What CPU

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]....but I can swear that I heared/read in one of the interviews or smt that arma 2 is going to run quite well on around 3GHz single-core CPUs too....

I read, watched and heard all interviews and definitely can not remember this....

Dualcore is minimum, Quadcore optimum... stated by Company CEO, A2 Lead-Designer, A2 Lead-Programmer, etc... period.... what is there to discuss anyway?

But one thing what you mentioned is right in Armas current engine stage and will be also right in Arma2 (like stated by BIS CEO on GC 08):

The higher the resolution, the better System you need.... Screen-Resolution seems to have a even larger impact in Arma2, since they even developed a system to "upscale" lower resolutions on bigger screens.

So tiny 1024x768 resolution on a big 24" Screen should look better in Arma2 than it does now in Arma1 (it looks like crap to use such a resolution on large screens)

I dunno how it works in detail, but thats what Marek Spanel said in the GC08 Interviews....

[POTS 0]

That said a single core at 3.0ghz would barely be able to run arma2. They said you would have to have a p4 overclocked to 4.0ghz+ to get decent performance. Which leaves me with the impression that a 2.4ghz dualcore would still kick it's a**.

[11aTony 0]

I don't have an SLI motherboard. When I bought it, nearly 2 years ago, I said SLI was not a good way of betting GPU power to the system and I reckon I was right.

If and when ArmA2 comes along, and this system isn't up to it, then it'll be i7 and Vista time, but only then.

...do what you want.

[Snots 0]

off..soz: Cant see the contest between a console and a KA pc built for sims unless the game was crossed from the console to pc or youre comparing the cost, lol.

I think this pc cpu debate couldve been sorted out if Bohemia were more specific. I like others play a few different games but all my pc budget has gone from F4af and is now directed at ArmA and now 2. As we know a KA pc, pro sticks, pedals and TIR4 costs a whole lot more then a wow graphics factor console so itd be cool if we werent just guessing when outlaying money for some parts that cost a lot. I know its best to wait till the games out and all the cards are on the table but some people have to upgrade sooner for different reasons.

Ill be hanging on to the Inel 3.2 dual core until i hear more.

I dont know if its still true but i read once that coding for multiple cores was real pricey so we'll see wont we BO ...

[Bullet Magnet 0]

I'm guessing I'll need to spend some money when Arma2 comes out.....

Athlon XP 2000+ limping along at 1.7 ghz,

crappy old socket A mobo,

1 GB ram (old SDRAM)

Nvidia 5500 FX 128MB AGP card,

Ok, stop laughing, I really am running this doorstop PC.

It even lags on solitaire

[Infam0us 10]

I'm guessing I'll need to spend some money when Arma2 comes out.....

Athlon XP 2000+ limping along at 1.7 ghz,

crappy old socket A mobo,

1 GB ram (old SDRAM)

Nvidia 5500 FX 128MB AGP card,

Ok, stop laughing, I really am running this doorstop PC.

It even lags on solitaire  

Sell the parts on Ebay as "Collectors Items" for special prizes!

[Bullet Magnet 0]

Good idea, I might get an extra £2.50 towards the upgrade budget lol!

Thinking of:

Athlon X2 6000 3 gig

suitable new mobo

9800GT 512MB card

2 or maybe 4 gig of DDR2 ram

500 + watts PSU

That's all the piggy bank will allow, hopefully should suffice  

Er... that should be a pounds sign before the 2.50, don't know what happened there!

[Snots 0]

I reckon if youve got something close to 3ghz hang on to it and wait for the prices of the new Intel i7 cpu and the MB's to come down. Theres always something new on the horizon but this is a biggy and worth the wait i think.

The i7 range should be a pc gamers KA console stomping cpu.

