Your ideal PC to play ARMA?

[spitfire_142 0]

im thinking of buying a 8800 GTX card but i was wondering, could someone tell me what settings the 8800 GTS runs at?

I dont want to spend an extra €200 im not going to use if i get good setting with the GTS model.

[LoFFeN 0]

Im thinking of buying a 8800 GTX card but i was wondering, could someone tell me what settings the 8800 GTS runs at?

Look here:

Geforce 8800GTX / Geforce 8800GTS

-Stream (Shader) Processors: 128 / 96

-Core Clock (MHz): 575 / 500

-Shader Clock (MHz): 1350 / 1200

-Memory Clock (MHz) x2: 900 / 800

-Memory amount: 768 MB / 640 MB

-Memory Interface: 384-bit / 320-bit

-Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec): 86.4 / 64

-Texture Fill Rate (billion/sec): 36.8 / 24

[CanadianTerror 0]

I just bought last week a 640MB 8800 GTS.

The demo runs great with all settings max.

EDIT:

AMD x2 4600+

2 Gig ram

[ArmaVidz 0]

I hear alot of talk and no proof.

From my own experience I don't like the way ArmA looks on "normal." If I had to run it at those settings I wouldn't even bother. All AA and AF is on High, running at 640x480. But I'd like to get a higher res, like 1024x768 or 1280x1024 with everything on high.

If your comps run ArmA so fast with an 8800 perhaps you could fraps it with the FPS counter and let us judge it ourselves? Specs on your PC would be nice as well.

As for seeing over 27FPS: I mean really? Haven't you been through this discussion before on other forums ad nausium? Everyone knows the whole point in gaming with FPS is to show more objects/events/movement per frame rather than just running one "normal" image "Faster." The more FPS you can show, the more gibbling/effects you can fit into those FPS. And yes, as a long time computer tech and avid gamer, when you get around the 60 FPS mark things "are" noticeably smoother. I don't understand how others can't see that as well.

[Heatseeker 0]

Arma looks quite good at normal settings with 1280x960 and 2x AA.

Im running high textures, high ground, 1500VD, high PP, high shadows, high shadders, high AF but normal AA.

I have a frame cap of 60 and it stays there most of the time, the important thing is that its all very smooth, with high textures looking at some bushes might drop me to the 40's in some distances.

If i want to increase view distance i have to turn down my settings. I havent even o'clocked yet.

Arma makes Far Cry look like kid drawings .

[dirtylarrygb 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?

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.

Most LCD monitors only work at 60 FPS, the xbox and PS3 are limited generally to 60 FPS.

If your machine runs a game at a steady 60FPS, as in 60 FPS is the MIN FPS.

Your game will run great.

So if benchmarks were real, Company of hero's measures MAX MIN and averege FPS. Then the most important FPS is the MIN.

So company of hero's demo, all maxed at 1600x1024, with SSAA and 4x AA and 16x AF.

7800 XFX GTX 256. Max 70 Min 14 Average 32

8800 EVGA GTX KO ACS3 768 max 120 Min 33 average 52

Max I dont care about, MIN, means the 8800 won't stumble FPS below 30 it should almost never stall. The 7800 would if SSAA was on, which means turn off SSAA or turn down AA or turn down Screen RES, my monitors native res is 1600x1024. So I NEED an 8800 for stable FPS with eye candy.

Judging max FPS or even average FPS is a rubbish. All that matters is the min. if a game drops below 15 FPS alot. Time to upgrade your kit or turn down GFX settings/screen res.

My 8800 can't drop FEAR or Far CRY or HL2 below about 60-70FPS as a min all maxed at high res. But ARMA can I have to turn down some settings or run at 1280x1024 to max everything. And i prefer 1600x1024 for sniping.

So read the above, game benchmarks would have reported:

8800

BF2 200 FPS (i have edited BF2 to allow 200 FPS, its locked at 100)

FEAR 160 FPS

HL2 200

So wow an 8800 can do 200 FPS at 1600x1024 or 1280x1024 for non 16:9 games.

that matters nothing

The min scores were all over 60, so I can max everything and not slow down.

A 7800 was about 15-30 at same settings, so I would lag and have to drop settings or res.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

I hear alot of talk and no proof.

From my own experience I don't like the way ArmA looks on "normal." If I had to run it at those settings I wouldn't even bother. All AA and AF is on High, running at 640x480. But I'd like to get a higher res, like 1024x768 or 1280x1024 with everything on high.

If your comps run ArmA so fast with an 8800 perhaps you could fraps it with the FPS counter and let us judge it ourselves? Specs on your PC would be nice as well.

As for seeing over 27FPS: I mean really? Haven't you been through this discussion before on other forums ad nausium? Everyone knows the whole point in gaming with FPS is to show more objects/events/movement per frame rather than just running one "normal" image "Faster." The more FPS you can show, the more gibbling/effects you can fit into those FPS. And yes, as a long time computer tech and avid gamer, when you get around the 60 FPS mark things "are" noticeably smoother. I don't understand how others can't see that as well.

