ArmA testing...

[ErAsEr-1 0]

ive got a ATI Radeon 9250 AGP, Pentium® 4 CPU 2.80 GHz and 512 Mb of Ram would this still be ok to play the game?

[Maddmatt 1]

ive got a ATI Radeon 9250 AGP, Pentium® 4 CPU 2.80 GHz and 512 Mb of Ram would this still be ok to play the game?

Why don't you just look at the system requirements?

[suma 8]

SO ARMA will run suitably on a 1GB, 6800GT 256MB, 3Ghz machine?

Yes, it should work fine. This is very similar to the setup of my primary working machine.

[Balschoiw 0]

Suma, from your experiences within BIS would it be possible to collect some good performance setups for different hardware and maybe post them in an Arma tuning thread just to make it easier for users to get the best out their hardware ?

[rundll.exe 12]

That would be a good idea, and it saves all the other topics from becomming HW specs threads.

Also a "buyers guide" can be helpfull, as I know a lot of people that buy a complete new system just to play ArmA. (Im one of them)

Funny thought:

A few years ago you bought a PC to play games on it, now you buy a game and get a PC for it.

[TrunkzJr 0]

I have P4 - 3ghz, 2gig ram, GeForce 6800 Ulta [256mb], am I fine to play at normal or higher settings?

[EiZei 0]

Go get 3dmark06, scores over 3000 usually can run it 1024x768 medium it seems.

[monkeyb 0]

Any ideas what settings I could run with this spec?

Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 processor, @ 2.56GHz

Gigabyte GA_965P_DS3 Intel P965 Motherboard

Nvidia GeForce 7900GS 256MB PCI Express Graphics - 2GB PC2-5300 DDR2 Dual Channel Memory

[Sgt_Eversmann 1]

dude you have the system requirements, you see what other people have and you have other people who have the game and you see their specs.

so I would not ask if it runs with my pc, I would compare myself without asking and then just trying the game

I mean, every PC is different, even if you have the same components there is still something different software-side.

Evers

[Kev 0]

ive got a ATI Radeon 9250 AGP, Pentium® 4 CPU 2.80 GHz and 512 Mb of Ram would this still be ok to play the game?

no, im sorry for you.

your CPU 2,8GHz is ok. but ur memory and Graphics is bad.

u can only play laggy in the very lowest settings under 500meters view distance. u have an to old graphics card and not anough memory. upgrade to 1GB Memory and an x800gto graphics card. you dont need to spend much money.

if u want to play ArmA almost perfect. here the Optimal specs we made after testing hardware several times:

CPU 3GHz+

2GB DDR or DDR2 Ram

GeForce 7800GT with 512MB or the newest 8800GTX with 640MB Memory.

ATI X1650Pro or X1900Pro with 512MB Memory

with this hardware u can play on very high settings.

normal system specs:

AMD Athlon 64 or Intel P4 HT with 2GHz up to 3GHz

1GB or 1,5GB of DDR or DDR2 Ram

GeForce 6800GT or 7600GS 256MB Memory.

ATI Radeon X800GTO up to X1600pro with 256MB Memory.

greetz, kev

[Kev 0]

I have P4 - 3ghz, 2gig ram, GeForce 6800 Ulta [256mb], am I fine to play at normal or higher settings?

u can play in normal settings. maybe in high settings too.

monkeybe: u can play nearly perfect. u have very nice system specs.only setup u need to make is the view distance

like somebody sayed befor, we need help by the developers with an kind of performance tips and a patch maybe. its nothing to work fast on because the east release is on 30th november.

also there is still the demo to work on.

