Need A Little Advice

[shooter6065 0]

I bought Armed assault with the full knowledge that I will need to upgrade my video card.  I have a Pentium 4 3.2 Gig with 1G of Ram, 19 in. LCD and an old Nvidia Quadro (used for business at the time).  

After reading the RECOMMENDED requirements (NIVIdia 6800 or ATI X800) I concluded that I could easily upgrade to at least a 7600-7700 Nividia or a X850-1650 ATI given my power supply of 350 watts.

But after reading through these threads, it seems apparent I might have wasted my money buying Armed Assault with guys on here having trouble running it with 8800 Nvidias, sometimes even dual.

My question is, does anyone think it's worth the money upgrading to a, say GeForce 7900 GS given that it is about as good as I can do with my power supply?

Or is Armed Assualt such a disaster that you can't even run it on the recommended settings?

One other thing........do any video cards have external power cords these days?  The power is so steep it seems silly to run it internally anymore.........

[NeMeSiS 11]

Generally it works fine on 7600's/x1650's (20-30FPS in cities, normal details), however some people have problems running the game even with the most high-end cards.

[shooter6065 0]

I am not a tech person or anything but for the life of me I can't understand why a user can't run it at the recommended settings.

Common sense tells you they should be desiging games with there given minimum requirements and recommeended requirements are for totally seamless play.

With these types of problems they are having, I am not sure that they are correctable with patches but rather deep developmental problems.......don't they have project managers at BI?

Patches are for bugs that slipped through Beta testing........NOT serious problems that this game is facing.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Well, they dont occur on all high end systems (only a small percentage compared to the games sold) so you cant act like its a big bug, its most likely a game-driver conflict or something, but when 2 excact same PCs have enormous difference in performance there is definitely something wrong somewhere.

[xmongx 0]

I bought a 7600 GT for this game for one of my machines and it was a waste of money for this game.

At the minute i dont think it matters too much what card you have, (unless you have something really poor), youll get the same problems with the fastest cards.

There are people who say performance is fine but i dont think they have tested the game fully.

[Luciano 0]

Quote[/b] ]7600-7700 Nividia or a X850-1650 ATI given my power supply of 350 watts.

Your power supply seems really low to upgrade to those cards.

A geforce 6800 ultra needs a minimum of 350 watts. They recommend about 450 watts on your system if your running that card.

For higher cards, I'm sure its much more.

For those cards I would get 500-600 watts, You don't want for it to overheat and fry.

If you do upgrade your psu, I recommend Antec.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Well, what is poor? What is fine?

If you expect 50+ FPS stable, then no, you will NEVER reach that, you wont even get that in OFP.

My AMD 4200+, 1,5gb ram, x1600xt runs the game on medium details (shaders on low, AA on low, AF on high) with 20-30 FPS on average, alot higher in deserts but when there is vegetation around usually 20-30FPS

I have the grass tweaked so there is only 50% of it and OC'ed my videocard a bit, but for the rest i didnt do anything special.

My brother has a 3800+, 1gb ram, 7600GT and the game has more or less the same FPS but he has AF on normal and AA turned off.

Both systems are optimized, no crap like virusscanners/whatever turned on, defragmentated, ...

[xmongx 0]

Fine for me tbh is between 20-25fps, i understand how complex the game is and am not expecting 30-40+fps.

I would be over the moon at 25fps constant.

I run a tweaked and clean XP system running the bare minimum to play games.

With a 7600gt PP,AA,AF and Screen Res make little to no difference to FPS. Shadows have a slight hit, whether they be on or off but not between low to high.

Some missions really fly and i have no problem playing them, others are a slideshow.

The problem is foileage. Turn off grass and all missions fly. but reducing shading detail has no effect.

Im ceratin the performance problems are software not hardware related. I would entertain CPU choke if people with dual core 2.66 werent getting the same problems.

On the card front there is no good card to buy for ARMA at the minute. If you go for high end nvidia you get fog problems if you go for high end ATI you get artefacting. My advice is to wait and see if BIS fix the game before jumping in.

Seriously, I know people that have poured money into systems purely for ArmA only to be dissapointed by poor performance.

[mr reality 0]

Seriously, I know people that have poured money into systems purely for ArmA only to be dissapointed by poor performance.

And i'm one of them also. I upgraded my machine taking into account i wanted to play Arma on the highest settings with a smooth framerate, but even my system is currently only able to run on normal settings.

My specs

Dual core2 intel x6800 @2.93ghz

4GB 900mhz memory

QUAD SLI NIVIDIA 7950GX2 (2GB memory)

SB Xfi Fatality

At times Arma is unplayable as i'm getting graphical glithes. I'm not the only one getting this also.

[Daniel 0]

Quote[/b] ]Seriously, I know people that have poured money into systems purely for ArmA only to be dissapointed by poor performance.

I am one of them, only the poor performance came with 1.05. It ran like a dream before it. So I'm eargerly awaiting BIS's response.

AMD Athlon 3800+ ~2.4GHz

2048Mb RAM

NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS 512Mb

If someone here is running the same card to me and has good FPS even after 1.05, please tell me what driver you have.

[KrycekITA 0]

But is BIS really considering the performance problems that comes with 1.5?

[imustkill 0]

Considering my specs, I am happy with the how the game performs.

AMD64 2800+ @ 2ghz, Skt 754

6600GT 128mb AGP8x

ASUS K8V-X Mobo

Audigy 2 Value

ATA133 200gb Hard Drive

Everything lowest/off most of the time, sometimes it doesn't make a difference if I bump textures or object detail up. Normally I would get 20-35 FPS stable everywhere I go, the swaying grass makes me lag. I haven't tested it with 1.05 because of my lack of activation keys...but that's another story.

[shooter6065 0]

what kind of power supply do you guys have in your machines?

[whenyoubite 0]

((20-25)-30) frames avg,, depending on map (unless I sniper scope a bush lol)

Everything on very high -

except shadows off

antialisasing low

EAX off (as I have onborad sound)

Pentium-D 3.2

7600GS 512mb

2GB value RAM

Vista 64

100.65 drivers

ArmA 1.05

[edit] only a 300w PSU

No probs at all, esp considering all the ppl with systems that destroy mine yet are runnung on normal or below O.o

Of course occasionaly textures go missing, but that seems to be par for the course for most people

[W0lle 1052]

what kind of power supply do you guys have in your machines?

Tagan U25 (600W) for:

Athlon 64 x2 4600+

2 GB Corsair

Geforce 7800GS (AGP)