Your ideal PC to play ARMA?

[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

Ok I've busted my life saving (seriously this is gonna hurt me) & ordered a new gfx card http://www.dabs.com/product....8070000 to replace my 7800GT & http://www.dabs.com/Product....Merch=1 to replace my BenQ 19" monitor...

I so hope it can make even a wee bit of difference.....

[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

Ok I've busted my life saving (seriously this is gonna hurt me) & ordered a new gfx card http://www.dabs.com/product....8070000 to replace my 7800GT & http://www.dabs.com/Product....Merch=1 to replace my BenQ 19" monitor...

I so hope it can make even a wee bit of difference.....

Ive found my 8800 GTX to be 2 x faster in almost all games than my 7800.

basically allows x4 or x8 AA in most games and no slow down. My 7800 used to get unhappy all high in BF2 with 4x aa.

The bigger the monitor the easier it is to snipe that bugger in a bush 1 km away ;}

[nylock10 0]

ArmA runs horribly even on low detail on my computer (10 - 25FPS average).

Mobility Radeon x1600 256MB

Core Duo 2GHz

2GB RAM

[Gigi 0]

I just ordered my pc for 1833€ and i'm getting it on thursday with arma. Will the specs do for quality graphics in game?

Medium-Tower Antec SLK3000 Black 450W + 2xUSB Infront

MB Gigabyte-P4-Dual-GA-965P-S3, Gigabit, Firewire, SATA*4

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2,4 Ghz FSB-1066-4MB + Cooler

------1024MB DDR2 RAM 800Mhz (2 of them)

----HD 320GB SATA - 7200 tr/min - 16MB Cache Maxtor or Seagate

DVD-Rom Lite-On 16x CD 48x Black

Burner DVD Lite-On DVD±R9 DVD±R DVD±RW CDRW Black

PCI-e GeForce 8800GTS 640MB TV&DVI

Windows Vista Home Premium - English

[Tic-Tac 0]

My comp is has bad gfx on ARMA but has near top on CSS and BF2.

Intel pentium 4 northwood 2.8ghz overclocked to 3.33ghz

An old MSI 6800GT with mem overclocked to 1.1ghz

1GB (2x512mb) DDR333

My comps stuff is old and I don't have much money to spend on a new one so i'm thinking of upgrading it to this

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600

Nvidia 7950GT

2GB (2x1GB) DDR800

This all costs about £400 (or about $750 I think) and it should let me be able to play arma and other games with better gfx. But the new 8800GTS is £50 (bout $90) more expensive so would it be worth getting that instead of the 7950GT?

[ArmaVidz 0]

This might be falling on deaf ears, or people might be flat in disbelief, but I can assure you, as a computer technician, it's not your hardware that is causing the slowdowns.

So far, I've tried two config's for running ArmA

Loadout 1:

Athlon 4200+ X2 at 2.2Ghz

ASUS A8N-E

2GB's OCZ EL Platinum 2x1024MB 2-3-2-5

ATi X1900XTX 512MB

WD Raptor 36GB 10,000 RPM SATAI HDD

FPS was very low. Playable however not "awesome."

Loadout 2:

Athlon 5200+ X2 at 2.61Ghz

ASUS M2N-SLi

2GB's GSkill DDR-800 2x1024MB 5-5-5-15

eVGA GeForce 7950 GT KO Superclocked

WD Raptor 74GB 10,000 RPM HDD

Better, but still tastes like a sh%$ sandwhich considering the cost of the hardware.

Currently, with the eye candy on high for everything, running at 5,200ft view distance, w/VSync off, 75Hz refresh I have to run at 640x480 res to get any action even reasonably decent. I've tried fresh installs of Windows XP Professional after swapping video cards to ensure the maximum hardware speed possible ~it didn't help.

The maximum I've seen for FPS is 60FPS with both hardware configs. Even then, that 60FPS was more a "blip" than a "baseline to be measured."

While I love the game to death, this sh%# sandwhich does leave a nasty aftertaste considering the cost of new hardware.  

edit: as unfeasable is it is, I think BIS should be looking into dual-core support. When you bring a bohemeth like Armed Assault to market, which will crush hardware the way it does, without dual-core support, when a new product hits the market with multi-core support, I would bet alot of folks are going to jump the bandwagon. I don't wanna stare at 640x480 for a couple years. My options are that, or spend another $400-$500+ on a CPU because the dev's hadn't the skills or forsight or budget, to integrate it.

Anyhoo, back to the editor

[dirtylarrygb 0]

This might be falling on deaf ears, or people might be flat in disbelief, but I can assure you, as a computer technician, it's not your hardware that is causing the slowdowns.