[sickboy 13]

System:

[*]CPU: 2.5ghz Athlon 64 (~4000+)

[*]MEM: 550mhz 3GB DDR1, CL 2.5-3-2-6

[*]VID: ATI Radeon X800XT 256mb PCI-E

Settings:

Quality Preference: Very High

Visibility: 1200

Resolution: 1024x768x32 (Even a little higher seems to drop FPS dramaticly)

Advanced Settings:

Terrain Detail: Normal

Object Detail: Normal

Texture Detail: Normal

Shading Detail: Very High

Post Process effects: High

Anisotropic Filtering: Low

Shadow detail: Normal <-- Higher than this seems to switch to a different shadow mode and consumes much FPS

Antialiasing: Disabled  <-- Seems to help quite a bit

Blood: High

[TrunkzJr 0]

I have P4 - 3ghz, 2gig ram, GeForce 6800 Ulta [256mb], am I fine to play at normal or higher settings?

u can play in normal settings. maybe in high settings too.

monkeybe: u can play nearly perfect. u have very nice system specs.only setup u need to make is the view distance

like somebody sayed befor, we need help by the developers with an kind of performance tips and a patch maybe. its nothing to work fast on because the east release is on 30th november.

also there is still the demo to work on.

So what if I bought a BFG GeForce 7950 GT[512mb]? [i see it for only $350, then could I play nearly perfect like monkeybe? ^_^ [i know, i'm retarded, don't attack me eversman lol] o yeah, what if I bought a second one and used the SLI thing, would that make a difference also?

[Bunkers 0]

My hardware: AMD 64 3500+

                    2 GB DDR PC3200

                    6800GS 256mb

I really can't make up my mind wether I should update this system with a new graphics card like 7950GT 512mb, or if I should go "all in" and buy a whole new high-end system any suggestions?

[Guest]

I have almost the same system and I will buy a Gigabyte 7950GT 512 next week (I do not have the game yet).

The only problem is that I have to buy a new power supply as well (400W) because my old one does not have the right plug (with six pins).

[Ra-cal 0]

System:

CPU: Pentium® 4 CPU 3.20GHz ~HT

MEM: 1GB DDR2

VID: Nvidia 7800GT 512mb PCI-E

Settings:

Quality Preference: Very High

Visibility: 1200

Resolution: 1024x768x32

Advanced Settings:

Terrain Detail: Very High

Object Detail: Very High

Texture Detail: Very High

Shading Detail: Very High

Post Process effects: High

Anisotropic Filtering: Very High

Shadow detail: Very High

Antialiasing: Very High

Blood: High

Runs perfectly, up to 5000 VD too, after that fps drops to 25 and is not worth playing on, runs on 10k VD at about 15 - below.

[Maddmatt 1]

My hardware: AMD 64 3500+

2 GB DDR PC3200

6800GS 256mb

I really can't make up my mind wether I should update this system with a new graphics card like 7950GT 512mb, or if I should go "all in" and buy a whole new high-end system any suggestions?

If you can afford to buy a whole new system with one of the new 8800 cards then that would be great. You would have a DX10 card and would be able to run games in DX10 in Vista.

If you don't want to spend the money, then a 7900GTX or even the 7950GX2 would probably run ArmA very well.

[sickboy 13]

My hardware: AMD 64 3500+

                    2 GB DDR PC3200

                    6800GS 256mb

I really can't make up my mind wether I should update this system with a new graphics card like 7950GT 512mb, or if I should go "all in" and buy a whole new high-end system any suggestions?

AFAIK, the fastest cards from the last generation are the ATI X1950 series, either a pro or an XT, it blows all Nvidia cards (from that generation) away in most tests, but especially it's Shader Model 3 engine is better than Nvidia's, and it ain't too expensive either!

For the next generation there is only 1 available now and that's the 8800 GTS or GTX But that's like twice the money

ive got a ATI Radeon 9250 AGP, Pentium® 4 CPU 2.80 GHz and 512 Mb of Ram would this still be ok to play the game?

no, im sorry for you.

your CPU 2,8GHz is ok. but ur memory and Graphics is bad.

u can only play laggy in the very lowest settings under 500meters view distance. u have an to old graphics card and not anough memory. upgrade to 1GB Memory and an x800gto graphics card. you dont need to spend much money.

if u want to play ArmA almost perfect. here the Optimal specs we made after testing hardware several times:

CPU 3GHz+

2GB DDR or DDR2 Ram

GeForce 7800GT with 512MB or the newest 8800GTX with 640MB Memory.

