FIN-Nixo 0 Posted September 2, 2007 I have a question... i have a Radeon x1300 and a geforce 6600TD. which one will run arma better? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pulverizer 1 Posted September 2, 2007 I don't know nothing about the ATIs but at least the 6600 will suck super-hard. It's also unplayable with 6800XT 256mb, even with the lowest gfx settings on which it looks absolutely horrible, reminiscent of a Quake 2 mod gone bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wolfrug 0 Posted September 2, 2007 Actually ArmA was quite playable on a 6600 GT 128 MB Well -> terrain detail vlow, shaders vlow (which did make it look a bit like lego, admittedly)...well...if playable is about 20-25 fps in cities Basically, it SHOULD be playable! Don't know anything about ATI. Also, this should probably be in another forum. Regards, Wolfrug Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pulverizer 1 Posted September 2, 2007 Basically, it SHOULD be playable! Not by any sane standards. Not when you play online on a server that forces the grass on and plays missions larger than Sanitizing Operation anyways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted September 2, 2007 x1300 is renamed x500 or x700 if my memory servers me right ... in short both cards are too weak to think about anything playable Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
libertyordeath776 0 Posted September 2, 2007 I play on a gf 6200 256mb agp x8. It plays the game fine and smooth. Some setting normal and some low. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted September 2, 2007 The GeForce would be slightly better Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wolfrug 0 Posted September 2, 2007 Seriously. I've played ArmA for months and months with my GeForce 6600 GT 128mb. Yes, it's slow and yes it's not that pretty: but as long as you can sacrifice prettiness you've got playability. Don't let anyone go telling you any different *caresses his new 8600 GT 512 MB* Mmmhm, my precioussss... Regards, Wolfrug Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted September 2, 2007 Read his post; he has a 6600TD, not the GT. Im pretty sure the TD is a variant of the standard 6600, which is very underpowered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RN Escobar 0 Posted September 3, 2007 *caresses his new 8600 GT 512 MB* Mmmhm, my precioussss... LOOOOOOL 8600, good luck with that, cut down 8600 at that, have fun watching the slide show Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobby budnick 0 Posted September 3, 2007 Take these responses with a grain of salt. Most of the people who have replied didn't even list their screen resolution. This is the single greatest factor in performance for this game. The 6600 is better. You will be ok if you run with aa off, af off, and shadows off at 800x600. Here is a tip. If you buy an Nvidia card with an 8 or 9 in the second digit of the number (6800, 7800, 8800) you will be ok for a couple of years usually. It's a complete waste of money to buy a 8600 for instance, like the poster above said. It's already an extremely weak card even when you first buy it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wolfrug 0 Posted September 3, 2007 @Escobar: Everything on High escept PostProcessing (don't like the fuzzy effect) and Terrain Detail (don't like the grass), Shading on Very High. Smooth as silk. 1024x756x32. It's good enough for me. @ch_123 I stand corrected. Have no clue on the performance of that card. Wolfrug out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oChaos.DNJ 0 Posted September 4, 2007 Smooth as silk in the middle of a field with nothing going on while your staring at the sky? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
