Will my PC Run this? What CPU/GPU to get? What settings? System Specifications.

[Placebo 29]

Ok so obviously we're getting more any more "What CPU?" "Best PC?" etc. etc. so we shall try for now putting everything in the one thread and seeing how that goes, I will endeavour to update the first post with the most pertinent official information.

Hi all, I had noticed all the spam in the forum relating to this topic and I think it's at least a little because people are put off by the ~500 page thread, so they just go back and post a message. Well I suggested to placebo that the first post should at least be a FAQ that is generally useful to n00bs and he agreed--but kicked it back to me to come up with the text!

So let's debate a little what it should say and then we'll get post #1 fixed up with something that will hopefully help people.

Below is my stab at it, please comment/suggest and then we'll get post #1 fixed with what we all agree is best.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Minimal PC Requirements

CPU: Dual Core Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz / Intel Core 2.0 GHz / AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster

RAM: 1 GB

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM or faster

OS: Windows XP

Recommended PC Requirements

CPU: Intel Core 2.8 GHz / AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster

RAM: 2 GB

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT / ATI Radeon 4850 with Shader Model 3 and 512 MB VRAM or faster

OS: Windows XP or Vista

But does MY computer meet the requirement?

This website can help you analyze your hardware, select ArmA 2 from the drop down list and see how your rig measures up!

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri

Still... what's it REALLY going to be like with my rig?

Try the demo! It's free and you'll know EXACTLY what it'll be like:

http://www.arma2.com/demo/

There are free demo's available there for both Arma II and for Operation Arrowhead.

How can I see how well my rig stacks up against others?

If you have OA you can run the two "benchmark" scenarios that you will find in single user mode. They play a scene and then report your overall performance.

If you have Arma 2, or you're not satisfied with the OA bencharmk, then you can set up your own test/scenario and use the program fraps to test your frame rate:

http://www.fraps.com

Looks like I only get 20 FPS on my rig, guess I can't play...

WRONG! Anything over about 15 FPS is acceptable and anything over 30 FPS is considered really good. This may surprise you, if you come from another FPS game where everybody sulks if they don't get 100 FPS or more.

ArmA is not your average FPS, it is a military simulator. As such it's calculating the trajectory of every bullet, calculating precisely what's happening kilometers away off screen, and just generally modelling things realistically and accurately in ways that other games do not. This combined with the long view distances mean you will NOT see the same level of FPS in ArmA that you would see in a lighter weight game.

The game IS calculating all that stuff accurately at your FPS, your numbers are likely similar to what many others you play with are getting, and just so long as the user experience seems fluid it's going to be fine.

Would the game run better if I had a faster CPU?

Yes.

Would the game run better if I had a faster video card?

Maybe. If you adjust the video settings like anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, shadows, resolution, and texture quality does it make a big difference? The bigger the difference that makes, the more likely a better video card will help you. If it doesn't make much difference what you set those things to you are likely limited by your CPU.

I can't afford better hardware, what else can I do?

There are a lot of things that you can try to optimize if you feel that performance isn't quit up to what you need it to be. There are a couple of sticky threads for that over in the troubleshooting section, try some of these suggestions out:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=101124

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73947

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=85124

Edited August 23, 2010 by Placebo

[bakimaster91 16]

Hi folks!

I am new to the forums so please be tolerant :) However I have a serious dilemma...

For some time I`ve been wondering: what type of CPU would be best for ArmA2? Of course I`ve heard that the multi-core CPU would be required. The question is whether this would be the 2 Core or 4 Core one?

At this moment I own the Core 2 Duo E6700 2,6 gHz, 4GB of Patriot 800 mHz DDr2 ram and the HD4870 512mb, so as you can see my CPU is pretty dated :P I thought of changing it to the C2D E8400... However, maybe it would be better to change for a 4Core huh? Also will my 550W Chieftec handle the CPU change?

What do you guys think?

Edited April 11, 2009 by Bakimaster91

[Max255 59]

Quad Core will be better, beacause same effect as buying E8400 will be OCing your current CPU. On good MoBo E6700 can run at 3,6GHz (maybe more) and 8400 at 4GHz but there will be no difference at all. Best choice is to buy Q6600 and OC it to 3.4 maybe 3.6GHz... Or some newer model, like Q9 series. But i'm no expert at this, wait for more replies... ;)

BTW: What MoBo do u have?

And little OT: Siema Bartek! ;)

Edited April 11, 2009 by Max255[PL]

[mr.g-c 6]

Quadcore these days, nothing else!

[De_little_Bubi 1]

Wait for release and check experience from other player/newspages etc.

[bakimaster91 16]

Cool cool guys :D Another question is whether mine Power supply will handle the change of CPU to Quadcore... This can also be the problem ;/

[kernriver 4]

Cool cool guys :D Another question is whether mine Power supply will handle the change of CPU to Quadcore... This can also be the problem ;/

I think You should ask that question in PC discussion thread:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=47904&page=270

There are some guys there that know all kinds of stuff about computers...;)

Welcome to the forums.