ATI X1650Pro or X1900Pro with 512MB Memory

with this hardware u can play on very high settings.

normal system specs:

AMD Athlon 64 or Intel P4 HT with 2GHz up to 3GHz

1GB or 1,5GB of DDR or DDR2 Ram

GeForce 6800GT or 7600GS 256MB Memory.

ATI Radeon X800GTO up to X1600pro with 256MB Memory.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with all these system comparisons

What I mean is... 512MB is actually enough if you don't run too many other fancy things in the background....

1024MB is better, but you still have a shitload of memory free... ArmA only uses ~ 180-300mb in most cases, so why you say that 2GB will be "The Recommended" I really don't understand. Great, having 1200mb "free memory" yay.

An X1650Pro in the same list as X1900pro/7800gt? that's a mid-range product compared to the high-range products...

Which actually quite shows that it probably is more the optimization and the state of the system, than the cards in general..

Furthermore I have seen systems with comparable speeds like the 2.8ghz P4, 512mb, and an 9250 equal in it, runs fine on (very) low settings, 1200m viewdistance.. I really got no clue where your 500m comes from 900m MAYBE...

Just remember that the state of the system, especially drivers, spyware, yadi yadi yadi.... is VERY important for the FPS... If that stuff ain't good... then a 8800GTS 756MB will even run shit.

Besides, you all forget that mhz are different between Athlon 64/Intel P4 and Core 2...An example would be that you would need either a: 3ghz P4, a 2.5ghz A64 or a 2.2ghz Core 2... (They are not proven results, but I wouldn't find it weird if they are close to reality).

As such, this whole comparing of systems, settings etc. has nothing to do with real-world performance.

Besides, speed of RAM also has also effect on the performance... it's very nice to have 3GB DDR2-533, but your ass gets kicked by 1GB DDR1-400, especially on an A64 system.

Also saw some posts about 3dmark... it's a nice program but doesn't show much of the real world performance of your system

[Talbot 0]

SO ARMA will run suitably on a 1GB, 6800GT 256MB, 3Ghz machine?

Yes, it should work fine. This is very similar to the setup of my primary working machine.

Excellent, ordering the German version.

[RobNob (6th) 0]

My System Specs

* DualCore Intel Pentium D 820, 2800 MHz (14 x 200)

* 1024 MB (DDR2-533 DDR2 SDRAM)

* NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GS (512 MB)

* Direct X 9.0c

* Windows XP (Service Pack 2)

All Copied From Everest Home Edition

I dont really care about the detail, like i dont care if i dont spot a enemy at 2000 metres just wanna ensure good fps, and just the basics.

Can Anyone tell me what to expect?

[Kev 0]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with all these system comparisons

What I mean is... 512MB is actually enough if you don't run too many other fancy things in the background....

1024MB is better, but you still have a shitload of memory free... ArmA only uses ~ 180-300mb in most cases, so why you say that 2GB will be "The Recommended" I really don't understand. Great, having 1200mb "free memory" yay.

An X1650Pro in the same list as X1900pro/7800gt? that's a mid-range product compared to the high-range products...

Which actually quite shows that it probably is more the optimization and the state of the system, than the cards in general..

Furthermore I have seen systems with comparable speeds like the 2.8ghz P4, 512mb, and an 9250 equal in it, runs fine on (very) low settings, 1200m viewdistance.. I really got no clue where your 500m comes from 900m MAYBE...

Just remember that the state of the system, especially drivers, spyware, yadi yadi yadi.... is VERY important for the FPS... If that stuff ain't good... then a 8800GTS 756MB will even run shit.

