What part keeps me from running the game at High

[stigern 0]

Okai, when I put settings on Very High, I get a rather low fps.

So, im wondering if the graphics card are the part dragging me down. Or, the CPU?

System Specs:

AMD 64 3500+(clocked from 2200 to 2620mhz)

Nvidia GeForce 7800gt (256mb)

2gb OCZ pc3500 Gold Edition

Im thinking maybe the GFX card is the part, maybe it would run much smoother with 512 mb on it? Lets say a 7950GT 512mb?

The CPU should be enough?

[bangtail 0]

Okai, when I put settings on Very High, I get a rather low fps.

So, im wondering if the graphics card are the part dragging me down. Or, the CPU?

System Specs:

AMD 64 3500+(clocked from 2200 to 2550mhz)

Nvidia GeForce 7800gt (256mb)

2gb OCZ pc3500 Gold Edition

Im thinking maybe the GFX card is the part, maybe it would run much smoother with 512 mb on it? Lets say a 7950GT 512mb?

The CPU should be enough?

K, don't take this personally, but your PC will not handle the game at Very High. I'd go as far as to say that there is no PC around that will handle the game with everything at Very High (at a reasonable resolution). My PC is pretty cutting edge and I still have to put Post and Shader on high in order for it to be smooth @ 1600 x 900.

Out of the 3 things you mentioned, there are 2 that could be replaced. The Video card and the processor. It really depends on your budget. You can buy a C2D 6300 for Å100.00 and easily overclock it to x6800 (Å700) speeds on air with little difficulty. As far as video goes, again, depends what you can afford. I'd go with the 8800 GTS if you can afford it. As far as RAM goes if you go C2D, you will need to get DDR2, Corsair 5400 will do the trick. Thats what you are going to need to play with V-high/High settings!

Cheers

E

[stigern 0]

Yeah, okai Very high was maybe aiming to high  

Anyway, im gonna buy a 7950 or a 8800 GTS over the newyear I think, atm I have the most things on High and Posteffects on Low, and No AA.

At least the game would go much smoother with a 7950 I think.

EDIT:

And yeah, visibility at 1200-1300.

[bangtail 0]

If you can afford it, get the 8800GTS, although the 7950 is still a fine card, the 8800 is DX10 compatible and doesnt suffer from SLI profile problems et al.

E

[stigern 0]

If you can afford it, get the 8800GTS, although the 7950 is still a fine card, the 8800 is DX10 compatible and doesnt suffer from SLI profile problems et al.

E

Yeah, I have been looking out for those, just haveto sit by and wait, to see if the pricedrop over the newyear is enogh.

And then again, the 7950 should drop even more.

[Hostilian 11]

Yeah, but then when Vista comes out (and all those lovely Dx10 games) you'll be wishing you hadn't bought a cut price 7950!

My current card is a ATI 9800 Pro - I've had it a couple of years and Im skipping straight to a Geforce 8800. Lol, A lower model!

#C

[codarl 1]

Most likely the first DirectX10 cards will run DirectX like Dikke stront trough a trechter, so don get your hopes up .

Also @ topic starter: Being able to run a game at uberhigh settings means the game designers didn't look past today.. even OFP1 cannot be played( <-- "rendered is different" ) totally maxed out even today, although that's also due to unoptimised harware.

[stigern 0]

Hey, dx10 isnt that great, some reasons.

1. Visa will be the only os supporting dx10

2. Xp is the most used os, who can upgrade? maybe 10-20%?

3. What will developers make games for? dx9 wich all have, or dx10 wich only they who have vista can use?

Also, read this http://news.softpedia.com/news/DirectX-10-and-so-it-ends-7762.shtml

Quote from that site:

Quote[/b] ]

There are troubled times ahead. Through one bold move, Microsoft has decided that it will not support, the already too “old” DirectX 9, not to mention DirectX 8 or any of the previous versions. But... it appears to be some logic hidden somewhere.

The  new DirectX will not be named Windows Graphic Foundation (WGF) as it was

planned and will remain at the old name, as in DirectX 10. It will be released with their brand new operating system Vista. This news API will be composed of new and faster dynamic link libraries (DLLs) and will run much faster (so they say).

Microsoft has decided that backward compatibly with DirectX 9,8,7 isn't really necessary as there will probably will be even less compatible with Vista.

