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

[zeep 3]

Hello. I'd like to know if ARMA2 will be playable on my system (with a reasonable framerate). ARMA1 runs like a dream on it but i fear the worst for ARMA2 reading all the performance issues mentioned everywhere.. *shudder*

Especially this chart gives me the creeps:

It's the worst review i've read yet.

My specs:

E8400@ 3 GHz, 2 GB RAM (low latency), 9600GT 512 MB, XP pro SP2, SB Audigy1 or mobo sound

[Azamato 0]

again

P4 3.0ghz (2cpu) HT

9600gt

2GB Ddr2

1024/768 dx9 no AA no AF on medium/low settings?

[zoog 18]

Good News ^^

I will buy a Phenom X4 955 and a 4890. I think it will be ok, according to your feedback

thanks for your feedback

Yeah it's sweet. I just got the x4 955 and the 4870 1GB and I currently run almost everything on high (except post processing and some other thing) with viewdistance 10km, fillrate 150% @ 1600x1200. Works good (still have to test some more with lots of enemies/tanks etc. though!) and sometimes it freezes for a milisecond when I quickly turn my head 180 degrees looking at a tree line or something. So I still need to tweak here and there. All in all I'm very happy with my system.

[cartier90 0]

Are performance increases to be expected in forthcoming patches ?, I have a I7 920 / 4 GB RAM GTS250 - I want 30 FPS min on medium settings in a reasonably heavy battle...

[maddogx 13]

Are performance increases to be expected in forthcoming patches ?, I have a I7 920 / 4 GB RAM GTS250 - I want 30 FPS min on medium settings in a reasonably heavy battle...

There were already some minor performance improvements in the first patch.

Looking back at ArmA1, several patches improved performance drastically there, so I think it's a pretty safe bet. :)

[kklownboy 43]

Are performance increases to be expected in forthcoming patches ?, I have a I7 920 / 4 GB RAM GTS250 - I want 30 FPS min on medium settings in a reasonably heavy battle...

Well you bought the lowend of I7 line you have the minimum ram for vista, and your card is slow if a 512mb version but lowmid level if 1GB version. Sooo your system is basicly a new low to mid spec Computer.

[galzohar 31]

I am curious why when I have a system that is above the recommended system I cant play ArmA2 at its full potential.

Since the dawn of PC gaming this is more or less how it worked:

Minimum requirements: Required for the game to load, and run the game slow. Since games started to have graphic settings, this also started to mean absolute minimum graphics, and then still usually run slow.

Recommended requirements: What you would normally consider bare minimum requirements. That is, generally what it takes to run the game with barely reasonable performance at absolute minimum graphics.

Then what you need to actually max out the game is never listed, both because it's hard to stand behind such a statement and because you'll scare people off when you list an extremely expensive system, especially if you want to cover your own !@# by listing a system that will DEFINITELY run the game, making it even higher-end and higher price. Not to mention, there are also a lot of things that can be maxed out in a game, it's not at all unreasonable to expect to be unable to max out all of them.

I don't know any game that ever published system requirements for maxing out it's graphics and AI and still running perfectly smooth.

Recommended requirements are just that - recommended minimum requirements. Minimum is something they list so more people will buy the game...

In the case of this game, you can pretty much ignore what they say about processor requirements, since they don't say anything about the performance, only number of cores, and we all know number of cores is far from being the most important thing in the CPU.

[Ez3kiel 10]

Ok if you were me, what would you buy between those 3 rigs (its a config specially for arma2). I will play on 1600*1050

1. i7 920 3GB DDR3 Asus P6T + Saphire 4890Toxic (approx 1200€ with screen)

2. Q9550 4GB DDR2 Asus P5Q Pro + Saphire 4890Toxic (approx 1100€ with screen)

3. Phenom 955 BE 4GB DDR3 MB GB + Saphire 4890Toxic (approx 1100€ with screen)

4. E8500 4GB DDR2 Asus P5Q Pro + Saphire 4890Toxic (approx 1000€ with screen)

I have to order soon

I finally ordered #2 (with a nice case to forgot the i7 :j:).

Thanx for your help. Hope i made the good choice.

