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

[maddogx 13]

As a general answer to the people asking whether their rig will run the game:

About CPUs: Generally the faster the better. A 2.0GHz quad or a 2.2GHz dual core is definitely enough, but if you want to raise settings like object detail to normal you'll need at least 3.0GHz.

About GFX cards: As a general rule, fast single GPU cards are the safest bet for Arma2. Some people have allegedly been able to get dual-GPU cards and SLi/Crossfire setups to work properly, but it seems to be very difficult. The 8800/9800 GT cards seem to be the threshold for medium-high settings. The GTX variants are better though, obviously. 8600/9600 GT/GS cards are enough for low settings (maybe some settings on medium with the GTs) - but don't worry, the game still looks great on low. If you want to play on high-very high settings, a GTX285 or HD4890 along with a fast CPU are definitely a must.

About RAM: I'd say 2GB DDR2 is minimum, 4GB is optimal. Again, the faster the better, but you probably won't notice any slowdowns with 667Mhz.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

As a general answer to the people asking whether their rig will run the game:

About CPUs: Generally the faster the better. A 2.0GHz quad or a 2.2GHz dual core is definitely enough, but if you want to raise settings like object detail to normal you'll need at least 3.0GHz.

About GFX cards: As a general rule, fast single GPU cards are the safest bet for Arma2. Some people have allegedly been able to get dual-GPU cards and SLi/Crossfire setups to work properly, but it seems to be very difficult. The 8800/9800 GT cards seem to be the threshold for medium-high settings. The GTX variants are better though, obviously. 8600/9600 GT/GS cards are enough for low settings (maybe some settings on medium with the GTs) - but don't worry, the game still looks great on low. If you want to play on high-very high settings, a GTX285 or HD4890 along with a fast CPU are definitely a must.

About RAM: I'd say 2GB DDR2 is minimum, 4GB is optimal. Again, the faster the better, but you probably won't notice any slowdowns with 667Mhz.

Thanks alot this cleared up alot for me!!

but lets say i run the game at a lower res, that increases more fps right? does it somehow also lower cpu usage or not?

it seems alot of people run at 1680x1280 res for the game and only get 20-30 fps, but if i plan to run on 1024x768 res on my 17 Inch LCD Monitor? I should expect better fps ? correct?

Edited June 15, 2009 by =Spetsnaz=

[SnakePliskin 10]

I ordered 4870X2 card couple of days ago, will i have problems running Arma 2 with it considering its a twin card?

Regards SnakePliskin

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

I ordered 4870X2 card couple of days ago, will i have problems running Arma 2 with it considering its a twin card?

Regards SnakePliskin

yes cause arma 2 isn't optimized very well or not at all for dual cards at the moment

[Jorge.PT 10]

I ordered 4870X2 card couple of days ago, will i have problems running Arma 2 with it considering its a twin card?

Regards SnakePliskin

I think that the problem with, twincards, crossfire, and SLI, can be solved by putting the -winxp command (in vista and windows 7), or by renaming the exe to crysis for NVIDIA cards.

Don't forget to check if your PSU is able to handle that card.

[Peonza 10]

Heya,

I currently have this setup , e6600 oc'ed @3000mhz , 4GB DDR2 ram and 8800 GTS 320 MB..

what kind of best hardware improve i could do for ARMA 2? Maybe exchange video card with Radeon 4890 , would CPU bottleneck too much then?

Thanks

[maddogx 13]

Heya,

I currently have this setup , e6600 oc'ed @3000mhz , 4GB DDR2 ram and 8800 GTS 320 MB..

what kind of best hardware improve i could do for ARMA 2? Maybe exchange video card with Radeon 4890 , would CPU bottleneck too much then?

Thanks

I think a HD4890 will be fairly okay with the 3.0GHz dual core, but in the long run you'll probably be better off upgrading the CPU aswell, preferrably to something you can overclock to 3.2-3.6GHz. A quad core if your motherboard (and your budget) allows. :)

[SnakePliskin 10]

I just canceled my order for the 4870X2 card and have now ordered the 4890 singel card instead, that card could also be delivered faster then the other one.

I think i will wait for next gen twin cards before buying one.

Thanks for the heads upp on this :)

Regards SnakePliskin

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Thanks alot this cleared up alot for me!!

but lets say i run the game at a lower res, that increases more fps right? does it somehow also lower cpu usage or not?

it seems alot of people run at 1680x1280 res for the game and only get 20-30 fps, but if i plan to run on 1024x768 res on my 17 Inch LCD Monitor? I should expect better fps ? correct?

can you guys please answer my question ^ :)

[echo1 0]

8600/9600 GT/GS

I wouldnt throw the 8600GT in with the 9600GT. The 8600GT was barely fast enough to run ArmA I. I think ArmA II would kill it...

I currently have this setup , e6600 oc'ed @3000mhz , 4GB DDR2 ram and 8800 GTS 320 MB..

what kind of best hardware improve i could do for ARMA 2? Maybe exchange video card with Radeon 4890 , would CPU bottleneck too much then?

The CPU is probably alright, there's a load of people around here running E8400/E8600 which arent that much fast than what you've got. As recommended before, I'd ditch the graphics card for a HD4890 or GTX275.

but lets say i run the game at a lower res, that increases more fps right? does it somehow also lower cpu usage or not?

It will definitely lower FPS. It's effect on CPU usage depends on how ArmA II uses the CPU... But I'd say it would affect the graphics card usage moreso than CPU useage.

