Hardware and settings for ArmA

[0wl 0]

Ok one more system i found, i just hope i will get some more responces from you guys since i am no expert on this field!

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4 Ghz),

2GB Dual Channel 800Mhz DDR2,

400GB SATA II Hard disk,

EVGA NVidea 8800GTS (ACS3) 320MB Direct X 10 PCI-X,

Prize: 1190,- Euro...

You thoughts are appreciated!

[bonko the sane 2]

Ok one more system i found, i just hope i will get some more responces from you guys since i am no expert on this field!

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4 Ghz),

2GB Dual Channel 800Mhz DDR2,

400GB SATA II Hard disk,

EVGA NVidea 8800GTS (ACS3) 320MB Direct X 10 PCI-X,

Prize: 1190,- Euro...

You thoughts are appreciated!

for a 8800 320Mb i strongly advise you to the opinion of the guys at Tom's Hardware, they benchmarked the dx10 cards and the foxconn 8800gts has some interesting results, it has an incredible performance for that price http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/17/performance_value_for_dx10/

[0wl 0]

Great article thank you for pointing that one out!

But what do you or others think about that system overally speaking?

[tj72 0]

It seems alittle pricey and not enough ram on the video card for the price.

I opted for AMD 64bit 5600 2.8 Ghz Dual Core with a board recommended here

ASUS M2N32-SLI DLX

2 Gigs of Patriot RAM

My whole stragegy was "best value and best performance" so I couldnt get 3Ghz AMD 6000 it was 100+ more. If you have the cash make sure you spend it where it counts....

I went with Powercolor ATI X1950 512 MB. Best specs I could find for the price and has video capture (which I wanted). I know theres a memory leak issue with ATI but Im not sure if it exists for this card.....hopefully not.

Should be getting the rest of my parts from Newegg today. I went to a local computer show for my CPU SATA HD and PSU and I spent around 280 US the HD is only 160GB WD however.

Probably saved 50 bucks at the show off shipping and with a little haggling.

Its tough getting the right parts for your money but it seems like you have a decent budget to work with.

Finding the right PC components is like a maze filled with gadgets and specs and clock speeds and you have to hunt down exactly what you need so everything is compatible/runs nice and you dont get that "ripped off" feeling a year down the road.

If you want a premade system go with a barebones CPU Mobo Combo and then save as much as you can for RAM and GPU so you get the most performance where it counts for ARMA..

You can still have a company install everything but be very careful with the processor/mobo/and GPU combo for best performance and then you can hunt for the best RAM and the remaining components are of reasonable quality and price.

Is there even a remote possibility for Dual Core support in ARMA in the future? Hope is a good thing.....

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

p5n32 SLI 590

E6600 @2.4

2 gig Corsair XMS

700 watt Thermaltake

74 gig WD

eVGA 7950 512

X-Fi Extreme Gamer

ArmA Mark 2800 @ vhigh 1024x768 (monitor limitation )

E6600 @2.93

ArmA Mark 3200 @ vhigh 1024x768

hehehe  my previous computer at best ArmA Mark was 800

[Exaercase 0]

Hello,

  My Config :

Quote[/b] ]

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600

ASUS P5N32-E SLI CHIPSET 680I

ALBATRON GeForce 8800GTX 768MB

SoundMAX ADI1988A - Driver V6.10.2.6110

2X(Dual-Chan) KINGSTON 1GO DDR2-533 PC4200 (2048 Mo)

Windows XP 32Bit Home, DirectX 9.0c April 2007 Version

nVidia ForceWare V158.22

  Arma Setting :

Quote[/b] ]

HDR = 8

All option = High

Except Sader and PostProcessing = Very High

  My Perf at the start of Blood&Tear Mission : <span style='color:red'>47FPS</span>

See you, ExA

[tj72 0]

I do digress about video cards. If you want a Dx10 card and this is a major factor in Arma performance or elsewhere then it may be worth its price after all.

I may be looking at the raw numbers of onboard RAM over new DX version. Is there any performance comparison between dx 9 and 10 on comprable cards?

Got my system to finish POST last night.....So far everything seems good. All core components are functioning.

[kklownboy 43]

Hello,

My Perf at the start of Blood&Tear Mission : <span style='color:red'>47FPS</span>

See you, ExA

what is your resolution?, Nivida CP settings ect?

[Sand Flea 0]

Alright, on my other computer, this is the setup and it is still all on low. Any thoughts?

- Intel Pentium D CPU 3.00 Ghz, 2.99 Ghz (what does that mean?)

2 Gigs RAM

-GeForce 6800 Graphics Card

[leckig 0]

I have C2D e4300@3ghz, 2GB, 8800 GTS 320. I think the game should run pretty well on this rig but... I also upgraded my monitor to 22 LCD and have to play on 1680 * 1050.

The game still runs 40-60FPS on low/medium settings but when I use a scope it goes down to 10-20. Why is that? It is hard to aim with the scope.

any recomended setting for me?

[tj72 0]

Strange,

The sniper scope is like OFPs where the whole screen is taken up. But the one with the ACOG is a true 3d model. If it happens with the sniper scope im not sure. If it happens with the other it might be chewing on too much geometry in the frame between the weapon and the rest of the map/AI in your view. Check your settings for object detail or textures that apply to the weapons.

The transparency of the scope may be to blame. It shouldnt be doing that in any case.....

I only notice the lag on the ACOG scope myself. Thats on a much slower system than my new one where all the slowdowns are very evident.