Besides, you all forget that mhz are different between Athlon 64/Intel P4 and Core 2...An example would be that you would need either a: 3ghz P4, a 2.5ghz A64 or a 2.2ghz Core 2... (They are not proven results, but I wouldn't find it weird if they are close to reality).

As such, this whole comparing of systems, settings etc. has nothing to do with real-world performance.

Besides, speed of RAM also has also effect on the performance... it's very nice to have 3GB DDR2-533, but your ass gets kicked by 1GB DDR1-400, especially on an A64 system.

Also saw some posts about 3dmark... it's a nice program but doesn't show much of the real world performance of your system

No sorry but you are wrong in the case of memory.

ArmA sure uses 180-300mb but thats not the reality.

It needs many background. so if u let the settings from view

distance by default (1200meters) and u use a system with

512MB DDR 400 u will have graphic bugs rendering failures and shit like that because the ram has not enough backbone to handle all the data. when u have 1000 or 1500MB of DDR400 u are at the safe side, we testet 512MB 1024MB and 2Gig off DDR 400.

everytime we raised the Memory we had 20-40% more performance. and like i sayed before, not only the memory is making the game.

how we tested:

on my friends table is a x800GTO with 256MB,

my 6800GT with 128MB,

a brand new x1600pro with 256MB

and last but not least from a others friend

a 7600GS with 256MB.

my friends had the system Athlon 64 3500+ and a P4c 2,68GHz CPU on the first hand with both MSI Platinum boards for intel sockel and AMD sockel.

on the other hand they had 3 512MB DDR 400 Dimms and 2 1042DDR 400 Dimms.

clear system windows xp with sp2 no spyware no other software only newest bios updates, drivers and software like DirectX and OpenAL. oh i forget we use Teamspeak to talk to each other because i am the reporter of the feedback.

u ask why i put the X1650Pro in the same list like X1900pro and 7800GT?

because this cards are almost the same level, and the only thing that matters for ArmA are the clockrates and memory on this graphic titans. also i pay 200€ for the 7800GT and the x1900 and for the x1650 i pay 179€. for me this is the middle class. the low class is 109€ - 149€ x1600pro/7600GS.

the high end class is for me everything over 200€.

Like an X1950 XTX or an 7800GTS. so i hope u understand me in this point.

the fact here is that ArmA makes big problems if u dont have at least 256MB or better 512MB on that graphics card.

the next fact is so higher the memory clock so better.

also an x1600pro or an 7600GS with 256 or 512MB Memory is good very good. but if u have the money a x7800GT or an x1950XT/X is better. and if u want to buy a hole new system because of arma and want to be on the secure side for the future. go ahead and catch big mama 8800GTS with more then 640MB GDDR3 Ram and clock rates that are not from this planet

but the graphic card is only working good when the rest is ok too.

if i use an AMD Athlon 64 with an Radeon 9250 with 64MB Memory there will be big problems with the communication between the CPU and the GPU.

if i use an AMD Athlon 64 with an X1600 or an 7600GS by 256MB or 512 MB this two Processing Units have fun together, u understand what i mean?

So now this two processing units asking for more backbone for the fast created/developed/worked graphics and data and only see 512MB DDR Ram there is no good. if they see 1024MB DDR Ram they have anough backbone to render 1200meters of view with many objects, textures, and other stuff on a good quality without braking down because of slow clockrates or low memory.

to go to your seen system like 2.8GHz 512MB and 9250 radeon:

low very low settings on 1200meters?

but with graphic bugs and low FPS i think.

if u want to play in average FPS with this hardware and settings u can maybe do it with 500meters view distance thats what i sayed. so were is the problem? the cpu i great, now go out and buy a new 512MB Ram stick for 40 bugs and upgrade the GPU to an 7600GS for 109bugs and u can sleep good. this is what i want to say to the folks here in this community forum from Bohemia Interactive, nothing else.

We have people here asking things like "is this hardware fast enough for ArmA?" and i wanna try to help. thats all.

Besides, there are no differences between Athlon and P4 or better say AMD and INTeL.