So far, I've tried two config's for running ArmA

Loadout 1:

Athlon 4200+ X2 at 2.2Ghz

ASUS A8N-E

2GB's OCZ EL Platinum 2x1024MB 2-3-2-5

ATi X1900XTX 512MB

WD Raptor 36GB 10,000 RPM SATAI HDD

FPS was very low. Playable however not "awesome."

Loadout 2:

Athlon 5200+ X2 at 2.61Ghz

ASUS M2N-SLi

2GB's GSkill DDR-800 2x1024MB 5-5-5-15

eVGA GeForce 7950 GT KO Superclocked

WD Raptor 74GB 10,000 RPM HDD

Better, but still tastes like a sh%$ sandwhich considering the cost of the hardware.

Currently, with the eye candy on high for everything, running at 5,200ft view distance, w/VSync off, 75Hz refresh I have to run at 640x480 res to get any action even reasonably decent. I've tried fresh installs of Windows XP Professional after swapping video cards to ensure the maximum hardware speed possible ~it didn't help.

The maximum I've seen for FPS is 60FPS with both hardware configs. Even then, that 60FPS was more a "blip" than a "baseline to be measured."

While I love the game to death, this sh%# sandwhich does leave a nasty aftertaste considering the cost of new hardware.

edit: as unfeasable is it is, I think BIS should be looking into dual-core support. When you bring a bohemeth like Armed Assault to market, which will crush hardware the way it does, without dual-core support, when a new product hits the market with multi-core support, I would bet alot of folks are going to jump the bandwagon. I don't wanna stare at 640x480 for a couple years. My options are that, or spend another $400-$500+ on a CPU because the dev's hadn't the skills or forsight or budget, to integrate it.

Anyhoo, back to the editor

Not so much the CPU more the GPU.

An 8800 can run max at 3-5km vd at a steady 60 fps at 1280x1024, but starts to struggle (ege turn details down) above that.

My CPU is only a 4000 SC, my GPU is a 8800 GTX KO ACS3, GPU seems all important for arma once you pass a CPU speed of 3800.

Also the lastest nvidia drivers on guru 3d make a huge diff for me.

[BroK3n 0]

So what kinda fps should i expect on a 7600GT and on what settings?

Getting 15fps in paraiso and it pisses me off.

[gL33k 0]

This might be falling on deaf ears, or people might be flat in disbelief, but I can assure you, as a computer technician, it's not your hardware that is causing the slowdowns.

So far, I've tried two config's for running ArmA

Loadout 1:

Athlon 4200+ X2 at 2.2Ghz

ASUS A8N-E

2GB's OCZ EL Platinum 2x1024MB 2-3-2-5

ATi X1900XTX 512MB

WD Raptor 36GB 10,000 RPM SATAI HDD

FPS was very low. Playable however not "awesome."

Loadout 2:

Athlon 5200+ X2 at 2.61Ghz

ASUS M2N-SLi

2GB's GSkill DDR-800 2x1024MB 5-5-5-15

eVGA GeForce 7950 GT KO Superclocked

WD Raptor 74GB 10,000 RPM HDD

Better, but still tastes like a sh%$ sandwhich considering the cost of the hardware.

Currently, with the eye candy on high for everything, running at 5,200ft view distance, w/VSync off, 75Hz refresh I have to run at 640x480 res to get any action even reasonably decent. I've tried fresh installs of Windows XP Professional after swapping video cards to ensure the maximum hardware speed possible ~it didn't help.

The maximum I've seen for FPS is 60FPS with both hardware configs. Even then, that 60FPS was more a "blip" than a "baseline to be measured."

While I love the game to death, this sh%# sandwhich does leave a nasty aftertaste considering the cost of new hardware.

edit: as unfeasable is it is, I think BIS should be looking into dual-core support. When you bring a bohemeth like Armed Assault to market, which will crush hardware the way it does, without dual-core support, when a new product hits the market with multi-core support, I would bet alot of folks are going to jump the bandwagon. I don't wanna stare at 640x480 for a couple years. My options are that, or spend another $400-$500+ on a CPU because the dev's hadn't the skills or forsight or budget, to integrate it.

Anyhoo, back to the editor

Not so much the CPU more the GPU.

An 8800 can run max at 3-5km vd at a steady 60 fps at 1280x1024, but starts to struggle (ege turn details down) above that.

My CPU is only a 4000 SC, my GPU is a 8800 GTX KO ACS3, GPU seems all important for arma once you pass a CPU speed of 3800.

Also the lastest nvidia drivers on guru 3d make a huge diff for me.

in multiplayer condition , wih many entity moving , firing , looking eachother , what you need is the biggest CPU possible.

right , 8800 permit you to play @ High res. superiror at 1280, but object count etc .. depend of your cpu.

AMHA , an overclocked Core2 is the best bang for buck.