Theyve been using the LGA775 (775pins) socket for donks but the new Intel i7 CPU needs a socket LGA1366 (1366pins) which are real pricey MB's. The MB's are cheaper now but still expensive. $300aus - $800aus ... yep a $800 MB ... incredible

Theres heaps in this chip for gamers and two big ones is that it has the memory controller on the die and 8 threads serving four cores where as the current Intel quad core 3 Ghz Q9650 only has 4 threads serving 4 cores.

AMD did this donks ago and its why their slower clocked cpu's kept up with faster Intel cpu's...for a while anyway.

Model numberIntel Core i7 940

Clock2.93GHz

Cores4

Threads8

Process45nm

SocketLGA1366

TDP130WL2 cache256KB per coreL3 cache8MB shared

8 threads serving 4 cores and if one or more cores isnt used the resources and a frequency boost go to the cores in use. Id like to see more L3 cache but thatll come id say.

I suspect the Intel head engineer is an Armed assault fan, lol.

[Baff1 0]

Baff1, i don't think you get what i said at all....

The example with the Video encoding was just an example to show you what difference a multicore optimized piece of softwae will benefit from such a system.

In a short sentence:

Arma2 will be multicore optimized so you can await a better performance on multicore systems, period...

Just a actual statement by them: http://translate.google.com/transla....&u=http

Quote[/b] ]What is the recommended configuration for Arma 2?

Recommended configuration can be found on the official Web site arma2.com.

A very important condition for the smooth running of this game will be multi core processor. D A good image can be computer set Alza Ruby, which we had this year in October to play the game journalists at an event ARMA2 Boot Camp.

Now got it?

I got what you said.

But since it isn't goin to max out your later day single core processors in the first place, people using multiple cores won't see any detectable difference in the game.

They may well find if they run a diagnostic that their CPU is using less overall % of it's power to compute the game, but the game's performance itself will remain visibly unaffected since both will be running at under 100%.

While in your chosen example of software, what you say is indubitably true, the same is not true of ArmA.

You will get the exact same performance as on a single core CPU.

Multithreaded or no, this is not a CPU intensive software. The CPU is the very last part of your system you should reasonably expect to be bottlenecking in 3D rendered game.

The software hasn't advanced a whole lot, in calculation terms, from when it first launched for a 400MHZ specced machine.

It's most certainly is not to be compared with video encoding in terms of CPU usage.

Console CPU's are very weak indeed compared to PC CPU's, single cored or otherwise.

Any console game of this complexity will greatly benefit from multi-threading.

In fact it will probably require it to function effectively.

ArmA 2 will be a scaled down version of ArmA, not a scaled up one. It's going to work on consoles.

They must play to the lowest common denominator (which in this case is more than powerful enough to recreate the not-so-many computations a game like this demands of the PC).

[POTS 0]

Baff1, i don't think you get what i said at all....

The example with the Video encoding was just an example to show you what difference a multicore optimized piece of softwae will benefit from such a system.

In a short sentence:

Arma2 will be multicore optimized so you can await a better performance on multicore systems, period...

Just a actual statement by them: http://translate.google.com/transla....&u=http

Quote[/b] ]What is the recommended configuration for Arma 2?

Recommended configuration can be found on the official Web site arma2.com.

A very important condition for the smooth running of this game will be multi core processor. D A good image can be computer set Alza Ruby, which we had this year in October to play the game journalists at an event ARMA2 Boot Camp.

Now got it?

I got what you said.

But since it isn't goin to max out your later day single core processors in the first place, people using multiple cores won't see any detectable difference in the game.

They may well find if they run a diagnostic that their CPU is using less overall % of it's power to compute the game, but the game's performance itself will remain visibly unaffected since both will be running at under 100%.

While in your chosen example of software, what you say is indubitably true, the same is not true of ArmA.

You will get the exact same performance as on a single core CPU.

Multithreaded or no, this is not a CPU intensive software. The CPU is the very last part of your system you should reasonably expect to be bottlenecking in 3D rendered game.

The software hasn't advanced a whole lot, in calculation terms, from when it first launched for a 400MHZ specced machine.