[Azamato 0]

comon guys

P4 3.0ghz (2cpu) HT

9600gt

2GB Ddr2

1024/768 dx9 no AA no AF on medium/low settings?

[cartier90 0]

Klown - Id hardly call my system 'low' end - 4 GB is not the min for Vista , card is 1GB and runs GTA4 on max at 40 FPS - a game that rapes most comps...

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Hi there

After buying the game and trying to run it on my lousy computer, I finally gave up and bought this mid-end computer instead. I'm interested in knowing if I can be able to play the game smoothly - highest resolution isn't required though: Just gameplay :D. Regards:

Intel Dual Core E5200 2.50GHz 2MB S-775

ASUS P5KPL-AM/SE Intel G31 S-775

2GB DDR2 PC6400 800MHz 1.Part

512MB Inno3D GeF 9800GT DDR3 PCI-E

500GB Maxtor 7200rpm SATA2

Point Of View Turbine Alulite u/PSU

500W Inter-Tech SL-500 120mm

Standard Køler

Silent opgradering Step 1 25dB

22x Samsung DVD/RW DL Sort SATA

[Wiciu 0]

Hi. I usually don't ask such questions, but after i read this thread i need to ask it :p

Does anyone have similar computer?

Athlon 64 X2 4450e (2.3GHz)

2Gb RAM

GF9800GTX

How Arma2 perform on it?

Edited June 8, 2009 by Wiciu

[lucifer(ados) 10]

comon guys

P4 3.0ghz (2cpu) HT

9600gt

2GB Ddr2

1024/768 dx9 no AA no AF on medium/low settings?

The game is not well optimized, with that hardware you will get more than 35 fps in any city or forest if ypu put only your character in the editor, with losses of frame rate to 20+ some times.

But the problem will be playing the campaign and when you put some squads in a mission and start to combat. You will get only -20 fps.

My specs:

AMD x2 2,01 Ghz

Gforce 9600 GT 512 mb

4 gb ram (800)

vista 64

maybe you get some fps more but nothing extraordinary, the game is a CPu killer when the IA becomes active, that is a fact.

Regard from spain

[galzohar 31]

Highest resolution is a requirement for good gameplay, as lower resolutions reduce the distance at which you can ID targets (that is, before they become pixeled). You can lower other graphic settings though, and play the game with your system fine. How low they'll have to be is hard to say, but all on medium probably won't happen from what I've seen.

[OneLunG 10]

If you want an "official" reply, take your problems to customer support. The devs do browse the forums occasionally and do post in some threads, but if they had the time to track down every single complaint and answer them directly, they would never get any work done.

As for the performance problems, OneLunG, you're suffering from the misconception that fairly new hardware entitles you to max out your gfx settings. That may be the case with many games, but it's not gonna happen with Arma2. The minimal requirements you quoted show the bare minimum of hardware that is needed to run the game. The recommended hardware for Arma2 means nothing more than that the game will defitely be playable with that system. It says absolutely nothing about what kind of settings will be reasonable.

While the game is definitely lacking some optimization for performance, modern systems can still run it very well, if you take the time to do some tweaking, or just search the forums for optimal gfx settings. I run the game with most settings on very high, object details on medium, postprocessing on low, 100% fillrate and 2.5km view distance. That's good enough for me.

op⋅ti⋅mum  /ˈɒptəməm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [op-tuh-muhm] Show IPA noun, plural -ma  /-mə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-muh] Show IPA , -mums, adjective

–noun 1. the best or most favorable point, degree, amount, etc., as of temperature, light, and moisture for the growth or reproduction of an organism.

2. the greatest degree or best result obtained or obtainable under specific conditions.

–adjective 3. most favorable or desirable; best: optimum conditions.

I dont necessarily expect my system to run the game perfectly, but when I meet the recommended system requirements, and in fact exceed them and the game runs poorly, and looks poorly because I have to set the settings lower just to be able to play it? I consinder that kind of an issue.

And as I know I am not the only one with this particular issue, that is why I am posting here, as I feel the community deserves an issue on the matter as well...

[Litos 10]

Get a proper cooling system, OC your processor to 3.2 and you should be: with high details in 1680 x 1050!