Its not about smoother or more FPS, its about your machine not chugging at 5 FPS when you sit ina bush.

the 8800 and the 7900 and ati 1950 allow arma at high res with all eye candy and should not go below 30 FPS.

this users can sit in a bush and shoot someone 1.2 km's away and not lag. They can fly a blackhawk at alt 5 for 10 kms at 100mph and avoid trees and it all looks fab.

As for frap'sing at 1600x1024, to ask fraps to record that i would need a new harddrive. My CPu is only a single core and would have a fit.

I have used both fraps and 2 other FPS counters to check my ARMA fps.

Most noteabley while flying NAP and sniping in bushes.

All maxed (everysetting even SSAA) I can MIN 20 at 1280x1024.

AMD 4000 64 SC, 8800 GTX KO ACS3, 2 GIG DDR2 all oc'ed.

AT 1600x1024 I trun down many settings to make sure I don't drop below 30. Very important while flying or sniping.

Most noteable is objects to low for flying. And AF to low to allow postprocess high with shadows vhigh not to cuase stalls below 30 while flying.

And note if your FPS drops when flying at 120 MPH in a BH at alt 5. You hit the ground. It's a really good way to test you have arma configured right.

In the beta i also run the textures at normal never above and never get the LOD bug.

if your average FPS is 30 but min is below 15 you have a problem. In my view ANY min FPS below 30 means you should think about lowering settings to make sure you don't frame stall in MP.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

im thinking of buying a 8800 GTX card but i was wondering, could someone tell me what settings the 8800 GTS runs at?

I dont want to spend an extra €200 im not going to use if i get good setting with the GTS model.

R600 is almost out so worth waiting to see how much faster it is, and if nvidia drop prices.

GTS are very fast and cheap. GTX is the fastest but way more expensive.

is worth considering to make sure any 8800 has over 512 meg memory as many new games are treating 512 as the decent texture res now not 256.

[LoFFeN 0]

My setup will be 99% like this:

- Mainboard: ASUS P5N-E SLi 650i Socket775.

- CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @2.4GHz.

- RAM: Kingston DDR2 HyperX PC6400 2048MB CL4.

- Graphicscard: ASUS Geforce 8800GTS 320MB.

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

^Do someone here have a similar system? Like a E6600 and a 8800GTS 320MB? If anyone here have it, please say something about the performance in ArmA.

[ArmaVidz 0]

I hear alot of talk and no proof.

From my own experience I don't like the way ArmA looks on "normal." If I had to run it at those settings I wouldn't even bother. All AA and AF is on High, running at 640x480. But I'd like to get a higher res, like 1024x768 or 1280x1024 with everything on high.

If your comps run ArmA so fast with an 8800 perhaps you could fraps it with the FPS counter and let us judge it ourselves? Specs on your PC would be nice as well.

As for seeing over 27FPS: I mean really? Haven't you been through this discussion before on other forums ad nausium? Everyone knows the whole point in gaming with FPS is to show more objects/events/movement per frame rather than just running one "normal" image "Faster." The more FPS you can show, the more gibbling/effects you can fit into those FPS. And yes, as a long time computer tech and avid gamer, when you get around the 60 FPS mark things "are" noticeably smoother. I don't understand how others can't see that as well.

Its not about smoother or more FPS,  its about your machine not chugging at 5 FPS when you sit ina  bush.

the 8800 and the 7900 and ati 1950 allow arma at high res with all eye candy and should not go below 30 FPS.

this users can sit in a bush and shoot someone 1.2 km's away and not lag.  They can fly a blackhawk at alt 5 for 10 kms at 100mph and avoid trees and it all looks fab.

As for frap'sing at 1600x1024,  to ask fraps to record that i would need a new harddrive.  My CPu is only a single core and would have a fit.

I have used both fraps and 2 other FPS counters to check my ARMA fps.

Most noteabley while flying NAP and sniping in bushes.

All maxed (everysetting even SSAA) I can MIN 20 at 1280x1024.

AMD 4000 64 SC, 8800 GTX KO ACS3, 2 GIG DDR2 all oc'ed.

AT 1600x1024 I trun down many settings to make sure I don't drop below 30.  Very important while flying or sniping.

Most noteable is objects to low for flying. And AF to low to allow postprocess high with shadows vhigh not to cuase stalls below 30 while flying.

And note if your FPS drops when flying at 120 MPH in a BH at alt 5.  You hit the ground. It's a really good way to test you have arma configured right.

In the beta i also run the textures at normal never above and never get the LOD bug.

if your average FPS is 30 but min is below 15 you have a problem.  In my view ANY min FPS below 30 means you should think about lowering settings to make sure you don't frame stall in MP.

