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

[scruffy 22]

Actually, it's specifically designed for games. In fact the new Core i5 (Celeron replacement) will have an integrated graphics processor on the CPU-die next to the integrated memory controller.

The later Haswell architecture will have the addition of an FMA instruction set, this is often used in graphics processors because it can double the raw floating point operations. It might also have scatter and gather instructions, which is also a typical GPU feature.

And raw FLOPS make a fast graphics processor.

I think the i5 will only get the cpu-gpu interface integrated at first, not a whole gpu. Maybe that was the later architecture you mentioned. Comparing it to a Celeron might be bit far fetched too. I think the main difference is the dual channel interface in comparison to triple channel with the i7. For ArmA that might even be interesting but not for games in general. The i5 might be the more interesting platform as it should be cheaper all together and maybe the integrated gpu interface matters in speed to compensate for lower memory bandwith?

[echo1 0]

I've read some early previews of the Core i5 which claim its performance is not far off that of the Core i7. You see, memory bandwidth isn't a huge contributing factor for all applications - most games will only gain a tiny performance increase from using three channels as opposed to two. The integrated GPU will be on the lower end dual core models which will be used on non-gaming machines and laptops. Performance of these GPUs will probably equal that of Intel's current "Extreme Graphics" chipset, at least with the first release. And they are not a replacement for the Celeron - they're more a replacement for the lower end Core 2 Quads, and the Core 2 Duo. Intel has yet to announce what they're going to come out with to replace the Celeron and Pentium Dual Core, but I'd say it will be something Nehalem-based with the brand maintained.

And yeah, I agree. The Core i5 will probably be the mainstream "weapon of choice" whenever it comes out. Till then...

Edited April 15, 2009 by echo1
Typos

[Pyronick 21]

I think the i5 will only get the cpu-gpu interface integrated at first, not a whole gpu. Maybe that was the later architecture you mentioned. Comparing it to a Celeron might be bit far fetched too. I think the main difference is the dual channel interface in comparison to triple channel with the i7. For ArmA that might even be interesting but not for games in general. The i5 might be the more interesting platform as it should be cheaper all together and maybe the integrated gpu interface matters in speed to compensate for lower memory bandwith?

Well, I read somewhere that the Clarkdale will get the very same IGP hardware as used in the GN40 chipset. Which is based on Intel's X4500 HD graphics processor.

However the first Core i5's (Lynnfield) will get an on-die PCI Express controller for decreased latencies, higher bandwidth and better direct memory access capabilities. So no integrated graphics processor in the Lynnfield.

Havendale (45nm) is scrapped and replaced by Clarkdale (32nm).

So:

The Lynnfield is the first Core i5 to release, which is a mid-end 45nm quadcore without integrated graphics processor.

The Clarkdale is the second Core i5 to release, which is a low-end 32nm dualcore with integrated graphics processor.

What I think you mean is either the Flexible Display Interface (which connects the IGP through the MCH to an HDMI/DVI/VGA port on your motherboard) or the Direct Media Interface (which connects the CPU-GPU to the MCH).

Edited April 15, 2009 by SgtH3nry3

[echo1 0]

Nevermind, problem has been resolved :)

Edited April 15, 2009 by echo1

[scruffy 22]

...

Ah, thank you for clarification, also to ch_123. :)

[Nowyoudie 0]

Intel E6850 Core2Duo @ 3,2 Ghz

Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 PCI-E 1G GDDR5

4 GB RAM

a bit worried here as well :confused:

You shouldn't be worried.

Q6700 @ 3.4GHz, 4GB Corsair XMS2, GTX 275 here - not worried at all. ArmA already runs fine for me.

[ziiip 1]

You shouldn't be worried.

Q6700 @ 3.4GHz, 4GB Corsair XMS2, GTX 275 here - not worried at all. ArmA already runs fine for me.

What does "fine" mean to you?:)

[ScorpionGuard 10]

I was just reading about Butterfly Grid. And I'm wondering if ArmA II would be able to be installed on these type of eServers and Butterfly Software Supported? An if the infomation is correct. Whom ever run ArmA II on this type of server should be able to have up to 5000 players per 50 blades at one time. Question 1) Could 5000 players be on one map? 2) And how would this effect the community as a hold?

Edited April 16, 2009 by ScorpionGuard

[blackforest_rumbler 0]

Good thinking Matt, I think blackforest is one of those people who's worried that he can't beat the latest 3DMark records...

Tip to everyone with a budget: wait for the ArmA2 benchmark results to come out after the game is released. Only then decide what hardware to get.

All these speculations are a waist of forum space.

And so is my post if you think of it...

Just to make it clear: I give a shi..... on 3DMark records. Just wanted to know if my Dual Core is good enough or if i may need to upgrade to quadcore. ;)

[Steakslim 1]

Just to make it clear: I give a shi..... on 3DMark records. Just wanted to know if my Dual Core is good enough or if i may need to upgrade to quadcore. ;)

do you do much else with your pc other than gaming that would have the need for a quad? If not then no you probably won't "need" a quad, but if you really want a quadcore anyways, anything from the q6600 to the new i7's will do nicely depending on how much money you have to spend.

