Hardware and settings for ArmA

[Mak 0]

-Ziggy- @ May 31 2007,21:43)]I'd go with the 680 over the 650, so you can have the option for 2x PCI-E 16x, but I'd say that system would net High settings.

I was going to go with the 680i, but to be honest, I don't believe there is much of a difference between 8x and 16x in SLI mode when running at standard resolutions like 1280x1024. I've read a bit of bench marks tests and it has been shown that the 16x really doesn't kick in until very high resolutions are used.

[Mak 0]

dunno if it has been asked before, but how does a 8800 gts 320 mb perform compared to a 640 mb version?

Right now you can get an 8800GTS 640MB on Newegg for only $20 dollars more (including the instant and mail-in rebates).

It's rediculous! That's why I went and purchased an 8800GTS 640MB over the 320MB because it was only a 20 dollar difference at the time. Otherwise it's about 100 dollars more.

[Mak 0]

-Ziggy- @ May 16 2007,06:09)]nice first post

I bought the Czech version from Sprocket in November

I have a Dell Dimension 8200 2.0ghz

768 RDram

80 gig HDD

Asus GF 5900 128mb AGP

SBLive

I get 0-20 fps and a 800 ArmA Mark on optimum settings

I am getting a new rig this weekend

E6600 CPU @ 2.4GHz

Asus P5N32-SLI nForce 590 SLI

2GB PC6400 DDR2 Corsair XMS2 Xtreme

EVGA GeForce 7950 GT 512MB

74GB Western Digital

700 watt thermaltake

Creative Labs X-FI XtremeGamer

It will be a whole new game!

I can play it on high settings instead of very low or off.

If you haven't bought it yet, get the 8800GTS 320MB, 640MB or 8800GTX.

It's a DirectX 10 Video Card and it only costs maybe 50-100 more than your 7950GT.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

sorry Mak, but the lead designer for ArmA suggested a 7950 over 8xxx series cards, as the drivers are not optimized yet.

I can trust that...

[Mak 0]

-Ziggy- @ June 01 2007,15:59)]sorry Mak, but the lead designer for ArmA suggested a 7950 over 8xxx series cards, as the drivers are not optimized yet.

I can trust that...

Hi Dirty Deeds, nice to hear from you. I was an original member back when USI was starting up. Surely you remember Neo?

Anyways, it may be very well that a 7950 rank slightly above any 8000 series cards... but it's because of the drivers right now. Soon those drivers will be fixed and the 8000 series will be far better.

As far as Radeon goes, well I've heard they are having major problems with Windows Vista, so if you are planning on Vista, get a GeForce card if you can. But again, these are just driver issues for now it looks like.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

yes, Hilel and I got years of friendship .

I use a 7950, 1024x768 resolution, with 3000 VD, and all settings @ highest, I can get a steady 30 fps in most areas. I set my AA and A in my vid card settings at 'application controlled' with vsynch off.

[Mak 0]

-Ziggy- @ June 01 2007,17:38)]yes, Hilel and I got years of friendship .

I use a 7950, 1024x768 resolution, with 3000 VD, and all settings @ highest, I can get a steady 30 fps in most areas. I set my AA and A in my vid card settings at 'application controlled' with vsynch off.

Seeing as you and I would have very similar settings. (I don't have my components yet, they will arrive Monday 6/4). Do you think I should be able to run "high" or "very high" settings at 1280x1024? I could care less about post processing effects and anti aliasing/antistrophic filtering. Obviously with V Sync off I should be able to turn most everything on High and achieve an average of 60 frames per second, correct?

Thank you for the welcome, nice to meet you by the way.

[crashdome 1]

Mak,

I have a Core2Duo E6600 (2gb RAM) w/ a 7600GT (256mb RAM) and I run on average 30fps @ 1280x1024 on mostly "Normal Settings" with Very high View Distance. It looks far better than OFP did and may be a bit more sluggish, but I am hoping a 7950 or higher will fix that for me.

