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

[Jinn 10]

Tell me please, what video card would be better for arma 2:

ATI Radeon HD4870 1Gb (for example - Palit Radeon HD 4870 1GB Sonic Dual Edition Sonic; Memory / Core Clock: 3800MHz (950 x 4) / 750 MHz [http://www.palit.biz/main/vgapro.php?id=969] <-link, if it is allowed here on the site...)

Or

GF GTX 260 896MB (more precisely - Palit GeForce GTX260-216SP Sonic; Sonic Memory / Core Clock: 2200MHz / 625 MHz [http://www.palit.biz/main/vgapro.php?id=1070])

?

If you can, with reasons ...

(herewith CPU: Core 2 Duo E6600 3Hhz)

Edited April 21, 2009 by Jinn

[echo1 0]

Can you get your hands on the GTX275 or the HD4890?

[noamles 0]

i bought a gtx 260 216sp about a month ago, main reason was lower temps from the 4870 temps, it gets really hot here in the summer and i dont want a card that reached 90c.

performance wise they are pretty matched up.

[Jinn 10]

Can you get your hands on the GTX275 or the HD4890?

Most likely - no

i bought a gtx 260 216sp about a month ago, main reason was lower temps from the 4870 temps, it gets really hot here in the summer and i dont want a card that reached 90c.

performance wise they are pretty matched up.

in games - much better?

[echo1 0]

They're pretty much even, although IIRC, the GTX260 uses less power and doesnt get as hot, which is a pretty firm bonus.

[stanko 10]

Tell me please, what video card would be better for arma 2:

ATI Radeon HD4870 1Gb (for example - Palit Radeon HD 4870 1GB Sonic Dual Edition Sonic; Memory / Core Clock: 3800MHz (950 x 4) / 750 MHz [http://www.palit.biz/main/vgapro.php?id=969] <-link, if it is allowed here on the site...)

Or

GF GTX 260 896MB (more precisely - Palit GeForce GTX260-216SP Sonic; Sonic Memory / Core Clock: 2200MHz / 625 MHz [http://www.palit.biz/main/vgapro.php?id=1070])

?

If you can, with reasons ...

(herewith CPU: Core 2 Duo E6600 3Hhz)

I'll go for 4870, here's why:

Between HD4870 1GB and GTX 260 896 MB, TOMSHARDWARE says that it's tie. But it depends mostly on the game you'll play and I read on that german preview ( http://armed-assault.de/artikel/arma-2-ersteindruck.html ) that ArmA2 will probably work better on ATI.

Buy what you like the most, both cards are great and differences are minimum.

[echo1 0]

Buy what you like the most, both cards are great and differences are minimum.

Other than the fact that the GTX260 uses less power and doesn't generate as much heat.. Which is quite the advantage for the GTX.

[Pyronick 21]

Other than the fact that the GTX260 uses less power and doesn't generate as much heat.. Which is quite the advantage for the GTX.

That's only interesting if you have a really bad PSU or if you want an ULP device like a notebook or a nettop.

Either way, I'll stick to my trusty philosophy: Only but hardware, when you really need it.

I still recommend waiting until after the demo/game is released AND played.

Only then you know what hardware is best. Patience is a virtue.

[WhoCares 0]

... and I read on that german preview ( http://armed-assault.de/artikel/arma-2-ersteindruck.html ) that ArmA2 will probably work better on ATI.

...

I guess you reference to this

Jan versicherte uns, dass auf seinem heimischen Rechner mit "nur" einer Geforce 8800GT hohe Grafikeinstellungen spielbar seien. Auch auf AMD und ATI Hardware sollte das Spiel diesmal besser funktionieren, eine Präsentation im vergangenen Jahr war ausschließlich auf AMD Hardware durchgeführt worden.

However, what he says is that ArmA2 should run better now on AMD & ATI hardware, and I'd say with that he references to problems that ArmA had in the past with ATI cards. The important word here is "diesmal" = "this time".