[Tic-Tac 0]

I know that AMD and Intel both do dual core proccessors but the price difference is quite big. e.g. AMD 2.4GHz dual core costs 105 pounds but for a Intel proccessor with same clock is 190 pounds. Does this mean that Intel are trying to rip you off or do they have a bigger advantage?

[dirtylarrygb 0]

I know that AMD and Intel both do dual core proccessors but the price difference is quite big. e.g. AMD 2.4GHz dual core costs 105 pounds but for a Intel proccessor with same clock is 190 pounds. Does this mean that Intel are trying to rip you off or do they have a bigger advantage?

A core 2 duo say the E6600 beats a AMD FX 62in almost all benchmarks, especially when mixed with an 8800.

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2007....13.html

Note even the cheap E4300 (which is now the slowest duo you can buy, totally humbles the AMD)

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2007...._gaming

Latest AMD and INTEL top range chips head to head.

The best CPU for performance and price right now is either the E4300 or E6300, ignore the clock speeds both are very fast and EXTREMELLY fast for games with the core 2 duo logo. E.G. Supremme Commander.

If you play RTS games the CPU is VERY important, so buy the very best you can an E6600 should be considered min spec for the next 2 years.

But if your a crysis and Arma fan the E6300 is the min, as the GPU is more important. For now its an 8800 GTS or GTX, anyother card will have to be binned for Dx10. The r600 is out soon so if not in a rush might be worth the wait.

Also plan on 2 Gig RAm MIN.

Also AMD are slashing prices, so the AMD x2 although not as fast as the duo's offers a good deal that only getting better all the time.

I upgrade every year so normally go for a mid range CPU and ram but max out on the GPU.

My AMD 4000 (Single Core) is fine for ARMA, Stalker and CnC3 but sucks butt for Supremme Commander (as soon as there are over 100 units on screen slow down time). I have an e6600 sitting ina box with a new mobo and ram but not installing them till I need them, to my surprise OC'ing the 4000 means FPS games with the 8800 run great.

[Jackal326 1181]

I think this setup should just about run ArmA with everything on high and a view distance of 10,000m

FYI thats a shot of the NORAD Super-Computer from the film 'Wargames'

[dirtylarrygb 0]

I think this setup should just about run ArmA with everything on high and a view distance of 10,000m

FYI thats a shot of the NORAD Super-Computer from the film 'Wargames'

NO NO NO,

that machine runs crysis with all eye candy maxed and ARMA almost maxed you nubcake... ;}

[Infam0us 10]

I think this setup should just about run ArmA with everything on high and a view distance of 10,000m

FYI thats a shot of the NORAD Super-Computer from the film 'Wargames'

Hehe, it might if your lucky

Slighty OT, but I don't understand how my Rig ...

Case - Antec Nine Hundred

PSU - 500W Silverstone SLi Dual +12V

Mobo: Gigabyte GA K8N51GMF-RH NF410 - S754

Processor: AMD Athlonâ„¢ 64 Processor 3400+ Newcastle S754 2.5Ghz

RAM: x 2 512 MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM

Hard Drive: 335GB

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7900GS 256MB - Overclocked

Sound Card: Sound Blaster Live 5.1!

Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2

Can run ArmA at Very High and have a steady 30FPS, yet other PC users with 8800GTX and Conroes have to run it in low to play?

[Heatseeker 0]

I have an e6600 sitting ina box with a new mobo and ram but not installing them till I need them

What ?

[gL33k 0]

I have an e6600 sitting ina box with a new mobo and ram but not installing them till I need them

What ?

i think the mobo box should be trapped. that's the only way : /

[ArmaVidz 0]

Quite simply put an X1900XTX 512MB running at stock speeds for GPU/MEM should be plenty sufficient for this game. It has no DirectX10 instructions built into it. The 8800's are more efficient in the way it processes graphics, but the speeds are are not that much faster compared to an X1900XTX. An edge should be found in a more disproportionate size in DirectX10 games, however considering there are no DX10 instructions in Armed Assault, that point is moot.

The only thing Armed Assault has on other games is objects. More trees, more this and that and the view distance. With LOD the GPU becomes less important and the CPU becomes more important. I'm almost leaning towards thinking a glitch in the coding causes poor performance when two cores are present which would account for why your SINGLE CORE 4000+ is getting better onscreen visuals that my 5200+ X2.

I've tried using the X1900XTX with the new CPU, it's about the same as 7950 GT KO Superclocked albeit, a tad faster, and coupled with either the CPU's/DDR800/Faster HDD's- the result is about the same.

Is anyone here running an 8800 GTS or higher? If so, I would personally like to hear a testimonial and see a screenshot with all the details on high, FRAPS recording FPS and a view distance of 6+ kilometres.

Because quite simply, I don't believe it. Of course at the end of the day, I don't know how to code a game, all I know is hardware specs and performance in real world applications because I've experienced/built it myself. All that experience tells me it's not the hardware, its the game.

