Your ideal PC to play ARMA?

[Cheeseman 0]

Will I don't have a great computer like most of you people, but I finally tried ArmA with everything on Very high and it works fine with my system.

System:

AMD Turion 64 x2 Dual core (rated at 2.34ghz)

ATI Radeon X1600 512MB

2GB RAM

160GB HDD

Now I just play with eveything maxed, but I don't over due it with best resolution, I stick with 1280x768.

[DaRat 0]

Nice to hear man, gives me good vibes about my new pc when it finally arrives

[R3MF 0]

what is the limiting factor with Arma hardware wise?

GFX adapter it would seem so far.

thank you.

i am hoping that my 7950GT will cope at 1920x1200.

[Baz 0]

a big limitation with ARMA is that it does not support SLI, and in my opinion that is a very bad move. I know that by having 2 GFX cards synched together, I should get 2 times the graphic quality with 2 times the preformance if I was using a single GFX card. I hope BIS fixes this in later patches.

[DrBobcat 0]

a big limitation with ARMA is that it does not support SLI, and in my opinion that is a very bad move. I know that by having 2 GFX cards synched together, I should get 2 times the graphic quality with 2 times the preformance if I was using a single GFX card. I hope BIS fixes this in later patches.

Try using the search function friend, SLI is supported if you know your stuff...

Link

- dRb

[dizzdogg 0]

I am about to upgrade my GPU and those are my choices limmited by my income either GF 7600GS DDR2 512RAM or GF 7600GT DDR3 128RAM what would that be?

Current config:

Asus K8N4-E

AMD64 3000+

Blitz 512RAM

Sapphire X550 128RAM

WD 80GB

And yes I know it needs atleast +512RAM..

[Mr_Tea 0]

Take the GS with 512MB, 128MB vram are not enough.

Another 512Mb system RAM will help too, for shure.

[norsu 180]

I ordered MSI Geforce 7900 GTO 512Mb from Germany. When you overclock it, it should be on par with 7900 GTX but also around 100 euros cheaper (at least here).

[Mr_Tea 0]

Keep an eye on the temperature when you overclock the GPU.

[norsu 180]

I will . And according to numerous tests that card should OC very well plus it has rather decent cooler and power usage .

[sluggCDN 0]

My system specs:

CPU: P4 3.0Ghz Prescott Hyperthreaded

Motherboard: ASUS P4S800D-X Motherboard ATX Socket478

RAM: 3gb DDR400

Video: ATI Radeon X1600 AGP, 512mb

I run ArmA at 1280 x 1024 screen res on a 17" NEC LCD which is highest screen resolution possible on such a monitor given my video card.

Settings:

View Distance = 700

Terrain Detail = Normal

Object Detail = Normal

Texture Detail = Normal

Shade Detail = Low

Post Process Effects = Low

AF = Deactivated

Shadow Detail = Low/or Deactivated

Antialiasing = Normal

Average FPS in dense forest = 10 - 20 fps (Deactivating shadow cast by objects and characters doubles my frame rate in forest and I actually can have a decent firefight with up to 20 AI's  without any visible lag). Average FPS in dense city with combat approx. 30 fps. I was able to play a CTI game hosted on a remote server without any lag. What sometimes tends to happen in the beginning of a game objects in the gameworld show up without texture just when the game starts and within 2-3 seconds they get uploaded into the gameworld. The main FPS killer is Post Processing effects which actaully I believe unnecessary and overly cinematic; same is for the AF (or tearing eyes) effect - "I-got-something-stuck-in-my-eye" type of thing which really doesn't work for me.

Another FPS killer is Shadow Detail - it's the setting that works dynamically drawn shadows cast by all the objects in the gameworld. I believe it's what really takes toll on one's CPU. So unless u have an HT Pentium 4 processor and 2gigs of RAM u can forget playing at higher than 800x600 even at everything set on Normal.