It's most certainly is not to be compared with video encoding in terms of CPU usage.

Console CPU's are very weak indeed compared to PC CPU's, single cored or otherwise.

Any console game of this complexity will greatly benefit from multi-threading.

In fact it will probably require it to function effectively.

ArmA 2 will be a scaled down version of ArmA, not a scaled up one. It's going to work on consoles.

They must play to the lowest common denominator (which in this case is more than powerful enough to recreate the not-so-many computations a game like this demands of the PC).

ArmA2's graphics will be better, it will support multiple cores, and it's general processing is much more efficient. What are you talking about? Look up the new linda, and read the wiki article on this. ArmA2's going to have parallax occlusion mapping, ArmA2 will be much more advanced than arma1.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Multithreaded or no, this is not a CPU intensive software. The CPU is the very last part of your system you should reasonably expect to be bottlenecking in 3D rendered game.

Have we played the same OFP and ArmA?

It is really easy to make a mission where the CPU cant keep up, just add 500 east and west units within combat distance from eachother and you can see your FPS drop noticably, no matter what you do with your graphical 3d settings, which leads me to the conclusion that it is CPU related.

I also noticed this when working on NEM_ZOMBIES_LOW.PBO (The completely stripped down version), by optimizing the scripts i could add more zombies @ the same FPS. (Eventually it got to a point where i could do whatever i wanted with my scripts but biggest FPS hit came from the hardcoded pathfinding calculations, so i couldnt optimize them any further without letting them updating their pathfinding as often and thus making them too slow-thinking to catch their fast moving prey. )

During FPS tests i kept the zombies offscreen as my poor PC couldnt handle so many units onscreen anyway. (x1600XT/7600GS/8500GT/Whatever crappy card i could borrow from a PC in my parents home that still reasonably worked )

You could say that that would make my CPU limitation useless, however in OFP/ArmA most of the action is uselelly ofscreen anyway, especially with big missions with alot of units in a large area running around. (Think of any DAC mission)

Though i dont believe that ArmA2 will run any better then ArmA, the gains given by optimizations/multithreading probably wont compensate for the resource sucking advance in features, however i do think that the optimizations were absolutely neccesary to allow those advances in the first place.

[Deadfast 43]

I agree with ofpforum - try to play a mission with lots of units and scripts.

From my own experience I can tell you that your FPS will go down badly.

My FPS can drop down to 20 with a HD4870 and Q6600 @3GHz.

If I go to the same exact spot in the editor it's 60+

[cjph 0]

+1 for the above. I've tested a number of maps and with units dotted about, and recorded the FPS over the same fly/drive path - in all cases I saw no improvement when overclocking an 8800GTS 512 card, but big differences clocking the C2D E2180 CPU from stock to 3.06GHz (higher caused instability). I reckon Arma is a game which does not follow the perceived wisdom that a 3GHz CPU is enough and then it is all down to graphics - certainly up to the 3GHz mark I believe the single threaded game is still CPU bound.

By the way, no complaint from me - I understand and appreciate the scale and scope of the game compared to all others, and am just thankful BI have stuck with it.

cjph

[Pyronick 21]

Anybody here who desperately wants to upgrade their system.

Like said above, the Core i7 is the way to go.

Not because it's multicore and Hyperthreading-enabled, but it's instruction set has been extended.

So, you get more instructions per clocktick. Never ever believe the clockspeed hype.

A single core of the 2,66 GHz Core i7 920 is still miles faster than a Pentium 4 3,73 GHz Extreme Edition, even without the use of the SIMD extension.

Especially the NUMA architecture and the interconnect result in higher bandwidth and lower latency.

So bottlenecking won't be a problem, until the PCI Express 2.0 x32 standard will be released.

Even if Armed Assault 2 was a singlethreaded application, you'd still outperform most high clocked processors with an entry level i7.

