Your ideal PC to play ARMA?

[Jack-UK 0]

Well CPU's dont seem to have gone much higher than 3.2 GHZ... they've been working on multi cores... ive seen dual core up to about 3.0 GHZ and thats obviously better.. but for ArmA it isnt dual core supported, therefore your CPU is probably quite optimum.. its also above the 3.0 recommended ghz.

[Guest]

There will be quad core CPUs this year. PCI-Express 2 etc. So Arma will play great on all future computers. I think it was the same thing with OFP. Nto all could play at max in the beginning.

[Maddmatt 1]

Well CPU's dont seem to have gone much higher than 3.2 GHZ... they've been working on multi cores... ive seen dual core up to about 3.0 GHZ and thats obviously better.. but for ArmA it isnt dual core supported, therefore your CPU is probably quite optimum.. its also above the 3.0 recommended ghz.

Just because it has a high clockspeed doesn't mean that it is a fast CPU. P4s are weak by todays standards, even the fastest ones.

[Seirrah 0]

This may be a silly question then, but what would be the minmum spec required to play ArmA at full detail when at 1680x1050?

Thanks

[johnwilso007 0]

my rig is

Pentium D 3,40GHz Dual Core.

1024mb ram

Radeon 1650 Series.

im running it on 1440 x 900 most things set to normal. and post processing to low which i think is the biggest graphics hogger.

not sure about those details that your after, but if you had a system like that it should do it quite well.

also id like to point out that my power is only 350 watts. when i get some money im going to get a better one, i dont want to overdo the graphics card as it might crash due to a lack of power.

[Jacobss 0]

Which PC is better for ArmA? Athlon Dual Core X2 2,2 GHZ with 1 GB ram and Geforce 8800 GTS or Pentium IV 3,2 GHZ with 1 GB and 8800 GTS? How ArmA is running on Geforce 8800 GTS? Or better is buying PC with Directx 9 card also Geforce 7950 GT? I thinging of course only about ArmA. Sorry, for my english becouse I'm a German.

[guerilla -MCY- 0]

i would take a 8800 serie as you would be ready for upcoming dx10 games and you can use HDR Lightning and AntiAliasing + AF on the same time in ArmA, while with an old 7xxx serie you cannot use both FX. So you would never see the whole beauty of ArmA

[Maddmatt 1]

Which PC is better for ArmA? Athlon Dual Core X2 2,2 GHZ with 1 GB ram and Geforce 8800 GTS or Pentium IV 3,2 GHZ with 1 GB and 8800 GTS? How ArmA is running on Geforce 8800 GTS? Or better is buying PC with Directx 9 card also Geforce 7950 GT? I thinging of course only about ArmA. Sorry, for my english becouse I'm a German.

Neither of those CPUs are good enough to handle a Geforce 8800. They will bottleneck it.

[Jacobss 0]

Which PC is better for ArmA? Athlon Dual Core X2 2,2 GHZ with 1 GB ram and Geforce 8800 GTS or Pentium IV 3,2 GHZ with 1 GB and 8800 GTS? How ArmA is running on Geforce 8800 GTS? Or better is buying PC with Directx 9 card also Geforce 7950 GT? I thinging of course only about ArmA. Sorry, for my english becouse I'm a German.

Neither of those CPUs are good enough to handle a Geforce 8800. They will bottleneck it.

I know, but I don't have many money, and I can for 699 Euro PC buying with Athlon Dual Core 2,2 GHZ, 1 GB ram and Geforce 8800 GTS. So, It's better have not good CPU and good graphic card than bad graphic card but good CPU right? Hm, the best solution is have more money? What do you things?

[4 IN 1 0]

lol i just spend some 750 EUROs on a pc without counting the display!!!

C2D E6600

1GB KINGSTON 800 x2(for OC if i need without hurting my ram too much)

ASUS P5B Deluex wi-fi edition(since my sister just get an NDS)

160 GB SEAGATE SATAII x1 (was thinking to get 2 of this for raid to boost speed, while both my old 80GB IDE for crap storage)

some 500W PSU

btw i am thinking to go with a single X1950 pro till R600(yes i am an Ati fan and yes i hate the way nV is now)

[Guba 0]

Guys I hope you can help.

