Hardware and settings for ArmA

[desertjedi 3]

Betsalel, I'm giving a friend recommendations to build a new system so he can play ArmA. Right now, he has an E6600 and an 7950GX2 (both at stock speeds) and his framerate is so bad that he gets very sick from playing. :barf:

My recommendations to him are:

- E8500 @ $189

- GTX 260 (old model) @ $175 after rebate

OR

- GTX 260 (new model) @ $230 after rebate

- DFI LP DK P45-T2RS PLUS @ $170

- G.SKILL 2 x 1GB DDR2-1066 (F2-8500CL5D-2GBPK) @ $40 (or the 2x2GB model for $70)

Prices from Newegg.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Why DFI? It is an overclocking company (which I respect a lot) but the advantages are nothing for ordinary users. In fact, the opposite is the case since DFI expects you to know a lot about cooling etc. Consequently these boards cause problems now and then if you arent prepared. (had two DFI boards)

Stick to Gigabyte. Good price, good quality and everything you need if you are not into overclocking.

DDR-1066 is a waste of money. You wont feel the difference, I can tell cause I made the test with my own system.

[desertjedi 3]

Quote[/b] ]Why DFI?

Because they make great, quality mainboards. I had a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L which was a total POS. Take any mainboard mfr/model recommendations with a grain of salt.

Quote[/b] ]DDR-1066 is a waste of money. You wont feel the difference

For sure but why buy DDR2-800 when DDR2-1066 doesn't cost any more? For sure you won't feel a bit of difference but if you do bump your FSB you'll have more flexibility than with DD2-800.

[Namikaze 0]

The question of mainboard and RAM choice basically boils down to this: longevity or value? I bought my ASUS motherboard about three years ago, and it's still capable of running all the top-of-the-line chips, and it uses DDR-800, which was pretty badass back then and is still standard now. I paid a little more for it back then, but I could probably still use it another two years without much problem. IMO, pay for the longevity now so that you aren't replacing your computer every year or two to keep up. Other people I know use the opposite strategy, and they're okay with upgrading to "average" every few years. It's a matter of opinion and perspective.

[desertjedi 3]

Quote[/b] ]It's a matter of opinion and perspective.

LOL - I think it's a matter of finances most of the time!

Every couple of years they come out with new RAM and it simply doesn't have much impact on performance.

[PTV-Jobo 820]

Thanks guys for all the help, it's appreciated trust me--lol. I'm too much of a klutz to try dabbling into over-clocking and stuff, so anything that runs good without me having to take wild chances I'm receptive too.

Whats worse than my trying to figure out what to put in this thing is the fact that once I buy everything and put it together, they'll end up releasing something "better" the next day. I hate when that happens. I hate even more when I get over-excited and impatient to where I buy all the parts and 2 days later find out they are selling the same parts but cheaper and w/ rebates.

[Rommel 2]

I've noticed a lot of people here and on the general forum complain about 1.08 FOV and the current one, I never noticed any difference since I have always run my own custom FOV.

But just thought I might share it with people and see what the problem is aswell.

Heres my comparisons (I'm running 1600x900 @ 1680 x 1050):

16:10 (Standard Ratio)

1.6:1.0 (Custom Ratio/UI Zoomout)

You can notice the UI is lightly stretched, however this does not effect the actual game ratios.

Heres my UI config which can be found in the Username.profile in your documents.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

fovTop=1.000000;

fovLeft=1.600000;

//UI Positions must be changed to 0 and 1 respectively, otherwise you'll go into map editor with black vertical borders.

uiTopLeftX=0.000000;

uiTopLeftY=0.000000;

uiBottomRightX=1.000000;

uiBottomRightY=1.000000;

or what I run a lot for enhanced FOV

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

fovTop=1.25;

fovLeft=2;

uiTopLeftX=0.000000;

uiTopLeftY=0.000000;

uiBottomRightX=1.000000;

uiBottomRightY=1.000000;

[lamx30108200 0]

Sorry if my question sounds stupid but i'm not really good in hardware so..: I know the last patch (1,14) resolved the 4 gig ram issue for vista 64-bit....but I was wondering what if I use 6 gig of ram....will it spams other problems

thanks

[Baron von Beer 0]

Anyone have experience with 9800 GTX+ & 4870 512meg? Trying to pick a card for a replacement, and they seem to be the best at their $150 & $180 price tags.