[echo1 0]

ArmA is meant to be multicore optimized. If that's true, it means that a Quad Core will be of much more use than a Dual Core, even if the latter is faster than the former. 550w should be more than enough for your configuration, assuming the PSU is of good quality (How old is the PSU?)

The big question here is what motherboard you have. Certain older chipsets may not be compatible with Quad Cores. Although the chances are that your motherboard will accept a quad core no problem.

[bakimaster91 16]

Well I have the ASUS P5B Deluxe but with the up-to-date BIOS it is Quad Core compatible :) So not a problem here. I `ve got the Chieftec 550W power supply and I`ve bought a month ago for the new card :)

[echo1 0]

Cool, looks like you're good to go. CPU-wise, if you want to save money and are prepared to overclock, I'd recommend a Q6600. If you just want good performance out of the box, I'd spend the bit extra and grab a Q9650, whose performance is almost comparable with the Core i7 920 (running at standard speed)

[Spetz 0]

get a I7 if you got the money, you wont need to upgrade for like 3 years, just maybe more ram,

[suma 8]

The estimation I have made some time before in http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1213104&postcount=1 still seems to be valid.

If you are aiming for the best experience and do not care for money, buy the fastest quad you can get and you should get the best experience. However, if you have a moderate budget, for the same price you will most likely get significantly higher frequency Dual core than a Quad core would be, and in most missions this will result in better performance.

[mr.g-c 6]

Suma, can you maybe give any informations about if the dedicated server will use multiple cores?

So finally we can have even larger battles than with 120 People playing live. (like at IC-Arma for instance).

Would be nice to hear that AI also gets their own core like in single player so there could be bigger coops and warefare with better server performance as well.

Thanks!:D

[echo1 0]

get a I7 if you got the money, you wont need to upgrade for like 3 years, just maybe more ram,

Well, in all fairness, a Q9650 isnt that much slower than a i7 920 (Assuming you don't bother overclocking). Better off waiting for something spectacular in future than spending hundreds to replace your motherboard and RAM.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

If supported properly. Do you think that 500 + person can play at once? And what would be needed?

[Steakslim 1]

I don't think it'd be that extreme. I guess one could wish that we could actually get a server with more than 64 players with proper hardware support.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Is 64 players the cap on ArmA 2? If so. Why the drop in the number of person that can play in MP. In ArmA 1. You could play 250 + person with the right hardware.

[Alex72 1]

Like in ArmA1 they didnt say you could play 250. Never seen that many but i saw more than what was stated. Maybe the 50+ is a mark set where you wont need special hardware for good flow etc. I think its possible to go beyond it tbh.

ArmA motto: "You can do ANYTHING in ArmA". :) Hope that is true for ArmA2 as well. Should be.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

The estimation I have made some time before in http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1213104&postcount=1 still seems to be valid.

If you are aiming for the best experience and do not care for money, buy the fastest quad you can get and you should get the best experience. However, if you have a moderate budget, for the same price you will most likely get significantly higher frequency Dual core than a Quad core would be, and in most missions this will result in better performance.

I'm wondering what are your setups during your testing with multiplay.

i.e.=

Deicated servers?

In game server?

or like I'm doing, a dedi and gaming on the same pc?

ArmA does very well for me on this 2 cpu/4 core pc @3ghz.

[4 IN 1 0]

would my good old E6600 be able to run the game?

[Max255 59]

Yeah. But i recommend OCing it... What's your MoBo, RAM and PSU? Then i can tell u how much u can OC it. ;)

[Steakslim 1]

Is 64 players the cap on ArmA 2? If so. Why the drop in the number of person that can play in MP. In ArmA 1. You could play 250 + person with the right hardware.

No I didn't say it was a cap, but most servers groan and ache with horrid lag and crash often when you starting going higher, save for those few who can take the beating.

[Spetz 0]

Well, in all fairness, a Q9650 isnt that much slower than a i7 920 (Assuming you don't bother overclocking). Better off waiting for something spectacular in future than spending hundreds to replace your motherboard and RAM.

the DDR-3 might make it more worth to upgrade, personally I would go for the Q9650, but say if I won a lottery, or I got a "real" job compared to my minimum wage job right now I would hit the i7.

[binkster 0]

Lol I like how you say if you win the lottery. One thing I did was I bought a q6600 and an aftermarket fan. With a 780i I was able to overclock with low temps to 3.2ghz. So 3.2ghz at 1600mhz ram hopefully will do its thing rather then spending the extra cash on a more expensive cpu.

I wonder how much of a difference the L2 Cache 12MB on a Q9650 would be rather than the L2 Cache: 2 x 4MB on a q6600

[echo1 0]

the DDR-3 might make it more worth to upgrade, personally I would go for the Q9650

You do realize that the difference between a DDR2 equipped system and the same one using DDR3 is very small?

@Binkster: Cache makes some, but not very much difference. The Q6600 will, when overclocked, outdo just about every one of the newer quadcores except for the Q9650. Same holds true if you overclock them as well. And 3.2 is relatively tame for what you can do with a Q6600. With a decent enough fan, motherboard and set of RAM you can hit up into the 4Ghz mark.