Btw - don't bump your own posts to complain that they haven't been answered. Especially if you only posted the original post less than an hour ago. It looks rather stupid

[Peonza 10]

can you guys please answer my question ^ :)

No , I think more FPS actualy increase CPU usage.. Because GPU and CPU do calculations paralely (CPU usualy works with shitload of loops, checks, physics and other stuff)

so if you have more FPS, CPU has to do those tasks more frequent too , and at some kind of point it start to bottleneck.. Still I have no idea how much CPU requiring ARMA 2 is , i guess alot :)

[maddogx 13]

but lets say i run the game at a lower res, that increases more fps right? does it somehow also lower cpu usage or not?

it seems alot of people run at 1680x1280 res for the game and only get 20-30 fps, but if i plan to run on 1024x768 res on my 17 Inch LCD Monitor? I should expect better fps ? correct?

That depends largely on your gfx card and CPU-GPU bandwidth. See here. If your card and/or bandwidth is bottlenecking at high resolutions, lowering the resolution will remedy the problem.

For me, the difference between 1920x1080 and 1280x720 is not that noticable. Maybe 5-10% tops.

[Potatomasher 0]

can you guys please answer my question ^ :)

I just tried this. Normally i use 1280 x 1024 res with my 17" LCD. Now i lowered it to 1024 x 768. fps increased by 1. :)

Looks ugly and runs 1 fps better so not worth it.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

I just tried this. Normally i use 1280 x 1024 res with my 17" LCD. Now i lowered it to 1024 x 768. fps increased by 1. :)

Looks ugly and runs 1 fps better so not worth it.

oh ok no problem

[GabethePilot 10]

LOW/NORMAL

[iM]http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7766/armaa2gpus1280normal.png[/img]

HIGH/VERY HIGH

[iM]http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4699/armaa2gpus1280max.png[/img]

Is this a joke ?

An i7 at 3.5Ghz with a GTX 260 running at 1280x1024 with medium settings, is unplayable....<25 fps........

Crikey, another game designed to be unplayable until 2012....my you're gonna sell loads ! I've just cancelled my Preorder...I'll buy it in around 5 years when it's playable.......probably pick it up for $5 by then......

I can play Crisis on high setting with 4xAA at 16x10 at a minimum of 40 fps........WTF ? !

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

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

So the game is NOT optimised for multpile cores is it ?

So, why advertise recommended CPU as a Quad core, when a 8-series core 2 duo at 4Ghz will obliterate a Q6600 ?

Edited June 15, 2009 by Placebo

[Zipper5 74]

Lol, man, that was one website. People have already said many times not to trust those results, as people are getting much higher results on the same PCs. You canceled your pre-order after one piece of evidence was presented to the contrary... :rolleyes:

[maddogx 13]

@GabethePilot,

look at my specs in my sig.

I can run the game on 3km view distance, 100% fillrate and everything except object detail on very high. Others can go even higher.

Btw. you registered just for that rant? Nice trolling.

[SnakePliskin 10]

Im going to DL the game from Germany today. Could anyone be so kind to show a link were i can patch it to English ver? :)

Thanks

[XrProdigy98 10]

Here you go i will show you wat i got

Motherboard: nForce 750i SLi

CPU: Quad Core 9400 @2.66ghz

Ram: 3072mb (3 Gigs DDR20

GFX Card: Nvidia Geforce GTX

Monitor: 24in Dell

OS: Vista 32bit

Edited June 15, 2009 by XrProdigy98

[Azamato 0]

Being that the demo isnt released yet.. i ask here again :)

P4 HT 3.0ghz

9600gt

2GB Ram

1154/864 how will i play it on medium/low can i get 20/25 fps? wich is enough for me.. not to enjoy but to bare.

[Potatomasher 0]

Yes that test is full of shit. They use the fillrate 150-200. That kills the performance no matter what kind of monster PC you have.

100% fillrate is just ok until proper AA patch comes.

---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------

Being that the demo isnt released yet.. i ask here again :)

P4 HT 3.0ghz

9600gt

2GB Ram

1154/864 how will i play it on medium/low can i get 20/25 fps? wich is enough for me.. not to enjoy but to bare.

With low details i'm sure you get that 20-30 fps. Maybe even normal details.

[Azamato 0]

Yes that test is full of shit. They use the fillrate 150-200. That kills the performance no matter what kind of monster PC you have.

100% fillrate is just ok until proper AA patch comes.

---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------

With low details i'm sure you get that 20-30 fps. Maybe even normal details.

Shadows and Water can be on Low, but rest (noticeble things) medium also no AA and AF and the extra blur stuff.

playing DX9

Watcha think

[Razorman 10]

Being that the demo isnt released yet.. i ask here again :)

P4 HT 3.0ghz

9600gt

2GB Ram

1154/864 how will i play it on medium/low can i get 20/25 fps? wich is enough for me.. not to enjoy but to bare.

10-15fps on low, the other guy was being way too generous, good luck.

[moosenoodles 0]

Shadows and Water can be on Low, but rest (noticeble things) medium also no AA and AF and the extra blur stuff.

playing DX9

Watcha think

Water?

[ChevyVanDude 1]

Well, didn't read the whole topic, but I guess:

Asus P43 motherboard

with

Intel Quad Core Q6600 2.6 (standard)

and

Asus HD4850 512 MB (standard)

together with

4 GB of RAM and Windows Vista Ultimate SP1

would do the trick (on high settings).