I currently have :

P4 3.2Ghz, 7800GS (AGP), 2GB Ram... I am running at 1680x1050 as my max resolution.

My computer struggles with the demo quite a bit, even with fairly low settings.

Being stuck on AGP at the moment I have the ability to upgrade my gfx card to a X1950, but I am wondering how much this would help.

How dependent is ArmA on the gfx card and cpu? Bearing in mind I am using a 3.2Ghz P4. ie. Would a CPU upgrade be better than a gfx card upgrade in this instance? (How I would do that I do not know).

All help is very much appreciated.

Seirrah I know how you feel I have an AMD 64 3200 (2,2Ghz) with 2 GB of RAM and a XFX GF7800 GS 256Mb AGP video card.

The first time I ran the game (v1.2) I wasn't happy with the performance so I followed almost every suggestion (from having an Arma dedicated windows XP with the pagefile in a second hard drive to over clocking my video card) I found in the forums (got to thank everybody that posted their advices and Jack-UK for posting them all together) to improve it. After that I managed to get at least 15-20 extra FPS which have made my game quite smooth for cities and desert at 1600 x 1200 with the settings I have enclosed below.

But the game still doesn't run how I would like it to. There are still many situations in which I usually experience noticeable frame drops (<20 fps), some of which I have listed below:

when

-close to bushes

-inside forests

-prone on the grass

-flying over large cities

-playing with large amounts of ai

-playing online (not always)

If I lower the resolution to 1024X768 I notice a big improvement in performance in the first 4 situations which I would be more than satisfied to have at 1600x1200. That, from what I've heard, has to do more with the graphics card than the CPU (I would expect it to be the CPU if I didn't experience a significant performance improvement when lowering the resolution but that’s not the case).

Regarding the 2 last situations though, the CPU is probably what’s to be blamed.

Cause an upgrade of CPU would produce a chain reaction of upgrades in my pc, that is not an option for me at the moment. The only upgrade I can afford is to get a better graphics card, but only middle ranged.

So these are the options I have been considering:

1. Buy that AGP Geforce X1950 Pro with 512 Mb and see what happens.

Pros:

-> Price of the card

-> Performance similar to it’s PCI-Express version

Cons:

- It needs a very demanding PSU which would almost cost me half the price of the card.

- I won’t be able to use that graphics card any more if I decide to upgrade the rest of my PC (I'm not sure how well I'll be able to sell it by then)

2. Buy a cheap transitional motherboard which supports my old CPU and RAM but that has a PCI-Express slot and then get a reasonable priced PCI-Express video card. I have been offered an XFX 7950 GT 512 Mb and an XFX 8800 GTS 320Mb for quite “reasonable†amounts. Probably both of those cards are overkill for my current CPU but it would only be till I can afford to upgrade it.

Pros:

-> 7950 + Motherboard is not that much expensive than the 1950 + the PSU (Hoping the 450W PSU I currently have manages to hold the 7950) and if I upgrade I can keep the card.

-> 8800 GTS 340Mb + Motherboard: although it's quite more expensive it supports Dx10. Not that I'm going to play many other games besides ArmA but who knows... perhaps I can use it for Game 2 :P.

Cons:

-> I'll might have to reinstall Windows that I use for work when changing the motherboard (although I've read that maybe I can skip that by doing a repair install)

-> It costs more than I planed to spend and I'm not sure how much will those cards improve the game and not even if the PSU I currently have will be able to cope with them.

3.Wait

Pros:

->Will be able to buy an über pc if I manage to save up enough. Then I will surely run ArmA with no problem.

Cons:

->I might not be alive by then :P

Now if I were you Seirrah the first thing I would do is make sure your drop by the thread that Jack-Uk opened to see if you can optimize your Pc a bit more.