[Mr_Tea 0]

Haha, Fraps recording itself would slow ARMA down. Bad idea.

[ArmaVidz 0]

Haha, Fraps recording itself would slow ARMA down. Bad idea.

For display of FPS only. Not recording.

[Tic-Tac 0]

I can't understand how some people say that 60fps is shit. The human eye sees things in real life at around 20 times a second. So frame rates over say 27fps should seem the same as 26fps?

[dirtylarrygb 0]

I think this setup should just about run ArmA with everything on high and a view distance of 10,000m

YI thats a shot of the NORAD Super-Computer from the film 'Wargames'

Hehe, it might if your lucky

Slighty OT, but I don't understand how my Rig ...

Case - Antec Nine Hundred

PSU - 500W Silverstone SLi Dual +12V

Mobo: Gigabyte GA K8N51GMF-RH NF410 - S754

Processor: AMD Athlonâ„¢ 64 Processor 3400+ Newcastle S754 2.5Ghz

RAM: x 2 512 MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM

Hard Drive: 335GB

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7900GS 256MB - Overclocked

Sound Card: Sound Blaster Live 5.1!

Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2

Can run ArmA at Very High and have a steady 30FPS, yet other PC users with 8800GTX and Conroes have to run it in low to play?

Right drivers right bios versions right hardware mix, just one incorrect driver or wrong setting can make ama stall on a machine becasue at high res its really pushing your PC.

ARMA exposes the problems your PC has, other games dont as much bar Supreme Commander as they just arn't pushing so hard.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Quite simply put an X1900XTX 512MB running at stock speeds for GPU/MEM should be plenty sufficient for this game. It has no DirectX10 instructions built into it. The 8800's are more efficient in the way it processes graphics, but the speeds are are not that much faster compared to an X1900XTX. An edge should be found in a more disproportionate size in DirectX10 games, however considering there are no DX10 instructions in Armed Assault, that point is moot.

The only thing Armed Assault has on other games is objects. More trees, more this and that and the view distance. With LOD the GPU becomes less important and the CPU becomes more important. I'm almost leaning towards thinking a glitch in the coding causes poor performance when two cores are present which would account for why your SINGLE CORE 4000+ is getting better onscreen visuals that my 5200+ X2.

I've tried using the X1900XTX with the new CPU, it's about the same as 7950 GT KO Superclocked albeit, a tad faster, and coupled with either the CPU's/DDR800/Faster HDD's- the result is about the same.

Is anyone here running an 8800 GTS or higher? If so, I would personally like to hear a testimonial and see a screenshot with all the details on high, FRAPS recording FPS and a view distance of 6+ kilometres.

Because quite simply, I don't believe it. Of course at the end of the day, I don't know how to code a game, all I know is hardware specs and performance in real world applications because I've experienced/built it myself. All that experience tells me it's not the hardware, its the game.

I run view distance 5 km for flying on many Mp maps (when VD is allow by beta and mission).

I have shadows on very high, AA on normal at 1600x1024, and a very stdy 60 FPS even with pp on.

How?

AF in game set OFF!

Texture normal

Objects normal

terrain low

That makes the difference!

8800 generally in most benchmarks shows 50-100% FPS increase over any other card. These benchmarks are flawed as 200 FPS matters little 30-60 FPS s what matters.

SSAA enabled, 4 x AA and 8x AF with everything maxed is possible at 2 km VD on an 8800 in arma. But if you go higher you can get frame stalls, when flying sniping etc.

Basically an 8800 allows 4x aa and SSAA in most games at almost any res at 1600x1024 or below. SSAA eneable on a 1950 or 7 series can tip them below 30 FPS. If you dont run in very high res a 7 series or 1950 is fine unless you want to buy DX10 hardware now for Crysis etc.

It is the hardware people with 8800's can push ARMA higher than most and still not drop below 30 FPS with a careful balance of ingame settings.

I'm losing 30-505 of my 8800 speed running it on a single core with DDR2 vs running on a X6800 duo with DDR3 Oc'ed.

If you look on review sites you will see the new DUO's push games at daft speeds.

[4 IN 1 0]

most of the time i keep AF on 16 as its just a cheap pice of tweak which only draws a little from the GPU

[NeMeSiS 11]

I can't understand how some people say that 60fps is shit. The human eye sees things in real life at around 20 times a second. So frame rates over say 27fps should seem the same as 26fps?

You can see much higher then 60, but your eyes get used to 20-30 anyway so there is really no point in having higher. But for some (probably ridiculous) reason they just dont want to accept this.

[--DST-- HIGHLANDER 0]

my p.c plays arma smooth as butter with all on normal, settings no aa or af, and i get 70+ frps in most maps