echo1 0 Posted June 2, 2009 The CPU is kinda slow, but it should be able to run it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skeptic 10 Posted June 2, 2009 I'm about to buy my new rig but i 'm hesitating between ATI-AMD (Phenom 955 BE - 4890) Intel - nVidia (C2D E8400 - GTX 280). The nVidia seems to run well A2, but i didn't find feedback on Amd-ATI platform Both CPUs are about equal in gaming. E8400 works with DDR2 only and it's dirt cheap. PII 955 BE can fit either AM2+ with DDR2 or AM3 which is DDR3 but more expensive. Graphics wise GTX280 is a bit faster but much more expensive. I'd go for 4870/4890. 4G of RAM is enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 2, 2009 E8400 works with DDR2 only and it's dirt cheap.PII 955 BE can fit either AM2+ with DDR2 or AM3 which is DDR3 but more expensive. An E8400 can be used with DDR3 too if you have the right motherboard. No idea why you'd want to, as DDR2 is much cheaper and there isn't an awful lot of difference in performance. But the Phenom II is a much better choice there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skeptic 10 Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition BoxMSI K9A2GM-F V3, Sockel AM2+, mATX, PCIe EVGA e-Geforce GTX 260 55nm, 896MB, PCI-Express 2 x 2048MB GEIL Value PC2-6400 DDR2-800 CL5 Would this system probably pass plays for liquid [High] (mass battles) Should be fine on most at high, shadow med/low, fillrate 100%, 2km view distance. Edited June 2, 2009 by Skeptic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
papoose244 10 Posted June 2, 2009 Hi guys does the game run better on windows 7 64 then vista 64? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kavoven 4 Posted June 2, 2009 I don't know if this has been posted before nor if someone is experiencing problems with SLI, but someone wrote in the comments on armed-assault.de that he pushed ArmA2 FPS with SLI by renaming the arma2.exe into crysis.exe. (And other people confirmed that) I guess this includes ArmA2 into some kind of SLI profile in the nvidia drivers. Just wanted to pass that info :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cartier90 0 Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Right, I have a I7920 @ 2.67 + GTS250 and 4 GB ram - I need 30 FPS under most circumstances - at least at 1280 res on a 22 inch screen. Surely this is reasonable hardware - I can max out GTA4 for christs sake ! Two other questions - Will the 505 release perform better ( just educated guesses ppl ) ? , if not, having never played ARMA - only OFPR - is there much potential in the future for patches to improve ingame performance ? - one of my pet , PET hates is slow framerates.... Edited June 2, 2009 by cartier90 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 2, 2009 Well, it will be released with a later patch than is current, possibly the 1.02 version. And why are you so worried about performance when you know you have a fast PC, and haven't ran the game yet? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cartier90 0 Posted June 2, 2009 fair point 123, im nt one of those infuriating ppl who post gd specs just to get a reaction, its because im genuinely concerned over some ppls experiences of gameplay wih quads performing worse than dual core! , guess im jst a worry wart ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 3, 2009 Well, a fast dual core is going to outdo a slow quad core. So you'll get faster performance out of something like a E8600 3.3Ghz dual core, than a 2.3Ghz Q8200 quad core, or an original Phenom. But as the Core i7 is a top of the line CPU, you won't have any CPU-based limitations. Your graphics card is pretty mediocre compared with your CPU. Don't get me wrong, the GTS250 is fast enough, but if I was building a Core i7 based system, I would have splashed out on a high end card like the GTX275 or HD4890. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cartier90 0 Posted June 3, 2009 nah, I took lazy option, just bought system whole. I could change the card no problem...but hadnt thought I needed too after playing the resource hog GTA4 on max. Ah well, time will tell...