If you've already tried that well ... maybe you will consider some of the same options I did

I hope you have luck in your choice

P.S. Out of the XFX 7950 GT 512 Mb and the 8800 GTS 320 Mb which card would you guys suggest if it was to be used exclusively to play ArmA. The things I fear most about the second besides the higher price are the less amount of memory and the compatibility issues. Thanks.

My settings:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">blood=1;

viewDistance=1200;

terrainGrid=50.000000;

gamma=1.000000;

brightness=1.000000;

fovTop=0.750000;

fovLeft=1.000000;

sceneComplexity=200000.000000;

shadingQuality=3;

shadowQuality=0;

soundEnableEAX=0;

soundEnableHW=0;

anisoFilter=0;

TexQuality=0;

postFX=0;

useWBuffer=0;

[PKC 0]

Well, currently I have an...

AMD Athlon XP 2400+

1gb DDR266

Nvidia 7600GS 256mb AGP

It's damned old (about 4 years) but it does the job, atleast for armed assault.

Ideally though i do have my eye on a new PC. Something along the lines of a...

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 GHz

1 GB DDR2 PC5400

Nvidia Geforce 8800 GTX

Though I think if i get it earlier, i'd stay with XP until vista is used a little more.

Better get saving!

[echo1 0]

@ Guba:

Id play the waiting game. with AGP youre buying into dead technology. The second idea is ok, but cheap motherboards suck, if you were serious about performance, youd need a decent one. Btw, 8800GTS is the best choice there.

[Tankbuster 1746]

Well, currently I have an...

AMD Athlon XP 2400+

1gb DDR266

Nvidia 7600GS 256mb AGP

It's damned old (about 4 years) but it does the job, atleast for armed assault.

Ideally though i do have my eye on a new PC. Something along the lines of a...

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 GHz

1 GB DDR2 PC5400

Nvidia Geforce 8800 GTX

Though I think if i get it earlier, i'd stay with XP until vista is used a little more.

Better get saving!

Personally, I'd save a little more. I think 2 gig of RAM is a good starting point for Armed Assault.

[Zarkan 0]

i have:

AMD athlon 2500 barton (overlock)

1 giga rama

N7600GS

for now is ok,end have more or less on normal/low

[william1 0]

that's an easy question : Red storm , but i'm still saving money to buy one

http://www.physorg.com/news82830306.html

[Dwarden 1125]

well as it seems upcoming ATI card is gunna be on 65nm process instead 80nm ... (should cut power usage by 25-33%)

then GPU with R6xx chip should be Your target after 19. april

[Rocky_Balboa 0]

Hi all

I've send a Personal Message to Marek Å panel (BIS project leader) and asked what system would be the best choice to run arma (and ofp) at maximum quality with high FPS rates...

He replied:

Quote[/b] ]As of now, I would recommend to go for Nvidia GF7950GT or similar card.

There are quite few problems with Ati and GF8800 drivers right now.

As to the rest, with inexpensive CPUs and memory you probably can't go wrong now a days...

ArmA can grow in years to come as PCs can so it's not a static thing...

Thought it might be good to know

[locherbread 0]

My rig

Athlon 4200 X2

Gigabyte 7800GT

2.5 gig PC3200

SB Audigy 2 ZS

19" BenQ LCD Monitor

Ok I have to run at mainly low settings (1280x1024) on everything to get FPS at a reasonable playable rate (25-40 fps) sorry but the game looks cack at lowest settings, surely my rig should be above minimum specs.

I mean I understand I cannot play at full settings x4 AA, but come on I play games like oblivion & vanguard at more eye pleasing settings than this game..

I know graphics aren't everything, but I've saw what ArmA looks like on full settings & its awesome, on lowest its pish

[dirtylarrygb 0]

My rig

Athlon 4200 X2

Gigabyte 7800GT

2.5 gig PC3200

SB Audigy 2 ZS

19" BenQ LCD Monitor

Ok I have to run at mainly low settings (1280x1024) on everything to get FPS at a reasonable playable rate (25-40 fps) sorry but the game looks cack at lowest settings, surely my rig should be above minimum specs.

