PC Discussion Thread - All PC related in here.

[echo1 0]

I've heard the RC is going to be out in about two weeks time (5th MAY). As for the Beta - MS still offers license keys for the Beta, but not the ISO image yourself. The only option is if you know someone who has the image, you can make a copy as long as you use it with your own key.

Edited April 21, 2009 by echo1

[Pyronick 21]

I've heard the RC is going to be out in about two weeks time (5th April). As for the Beta - MS still offers license keys for the Beta, but not the ISO image yourself. The only option is if you know someone who has the image, you can make a copy as long as you use it with your own key.

I thought it was May the 5th?

[echo1 0]

Yeah. Typo on my behalf. 2 weeks from yesterday is not three week ago.

[xav 0]

Generally speaking did OFP and Arma ran better (more FPS/Less bugs) with ATI or Geforce video cards?

And is there any reasons to believe it will stay that way with ArmaII ?

[echo1 0]

There are more problems with ATI cards at the moment with ArmA than with nVidia ones, particularily with dual-GPU cards. That said, the devs seem to have tested ArmA II with ATI cards so we can only assume that they've fixed at least some of the problems.

[Pyronick 21]

You're still ignoring the fact that if two cards are at the same, or near the same performance level, that the one that requires less fancy cooling and a smaller PSU is probably going to be the better choice. I mean, who wants excess heat in their case just for the sake of it?

If the really was the case I'd fully agree with you. But both are different cards with different architectures and memory technologies, in various games they might perform (near) the same but there definately will be differences in the near future.

We still have to wait how ArmA 2 will run on these cards, since ArmA 2 isn't in the TWIMTBP programme and "ATI support has been improved" the AMD card might have the upper hand. Only time will tell.

With DirectX 11, Windows 7, WARP and OpenCL coming near it's probably better to postpone any upgrading plans anyways.

Also most of the excess heat is dissipated through the second slot exhaust on both the GTX 260 as the HD4870, the amount that does dissipate in to the case is negligible. I know it still theoretically is bad, but that's how I see it.

The dual-slot cooler argument is a cop-out because with a really hot card the fans flare up alot, forcing you to either replace the fan with an expensive 3rd party model, or having to put up with a computer that sounds like a vacuum cleaner under load. Again, that's fine if the card is really fast. But if there's something that does the same job without the same heat and power strain, all the better.

It really depends on the manufacturer of the GPU. My Sapphire HD4870 1GB is very quiet, even under load when overclocked.

I precautiously increase fan RPM because due to the position of my case I can't hear it and the amount of noise that I can hear does not bother me.

But I can imagine cheap fans that make alot of noise. The newer VaporX cooled HD 4***-series are really quiet and cool without having to invest more than a regular version.

I found a chart on Tom's Hardware, I can't comment on it's reliability but here it is:

Due to the higher power level of the GTX 260 Core 216, I can't imagine it being quieter.

There are more problems with ATI cards at the moment with ArmA than with nVidia ones, particularily with dual-GPU cards. That said, the devs seem to have tested ArmA II with ATI cards so we can only assume that they've fixed at least some of the problems.

ATI's current-gen dual-GPU cards are plain crap. They only work properly in a select group of games.

[TheReddog 0]

I was just wondering how you guys reckon Arma2 will go for me, I've got;

C2D E6600 (definitely the weakest link)

2GB DDR2

ASUS GTX260 (the 216 stream processor version).

I'm guessing I'll probably want a quad core cpu.

[echo1 0]

The E6600 isn't that out-of-date. Have you tried overclocking it?

[honkitonk 0]

@ devs: Is there any possibility to get arma 2 working on a laptop with an 2GHz TurionX2, 2 GB RAM and a 8400m GS?

At the moment I'm playing ArmA on 800x600 and (very)low Settings and a VD of 1800m. It was often mentioned that Arma 2 was optimized and so I'm hoping that there is a little chance to get along with my laptop until my budget allows a new PC.

[Pyronick 21]

@ devs: Is there any possibility to get arma 2 working on a laptop with an 2GHz TurionX2, 2 GB RAM and a 8400m GS?

At the moment I'm playing ArmA on 800x600 and (very)low Settings and a VD of 1800m. It was often mentioned that Arma 2 was optimized and so I'm hoping that there is a little chance to get along with my laptop until my budget allows a new PC.

Have you tried the latest nVidia notebook drivers? Perhaps an additional 2 GB RAM memory (or replacement to 4 GB) might improve your texture performance.

Remember that laptops often use SODIMM memory instead of regular DIMM memory if you will be upgrading.

Maybe that fact that the Turion is a dualcore may well mean that ArmA 2 might actually run pretty good.

But you'll have to wait until the actual game demo is released to really see if it runs properly to your standards. ;)

[honkitonk 0]

That's not my standard but hey - stop playing arma? - no way ;)

[echo1 0]

I played ArmA 1 on my laptop, which was similar to yours at the time (except it had a 2.2GHz C2D instead of a 2GHz Turion). I cant remember what settings I ran it at, but they were low it was rather slow. I'm sure if I turned it down a good bit it would run smooth. I can't imagine it would run ArmA 2 all that well, even on low settings...

[Pyronick 21]

Oh my...

The new Phenom II overclockable to 6,7 GHz! :eek:

Finally an AMD chip that might just cope up with the Core i7!!