The key is to make sure you DO NOT enable AA or AF via the card settings (leave as app controlled). I would then suggest putting the values you want (High/Normal) and if it is bad... simply reduce the texture settings until it is playable. I could easily run all my settings at "High" and texture at "Normal" and still get 25fps, but the minute I bump up my texture settings or enable AA or AF manually, my rates drop to 15fps.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

I cant say about performance at higher resolutions. 1024x768 is my monitor limitation for now.

[CzingerX 0]

Everything on normal with shadows and texture detail on low. Good frame rate on 1024x768.

AMD X2 3800

1gig RAM

ATI X1950GT 512mb

Windows Vista.

[REAPER760 0]

what is the best config for me?

athlon 64 3200@2400

1 gb ram

x850xt PE

Windows xp

Thanks

[Panther762 0]

I don't know what you guys are talking about with your 8800gtx errors, but I have an 8800gtx, intel core 2 duo E6600, 2 gigs of 800mhz ram and I can run everything on high and get between 45 to 75 fps with resolution 1600 by 1200. Must be vista, don't blame it on the card yet just because it doesn't have the correct drivers for vista.

[LoFFeN 0]

I was going to go with the 680i, but to be honest, I don't believe there is much of a difference between 8x and 16x in SLI mode when running at standard resolutions like 1280x1024.  I've read a bit of bench marks tests and it has been shown that the 16x really doesn't kick in until very high resolutions are used.

Yeah you are correct. There isn't much different in performance when running at 8x8x vs 16x16x SLI Mode.

The 650i Motherboards does almost have the same performance as a 680i MB. So If you can't afford to buy a 680i or want to save some money, go for a 650i.

[Dannyllnl69 0]

okay nice il get the 8800 GTX, umm one more question what should i get the windows xp or the vista ?can some body tell me if this is good for Arma

-------------ChOICE 1 ------------------

-Windows® Vista™ Home Premium

-Low-Latency DDR2 memory

-AMD Athlonâ„¢ 64 X2 6000+ Processor w/ HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology

-768MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8800 GTX

-2GB - 2 x 1024MB

-Ageia PhysX Processing Unit w/ 128MB GDDR3

-Creative Sound Blaster® X-Fi™ XtremeGamer High Definition 7.1 Audio

-Logitech® Z-5300e 5.1 280-Watt Speaker

-AlienAdrenaline v1.0: Video Performance Optimizer

--------------Choice2---------------------

-Intel® Core™ 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz 8MB Cache 1066MHz FSB - Overclocked to 3.2GHz!

Includes Liquid Cooling

-Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005

-2GB - 2 x 1024MB

-768MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8800 GTX

-Ageia PhysX Processing Unit w/ 128MB GDDR3

-AlienAdrenaline v1.0: Video Performance Optimizer

-Creative Sound Blaster® X-Fi™ XtremeGamer High Definition 7.1 Audio

-Logitech® Z-5300e 5.1 280-Watt Speakers

[Mak 0]

Antec p180 Silver Case (3 vents, 3x120mm fans)

OCZ 700W GameXStream (Power Supply)

GIGABYTE 650i (Motherboard)

Intel e6600 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo (CPU)

eVGA GeForce 8800GTS 640MB, OCed 615/1027 (Video Card)

G.Skill 2GB DDR2 800 (pc3200) (RAM)

Seagate SATA 320GB (7200rpm) (HDD)

Thermalright Ultra 120 CPU Heatsink + 120mm Fan

Running 1280x1024

Viewing Distance: 1000m

Terrain Detail: Low

Objects Detail: High

Texture Detail: Normal

Shading Detail: Normal

Post processing effects: Low

Antistrophic filtering: Low

Shadow detail: Low

Antialiasing: Disabled

Blood: High

Running stable, but not up to my standards. Average of 35 to 40 frames in cities, 28-29 at the lowest. 60 frames outside in low object terrains.

I'm thinking about OC'ing my CPU, but I don't want to mess with it.

[Universel 0]

Anyone tried running Arma with 8GB memory ?

After 1 minute the game crashes and reboots my whole PC.