I mean I understand I cannot play at full settings x4 AA, but come on I play games like oblivion & vanguard at more eye pleasing settings than this game..

I know graphics aren't everything, but I've saw what ArmA looks like on full settings & its awesome, on lowest its pish

Drop screen res turn up eye candy. 8800 can max out at 1280x1024 but have to drop eye candy at 1600+ if they don't want frame stutter.

Arma will probably be maxable on the next gen of cards the 9800 etc. If the 8800 drivers were perfect and SLi worked better 8800 GTX sli would probably run arma like a dream. Allow 60 FPS at MAx settings.

It takes an 8800 to run Oblivion in high res maxed out with SSAA on. ARMA just 12 months ahead.

[Heatseeker 0]

If a 8800 gtx cant run Arma at high settings and 1600x1200 resolution pulling more than 50 fps something isnt wright... with the game or with the drivers.

Arma is not ahead of current HW and neither are most games currently available, the new dx10 chips support features that current games simply dont, Arma included.

My GF6 was miles ahead of a previous GF4, yet OPF ran about the same on both cards. Doom3 ran smoothly on the GF6 and ran like crap on the GF4 .

[dirtylarrygb 0]

If a 8800 gtx cant run Arma at high settings and 1600x1200 resolution pulling more than 50 fps something isnt wright... with the game or with the drivers.

Arma is not ahead of current HW and neither are most games currently available, the new dx10 chips support features that current games simply dont, Arma included.

My GF6 was miles ahead of a previous GF4, yet OPF ran about the same on both cards. Doom3 ran smoothly on the GF6 and ran like crap on the GF4 .

FarCry arrived, the very best card at the time the FX5950 could not run it maxed.

6800 came along, you could Max out but not go mad with AA or screen res.

7800, 1600+ res all maxed x 4 aa normally 50 FPS or better

8800, edit config turn OFF LOD, run at 1600 at 8xx with ssaa at 60fps or better.

That took 3 years......

When i say maxed I mean every setting in game maxed AND SSAA, 8x aa 16x AF, 1600+ res or better at 60FPS min. Anything else is a PS3 ;}

Turn on 16x aa on your 8800 and see what game run faster than 60 FPS with SSAA on as well :}

[Mave 0]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1661226

http://rekyyli.pp.fi/videot/arma/ArmA_High_Corona_0.96_alpha.avi (~55MB)

Propably the missionmaker has dropped the viewdistance? 1.05beta patch.

It runs 60fps clean in that mission with vsync on.

Edit: Fixed that 3DMark URL.

[Heatseeker 0]

^^

Yeah but with 1024x768 resolution everything looks terrible anyway. I would rather bring down some settings and use atleast 1280x1024 .

Quote[/b] ]

FarCry arrived, the very best card at the time the FX5950 could not run it maxed.

6800 came along, you could Max out but not go mad with AA or screen res.

7800, 1600+ res all maxed x 4 aa normally 50 FPS or better

8800, edit config turn OFF LOD, run at 1600 at 8xx with ssaa at 60fps or better.

That took 3 years......

Far Cry is a DX9 game, the FX series was a big crap, the GF6 series were very good, the GF7 series are great. The new DX10/SM4 chips are way behiond what Far Crap throws at your screen.

This means that Far Crap would run even better if it was designed to run with a DX10 card, you might have a great card but you havent seen what it can do yet...

You can say that the next gen of nvidia GPU's will run Arma "all maxed out" but if Arma was a DX10 optimised game you could be running it "all maxed out" today, i wont even mention dual core CPU's and RAM...

When the first DX9 card arrived (ati's 9700) many were disapointed with its performance and many encountered problems with DX8 games.

[Mave 0]

Yeah but with 1024x768 resolution everything looks terrible anyway. I would rather bring down some settings and use atleast 1280x1024 :)

I'll try to do 1280x960 with those settings... :)

I wont go to 1280x1024 because its not a square-pixel resolution. :)