Edit: Regarding the original question, I'd probably favour the ATI due to more and faster VRAM - with the vast environment of ArmA2 it can't hurt to load as many textures as fast as possible. But I guess its a marginal advantage...

Edited April 21, 2009 by WhoCares

[echo1 0]

That's only interesting if you have a really bad PSU or if you want an ULP device like a notebook or a nettop.

You think low heat output is irrelevant? :crazy:

And if my graphics card uses less power, I can use that power elsewhere. I would think that is pretty obvious. I mean, if you have two cards that are almost identical functionality wise, why go for the less efficient one?

Edited April 21, 2009 by echo1

[Pyronick 21]

You think low heat output is irrelevant? And if my graphics card uses less power, I can use that power elsewhere. I would think that is pretty obvious.

Low heat output is irrelevant if you aren't in to overclocking or using a crap case with really bad airflow.

These days you can overclock natively hot cards as fine if not better (HD 4890 iirc) than most lower temperature cards.

With the double slot coolers on modern high-end discrete graphics hardware even airflow shouldn't be that of a problem.

The only relevant negative disadvantage I can think of, if said person doesn't have a crap case or diehard overclocker, is the noise emitted by the hardware's cooling system.

My HD4870 1GB can get noisy, but that's mainly due to the manual fan speed override I precautiously set up due to my overclocking practices.

Efficiency is also a relative term in computer hardware, the raw floating point power of the TeraScale architecture by AMD can be of great use with OpenCL (since it's an IEEE-754r derivative) in near future software/games. That said, currently nVidia's CUDA architecture is more interesting.

I don't really know much about semi-conductors and computer hardware even as a tweaker, but I study thermodynamics, exothermics and aerodynamics as automotive engineer so airflow is my thing.

Also due to those studies I use alot of GPGPU hardware for computation fluid dynamics and thermodynamics simulations, and my noisy outdated HD4870 1GB still beats the Tesla C1060 we use at school.

Thermal efficiency is only interesting if the thermal dissipation is bad.

Edited April 21, 2009 by SgtH3nry3

[echo1 0]

Low heat output is irrelevant if you aren't in to overclocking or using a crap case with really bad airflow.

These days you can overclock natively hot cards as fine if not better (HD 4890 iirc) than most lower temperature cards.

With the double slot coolers on modern high-end discrete graphics hardware even airflow shouldn't be that of a problem..

You're still ignoring the fact that if two cards are at the same, or near the same performance level, that the one that requires less fancy cooling and a smaller PSU is probably going to be the better choice. I mean, who wants excess heat in their case just for the sake of it?

The dual-slot cooler argument is a cop-out because with a really hot card the fans flare up alot, forcing you to either replace the fan with an expensive 3rd party model, or having to put up with a computer that sounds like a vacuum cleaner under load. Again, that's fine if the card is really fast. But if there's something that does the same job without the same heat and power strain, all the better.

[Placebo 29]

Debating about GFX card a versus GFX card b belongs in the pinned PC thread in OT, if this thread isn't able to stay on topic it'll be closed.

[POTS 0]

I guess you reference to this

However, what he says is that ArmA2 should run better now on AMD & ATI hardware, and I'd say with that he references to problems that ArmA had in the past with ATI cards. The important word here is "diesmal" = "this time".

Edit: Regarding the original question, I'd probably favour the ATI due to more and faster VRAM - with the vast environment of ArmA2 it can't hurt to load as many textures as fast as possible. But I guess its a marginal advantage...

Well the problem with arma was it doesn't correctly (or the drivers which ever) didn't correctly take advantage of the ddr5. I didn't notice much difference in ddr5.

[POTS 0]

You're still ignoring the fact that if two cards are at the same, or near the same performance level, that the one that requires less fancy cooling and a smaller PSU is probably going to be the better choice. I mean, who wants excess heat in their case just for the sake of it?

The dual-slot cooler argument is a cop-out because with a really hot card the fans flare up alot, forcing you to either replace the fan with an expensive 3rd party model, or having to put up with a computer that sounds like a vacuum cleaner under load. Again, that's fine if the card is really fast. But if there's something that does the same job without the same heat and power strain, all the better.