Been looking at benchmarks but seems like a toss up between the two. Any ArmA specific input greatly appreciated.

[hamis 0]

Well,i wouldn't by any under 1gb card!Lack of memory causes terrible stuttering when turning/zooming.

[Lepardi 0]

What are the correct values for non-zoomed FOV with 5:4 resolution? I have like doubled performance on graphics demanding areas when I press the minus button, and it looks nicer without the tunnel-like vision.

Anyone have experience with 9800 GTX+ & 4870 512meg? Trying to pick a card for a replacement, and they seem to be the best at their  $150 & $180 price tags.

Been looking at benchmarks but seems like a toss up between the two. Any ArmA specific input greatly appreciated.

Nvidia cards have too much problems with ArmA/other games. Get a HD 4870 1gig, theyre around 200€ after the AMD pricecut.

[desertjedi 3]

Quote[/b] ]Nvidia cards have too much problems with ArmA/other games.

Huh???

Of the two cards you mentioned, definitely go with the HD4870 1GB. And yeah, it's worth the extra money.

[Infam0us 10]

Anyone have experience with 9800 GTX+ & 4870 512meg? Trying to pick a card for a replacement, and they seem to be the best at their  $150 & $180 price tags.

Been looking at benchmarks but seems like a toss up between the two. Any ArmA specific input greatly appreciated.

I use a 4870 Sapphire 512 and its gg in ArmA.

[Lepardi 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nvidia cards have too much problems with ArmA/other games.

Huh???

Of the two cards you mentioned, definitely go with the HD4870 1GB. And yeah, it's worth the extra money.

Texture flickering which occurs only on nvidia cards:

And ArmA has bad stability issues with nVidia cards, constantly keeps crashing.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

And ArmA has bad stability issues with nVidia cards, constantly keeps crashing.

Say something positive, I dare you! :P

[Baron von Beer 0]

Thanks for the responses. 4870 1 gig ordered. Extra promo discount on it, and the 9800 I was eying went up $10. Sure I'd have been happy with any of them, but if the 1 gig of VRAM makes even a small difference in Arma....

[Mr_Tea 0]

...

And ArmA has bad stability issues with nVidia cards, constantly keeps crashing.

ArmA worked without crashes for me on my GeForce 7600GS 512MB AGP, never crashed so you are proved to be wrong.

Don`t call me an Nvidia fanboy because of that.

Yesterday i put an HD 3650 AGP card in my PC, now ArmA works slightly faster than before.

Because of ArmA i don`t needed to switch to ATI, it`s only that you get newer GPU`s for the AGP Port from them.

ATI should hire Nvidia to build their drivers, take years to install them.

[Lepardi 0]

...

And ArmA has bad stability issues with nVidia cards, constantly keeps crashing.

ArmA worked without crashes for me on my GeForce 7600GS 512MB AGP, never crashed so you are proved to be wrong.

Don`t call me an Nvidia fanboy because of that.

Yesterday i put an HD 3650 AGP card in my PC, now ArmA works slightly faster than before.

Because of ArmA i don`t needed to switch to ATI, it`s only that you get newer GPU`s for the AGP Port from them.

ATI should hire Nvidia to build their drivers, take years to install them.

Apparently the problems happen with 8 series and onwards, with newer drivers than 17x.xx.

Same goes with the flickering problem.

[The-Architect 0]

I have a 1680x1050 flat screen monitor and for ages I have had really really poor performance. Due to NVidia not letting me pilbox ArmA.

Today I tried playing in window mode and I found that the game looked better and ran smoother.

Only touble is that now I can hardly see anything.

Can I make the window bigger?

I tried changing the perameters in the launcher but this only affected the size of the screen inside the window and not the window it's self.

[desertjedi 3]

Quote[/b] ]Apparently the problems happen with 8 series and onwards, with newer drivers than 17x.xx.

Same goes with the flickering problem.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I've used an 8 series card with 17x.xx Nvidia drivers and never had a crash or flickering.