If you have an AM2+/AM3 compatible board, I suggest to wait for these babies to hit the market. ;)

Edited April 23, 2009 by SgtH3nry3

[echo1 0]

Done with liquid helium and nitrogen. Something similar was done with the 940 model. I think 4GHz is the figure given for fan-cooled overclocking, which would put it in the same rough ballpark as an i7 920 running at stock speeds. That said, I want to get one of those when I have the money to replace my Athlon X2.

[Pyronick 21]

Done with liquid helium and nitrogen. Something similar was done with the 940 model. I think 4GHz is the figure given for fan-cooled overclocking, which would put it in the same rough ballpark as an i7 920 running at stock speeds. That said, I want to get one of those when I have the money to replace my Athlon X2.

I doubt liquid helium is used, as it increases chances of quantum tunneling.

Maybe a hybrid of liquid helium to cool the liquid nitrogen is used.

Anyway, 4 GHz still sounds good. But the i7 920 was easily overclockable to 4 GHz using stock cooling aswell. Although pretty useless as the memory controller isn't overclockable atm.

The D0 stepping is recommended for overclocking though, as the C0 still has issues with even reaching POST at high clockspeeds.

Edited April 23, 2009 by SgtH3nry3

[echo1 0]

Source

How exactly does the liquid helium cause quantum tunnelling? I mean, the helium would never come into contact with the CPU... Unless you're saying that it would be so cold that the CPU wouldnt work? But they seemed to have got it working up there, albeit mixed with LN2.

[Pyronick 21]

Source

How exactly does the liquid helium cause quantum tunnelling? I mean, the helium would never come into contact with the CPU... Unless you're saying that it would be so cold that the CPU wouldnt work? But they seemed to have got it working up there, albeit mixed with LN2.

Liquid helium almost reaches absolute zero. In which quantumtunneling can form due to superconductivity at that range of temperatures of various matters in the CPU die.

Liquid nitrogen doesn't come anywhere near those temperatures.

[GRS 10]

Hey all, think this setup could run Arma2 smoothly? I don't intent to crank the detail and view distance up to anything crazy. I'll sacrafice some looks for a smooth performance.

GTX 275 896MB

CORSAIR CMPSU-650TX 650W ATX12V

EVGA 132-YW-E178-A1 LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 780i SLI FTW ATX Intel Motherboard

Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 Wolfdale 2.8GHz 3MB L2 Cache

2gigs of RAM (Will get 4 by release date)

Edited April 24, 2009 by GRS

[echo1 0]

Yeah, it will probably run it fine.

[Rebel Man 431]

Hi all, Just updated my PC.

My new spaces:

1- NIVIDA Geforce 9800 GT 1GB.

2- Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q8300 @ 2.50GHz (was looking for Q8600 but it was overbought

:( ).

3- 4GB Ram DDR2.

4- Motherboard GIGABYTE Ep43-DS3L.

Now can i run ""ArmA2"" and ""MW2"" smoothly?, thanks :).

[Pyronick 21]

Now can i run ""ArmA2"" and ""MW2"" smoothly?, thanks :).

Only time will tell.

Only a few weeks after ArmA 2 is released (if the dates stays 26th of June), the i7 920 is rumored to have a price drop to 200 euros and the new AMD R800 is released.

Then I'll upgrade from my Q9650 which sucks for CFD (computational fluid dynamics) anyway to Core i7, X58, R800 and SSD + SAS.

[echo1 0]

Hi all, Just updated my PC.

My new spaces:

1- NIVIDA Geforce 9800 GT 1GB.

2- Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q8300 @ 2.50GHz (was looking for Q8600 but it was overbought

:( ).

3- 4GB Ram DDR2.

4- Motherboard GIGABYTE Ep43-DS3L.

Now can i run ""ArmA2"" and ""MW2"" smoothly?, thanks :).

I'd say so. The previews have been run on similar systems.

[sparks50 0]

Im planning to buy a Geforce 275GTX, but I'm starting to get a feeling, based on activity on forums, that Nvidia 200 series cards, and Nvidia in general, have more problems in Arma and Arma 2, so I'm a bit unsure on what to do now.

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=5364

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=72242

http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&p=48811#48811

I cant really wait for Arma 2 release to hear other reports either, because my 8800 GTX card(that also crashed its fair share in Arma) died, and I want my gaming PC up and running again...

Edited April 24, 2009 by sparks50

[GRS 10]

That what I just bought and I'm wondering myself if I should go with something else. They are good cards but I'm upgrading mainly for this so it'd be pointless to stick with something that doesn't work as well. On the other hand I'm not too worried since many friends ran ArmA with 8800's without too many problems.

And before someone gets on me for this, yes I do need to upgrade now. My current setup is starting to get really old.

Edited April 24, 2009 by GRS

[Leopardi 0]

Im planning to buy a Geforce 275GTX, but I'm starting to get a feeling, based on activity on forums, that Nvidia 200 series cards, and Nvidia in general, have more problems in Arma and Arma 2, so I'm a bit unsure on what to do now.

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=5364

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=72242

http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&p=48811#48811

I cant really wait for Arma 2 release to hear other reports either, because my 8800 GTX card(that also crashed its fair share in Arma) died, and I want my gaming PC up and running again...

Get a HD 4890. It has more memory and GDDR5 vs GDDR3, it is generally faster and AMD has no problems with ArmA.