MartinCrank 0 Posted January 14, 2008 I curently use 8600GT and have to have everything on low except textures on normal for game have playable FPS in builded areas, though i were thinking it could be my CPU fault because i use AMD Sempron 3400+. What CPU is "recommeneded " for ARMA (by recommended i mean not one readme suggest but from real gamers experience)? Will upgrading to Athlong 64 X2 5200+, L2 Cache 2024 Cache give me more FPS? I know that ArmA currently has no support for dual core, but since ArmA2 promises dual-core and quad support can we assume they will add it to ArmA as well perhaps with some patch since ArmA2 is basically just addon? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ArmaVidz 0 Posted January 14, 2008 I'm running a Core2Quad and I can still bring ArmA to a stand-still with lots of Ai on the map. Best thing to do is choose the fastest you can afford(are willing to spend). I'm plenty happy with my Core2Quad Q6600, not that it's blistering fast in ArmA, that it is so fast for everything else I do as well (video editing). If you're only buying a CPU/Motherboard/RAM for ArmA, then I think the best route to go would be to purchase the Intel Core2Duo E6850. Higher clock speed, only two cores instead of four. I haven't personally used the E6850, but I know someone who has in ARMA and it ran really, really well. My personal opinion: After upgrading from an Athlon64 (s939) 4200+, to an Athlon64 (AM2) 5200+, then to an Athlon64 (AM2) 6000+, I was so disappointed with the performance I eventually switched over to Intel's Core2Duo E6600, with DDR-1000 RAM, then to a Core2Quad Q6600...all...just...for...ArmA...well...mostly...  I'm happy now  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr burns 132 Posted January 14, 2008 E6750 is said to be quite a bargain, seeing that you can mostly overclock them to 3.3+´ish Ghz No first hand knowledge though, im still running AMD XP2500+ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
froggyluv 2136 Posted January 14, 2008 That upgrade could only help as the Sempron has a really low L2 cache as I remember. I'm really curious too about if it's really advantageous to have dual/quad processors over 1 really fast one in Arma. Edit- I remember some really strong arguments for both when Arma first came out but I can't remember who won Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rowdied 44 Posted January 14, 2008 Go with an intel c2 duo E6750 and 2g of good ram and you'll be plenty happy. I'm coming from and AMD fx-60 o'cld to 3.0 and at stock speeds with the E6750, it's much faster and smoother. I've been an AMD fan since my 1800 and reluctantly switched back to intel after 5-6 yrs. You can't beat the performance intel has over AMD right now, unfortunately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted January 14, 2008 The number of cores is not that important when it comes to ArmA. ArmA doesn't support multiple cores. There are some advantages to having 2 cores, but I don't think 4 cores is really going to give you that much more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShooterSix 0 Posted January 15, 2008 I have a Pentium 4, 3Ghz, 2gig ram, radeon 1650 512mb video card, and I can play all on medium settings, except for terrain on low with smooth as silk FPS @ 1680x1050 resolution. I think Pentium 4s run this game better than Core Duos. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted January 15, 2008 All types of "what PC component should I get" discussion should be undertaken in the pinned PC thread in Off Topic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