Exactly. Everything on both loadouts of computer configs is setup correctly and tweaked. I know-I've done it a hundred times with my machines and many, many others.

The point being is that with my setup, I see drops down to 8 FPS, sometimes lower (when blowing up alot of stuff) FPS regardless of the hardware loadout.

All I'm sayin is that some folks are running this game at spectacular settings like you, with a slower CPU, with the only bleeding edge piece of tech in your comp a 8800, and others are punched out in most system specs and they can't run it with all the eye candy at a good resolution even with hardware like mine. Crazy. Like muh grandma.

[BLSmith2112 0]

My Ideal System..

[Zarkan 0]

holly crap,i need that one !

[Jack-UK 0]

You forgot the big fook off monitor :P

ArmA loves the graphics cards more than the raw processing power though :P

[Bunks 0]

Im still sitting back before I invest in a new rig to play Arma cause its real apparent that even people with great rigs have no guarantee it will run well. But I see hope in the near future. What I loved about OFP was making large scale missions, sometimes with over 200+ units. Arma can do this easily but the game runs so poorly it made me take a step back. Just like I did in OFP till faster PC’s became available.

Well folks, what’s the old saying, if you can’t take Mohammad to the mountain then the mountain can come to…well you know the rest.

I’ve been reading up on the new Penryn (Wolfdale) chip. Its release is suggested to be this fall. But here is why I think this chip will be the sure bet for Arma. Not only is this thing much faster when tested at the same clock speeds as the x6800 out today, but its release speed was estimated at 3.4Ghz and some rumors it may even be 3.75. But that’s not the best part. If BIS can’t make Arma run multi-threaded, it seem Intel is going to help out in that department.

The other big power-related news about Penryn is that it will an enhanced version of Intel's Dynamic Acceleration Technology. The new version will let Penryn detect when one core is largely idle—and thus not drawing much power—so that it can boost the clockspeed of the other, more active core while remaining in the same power envelope. For single-threaded applications where only one core is used, this will enable Penryn to speed up that one thread by devoting more power to the core on which it's running.

The reason why I stress the Wolfdale and not so much the Yorkdale is because the Wolfdale is Dual core and the Yorkdale will be quad. So someone like myself who really just wants to build a rig for games like ArmA, the Wolfdale will be much cheaper than the high end Yorkie.

check out some very raw benchmarks for the Penryn

cant link the article but it can be found at ars technica website under the title "Intel spills beans on Core 2 successor: SSE4, faster virtualization, bigger caches" and "Intel details Penryn performance, new SSE4 extensions"

here

Shape of things to come

[dooley 0]

I only have a 1.8ghz, 1gb ram, 128mb graphics and 80 gb hard drive and it plays fine on high settings

[Bunks 0]

and some people say a Mcdonald's cheesburger is fine and others prefer chateaubriand. All depends on what you'll settle for.

[Catch22 0]

GPU: 8800GTX (*2, if necessary)

How about your ideal PCs to play ARMA?

Dual Core E6600

8800 GTX

2GB RAM

XP Pro

My computer runs beautifly on Armed Assault. I haven't clocked the framerate on it, but it runs very smoothly at 5km view distance with settings turned up.

I wouldn't go SLI with the GTXs...

I've read using SLI only tipically adds 10% to your framerate. Also I've heard SLI with two GTXs can actually LOSE performance.

[BLSmith2112 0]

SLi = No point. At least in ArmA... yet anyway.

[bob1787 0]

8800 potentially fatal... well they are for me

[shadow 6]

SLi = No point. At least in ArmA... yet anyway.

Do you consider 90% performance boost no point?

The 97.xx drivers have an SLI-profile for Arma. You can also run Arma with SLI enabled in 93.71 if you make a SLI-profile or use another profile (rename the .exe).

[Seirrah 0]

Is there a pc that can play ArmA at the top settings (medium AA and AF) at 1680x1050 at a comfortable frame rate (about 40fps say)?

Can the top cpu and top graphics card manage that?

[bravo 6 0]

I only have a 1.8ghz, 1gb ram, 128mb graphics and 80 gb hard drive and it plays fine on high settings

please let me doubt this..

don't how your capable to play ARMA with high settigns with those specs.. (maybe you were blessed)

edit: typo

[4 IN 1 0]

Is there a pc that can play ArmA at the top settings (medium AA and AF) at 1680x1050 at a comfortable frame rate (about 40fps say)?

Can the top cpu and top graphics card manage that?

i dont think there will be any, maybe ask the same question 1 year later?

[AWDrift 0]

I only have a 1.8ghz, 1gb ram, 128mb graphics and 80 gb hard drive and it plays fine on high settings

What res you playing on?

[leckig 0]

guys: when you post your FPS and settings please MAKE SURE to post your resolution as well.