I have about the same setup, except my processor is a bit worse (E6550 2.33 ghz). I already tried to ask here like 3 times, but anyway, if I have 6 fans I suppose that's a proper cooling system, but can OCing MY processor be risky? I really don't like to fiddle with this stuff, when I do it breaks down (I think it's just me). Hardware just doesn't like me.

[Azamato 0]

Highest resolution is a requirement for good gameplay, as lower resolutions reduce the distance at which you can ID targets (that is, before they become pixeled). You can lower other graphic settings though, and play the game with your system fine. How low they'll have to be is hard to say, but all on medium probably won't happen from what I've seen.

was you talking to me? if so, then will i get playable fps when i put shadows and water to low ? or off and some of the rest on medium and low. ?

[Pyronick 21]

I have about the same setup, except my processor is a bit worse (E6550 2.33 ghz). I already tried to ask here like 3 times, but anyway, if I have 6 fans I suppose that's a proper cooling system, but can OCing MY processor be risky? I really don't like to fiddle with this stuff, when I do it breaks down (I think it's just me). Hardware just doesn't like me.

You can if you push it real bad.

But hardware these days have protection everywhere, it's almost impossible to really kill your CPU.

There is a temperature threshold which shuts down your PC when the components get too hot.

And if you pushed your CPU too far the POST check will crash, usually reverting your BIOS settings to default.

You almost can't fail. The only problem is overheating which causes your computer to shutdown as a safety measure.

But then you know you have to clock it down a little.

[Litos 10]

You can if you push it real bad.

But hardware these days have protection everywhere, it's almost impossible to really kill your CPU.

There is a temperature threshold which shuts down your PC when the components get too hot.

And if you pushed your CPU too far the POST check will crash, usually reverting your BIOS settings to default.

You almost can't fail. The only problem is overheating which causes your computer to shutdown as a safety measure.

But then you know you have to clock it down a little.

So what's the best thing to do in my situation? I still have no idea if I can run it on high settings without having to OC anything. If I can, I think I'll be fine. Do you have an idea?

[Pyronick 21]

So what's the best thing to do in my situation? I still have no idea if I can run it on high settings without having to OC anything. If I can, I think I'll be fine. Do you have an idea?

You won't get far with that E6550 as it's an entry level dual-core.

You'll need at least a more mid/highend-ish processor. We're talking about the E8xxx series or Q6xxx.

[Nemesis_wales 0]

y not wai ttill u get the 505 release b 4spending money? its probaly gonna come with a new version/patch, which might solve some performance issues, so u would of wasted money

[moosenoodles 0]

You won't get far with that E6550 as it's an entry level dual-core.

You'll need at least a more mid/highend-ish processor. We're talking about the E8xxx series or Q6xxx.

Using a E6600 at 3.3ghz arma only hits between 50-75% on use. Yeah newer duals are nicer for the heat and pwr requirements but heck ive not found a game yet that the E6600 end of the market cant handle and for the most part will even hold its own against a q6600..

If the game wont use the cores in the right way or more than 2 anyhow then anything spare is redundant and would normaly be put to use for applications other than gaming..

Its that minor as far as ive noticed that the Q6600 I bought is still sitting in its box as ive not needed to use it yet :D

[Supernova 0]

y not wai ttill u get the 505 release b 4spending money? its probaly gonna come with a new version/patch, which might solve some performance issues, so u would of wasted money

It's going to come with Patch 1.01 which only offers minor performance improvements from what I have noticed. Regardless I will be also picking up the 505 Release to compare with my German release.

[Nemesis_wales 0]

It's going to come with Patch 1.01 which only offers minor performance improvements from what I have noticed. Regardless I will be also picking up the 505 Release to compare with my German release.

do u k now that for sure? i havent seen it anywhere?

[Supernova 0]

do u k now that for sure? i havent seen it anywhere?

Well from what I have heard by the time ARMA 2 for Europe/US is released there will be a Patch version 1.02 for the German version available and possibly also for the English language Arma 2 so it's fair to say that the 505 release will come with Patch 1.01 built into the game already. I read something about that on this forum here. Sorry I cannot link back to where I read it there is too much topics and info here on the forums.