I have no problem with heat on my hd4870. It was originaly a driver problem when it failed to compensate for increased heat. So now you can just set it manualy in the settings and stays cool all the time, no fan stress what so ever.

[armydude 10]

Any one can comment about this computer that I think I'm buying?I can't build a computer because I don't know how(new to computer gaming) and this is at the top of my budget.http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4138011&CatId=114

[L.T 10]

I really hope BIS can optimize this game to it's true potential, that will allow current technology to run it smoothly. I don't want another Crysis, or ArmA 1 (in terms of optimization) for that matter. A great game that we all pray will run on our rigs....smoothly. :pray:

[Placebo 29]

Any one can comment about this computer that I think I'm buying?I can't build a computer because I don't know how(new to computer gaming) and this is at the top of my budget.http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4138011&CatId=114

The pinned PC thread in OT is for this kind of question.

[quicksand 0]

Any one can comment about this computer that I think I'm buying?I can't build a computer because I don't know how(new to computer gaming) and this is at the top of my budget.http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4138011&CatId=114

I would absolutely stay away from this system.700$ and only 2 gb of ram,a core 2 duo and a 9800gt.And a flashy ready to play Crysis sticker.

While with 700$ you could do wonders if you would build your own system here's what 1 minute of searching pulled through:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229086

Core 2 Quad Q9550(2.83GHz) 4GB DDR2 500GB NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT Windows Vista Home Premium 64-Bit - Retail,which basicly means better everything+mouse+keyboard for just 50$ more.

You should spend your time searching for a product that has a bit more feedback but you shouldn't accept anything less then a Core 2 Quad or Phenom X4,X3 and 4 gb of RAM,it's not fair for your money.

[Placebo 29]

Ok then, so all discussions about what PC to buy can continue here

I tried :(

[Placebo 29]

Let's try again.

Remember, all discussions about what PC/Hardware to buy belong here.

[Alex72 1]

I really hope BIS can optimize this game to it's true potential, that will allow current technology to run it smoothly. I don't want another Crysis, or ArmA 1 (in terms of optimization) for that matter. A great game that we all pray will run on our rigs....smoothly. :pray:

It isnt another Crysis. Just read the forum and thao shall be enlightened. Click the things with text on them (links). Especially ones wich have a title that looks like it has something to do with what your looking for. That is a super tips. You dont have to worry my friend unless you sit with old gear and very little RAM etc. If you (as stated several times all over) have at least a somewhat of todays standard normal rig with at least dual core youll be alright. Maybe not maxed out settings with full view distance plus clogged map with AI and a full scale war "alright", but youll be able to enjoy ARMA2.

;)

PS. There was a bit of sarcasm in there and im sorry for that. Just couldnt stop myself.

Alex

[Crazyfox 0]

Can I ask if anyone, the betatesters or the developers have noticed any diffrence when using ATI cards and Nvidia?

Like does Arma2 run best at a high resolution on a HD4890, a HD4850 x2, or a GTX 285?

There is usually a diffrence between games, so just wondering.

[lapa 1]

Can I ask if anyone, the betatesters or the developers have noticed any diffrence when using ATI cards and Nvidia?

Like does Arma2 run best at a high resolution on a HD4890, a HD4850 x2, or a GTX 285?

There is usually a diffrence between games, so just wondering.

There's also a difference within the game. So while card X might have a better maximum FPS than card Y, card Y might have a better average FPS.

I think that you can't go wrong with any of the current high-end GPUs.

[Yapab 10]

With the game release getting closer and closer can any beta testers or developers comment on the best GPU to max out the game settings at 1680x1050?

Would help everyone prepare for the game, especially if their upgrading the GPU and choosing between GTX285 and GTX295.

In an IGN preview in April they said that the game ren on maximum settings on a 8800GTX, this is quite interesting as this is now a medium performance card, can anyone shed anymore light on this?

Yapa