Another advice: make sure there are as few background programs running on your machine as possible while playing ArmA. Sometimes deactivating Services and Startup programs in "msconfig" would boost your performance considerably.

to turn off all unnecessary crap on your rig go into START > RUN. in the run text field type msconfig and press enter. under Startup tab disable all applications u don't need. Here is a great guide on how to manage and boost up your system - worked like magic for me!!!

http://www.jasonn.com/turning_off_unnecessary_services_on_windows_xp

[stisoas 0]

My system specs:

CPU: P4 3.0Ghz Prescott Hyperthreaded

Motherboard: ASUS P4S800D-X Motherboard ATX Socket478

RAM: 3gb DDR400

Video: ATI Radeon X1600 AGP, 512mb

I run ArmA at 1280 x 1024 screen res on a 17" NEC LCD which is highest screen resolution possible on such a monitor given my video card.

Settings:

View Distance = 700

Terrain Detail = Normal

Object Detail = Normal

Texture Detail = Normal

Shade Detail = Low

Post Process Effects = Low

AF = Deactivated

Shadow Detail = Low/or Deactivated

Antialiasing = Normal

Average FPS in dense forest = 10 - 20 fps (Deactivating shadow cast by objects and characters doubles my frame rate in forest and I actually can have a decent firefight with up to 20 AI's without any visible lag). Average FPS in dense city with combat approx. 30 fps. I was able to play a CTI game hosted on a remote server without any lag. What sometimes tends to happen in the beginning of a game objects in the gameworld show up without texture just when the game starts and within 2-3 seconds they get uploaded into the gameworld. The main FPS killer is Post Processing effects which actaully I believe unnecessary and overly cinematic; same is for the AF (or tearing eyes) effect - "I-got-something-stuck-in-my-eye" type of thing which really doesn't work for me.

Another FPS killer is Shadow Detail - it's the setting that works dynamically drawn shadows cast by all the objects in the gameworld. I believe it's what really takes toll on one's CPU. So unless u have an HT Pentium 4 processor and 2gigs of RAM u can forget playing at higher than 800x600 even at everything set on Normal.

Another advice: make sure there are as few background programs running on your machine as possible while playing ArmA. Sometimes deactivating Services and Startup programs in "msconfig" would boost your performance considerably.

to turn off all unnecessary crap on your rig go into START > RUN. in the run text field type msconfig and press enter. under Startup tab disable all applications u don't need. Here is a great guide on how to manage and boost up your system - worked like magic for me!!!

http://www.jasonn.com/turning_off_unnecessary_services_on_windows_xp

pentium4 is the worst PC cpu for gaming ...

my 754 3700+ A64 handle fine an 1200VD + high object + high shading + high shadow + FSAA4 X + AA8X

@all but forest @ 1280x960 with an X1900XT

in forest, i need to disabled shadow, and i can set object on very high .

we need a dynamic shadow switcher

[stainer 0]

Well my new setup runs ArmA just fine at 25-40fps regardless of the number of units/buildings etc.

Specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2x2.4GHz)

2048mb RAM

1GB Geforce 7950 GX2

360GB Hard drive

Runs at 1024x768 (can't push that any higher, probably because of my monitor) with all settings at high or very high and a view distance of 3000.

[froggyluv 2130]

Specs: Sempron 3100+ 1.8ghz OC'ed to 2.0

           ASUS Salmon 760

          Nvidia 6800GS OC'ed - AGP

          1 Gig ram

PCMark05 Benchmark-3700

Don't have game yet and was wondering what I should upgrade forbetween $300-$400. I was thinking Mobo+CPU but I would have to pick a Mobo that still supports my AGP card right? Whats the best AMD CPU that I could upgrade to knowing this and what else should I look for in Mobo's?

Any help

Don't know my power supply but I think it's pretty low too

[SpaceAlex 0]

Athlon X2 4400+ (OC 3Ghz)

2GB RAM

8800 GTX

The game runs fine, i suppose. It doesn't drop below 20FPS at very high settings and 2000m view distance. Usually it runs at around 38FPS. I still wish it would run better, but what can i do?

