Hardware and settings for ArmA

[paragraphic l 2]

textures need to be lower for most GPU's high causes the texture lag as you only have 256mb onboard memory I'd recommend textures on low, only gives a small visual difference over normal.

what are your shadow settings? if it's low or normal you might get a boost when setting it to hight as it uses an different way of processing the shadows.

and your shading settings? if you have a steep performance drop near trees and bushes lower that aswell

[LoFFeN 0]

Picking up my new system tommorow:

- CPU: Intel C2D E6750 @ 2.67Ghz

- MB: MSI P7N SLI Platinum nForce750i

- RAM: Corsair TWIN2X 6400 DDR2 2GB CL5

- Videocard: XFX Geforce 8800GTS 640MB

- HDD's: 2x Samsung SpinPoint T166 250GB SATA2

Will run Windows XP SP2.

-------

Anybody have a similar system? How will it perform system wise "fps"?

I haven't really enjoyed playing ArmA with my current setup "P4 3.4GHz, Geforce 6800, 1.5GB ram".

Can't wait to play Sakakah without hickups!

[wostrey 0]

Get Intel chipset instead of nvidia if you dont need SLI, something with P35 should do. Consider swapping 8800GTS 640MB for 8800GTS 512MB if the latter one is cheaper, difference in performance isnt worth the money.

Anyhow, with config like this you can play with decent details on 24" widescreen with 1920x1200 resolution. If you have smaller screen you can use almost everything at max and still get decent gameplay. My rig is couple of posts earlier.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Picking up my new system tommorow:

- CPU: Intel C2D E6750 @ 2.67Ghz

- MB: MSI P7N SLI Platinum nForce750i

- RAM: Corsair TWIN2X 6400 DDR2 2GB CL5

- Videocard: XFX Geforce 8800GTS 640MB

- HDD's: 2x Samsung SpinPoint T166 250GB SATA2

Will run Windows XP SP2.

-------

Anybody have a similar system? How will it perform system wise "fps"?

I haven't really enjoyed playing ArmA with my current setup "P4 3.4GHz, Geforce 6800, 1.5GB ram".

Can't wait to play Sakakah without hickups!

wow, wait! Why the hell are you getting the GTS with 640MB??

Take the one with 500 and you have a much faster one since it is based on the G92 chip!!!!

[Mr Sarkey 0]

Will be interesting to see how SP3 (XP) will run the game, it is releasd April 29, there is supposedly some system performance increase on the whole . . .

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

My philosophy

Strange, I always thought the eye isnt capable to see any change from 12frames upward. If that is the case then must be the mini-lags that ruin it all, a short drop in the frame rate that programms like Fraps simply dont recognise.

My personal experience is that a frame rate of 35 (in the forrest also) is the minimum where the games appears to be smooth.  

My sys

Q9450

8800GTS 512 SuperSuperClocked

4 Gig Ram 1066

X38DS4

Xifi Extreme Gamer

My settings are pretty conservative, I put most to high except for shader (medium) and shadows (low). Viewdistance around 2500 metres.

Only with these settings I seem to get what I expect of a smooth gameplay, the compromise of these reduced settings is very limited.

My questions

1. would it make sense for me to put maxmen to a certain number?

2. Would it be useful to put Nhancer to multicore[/b]

3. The standard settings of Nhancer (right click on Icon in taskbar) under optimisations sais trilinear, should I put it to Aniso Filter?

4. will I ever get rich? I mean realy rich?

[Mr Sarkey 0]

In reply to Albert,

4. No.

[FritzDaKat 0]

@ Albert

Theres a thread in the troubleshooting section titled [Fix] Vista studdering problems, the effects should apply equally to an XP system as it's just a matter of using RivaTuner to lock your gpu & ram speed at a fixed rate. (It's also got a logging feature in it's hardware monitoring tool with an adjustable polling rate unlike fraps, meaning it's likely to catch those sudden, brief drops if you set your polling rate low enough.)