The clock rates are the clock rates, Athlon 64 3500+ dont means that it has 3500 MHz.

the focus is the Frontside Bus and Cache of the CPU.

and the technologys of Hyperthreading and Hypertransport etc.

thats why the A64 3000+ can kick the ass of an P4c 3000MHz CPU. beleave me the 1800MHz from that AMD is not the matter.

[sickboy 13]

...

Let me first start with that i'm having no doubts in your intentions, and that it's great that at least somebody is taking care of this Plus to add that you guys are nuts for doing all these tests, but big respect

But what you seem to say is:

[*] Higher clockrate is better (Which isn't true, due to the IPC of the different cpu's)

[*] More Cache is better (Which isn't true, as more Cache helps more on P4's and on Core2's than that it does on A64's)

[*] More RAM is better (Which isn't true, since the type, speed & latency of the ram is important too... Example: on an a64 you can have 2gb of DDR2-533 or 1gb of DDR1-400 low latency, and the latter will perform better in most cases!

[*] Higher FSB is better (Which isn't true if you try to compare an A64's FSB (Or better said Hypertransport bus) and an Intel P4 and Core 2

[*] Higher Videocard Clockrate is better (Which isn't true, as different types of cores, just as with cpu's, work different from eachother. There is a lot more to the performance of a core, or memory, than just the clockrate...

So there is not only difference between 2 manufacturers, but also between 2 different cores or even revisions from the same manufacturer...

[*] More Videocard memory is better (Which isn't true, as a 9250 with 512mb ram will not outperform an 9800 with 256mb ram )

You also talk about an Athlon 64 3500+ and that that is not a 3500mhz cpu. Yes I know... And that's why i'm saying that what you write is confusing for ppl. Since you write that the recommended is 2ghz to 3ghz, well that's not true, because you can have an Athlon 64 1.8ghz which performs as well as a P4 3.5ghz. This is why I say... if you write down mhz or ghz... you must specify which type of core you mean or write that if you wanna compare P4's to A64's... you should compare the P4's clockrate vs the A64's rating, and this usually fits pretty well... Because the cores are not performing the same, at the same amount of mhz.

Thats what I said... A 2.8ghz P4 performs nearly equal to a 1.6ghz A64,  and a 1.5ghz Core2  (Again, just examples, but they are near to truth)...

PS: Clockrates = Frequency and = defined in mhz/ghz, not in ratings.

Athlon 64 cpu's perform better with low latency DDR1 RAM (~ CL2), and worse with DDR2 RAM (which is high latency - ~ CL5), only DDR2 above 800mhz and slightly lower latency (~CL4) is able to outperform DDR1 on an A64 platform.

All i'm saying is that if you supply information, you can better supply it more complete and to truth...instead of just putting some numbers... As an A64 cpu got a rating and a frequency/clockrate (mhz)..

Hypertransport is for AMD the replacement for the Front Side Bus, and much more

Hyperthreading is making 1 physical core as 2 virtual cores, which in many cases actually caused slowdowns instead of performance gains. So the focus isn't really on this, is it?

Addition: I must apologise for a mistake... I am comparing your ArmA results with the results of ppl playing on our servers... In Multiplayer... it's the server that needs to calculate most things and not the Clients, so that's where our p4 2.8ghz 512mb system comparison went wrong

[xav 0]

I am not too sure where to post that, but since you guys talk alot about configs in this thread, and seem to know your stuff, can anybody tell me if the following config i plan to order for X-MAS is cool and if not what part to change and for what reason.