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doomguy64 10 Posted June 3, 2009 Hey guys thought i might post my specs here, tell me what you think, im aiming for max settings either at 1280x720 or 1680x1050 with 30-40 fps minimum. Processor: Intel Q6600 2.4ghz (running @ 3.2ghz) Memory: Dominator TWIN2X4096 4GB (2x2GB) Hard Drive: W.D Caviar Black 1TB / W.D 500gb SATA Video Card: XFX HD 4890 1GB Monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 206BW(Digital) Sound Card: X-FI Titanium Pro OS :Windows XP Professional SP3 Motherboard: Asus P5E X38 Computer Case: Antec 900 Cheers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted June 3, 2009 Hey guys thought i might post my specs here, tell me what you think, im aiming for max settings either at 1280x720 or 1680x1050 with 30-40 fps minimum.Processor: Intel Q6600 2.4ghz (running @ 3.2ghz) Memory: Dominator TWIN2X4096 4GB (2x2GB) Hard Drive: W.D Caviar Black 1TB / W.D 500gb SATA Video Card: XFX HD 4890 1GB Monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 206BW(Digital) Sound Card: X-FI Titanium Pro OS :Windows XP Professional SP3 Motherboard: Asus P5E X38 Computer Case: Antec 900 Cheers Don't expect fully maxed out settings on a game like Arma2. It's not yet fully optimized and even then it would take a hell of a system to max out things like view distance. With your system you can expect to set view distance to about 3km, textures, shadows and anisotrophic filtering to very high (max.). Maybe postprocessing too if you like that sort of thing, but I would recommend keeping it on low for less blur. One setting that really causes fps-drops in large cities is the model detail setting. Setting that to low will give you an uber performance boost. And no, it's not like low model detail in other games that makes stuff look like shit. See here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doomguy64 10 Posted June 3, 2009 Don't expect fully maxed out settings on a game like Arma2. It's not yet fully optimized and even then it would take a hell of a system to max out things like view distance.With your system you can expect to set view distance to about 3km, textures, shadows and anisotrophic filtering to very high (max.). Maybe postprocessing too if you like that sort of thing, but I would recommend keeping it on low for less blur. One setting that really causes fps-drops in large cities is the model detail setting. Setting that to low will give you an uber performance boost. And no, it's not like low model detail in other games that makes stuff look like shit. See here. Thanks for the fast reply, yeah forgot about the view distance. 3km sounds great! I looked and those comparson screens and it looks great still at very low, just bit rough around the edges but anti aliasing could probably smooth that out along with all the motion blur and such. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted June 3, 2009 Very good friend of mine who's sadly out of work (what's new in the UK financial climate? :() has £80 at the absolute maximum and needs a gfx card, any recommendations of what and from where? I know the answer is often "if you add £ more you can get bla bla", £80 is his absolute maximum and lower is better as he has to save up for that :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted June 3, 2009 Thanks for the fast reply, yeah forgot about the view distance. 3km sounds great! I looked and those comparson screens and it looks great still at very low, just bit rough around the edges but anti aliasing could probably smooth that out along with all the motion blur and such. Unfortunately there is no conventional antialiasing yet, only the fillrate optimizer. Setting that to 200% gives you the equivalent of 4x MSAA, but also a massive performance drop with high resolutions. When I play on 1920x1080 I keep it to 100% for best fps, but when making YouTube vids on 1280x720 I can set it to 200% with little framerate loss. It really depends on your personal preference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr71mb0 10 Posted June 3, 2009 you can pick up an ATI 4850 512 for about £85 and they are pretty good out of the box. And with a bit of overclocking should do well. ATI's are supposed to be good with ARMA2. Don't expect miracles but with Game engine updates via future patches etc. For £85 you get a lot of card for your money. A 4870 would be a better option but a 512MB version would set you back approx £100 and a 1GB version about £135. As always, the longer you can wait, the cheaper they will get and the more you could get for your money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr71mb0 10 Posted June 3, 2009 I will add, that right now, even with the higher end cards such as the GTX285, performance is patchy. This will almost certainly be fixed with patches and driver updates down the line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted June 3, 2009 Very good friend of mine who's sadly out of work (what's new in the UK financial climate? :() has £80 at the absolute maximum and needs a gfx card, any recommendations of what and from where? I know the answer is often "if you add £ more you can get bla bla", £80 is his absolute maximum and lower is better as he has to save up for that :) An NVidia GeForce 9800GT or ATI HD4850 may be available for