Overall, the game feels a bit sluggish. The mouse movement is just not as smooth as in OFP (even at 60+ FPS). It's much harder to aim in MP.

[Big Ofp Fan 0]

The mouse movement is just not as smooth as in OFP (even at 60+ FPS). It's much harder to aim in MP.

Agree.

I play ArmA on a

AMD64 4000+

1GB ram

GF 7800GT

All settings high on 5000m VD

with 1024x786

It runs mostly fine

[R3MF 0]

Well my new setup runs ArmA just fine at 25-40fps regardless of the number of units/buildings etc.

Specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2x2.4GHz)

2048mb RAM

1GB Geforce 7950 GX2

360GB Hard drive

Runs at 1024x768 (can't push that any higher, probably because of my monitor) with all settings at high or very high and a view distance of 3000.

just a personal opinion; but your PC is far to good to be wasted playing at 1024x768.

you really want something widescreen running at 1920x1200.

[stainer 0]

Well if my screen were much bigger it would take up a stupid amount of my desk space, which I need when doing work etc. It would be great to have a bigger screen/resolution but I'm not too bothered, ArmA looks good and runs well so I'm not complaining.

[zlitter 0]

hi im preparing a new pc for arma

core 2 duo e6700 2.66ghz

asus p5n32-e-sli mother board or EVGA nForce 680i SLI

corsair Twin2X2048-6400C4 800mhz ram

WD 150gb raptors

for the 3d card i would need advise from u guys

2x8800gts OR 1x8800gtx what is better ?

2 8800gtx its too expensive for me

if i got 2 gts what power suply i would need 1000 whats?

or litle less?

by the way did arma use SLI?

[archsceptic 21]

Is there anybody here running ArmA on a Quad core PC?

Because my Brother has just talked me into ordering a (Quad-Core) Intel CoreT 2 Extreme QX6700, with a GF8800 gtx.

I've seen somehere some people having some issues running ArmA on Dual core PC's, I hope I'm not too future proofing!

[craigsa 0]

Is there anybody here running ArmA on a Quad core PC?

Because my Brother has just talked me into ordering a (Quad-Core) Intel CoreT 2 Extreme QX6700, with a GF8800 gtx.

I've seen somehere some people having some issues running ArmA on Dual core PC's, I hope I'm not too future proofing!

Damn you !!

I want one.

I wonder how many people use ATI compared to NVIDIA here ?

[Jack-UK 0]

Im running on an

AMD 64 3700+ @ 2.4Ghz

1 GB RAM DDR2

ATI 9550 Radeon 256mb

I want to upgrade my machine, but i dont have much money to spend. So what would give the biggest increase in FPS? More RAM? Better/Overclocked CPU? Better GFX card (more graphical mem?)

I'm clueless to what would give the biggest effect lol

[madmossy 0]

Im running on an

AMD 64 3700+ @ 2.4Ghz

1 GB RAM DDR2

ATI 9550 Radeon 256mb

I want to upgrade my machine, but i dont have much money to spend. So what would give the biggest increase in FPS? More RAM? Better/Overclocked CPU? Better GFX card (more graphical mem?)

I'm clueless to what would give the biggest effect lol

Biggest improvement you will see will be from a newer graphics card, something along the lines of an ATI x1950 pro (~£130) or an NVidia 7900 GS (~£130) both cards offer excellent performance and value for money.

Unfortunately though when it comes to ArmA even top of the range £500 graphics cards are struggling to get decent performance.

[Jack-UK 0]

Ah cool, thanks for the response. Im looking to spend up to £200 on a new GFX card then i guess, and maybe i'll overclock my CPU while im at it. =)

[overkill 0]

I've been reading and searching but have not figured out the answer to this question. Which system will be produce better gameplay??

P4 DC at 3.4 ghz

1 gig ddr5300 ram

nvidia 7600gs

OR:

p4 single core at 3 ghz

1 gig ddr5300 ram

nvidia 7900gt