Even so, dear Microsoft hasn't totally forgotten us. Some sort of “compatibility” will be available through a software layer (probably some emulation) which will have its price in system resources, as it will run much slower. The good news is that DirectX 10 will relieve some of the burden on the CPU.

And of course it will have support for the next generation of Pixel Shaders 4.0, although it will probably surface before even Vista's release due to the rapid development of graphic cards.

So, I dont know how happy iam for dx10. Tho it sure have huge potential!

[bangtail 0]

Hey, dx10 isnt that great, some reasons.

1. Visa will be the only os supporting dx10

2. Xp is the most used os, who can upgrade? maybe 10-20%?

3. What will developers make games for? dx9 wich all have, or dx10 wich only they who have vista can use?

Also, read this http://news.softpedia.com/news/DirectX-10-and-so-it-ends-7762.shtml

Quote from that site:

Quote[/b] ]

There are troubled times ahead. Through one bold move, Microsoft has decided that it will not support, the already too “old” DirectX 9, not to mention DirectX 8 or any of the previous versions. But... it appears to be some logic hidden somewhere.

The  new DirectX will not be named Windows Graphic Foundation (WGF) as it was

planned and will remain at the old name, as in DirectX 10. It will be released with their brand new operating system Vista. This news API will be composed of new and faster dynamic link libraries (DLLs) and will run much faster (so they say).

Microsoft has decided that backward compatibly with DirectX 9,8,7 isn't really necessary as there will probably will be even less compatible with Vista.

Even so, dear Microsoft hasn't totally forgotten us. Some sort of “compatibility” will be available through a software layer (probably some emulation) which will have its price in system resources, as it will run much slower. The good news is that DirectX 10 will relieve some of the burden on the CPU.

And of course it will have support for the next generation of Pixel Shaders 4.0, although it will probably surface before even Vista's release due to the rapid development of graphic cards.

So, I dont know how happy iam for dx10. Tho it sure have huge potential!  

If your upgrading now and you have the money I would get the 8800. It rips everything apart and it is not an "SLI" card. SLI/Crossfire can be problematic and there are still games that will not run properly. I ditched my Crossfire for the 8800GTX and I have never been happier. Vista will take a while to catch on but there are games in the pipe that are looking stunning (Alan Wake being the best example) that will benefit from the latest and greatest. Also, don't forget, the 8800 series is excellent in XP as well.

E

[Lt.Knut 0]

Well you cant drive it on full, dont ask me why, maybe you miss some quality memory, dont know, but my system run the game perfect though.

AMD Athlon 64 4000+ 2.4GHz @ 2.73GHz

Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2 DDR-DIMM 2048MB Kit w/two matched CMX1024-3200C2 DIMMs

Gainward GeForce 7800GT 512MB GDDR3

Currently Im using all grapichs on full with 5000 view distanc and 1024x768 resulution (dont know why, I just like it)

Not experencing any "lagg" spikes, the fps is clean, nothing to complain about.

should I try to put the resulution up ?

[stigern 0]

Well you cant drive it on full, dont ask me why, maybe you miss some quality memory, dont know, but my system run the game perfect though.

AMD Athlon 64 4000+ 2.4GHz @ 2.73GHz

Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2 DDR-DIMM 2048MB Kit w/two matched CMX1024-3200C2 DIMMs

Gainward GeForce 7800GT 512MB GDDR3

Currently Im using all grapichs on full with 5000 view distanc and 1024x768 resulution (dont know why, I just like it)

Not experencing any "lagg" spikes, the fps is clean, nothing to complain about.

should I try to put the resulution up ?

As I was afraid of, your GFX card have 512mb, mine have 256 mb, I think thats what keeping me from getting more eyecandy in the game.

My Settings:

[Lt.Knut 0]

Well its is a explenation, but I don think thats it, maybe, tried to update your drivers ? Long since you formated your PC ? Loads of data in you buffer memory isnt good if you want anything to run smooth. =)

[stigern 0]

Well, my XP installation is about 2 months old, so its not that. And I just defragmentet my games drive, and installed the latest driver 93 something.

But, the game runs at 30-65 fps, sometimes 70, so its okai.

But when alot happens, it goes down to 10-20.

More proof of the 256mb gfx issue.

I had a scene with 30 civillians, and when looking at them I got around 30fps, then I got into options and turned down Texture from Very High, to High, and got 50 fps.

[Placebo 29]

Your ideal PC to play ARMA?

Please look around to see if there's an actual existing thread to use before making a new one.