that price, although they seem to be around 120-130€ here in Germany, which would be about 100 pounds. Alternatively a 9600GT or HD4830 would do, they seem to be around 80 quid. Not sure where to buy in the UK though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=Spetsnaz= 0 Posted June 3, 2009 (edited) Very good friend of mine who's sadly out of work (what's new in the UK financial climate? :() has £80 at the absolute maximum and needs a gfx card, any recommendations of what and from where? I know the answer is often "if you add £ more you can get bla bla", £80 is his absolute maximum and lower is better as he has to save up for that :) Oops i just realised was in pounds! Lets See... Benchmark list: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/ 80.00 Pounds = 132.285 USD HIS Hightech H485FN512P Radeon HD 4850 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - Retail http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161259 Cost:69.5588 GBP or $114.99 USD This is the card i got and i paid $265 NZD including GST and Shipping, which i recieve torrmorow ^ ^, its only a few dollars off his price range so i don't think he would mind paying a bit extra??, ive read you can get decent framerates on high at around 30-35 fps. EVGA 512-P3-N841-AR GeForce 8800GTS (G92) 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card - Retail http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130325 Cost:$109.99 USD or 66.4999 GBP A decent card in my opinion, still a bit old but one of my clanmates plays the game on high at 25-30fps no problems. MSI N9800GT-T2D512-OC V2 GeForce 9800 GT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card - Retail http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127406 Cost:99.99 USD or 60.4539 GBP Don't know much about the card but i hear it runs arma 2 pretty well. ASUS EAH4770/HTDI/512MD5 Radeon HD 4770 512MB 128-bit DDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card - Retail http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121317 Cost:99.99 USD or 60.4539 GBP Slightly lower performance than the 4850 but when overclocked its up there with the 4850! Galaxy 25SFF6HMUEXI GeForce GTS 250 512MB 256-bit DDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card - Retail http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814162029 Cost:109.99 USD or 66.4999 GBP Don't know anything about the card but has good reviews and benchmark is between the 4850 and 4770! SAPPHIRE 100258-1GHDMI Radeon HD 4850 1GB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - Retail http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102837 Cost: $124.99 USD or 75.5859 GBP A 4850 but with 1GB of Video Card Ram XFX HD-483X-YDFC Radeon HD 4830 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - Retail http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150336 Cost:$104.99 USD or 63.5010 GBP A 4830 512mb Card.. i don't know alot about these.. Edited June 3, 2009 by =Spetsnaz= Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sam75 0 Posted June 3, 2009 i am using vista64 with 8Go of ddr, i thought arma2 for x64 would take full avantage of my ram, actually while playing it uses "only" 650Mo is that normal ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=Spetsnaz= 0 Posted June 3, 2009 i am using vista64 with 8Go of ddr, i thought arma2 for x64 would take full avantage of my ram, actually while playing it uses "only" 650Mo is that normal ? Could be cause you have too much ram, sometimes its bad when you have too much ram!, 8gb causes problems with the game, try lower it to 4gb and see how it runs! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sam75 0 Posted June 3, 2009 Could be cause you have too much ram, sometimes its bad when you have too much ram!, 8gb causes problems with the game, try lower it to 4gb and see how it runs! actually i don't have problems, i just want to know why arma2 is not using more than 650Mo of ram ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted June 3, 2009 Awesome, thanks for all the replies so far :) SAPPHIRE 100258-1GHDMI Radeon HD 4850 1GB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - Retail http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102837 Cost: $124.99 USD or 75.5859 GBP A 4850 but with 1GB of Video Card Ram 1gb 4850 for £75? Very nice indeed :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 3, 2009 (edited) actually i don't have problems, i just want to know why arma2 is not using more than 650Mo of ram ? Maybe because that's all the RAM it needs? I don't understand what the problem is, do you want it to waste your system resources unnecessarily? Edited June 3, 2009 by echo1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