As a matter of fact I've never had any problem with ArmA.

[ubascouser 0]

Just upgraded my ageing 8800gts 320mb to a power color 4870 1 gig all settings fom medium and high to very high except post process which i kept on low and atf set to high fps in a flyover of sahrani is at a steady 75fps the battlefield single player map is around 34 with a low of 19 in the woods big sits average around the 47 mark although the 8800 is still a descent card i think the memory cripples it and the extra memory on the ati helps a lot as other people have said.Ps was a bitch to get running with the compatability options of vista 4gig of ram and ati cards hope this is sorted for arma 2.

[Zedfragg 0]

Just thought I'd update.

I've been trying to get a playable FPS in ArmA for a very long time.

I've been through multiple hardware setups since ArmA was released.

From a Athlon XP 3200+, Athlon 64 3800+ to my current.

From a Geforce 6200, Geforce 6800, Geforce 7600, Geforce 8600 to my Geforce 9800GTX+.

Various brands/speeds/sizes of ram.

And I've never had a playable framerate until now.

With my current setup.

Athlon X2 6000+ @ 3.1ghz

2GB Corsair TwinX XMS PC2-8600 @ 1066mhz

XFX Geforce 9800GTX+ 512mb

Corsair 650w PSU

Those are the major changes.

Everything very high, vsync enabled rarely drops below 60fps.

Without vsync hits anywhere between 60 to 90fps.

My views on this game have not changed however, still shoddy made, there was potential with this game after OFP but it's a pity I spent years just trying to play the damn game.

Bring on OFP2 Codemasters!

Don't get me wrong I didn't come here to flame my main reason was to fill people in on what worked best for me. Also check out the Windows 7 Beta.

Runs...Like a DREAM, Vista is a long lost OS that no one should be using. However Windows 7 is a decent OS and knocks even XP out of the water especially with DX11 seeming to help speed up DX10 games (pity ArmA ain't DX10 enabled although thats probably a good thing)

There it is.

Good luck gentlemen.

[11aTony 0]

Don't get me wrong I didn't come here to flame my main reason was to fill people in on what worked best for me. Also check out the Windows 7 Beta.

Runs...Like a DREAM, Vista is a long lost OS that no one should be using. However Windows 7 is a decent OS and knocks even XP out of the water especially with DX11 seeming to help speed up DX10 games (pity ArmA ain't DX10 enabled although thats probably a good thing)

Greetings,

I dunno, since SP1 for Vista, x64 is running very nice. Had no major problems with any game or program. Although I have friends that are absolutely devastated by Vista, even x86. I will try Windows 7 though next time I have to format.

Good luck indeed

[Mohawk-21VB- 0]

I've noticed a lot of people here and on the general forum complain about 1.08 FOV and the current one, I never noticed any difference since I have always run my own custom FOV.

But just thought I might share it with people and see what the problem is aswell.

Heres my comparisons (I'm running 1600x900 @ 1680 x 1050):

16:10 (Standard Ratio)

1.6:1.0 (Custom Ratio/UI Zoomout)

You can notice the UI is lightly stretched, however this does not effect the actual game ratios.

Heres my UI config which can be found in the Username.profile in your documents.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

fovTop=1.000000;

fovLeft=1.600000;

//UI Positions must be changed to 0 and 1 respectively, otherwise you'll go into map editor with black vertical borders.

uiTopLeftX=0.000000;

uiTopLeftY=0.000000;

uiBottomRightX=1.000000;

uiBottomRightY=1.000000;

or what I run a lot for enhanced FOV

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

fovTop=1.25;

fovLeft=2;

uiTopLeftX=0.000000;

uiTopLeftY=0.000000;

uiBottomRightX=1.000000;

uiBottomRightY=1.000000;

I get this one when I try to customize my setting and can´t load my Arma up.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441....MG][/url]

My normal settings:

fovTop=0.750000;

fovLeft=1.200000;

uiTopLeftX=0.083333;

uiTopLeftY=0.000000;

uiBottomRightX=0.916667;

uiBottomRightY=1.000000;

[hamis 0]

Seems you have defined something 2 times.