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

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Note the fillrate. It's @ 150%.... should be much smoother with 100% as it is known to be an FPS killer.

Make sure you read the settings well and interpret accordingly ;)

Oh ok i got a bit worried, sorry for my lack of interpretation heh. But say if i run it at resoultion of 1024x768, and i wanna play at medium-high would i get a decent fps? is this possible? I get Near Max on ArmA if i make AA medium,Shadow Low or Medium, everything else high at a 25-60fps.

However all other games ive played run max everything no problems. However have'nt tried crysis and i hear people get Medium-High with that card..

[Horus 83]

LOW/NORMAL

HIGH/VERY HIGH

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

I still don't understand :/

[diveplane 0]

Hi all

Various beta testers and developers have said many times that speed of multi core processor is more important than the number of cores. Not so much how big it is but what you do with it.

A Dual core with a higher clock speed will beat a quad core with less speed. I dare say if the clock speeds are close then the quad core will win. But if we are talking 3.29 Dual core versus a 2.5 Quad core, the Dual core is going to win.

Kind Regards walker

yep thats correct.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

i am still confused where my HIS HD ATi Radeon 3850 512MB PCI-E stands at for ArmA2?, i run everything max on ArmA but have shadows low and AA low.. and distance set at 1000m. However i am still confused.., does anyone run any similar cards to mine or maybe slightly better or lower? where would i see my card run ArmA 2 at?

[Mr_Tea 0]

I use an HD3600 512MB AGP Card, and can play ArmA 1 with everything on very high, and 3000 meters view distance.

Now that is me that is confused on how bad your card perform at all.:confused:

All drivers up to date, and ArmA patched to 1.14 at least?

[sidhellfire 0]

I use an HD3600 512MB AGP Card, and can play ArmA 1 with everything on very high, and 3000 meters view distance.

Now that is me that is confused on how bad your card perform at all.:confused:

All drivers up to date, and ArmA patched to 1.14 at least?

Erm, that's quite impossible. On HD4850 I was unable to set everything on v.high. I bet even you've set it in options like that, game chooses lower res textures for you.

[Soulfly 10]

I feel like I wasted $1500!! LOL!!

Oh well.

i7 920

gigibyte x58 uda5

corsair 1600 6g

2ea GTX 275 w/ 1792mb ea. =3.5 gb vram

cooler master v8

corsair PSU 850w

1tb 7200rpm 32mb cache seagate

oh, I'm sure I can play other games other than ArmA2. So no worries.

[Mr_Tea 0]

Erm, that's quite impossible. On HD4850 I was unable to set everything on v.high. I bet even you've set it in options like that, game chooses lower res textures for you.

No, it only reduces terrain detail once the view distance is higher than 6000 ? meters.

Let`s nor forget that i run an old AGP machine, with system memory is used to give more video ram, and the drivers are different too.

btw. I use the 1.16 beta patch.;)

[mr_centipede 31]

are we still talking about arma 2?

[Soulfly 10]

are we still talking about arma 2?

june 19th from what i heard.

[Siddern 10]

i've got a laptop with these specs:

Dual core 2.0 ghz

Nvidia Gforce 8600m GS

2 Gig ram

Do you think i'll be able to run the game on my laptop?

P.s: Sorry for bad english :P

[echo1 0]

It might manage to run on low settings, but don't expect too much from it.

[11aTony 0]

I have Q9450, GB 9800GTX, 4GB RAM which resolves in mostly on medium and some on low, vdistance on 10000 and HD res (1680x1050). It runs very smooth now, I just had to get the right settings. So my taste is pleased and it runs smooth.

[Taconic 0]

I haven't been keeping up much on hardware for the last few years, so I'm not quite sure how my system stacks up. When I built it, it was pretty hefty and I haven't needed to upgrade it. Unfortunately, I have yet to see reports of anybody running it on a system similar to mine.

Specs:

Dual 3.06GHz Xeons (Socket 604, 512KB/1MB L2/L3)

2048MB RAM (PC2700)

GeForce 7800GS 256MB

Any idea on what to expect? It seems I might eek in a bit over the min specs, but I'm not really sure how a pair of P4 cored Xeons stacks up against one of the newer dual core chips.

I'll buy it as soon as it comes out regardless, but it will be nice to know if it will run. Thanks.

[A fishegg 10]

I have a core 2 duo/ nvidia geforce 9600m gt/ 4 gb ddr3. How will it do ?

[wazandy 10]

Saved up all year and picked this rig up a few weeks ago:

Intel CORE i7 920

Asus P6T X58 DDR3

Kingston 6GB 1333MHz DDR3 Triple Channel Kit

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium 64-Bit

Geforce GTX 295

Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme Heatsink + 1366 Bolt-thru Kit + 120mm Fan

Audigy Fatal1ty Titanium

Samsung SyncMaster 226BW (2MS response.)

What do you reckon for AA2.. Ultra high? Hope so for what this cost me!

Edited June 2, 2009 by wazandy

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

ok so i decided to order a HiS ATi Radeon 4850 512MB PCI-E Card.. to replace my 9 month old 3850.

so will this run much better now at high-very high settings? at 1024x768.

AMD Athlon Windsor AM2 6000+ 3.29ghz Dual Core

4GB Patroit DDR2 800Mhz ( Now 667Mhz )

Gigabyte GA-M56S-S3 Motherboard

HIS HD ATi Radeon 4850 512MB PCI-E

Thermaltake Silent Purepower 560W

300GB SATA HDD

Windows XP Proffesional SP3 32bit

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

I haven't been keeping up much on hardware for the last few years, so I'm not quite sure how my system stacks up. When I built it, it was pretty hefty and I haven't needed to upgrade it. Unfortunately, I have yet to see reports of anybody running it on a system similar to mine.