I also really like that -zprime command switch, picked up things a notch

***Results may vary ***

p.s. re: Q #4, Only if its what you really want and you let nothing get in your way. Bill Gates may be one Classic example, but everybody forgets about poor old Famous Amos & his cookies.  

[zuker 0]

How Armed Assault would run on this specs:

*AMD Athlonâ„¢ X2 5200+ Dual-Core CPU

*Asus M2A-VM AMD 690G

*2 GB DDR2 RAM

*Geforce 9600GT 1GB - i wonder if this graphic card can handle ArmA

Thx for help

[Nowyoudie 0]

Q6600 @ 3.33GHz, 4GB DDR2-800, ASUS P5B Deluxe, and HIS Radeon 3870 512MB

1680x1050, everything on High except for AA which is on Normal. Viewing Distance of 5k. Using beta 1.12 patch. It's at least 30 fps 80% of the time, so it fluctuates around 30-60 all the time, depending on areas.

[L33t-krew 0]

Just wondering, how will ARMA run on my pc?

e6420 @ 3.6Ghz

4Gb Reaper X 800Mhz 4-4-4-15 (2x2gb)

768mb 8800GTX OC2

X-fi extrememusic with Z-5500

500Gb Sata II 16mb hdd

@ 1920x1200 @ Max Quality (AA dosent need to be high though)

Also what is the playability on a

E6550 2.33ghz

2gb DDR2 (2x1gb) 667mb CL5

7950GT OC

320gb HDD 16Mb cache

@ 1920x1200 any quality.

Obviously with the latest patches.

Also does Arma support the X-52 Pro well? I havent got the foot rudders just the HOTAS system.

cheers

[Binary 0]

@zuker

Your system can definitely handle ArmA - most likely on a medium setting. Your main limitation should be your graphic card.

@l33t-krew

The first system you mentioned will run smoothly on a very high-ish setting. Especially that 3.6 GHz OC will help you.

The second system you mentioned would do fine on a high-ish setting.

I'm pretty sure there is support for X-52, not 100% sure though, so do a quick forum search, i know i've seen threads about it before.

[gL33k 0]

false. 7950GT can't decently handle 1900x1200.

impossible .

with a sniper optic, his framerate will fall to 10 12fps. => unplayable.

[8Ball596 0]

My new comp from cyberpowerpc:

Core 2 Duo 3.0 GHz

3 Gb ram

Nvidia 9600 GT 1Gb

Windows XP Pro

I can run it on all high, 1440X900 resolution with a view distance of 5000 with no problem. I can go to 10000m distance, but at higher altitudes it slows down. Cutting the anistropic down to just high makes it run perfectly, even in multiplayer.

[Agnew 0]

Just wondering what I should look to upgrade. I get crappy FPS throughout and theres no relief:P

P4 3.00GHz

1.5g RAM

ATI Radeon edit:X600Pro oops its an X1600Pro

Windows XP

Should I look at a new card? and If so is there any under $200(CAN) that would do the trick? IE run on good settings with good FPS?

Thanks

Agnew

[ShrubMiK 0]

X600 is definitely going to struggle! Even my old laptop has an X700 Upgrade to an 8800GT or better would be my recommendation.

I would also say at least 2GB RAM is really needed, especially if you get a new gfx card and that allows you to increase the detail settings etc.

P4 3GHz could do with improvement, but since ArmA is pretty much single threaded that CPU is probably not going to be your major bottleneck.

[mc sonar 0]

i have build a new rig and its awesome- now i can play arma like ofp before.

i guess main reason was that the asrock board only has PCIe 4x and i used an IDE HD (and of course arma itself). my game performance went down to unplayable with this rig.

now that i have 6 weeks free time i think i know what i will do.

settings before:

all normal to high with 3000-5000 view distance

@18-35 frames

settings now:

all high to very high with 5000-8000 view distance

@25-60 frames

Q6700 @3.6ghz

gf8800gts

gigabyte ep35ds3 (PCIe 16x)

2 gig vitesta xtreme 800

250gb sata2

win xp home

before:

C2D 6600

gf8800gts

asrock 4core dual vsta (PCIe 4x)

2 gig vitesta xtreme 800

250gb IDE

win xp pro

i paid 270€ for the new board, cpu and HD-

270€ to play arma like ofp days before isnt bad at all

[Mellet 0]

Hi, I was wondering how my new upgrades would run ArmA thanks alot.

