SE Graphics

be able to play armed assault at a reasonable setting or will i have to shell out more (by reasonable i mean low detail levels and high view distance)

Thanks for any replys

Josh.

Ok, looks nice except the Graphics card sucks, try to get either a 6800GS, or even better the 7600GT. Much higher perfromance. I would also recommend an AMD system, though If you want a low cost Dual core system, Intel is the way to go at the moment. Or if you are prepared to wait, the new Intel Core Duo Desktop CPU is coming soon (few months) and is meant to have vastly superior performance to old Intel and even AMD models.

[westy159 0]

Dont get that 256mb Geforce 6200 SE. You would be much better off with a 6600GT 128mb unless you cant afford it.

USA linky

UK linky(those are PCI-E cards, they do have AGP cards there as well if you go 'up a level' a few times)

[bl00k 0]

Yeah, try for a better graphics card or you will be hurting. You really want something that will run DirectX 9.

[Kode 0]

I recommend you don't buy the most expensive things, the higher you go in prices, the less extra power you get from it. Arma won't be heavy for your computer as it's an optimised engine from OFP, which needed around 500mhz and a 32Mb grafics card to run(I used to play it on it).

Make sure you buy a directx 9.0 card, buying something older will do the trick, but soon directx 9 will become a minimum. Choosing between ATI and NVIDIA is more a mather of peronal taste. The latest ATI card is currently the most powerfull, but they switch the lead very often.

On the CPU side, you could take pentium 4's or athlon XP's, even dualcores, just make sure not to buy semprons, games won't run very good on them, they are cheap office processors. Buying a dual core won't have a very big effect on games! Many people think it's that way, but it isn't. Little explanation:

Symmetric MultiProcessing: SMP capability is something that must be written into the code. The program must know that it can utilize two processors to complete processes simultaneously. This is known as multithreading. ==> I don't think Arma will have that incorporated.

A dual core processor won't be twice as fast as a single core processor nor will it be as fast as a dual processor system.

It will fall somewhere in the middle but there are specific advantages, but that would be to complicated.

I suggest having 1Gb of ram: it decraeses loading times of about everything, and is always usefull for the future, where OS'es get heaver and bigger...

Hard drives: again personal taste most of the time. Maxtor has a bad name for reliability especially in servers and stuff like that, but for other users, they work just fine. There are seagates, western digitals, all are fine, and you can choose your capacity. Just make sure, you either buy SATA(whichfor you need support from the motherboard or a controller, might even buy SATA II they can work as a SATA) or IDE.

Sound and LAN etc... is very often already on the motherboard, you could optionally have wireless on it aswell, again buy what you need.

In short, Arma will run on a pentium 2Ghz without a problem, the more powerfull your graphic card, the better it will look offcourse, but it will run on a directx 8 card.

[echo1 0]

Choosing between ATI and NVIDIA is more a mather of peronal taste.

On the CPU side, you could take pentium 4's or athlon XP's, even dualcores, just make sure not to buy semprons, games won't run very good on them, they are cheap office processors. Buying a dual core won't have a very big effect on games! Many people think it's that way, but it isn't. Little explanation:

Symmetric MultiProcessing: SMP capability is something that must be written into the code. The program must know that it can utilize two processors to complete processes simultaneously. This is known as multithreading. ==> I don't think Arma will have that incorporated.

A dual core processor won't be twice as fast as a single core processor nor will it be as fast as a dual processor system.

It will fall somewhere in the middle but there are specific advantages, but that would be to complicated.

ATi has a bad repuatation for drivers f--king up all the time, plus nVidias midrange cards tend to be better (sure wed all like a x1900xtx but who is really gona blow €600 on a graphics card when you can get a €230 7600GT that does the job almost as good)

Semprons not bad for games, but the Celeron is atrocious

The thing about Dual Core is that its good for future proofing a PC

[Snots 0]

Multi CPU's are for programs which are multi-threaded. Falcon4AF is and at huge cost to develop and thats the reason why you wont see a lot of games using the the power of a multi-cpu's yet. Can anyone tell me if AA is twin cpu ready ?

CPU: Any quick AMD X2 cpu but get the ones that have 1meg cache on each die rather than the 512 on each.

AMD 4200 X2 has 512k on each die.

AMD 4400 X2 has 1meg on each die...gamers cpu.

Coolers: A pc box with two push pull 120mm fans and a Zalman 9500 CPU cooler if its used in no AC in a hot region. Quality large fans make very little noise too.

Video: 7800GT or ATI equal or better and itll serve you well until a DX10 card is needed. Wont be long but dont wait.

The rest you should know but i will stress a good performing power supply brand that has the right grunt for the latest pc's, especially with a SLI setup. No SLI.... 480W, 120mm fan min. in my book.

Ive been assembling pro gamers pc's since 386's and pc's are far far easier to assemble yourself now.

DONT NOT EVER GO INTO AN OLD PC BECUASE YOUR UP THERE WITH THE LATEST UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOURE DOING. THE OLD POWER SUPPLIES HAVE MAINS POWER RUNNING TO THE FRONT PC POWER BUTTON. Gzzzzt.

Remember DOS Hi-Mem. Good riddance, huh.

[echo1 0]

DONT NOT EVER GO INTO AN OLD PC BECUASE YOUR UP THERE WITH THE LATEST UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOURE DOING. THE OLD POWER SUPPLIES HAVE MAINS POWER RUNNING TO THE FRONT PC POWER BUTTON. Gzzzzt.

Remember DOS Hi-Mem. Good riddance, huh.

Those PSUs wouldnt even work with new motherboards because they use different connectors, but yeah, those were 'fun' Yeah, those were the fun days - IRQ conflicts, DMA clashes, Extended Memory...plus everything was an awful lot less reliable back then.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]With a 9600 you will be able to play Armed Assault fine

Looking at the screenshots, I think not!

I think the new 7600 series Geforce PCI-e card has one of the best performance/price ratios. I would not buy aging 6600 or 6800 series card at this point anymore.