[leckig 0]

yeah, it is all strange. One of the very few original games I bought. Well, enough betatesting, I dont get paid for that, I will wait couple of months before the game becomes playable. I was playing the campaign last night, there is this side mission in the night, for some reason with NV goggles on my framerate is cut in half or more as well.

Plus I experienced what everyone talks about - the AI, with no NV, shoots me from 150 meters in total darkness with ONE SINGLE SHOOT! It cannot get more ridiculous than that.

[kklownboy 43]

I have C2D e4300@3ghz, 2GB, 8800 GTS 320. I think the game should run pretty well on this rig but... I also upgraded my monitor to 22 LCD and have to play on 1680 * 1050.

your single 8800 GTS 320, is not up to the task at that res. you would need more than 512mb of vidard ram to not loose the frames when the scope is used, that the way Bis has made it....Maybe they will redo the way the scopes are rendered? Its the only shooter i play)Arma) that looses frames zoomed in...? Your card is a 1280/1024 card...

[leckig 0]

and my processor is too powerful thats why the AI players are all sharpshooters with built-in night vision system...

It may be true, maybe 320 MB is not enough for ARMA, it is perfectly sufficient amount for all other games I played, including oblivion and fear.

[tj72 0]

Well you have to run the game at high res due to the display your using, and I assume you dont have SLI/crossfire setup which may be a key factor. Your processor speed... not sure thats why the AI is that way. Maybe the difficulty settings are to high. I remember super AI in res was a bit unforgiving for my tastes.

Those two games you mentioned are very different to ARMA from the core. FEAR, while a beautiful game with some very cool AI stuff is another QUAKE clone. Oblivion Im not too familiar with. Does that game have big worldspace to render and collision/bullets AI issues similar to ARMA?

My new ARMA rig is finally up. Game looks beautiful and I have to put it through its paces. Initial testing shows much promise and for a bargain system (about 850 USD with a reused plain old case) Im pleased with results. Im happy at running 1280 res for now. I dont find the AI to be too hard but Im playing on the default settings.

So that lag was from the Sniper scope after all?

[Stonewall Jackson 0]

Thank you Bravo 6 i am interested to know what (not too expensive) video card would be a good alternative, i do prefer a Geforce card after having several ATI cards these past years...

I have basically the same specs as you P4 3ghz with 1.5 gigs of ram and I too had a 256 meg ati 9600 pro. The game ran good on low settings @1024*768. I picked up a geforce 7600 gs/oc 512 meg agp card for about 150 cdn.

game runs great now but had too put AA on low cause of some texture glitches. It didnt take too long too figure that one out though.

here's the settings: 1024@768, VD@2000

terrain=high, objects=high, textures=high

PP=low, AF=low, shadows=low, AA=low,

blood=low.

good luck with your search

stonewall

[0wl 0]

Ah Mr. Jackson (love that name general), thank you so much for your help! I am still in doubt weather or not to by a totally new computer or not...

[Q1184 0]

Currently I have this system: Athlon 64 3000+(S939) @2,4GHz, 2 Gb DDR, Sapphire Radeon x1950Pro 256 Mb PCIex (stock clocks). The settings are as follows:

Resolution 1280x1024

VD 1300

Textures, Objects, Shading, AF, Shadows on normal

Terrain, PP, AA on low

Blood on High

The game runs at 19-25 fps in large towns, around 18 in dense forests and 30-60 in mixed/open terrain

I won't be changing this system at least until the end of the year, but as I have some spare money, I'm looking into buying an Athlon 64 x2 4600+ (2x2,4 GHz). I need your opinions on this. Will it be worth the money? How much performance may I gain with this change? Some say dual cores don't do much in Arma, others say you still have a performance boost. Thanks in advance.

[kklownboy 43]

your CPU isnt the issue, your vidcard is. to play at 1280/1024 you need more card power and ram , if you want to see mid 20s in the trees...

[Q1184 0]

your CPU isnt the issue, your vidcard is. to play at 1280/1024 you need more card power and ram , if you want to see mid 20s in the trees...

Its understood that graphics card affects performance in Arma more than CPU, but the question is, will my FPS increase if I change the CPU to a dualcore with slightly higher frequency(i'm sure it can be safely OC'd up to 2,7 or more)? And will this increase be worth the money ($160)? I'm sure someone did a transition like this, and i'd appreciate you sharing your experience  

[Dannyllnl69 0]

can some one tell me if this is okay for arma ?

P4

2.80 Ghz

504mb of ram

GeForce5500 128mb

those it meet the demands for Arma Assasult ?

This is what im planning to add to the computer:

2gb ram

GeForce FX 5500 256 MB, 128 bit DDR AGP 8X VGA/DVI/TV Video Card (256-A8-N313-LX) or ATI RADEON 9550 256 MB AGP ; which card is better ?

please help me out people .

[Scrub 0]

You really need more muscle than the 5 series to enjoy Arma. I had a 6800gs, it worked but was frustrating, with the 7950gt it's a pleasure. I'd be able to go a little lower spec than that, say a 7600-7800. Your P4 is a bit old, but I don't have any Intel experience for that side of the equation.

Hope this helps in some way.

[Dannyllnl69 0]

Intel® Core™ 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz 8MB Cache 1066MHz FSB

500GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7,200 RPM w/ 16MB Cache

768MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8800 Ultra

Ageia PhysX Processing Unit w/ 128MB GDDR3

AlienAdrenaline v1.0: Video Performance Optimizer

this is what my future alienware computer has , what do you guys think is it good for arma ?

[guyguy1 0]

No Shit

my comptuer cnanot even support arma

[Dannyllnl69 0]

is it good or not ?