In Windows 7, the CPU aids the GPU if it has enough resources through WARP calls.

Enough reasons to go SMT, or at least to upgrade to newer standards.

[Baff1 0]

I agree with ofpforum - try to play a mission with lots of units and scripts.

From my own experience I can tell you that your FPS will go down badly.

My FPS can drop down to 20 with a HD4870 and Q6600 @3GHz.

If I go to the same exact spot in the editor it's 60+

While I can agree that adding 1,000 AI's in your mission editor should most certainly have an noticeable effect on your CPU usage, adding 100 or 200 should not.

I also expect you to require far greater CPU power if you are hosting a server.

My FPS can also drop to 20 in some area's of the map.

In particular near bushes and in cities. I can get the FPS to drop to 20 with no AI on the map at all.

It does this whatever spec computer I use.

Similarly when I play RavenShield on the Unreal engine and I throw a smoke grenade, the FPS crawls too.

These two examples are not hardware limitations they are software limitations.

Changing your CPU won't transform ArmA into a high/solid FPS game. The code is the problem.

I typically run missions on my LAN with around 200 units. (I think OfP was capped to 256?).

My LAN has 8 processors ranging from 2.4 Celeron to Quad Core and this simply isn't a problem I have come across.

Given that I ran OpF on a far lower specced LAN I can't see you getting any lag with under 256 units on any processor above 1 GHZ, remembering that this iteration of the game was designed to run 256 units on a 0.5 GHZ CPU and still has the exact same FPS drop issues it's always had on a 4GHZ.

[Deadfast 43]

I had problems with bushes as well, but that was with my old FX5700.

The part about scripts I mentioned is important as well.

Usually missions with lot of AI also have lots of scripts.

I had a CPU graph running in the background and every time my FPS dropped down the graph was topped at 25%.

If ArmA uses only 1 core and I have 4 you can do the math

[Törni 0]

This issue about hardware specs amazes me as well. How an earth they are ever going to succeed in making an open ended simulation for both PC and consoles? Most eye-candy console shooters have scripted enemies and events + very small areas where players can move.

Game must be really resource hungry if they boosted graphics and audio plus added more precision and complexity to the simulation.

If you get it to run with high end PCs ok, how you are going to make it run on consoles as well without cutting back content or limiting the possibilities?

[Deadfast 43]

IMO they won't, but as long as they don't touch my PC version I couldn't care less

[ziiip 1]

GTA IV runs OK on consoles, yet struggles on PC unless u have high-end stuff. And its environment is completely urban. In ArmA, you can get the worst frame drop in towns. I don't see how consoles couldnt run ArmA2. Ofc I've got nothing to do with comp. science, but my theory seems pretty logical.

[Deadfast 43]

Well, the way GTA4 runs on PCs is mostly caused by poor conversion

[Alienfreak 0]

Someone asked if the i7 920 should be sufficent:

If it turns out the Bottleneck of ArmA 2 will be the CPU then this one should suffice

If it turns out that for the client (and I guess you will be one) the GPU will be the bottleneck you can just as well buy a AM2+ Phenom 940 for like 50% of the price (when compared including the MB) and still have like 96% of the fps of the i7

You can look that up in a recent benchmark Computerbase.de did. It also does benchmarks with the resolution turned to its minimum so the GPU isn't the bottleneck anymore. Then the Intels (also the new i7) really shine.

Then look up the same game (Far Cry2 for example) with realistic options. It hardly matters.

So it's hard to say whats the right choice for ArmA 2. We would need a Developer to tell us what their pre releases say.

And the XboX argument is invalid here. Noone said they would get the same version of the game. And they wont. No console could ever handle some of the heavy duty missions I have seen being around for Arma 1.

For example look at Far Cry 2 PC & Console.

The pure power of a console just is insufficent for running a game in the quality of a PC.

If you buy a console instead of a PC you save a lot of money and trouble. But don't expect to get 1000$ for 130$. Even optimizing software for a specific CPU (what most games dont even have because they get ported to anything and their dog) wont give you more than 10-20% of performance.