CPU- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66GHZ or a Core 2 Quad 2.5GHZ (not sure which one to buy so hopefully you guys can tell me)

GPU- EVGA 8800GT

Ram- Cosair 2GB XMS2

Motherboard- Asus P5K ATX LGA775 P35

[alpha125rbf 0]

My new comp from cyberpowerpc:

Core 2 Duo 3.0 GHz

3 Gb ram

Nvidia 9600 GT 1Gb

Windows XP Pro

I can run it on all high, 1440X900 resolution with a view distance of 5000 with no problem. I can go to 10000m distance, but at higher altitudes it slows down. Cutting the anistropic down to just high makes it run perfectly, even in multiplayer.

With my GF8800GT 512MB ram it is possible to set high viewdistances like you, but the main problem is the lag during fights in bigger citys.. So I have to reduce the view at 1 km.

[NeMeSiS 11]

SSD vs 'old' HD's

As you can see here the SSD mops the floor with the WD VelociRaptor, especially because of the incredibly fast random acces times (Scroll down to the 2nd benchmark).

Would ArmA benefit from this? (Streaming..)

[DaKa 0]

Well, here are my PC specs, and I need "counseling" in this one:

Intel Core2 Duo 2x2.33Ghz

Winfast PX8600GT TDH 256 GDDR3

DirectX 10

4 GB Ram

Vista ( )

So, can anyone tell me why is it running perfectly at LOW (set on everything?)? And can you guys help me on how to improve that??

[Mr_Tea 0]

Well, here are my PC specs, and I need "counseling" in this one:

Intel Core2 Duo 2x2.33Ghz

Winfast PX8600GT TDH 256 GDDR3

DirectX 10

4 GB Ram

Vista ( )

So, can anyone tell me why is it running perfectly at LOW (set on everything?)? And can you guys help me on how to improve that??

It should run fine on high to very high.

I used an GeForce 7600GS 512mb GDDR2 to play ArmA on Vista Home Premium 32bit, and especially with patch 1.14 the game runs great.

Other Specs:

AthlonXP 3200+, 2GB PC3200 Ram in dual-channel mode, Creative Audigy 2.

Edit:

Have you installed the SP1 for Vista, if not do that asap.

[DaKa 0]

Thanks!

But, where can I find SP1 on Vista?? And why is it when I enable my SLI that I get flashouts in ArmA in the worst thinkable moments?

[Lepardi 0]

Thanks!

But, where can I find SP1 on Vista?? And why is it when I enable my SLI that I get flashouts in ArmA in the worst thinkable moments?

Sigh... try google maybe, "Vista Service Pack 1"...

Which settings provide the best texture quality, the Very High or the Default option?

[andersson 285]

A vista vs xp question.

I'm using xp now because most games and applications are stable on it and I now it works fine. But how is arma today on a vista 64 platform?

I realised that the memory I use cost next to nothing today and I can easily put 2 gig more in my comp, but as I have xp I cannot use it.

So in short, do you think I will benefit playing arma with vista 64 with 4 gig ram instead of xp 32 with 2 gig ram? It looks better on paper, but what is the reality? I have stayed away because of bugs all programs/OS have in the beginning, also because vista seems to use alot of resources in idle..

Also what problems regarding other games can occure, thinking of IL2, rFactor and AvsP gold edition.. (One positive thing (?) is that I can use DX10 on the newer games.)

Any thoughts/experience welcomed

EDIT: I stumbled over this topic that was the input I wanted: Vista Ultimate X64 with loads of ram

I should search better before posting next time