[Maddmatt 1]

Anyone tried running Arma with 8GB memory ?

After 1 minute the game crashes and reboots my whole PC.

8GB

Try the maxmem parameter. Is that in 1.05 or the 1.07beta? If it's 1.05 then give the 1.07 beta a try.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">-maxmem=1024 Go all the way down to 512 if you need to.

Edit: If that helps, then you can send me 1GB as thanks

[Chopper_Dave! 0]

Someone asked this but I couldnt see if it got answered.

What is the performance compared between the demo and the retail game?

is the retail game smoother? because I meet minumum requirements and had everything low and off and it still wasent playable.

[maruk 80]

What is the performance compared between the demo and the retail game?

As long as you test the latest demoversion as available from armedassault.com, it is very similar.

There were various optimizations done since the demo (we are at version 1.08 now) but the demo has only limited data assets.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Someone asked this but I couldnt see if it got answered.

What is the performance compared between the demo and the retail game?

is the retail game smoother? because I meet minumum requirements and had everything low and off and it still wasent playable.

First of all, what are your specs, and what do you call playable?

<s>Second, yeah, its a bit better compared to the first demo (never tried the second), but dont expect a miracle.</s> The master himself answered this

[an_enlarged_stomach 1]

Does anybody know what settings I should play with an e6400, 7600 GT with 512mb memory and 2gb of ram?

[Maddmatt 1]

Does anybody know what settings I should play with an e6400, 7600 GT with 512mb memory and 2gb of ram?

Why don't you try the demo and see for yourself? I would guess it's somewhere around medium.

[Infam0us 10]

Anyone tried running Arma with 8GB memory ?

After 1 minute the game crashes and reboots my whole PC.

Can you perhaps lend me 2GB?

Also, I'm running on

Case - Antec Nine Hundred

PSU - 500W Silverstone SLi Dual +12V

Mobo: Gigabyte GA K8N51GMF-RH NF410 - S754

Processor: AMD Athlonâ„¢ 64 Processor 3400+ Newcastle S754 2.5Ghz

RAM: x 2 512 MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM

Hard Drive: 335GB

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7900GS 256MB - Overclocked

Sound Card: Creative X-Fi Music

Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2

And I can run everything on Very high with a resolution of 1024x768 and have a rock steady FPS of 30? I really don't get how people with Specs way better than mine have problems?

[Mak 0]

Anyone tried running Arma with 8GB memory ?

After 1 minute the game crashes and reboots my whole PC.

Can you perhaps lend me 2GB?

Also, I'm running on

Case - Antec Nine Hundred

PSU - 500W Silverstone SLi Dual +12V

Mobo: Gigabyte GA K8N51GMF-RH NF410 - S754

Processor: AMD Athlonâ„¢ 64 Processor 3400+ Newcastle S754 2.5Ghz

RAM: x 2 512 MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM

Hard Drive: 335GB

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7900GS 256MB - Overclocked

Sound Card: Creative X-Fi Music

Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2

And I can run everything on Very high with a resolution of 1024x768 and have a rock steady FPS of 30? I really don't get how people with Specs way better than mine have problems?

I don't know either, why don't you take a screen shot and show us.

Is that 30 fps in open areas?

What you need to do is go to a mid-sized city and go to one corner of it and look towards it. This should give you much lower FPS because I don't agree with your settings at all.

I'm running

e6600 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo

GeForce 8800GTS 640MB (OC'ed 600/900)

2GB of pc6400 (DDR2 800) RAM

and even with those specs, I need to to turn everything on low to get an average FPS of around 45-50 (meaning my fps ranges from 30 and 70)

So I don't know what program you are using to get your FPS, but please tell me, because I should be getting 60fps constant according to what you have.

[Sosna 0]

I have been doing some testing, and it seems no more than 1.4 GB of RAM is used when running Arma. I have 4 GB total (yes its all detected, running win XP x64)

Playing with the maxmem parameter doesnt make a difference in memory use, unless i set the limit low which would be pointless.

Is there any way to get Arma to use more RAM, or is there something that limits it?