[Binary 0]

Hello everyone

So far we have gotten a great deal of information regarding estimated minimum/recomended hardware requirements for running ArmA 2...

But after searching the forums a bit - it seems like we haven't got any info on requirements for the dedicated servers?

I am currently hosting a ArmA 1 server on a "decent" workstation..

3GHz Pentium D

2GB DDR-2 RAM

74GB 10.000 RPM Raptor HDD

MS Server 2008.

ArmA 1 runs fine.

Of course, the golden word that we are all creaming in our pants about - is multithreading. We know that this is suported client-side, but BIS, can we please have some info about whether/how this will be supported server-side?

I really like this quote from Suma:

Currently I can provide only an estimation, for final words you still have to wait for later:

Our intention is to scale at least to some extent to quad cores (this means with quad cores you should have either better performance in some scenes than in dual cores). Therefore the game should run better on Quad Core compared to Dual Core assuming they both run at the same frequency.

That said, you can get higher frequency Dual Core for the same money as you could get Quad Core. My prediction is 3.3 GHz Dual Core will most likely run the game better than 2.5 GHz Quad Core, while both will cost you approximately the same.

One thing to note: different scenarios / workloads may show different performance patterns - e.g. it is possible missions with huge numbers of units will runner better on 2.5 GHz Quad Core than 3.3 GHz Dual Core.

Disclaimer: this is only a prediction and things can still change before the game is released.

But can we use this prediction directly for servers as well?

Or would servers gain an enourmous increase from quad-cores as suposed to dual-cores ?

[rekrul 7]

Another question, have they confirmed a Linux DS version?

[Dwarden 1125]

well if the game is able to use more than two cores then 4x2.5 > 2x3.3 in terms of IPS ... also quads usually have bigger l2/l3 than duals etc ...

this ofcourse apply only if the cores are on same FSB freq and same freq of memory ...

ofcourse overclocked dualcore 4+GHz match/beat stock quadcore 2.5GHz

[TrueSlawter 10]

Hmm Question for myself which has to do with the topic, I recently got a AMD X3 720 along with 4GB ram and a 4890, do you think this would be able to play on the highest settings used with a Asus ATI 4890? I know the GPU can handle it but the CPU is about 2-3 months old etc so do you all think as a rough guess it should be fine handling highest settings?

Playing ArmA the original it runs all high (obviously) and then stable framerates of around 100 at some times.

[echo1 0]

It will certainly run at very high settings, AFAIK no computer could run either OFP or ArmA on "highest settings". Let's hope they've optimized it more this time...

CPUs don't go out of date in 2-3 months Have you overclocked it?

Edited April 17, 2009 by echo1

[TrueSlawter 10]

With the Highest i got it as best as i could.. & nah not yet only got it last week so wont be looking to OC for a while.

[echo1 0]

I read a review of that CPU recently where the reviewer was able to overclock it by about 1GHz with air cooling. There's a lot of power to be unlocked from those chips.

[TrueSlawter 10]

Yeah was the main reason I decided to go AMD over intel, along with the fact the past 3 PC's ive owned were AMD. before i start Overclocking im looking at aftermarket CPU coolers just to be sure :) but glad it should be able to play ArmA2 on very high :)

[Horus 83]

Maybe u lucky guy but u don't no yet because if u have motherboard with SB750 u can try to unlock 4th core ;)

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

[TrueSlawter 10]

Yeah i know about that but ive got a Asus M3A78 Pro (SB700) doesnt matter to be honest :) the 4th core could be dead..

[Ben 0]

It will certainly run at very high settings, AFAIK no computer could run either OFP or ArmA on "highest settings". Let's hope they've optimized it more this time...

CPUs don't go out of date in 2-3 months Have you overclocked it?

This is not true. I am running Everything on Very High, and those with settings that go up to High I am running it on that. My Viewing Distance is 10,000 and my FPS is still over 50.

Q9650 Core 2 Quad

Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 x2 GB

DDR3 1600 MHZ 4GB.

Intel X48 Mobo.

It is very posssible, and a very beautiful game with these settings.

[Tigerkiddy 10]

Hello, Do you guys think this is a good gaming laptop? and do you think i can handle ArmA 2? I prefer laptops because i can take them wherever i go.

If not i will just buy it for my 360. Here is the pic of my system.

I was using www.canyourunit.com to see if i could handle ArmA.

PS: I am new to this forums and didnt exactly know where to post this.

Please move it its in the wrong section.

[echo1 0]

Nice Firefox theme :p

It will run the game, but I can't imagine it would do it particularly well - the 3450 isn't a very fast graphics unit. Expect to have to turn the quality settings way down to make it run smooth.

[Tigerkiddy 10]

Lol yeah, i love my theme to, thanks alot man. I might just as well get it on my 360, but i will try it on my pc just to give it a shot, and see if it works. :) PM me if you want help with the theme :D

[cm 0]

No... that definately won't run it.