Quote[/b] ]GTA IV runs OK on consoles, yet struggles on PC unless u have high-end stuff. And its environment is completely urban. In ArmA, you can get the worst frame drop in towns. I don't see how consoles couldnt run ArmA2. Ofc I've got nothing to do with comp. science, but my theory seems pretty logical.

Read above.

And then think a bit. How can a 3.2 GHz some years old CPU without triple channeling and a 7xxx Nvidia era GPU be faster than a triple channeled state of the art CPU which can do more each cycle and have Hz just as high? Plus the GTX 295 is a dual gpu state of the art gfx card which even has more RAM per GPU than the Xbox has at all? Not to mention the 6GB of RAM you will have for your CPU. And dont tell me the consoles RAM is faster or anything.

Im not saying consoles are bad. They are actually are really good for what they cost. And they save you a lot of trouble. But stop thinking they are faster than a SOTA PC. Please.

[Pulverizer 1]

GTA IV runs OK on consoles, yet struggles on PC unless u have high-end stuff. And its environment is completely urban. In ArmA, you can get the worst frame drop in towns. I don't see how consoles couldnt run ArmA2. Ofc I've got nothing to do with comp. science, but my theory seems pretty logical.

How logical is it to base your crazy theories on a single game? When you look at basically any other new game, it not only runs better on PC but also looks a lot better. Xbox360 is ancient tech no matter how you look at it, get with the times.

[SASrecon 0]

I'm getting a new system soon mainly because i love ARMA and i want to be ready for ARMA2.

Its gonna be a q6600 and i'm gonna overclock it slightly (maybe to 2.5-2.7ghz) but i'm wondering if ARMA with the 1.14 patch supports quad core; i heard ARMA is still a bit iffy with quads any help would be nice thanks

[mr.g-c 6]

I'm getting a new system soon mainly because i love ARMA and i want to be ready for ARMA2.

Its gonna be a q6600 and i'm gonna overclock it slightly (maybe to 2.5-2.7ghz) but i'm wondering if ARMA with the 1.14 patch supports quad core; i heard ARMA is still a bit iffy with quads any help would be nice thanks  

Heya, well i can tell from my own experience that, as i switched from my "very old" AMD Athlon 64, 3700+ (default 2200MHZ - i had it Running at 3000MHZ) to the Q6600, i only got like only 10% (or about 2-4FPS) Speed increase.

I was a bit disappointed at that point, as i thought with that CPU, i would be able to even set my View-distance to like 7500m or so.

Then i overclocked the Q6600 from its default 2400MHZ to between 3.1 and 3.5GHZ (it depends on the load) and i got another ~20% increase (~2-10FPS in best cases and larger View-distance).

However what i noticed is that i get same FPS no matter if i set to 3.1GHZ or even 3.6GHZ fixed. My limiting Factor seems to be the GF9600GT and the Fact that Arma1 only uses one Core.

So to summarize my experience (measured without any AI and around Paraiso City from the Hills south of it, looking direct at the city):

Athlon 64 3700+ (@3GHZ) : ~30-32FPS @ 2500m VD

Q6600 (default clock) : ~32-36FPS @ 3000m VD

Q6600 (3.1-3.5GHZ) : ~38-45FPS @ 3000m VD

Graphic-Settings remained the Same on both Systems, besides the VD.

For Arma2 you can await a bigger boost as it is like mentioned numerous times in this thread, multicore-optimized.

[SASrecon 0]

lets hope they can optimise ARMA for multicores like they are in ARMA2 with any next patch!

but 30fps is enough for me right now, mr.g-c if your Graphics card is your limiting factor then i'm guessing i won't have much of a problem because i have a nice GTX260 (216core) waiting to be fitted into a computer!

i'll post my experiences once my system is fully built and i've had a go at ARMA