Thanks

(Ps i can't afford to pass the $1000 limit)

- Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 Conroe 2.13GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80557E6400 - Retail: $218.50

- ECS NFORCE 570 SLIT-A (V5.1) Socket T (LGA 775) NVIDIA nForce 570 SLI ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail $89.99

- DIAMOND X1950PRO512PCIE GDDR3 VIVO Video Card - Retail $259.99

- SAMSUNG SpinPoint T Series HD300LJ 300GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM $89.99

(I have a 80Gb 10000Rpm raptor in my present computer that i ll use in my future one)

- 2x OCZ Gold Series 1GB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 533 (PC2 4200) System Memory Model OCZ25331024ELGEGXT - OEM (2 gigs) $219.98

- Broadway Com Corp 82-4HL Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case 500W Power Supply - Retail (Tower with 500W included) $44.99

- SAMSUNG 18X DVD±R DVD Burner With 12X DVD-RAM Write Black E-IDE/ATAPI Model SH-S182D - OEM $29.99

(And i ll keep my 19" Samsung and keyboard/mouse from my current computer)

Total $984.95 includes shipping and handling

(I did it on Newegg.com)

Please let me know, I don't wanna get bad things, or pay too much for them.

[Placebo 29]

I am not too sure where to post that

Pinned PC thread in OT

[Kev 0]

...

Let me first start with that i'm having no doubts in your intentions, and that it's great that at least somebody is taking care of this Plus to add that you guys are nuts for doing all these tests, but big respect

Thanks

damn it is hard to explain hardware stuff in english when u are such an german nut like me...

i think u totaly missunderstood me and thats why i use ur quote to explain more my meanings:

But what you seem to say is:

[*] Higher clockrate is better (Which isn't true, due to the IPC of the different cpu's) you are right, but cpu is also a main character, thats why its true in a other part.

[*] More Cache is better (Which isn't true, as more Cache helps more on P4's and on Core2's than that it does on A64's)

I Dont think so. The cache is the main part of the cpu. true is that the intel cpu's are the only ones that get the most performence out of it.

[*] More RAM is better (Which isn't true, since the type, speed & latency of the ram is important too... Example: on an a64 you can have 2gb of DDR2-533 or 1gb of DDR1-400 low latency, and the latter will perform better in most cases!

[*] Higher FSB is better (Which isn't true if you try to compare an A64's FSB (Or better said Hypertransport bus) and an Intel P4 and Core 2

Like i sayed, its hard for me to explain, DDR 533 and DDR 400 or DDR2 800 is the FSB what i was talking about. i did not talk about the CPU FSB.

[*] Higher Videocard Clockrate is better (Which isn't true, as different types of cores, just as with cpu's, work different from eachother. There is a lot more to the performance of a core, or memory, than just the clockrate...

So there is not only difference between 2 manufacturers, but also between 2 different cores or even revisions from the same manufacturer...

I did not talk about any GPU clock rates here, i talked about the memory clockrates. its true that there are diferences between the cores but for an customer its more interesting if he gets the quality and performance for his money.

[*] More Videocard memory is better (Which isn't true, as a 9250 with 512mb ram will not outperform an 9800 with 256mb ram )

Also i did not talk about any outperforming, i was talking about the performance needet for ArmA, if u want to play ArmA with nice settings u need an newer GPU chip with good memory.

because of the truth that ArmA eats Graphic Memory like Applepie it is better to have a strong GPU with good memory. u understand what i mean?...

You also talk about an Athlon 64 3500+ and that that is not a 3500mhz cpu. Yes I know... And that's why i'm saying that what you write is confusing for ppl. Since you write that the recommended is 2ghz to 3ghz, well that's not true, because you can have an Athlon 64 1.8ghz which performs as well as a P4 3.5ghz. This is why I say... if you write down mhz or ghz... you must specify which type of core you mean or write that if you wanna compare P4's to A64's... you should compare the P4's clockrate vs the A64's rating, and this usually fits pretty well... Because the cores are not performing the same, at the same amount of mhz.

Thats what I said... A 2.8ghz P4 performs nearly equal to a 1.6ghz A64, and a 1.5ghz Core2 (Again, just examples, but they are near to truth)...

PS: Clockrates = Frequency and = defined in mhz/ghz, not in ratings.

i did not define anything in ratings but u are right.