Specs:

Dual 3.06GHz Xeons (Socket 604, 512KB/1MB L2/L3)

2048MB RAM (PC2700)

GeForce 7800GS 256MB

Any idea on what to expect? It seems I might eek in a bit over the min specs, but I'm not really sure how a pair of P4 cored Xeons stacks up against one of the newer dual core chips.

I'll buy it as soon as it comes out regardless, but it will be nice to know if it will run. Thanks.

upgrade your GFX card then we will see..

[dreday 1]

Saved up all year and picked this rig up a few weeks ago:

Intel CORE i7 920

Asus P6T X58 DDR3

Kingston 6GB 1333MHz DDR3 Triple Channel Kit

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium 64-Bit

Geforce GTX 295

Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme Heatsink + 1366 Bolt-thru Kit + 120mm Fan

Audigy Fatal1ty Titanium

Samsung SyncMaster 226BW (2MS response.)

What do you reckon for AA2.. Ultra high? Hope so for what this cost me!

I have a very similar setup except that my GPU is ATI 4890; you definitely will not get it to be playable on "Ultra High", but it will run well on high and it would still look great!

Peace,

DreDay

[mant3z 1]

Now when the game is released in Germany I can ask you guys.

Actually I've got:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6400+ (2 CPUs), ~3.2GHz

Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe (2 PCI, 1 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x4, 2 PCI-E x16, 4 DDR2 DIMM, Audio, Dual Gigabit LAN, IEEE-1394)

2048MB RAM OCZ @800MHz

ATI Radeon HD 4870 Series

iiyama ProLite E2607WS (26")

SB X-Fi Audio [9C00] Extreme Gamer

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7100) (7100.winmain_win7rc.090421-1700)

Computer Case:

AERO COOL ZERO DEGREE (no overheat problem at all, 5xExtra 120mm fans)

With this hardware I can play ArmA1 in 1920 x 1200 almost all setting on HIGH (textures are normal) with good framerate (never less then 25)

I also want play ArmA2 in 1920 x 1200 on high, what should I change?

I'm planing to change memory to 4G @1033 and graphic card to single card HD4870X2 but I'm not sure about processor, is it enough for a great Warfare battle?

Hope you guys give me some honest suggestions ;)

[lucifer(ados) 10]

My computer:

AMD x2 3800+ 2ghz

4 GB ram DDR2 (800)

nvidia 9600GT 512Mb

The game in my opinion is a computer killer, I got -30 fps all time, when a combat begins it falls under 20.

Settings all on normal, very low, except postprocesing that is in very high.

DV 1200m

100%

Bohemia has to increase the performance at any cost, its imposible that the game runs as bad as it does... I think is a problem of the game itself.

I´ve seen some statistics of a intel I7 with a 285GTX runin only at 40 fps...

So bad customization of the software is the problem with this game for me, not our pc´s. Or they (bohemia) think that we should play arma 2 with Deep blue, hall 9000 or some nice nasa computers??

And pay 50 € for the game plus 1000€ more to make a new computer to play 25-40 fps in medium settings??? :mad:

[Pirate. 0]

My computer:

AMD x2 3800+ 2ghz

4 GB ram DDR2 (800)

nvidia 9600GT 512Mb

The game in my opinion is a computer killer, I got -30 fps all time, when a combat begins it falls under 20.

Settings all on normal, very low, except postprocesing that is in very high.

DV 1200m

100%

Bohemia has to increase the performance at any cost, its imposible that the game runs as bad as it does... I think is a problem of the game itself.

I´ve seen some statistics of a intel I7 with a 285GTX runin only at 40 fps...

So bad customization of the software is the problem with this game for me, not our pc´s. Or they (bohemia) think that we should play arma 2 with Deep blue, hall 9000 or some nice nasa computers??

And pay 50 € for the game plus 1000€ more to make a new computer to play 25-40 fps in medium settings??? :mad:

Askl yourself this: when was your hardware first released?

After that, dare and complain about ArmA2 performance, considering the scale of the simulation, which it is.

I understand that people complained about Armed Assault performance when it came out. Even with new hardware it was a challenge to get 60fps on normal settings. (normal means "today's standard")

But ArmA II supposedly runs smoother than Armed Assault on the same hardware on the same settings. Adding to that the fact that hardware has gotten increasingly faster since Armed Assault came out, there is really no reason to complain about anything other than the size of your wallet or your concerns for the environment.

I think I made my point. This is not a flame but rather a wake up shout.

[Razorman 10]

Agreed.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Now when the game is released in Germany I can ask you guys.

Actually I've got:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6400+ (2 CPUs), ~3.2GHz

Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe (2 PCI, 1 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x4, 2 PCI-E x16, 4 DDR2 DIMM, Audio, Dual Gigabit LAN, IEEE-1394)

2048MB RAM OCZ @800MHz

ATI Radeon HD 4870 Series

iiyama ProLite E2607WS (26")

SB X-Fi Audio [9C00] Extreme Gamer

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7100) (7100.winmain_win7rc.090421-1700)

Computer Case:

AERO COOL ZERO DEGREE (no overheat problem at all, 5xExtra 120mm fans)

With this hardware I can play ArmA1 in 1920 x 1200 almost all setting on HIGH (textures are normal) with good framerate (never less then 25)

I also want play ArmA2 in 1920 x 1200 on high, what should I change?

I'm planing to change memory to 4G @1033 and graphic card to single card HD4870X2 but I'm not sure about processor, is it enough for a great Warfare battle?

Hope you guys give me some honest suggestions ;)

nothing your all set! you will be able to run it on high-very high settings just not max. you probably get 25-40 fps