Azamato 0 Posted June 18, 2009 Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090206-1234)System Manufacturer: Dell Inc. System Model: Dell DXP051 BIOS: Phoenix ROM BIOS PLUS Version 1.10 A03 Processor: Intel® Pentium® 4 CPU 3.20GHz (2 CPUs) Memory: 2046MB RAM Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 If i chance my videocard to a XFX GeForce 9600GT is there a chance that I can play arma 2 on normal and maybe some things on low? i got the same exept 3.0ghz and i do have a 9600gt would like to know the results Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davidoffo 10 Posted June 18, 2009 i got the same exept 3.0ghz and i do have a 9600gt would like to know the results You didnt tried it yet? :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 18, 2009 Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090206-1234)System Manufacturer: Dell Inc. System Model: Dell DXP051 BIOS: Phoenix ROM BIOS PLUS Version 1.10 A03 Processor: Intel® Pentium® 4 CPU 3.20GHz (2 CPUs) Memory: 2046MB RAM Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 If i chance my videocard to a XFX GeForce 9600GT is there a chance that I can play arma 2 on normal and maybe some things on low? The CPU is pretty slow. Despite what the minimum requirements say, running it on a single-core CPU is a bad idea. The benchmarks linked by Walker show a single core that's faster than yours (Athlon 64 4000) being completely raped by the game. Some people who have 9600GTs say that performance is sluggish unless you turn down the settings. Depends on what res you run it at etc. where would a C2Q Q8200 2.33 GHz and a C2Q Q8300 2.5 GHz fit in? The Q8200 and Q8300 are a tiny bit faster than the Q6600, but for all intents and purposes the Q6600 would be a good indication of what you could expect from it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davidoffo 10 Posted June 18, 2009 So I cant play this game on my pc even if I buy a new videocard? :( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GenghisKhan 10 Posted June 18, 2009 Hi allThe PC Games Hardware Benchmarks For ArmA II CPU and Graphics card are now also available in english. http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/ http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/ Maybe this could be appended to the first post in this thread; so people do not have to trawl through all the posts for a simple answer to the relative capabilities of different CPU or GPU? Kind Regards walker How can this be possible? According to this, unless you have an i7 the game is basically unplayable. And with an I7, AVG FPS is still only in 30's. Either these benchmarks are bogus, or there is something seriously wrong with Arma 2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azamato 0 Posted June 18, 2009 The CPU is pretty slow. Despite what the minimum requirements say, running it on a single-core CPU is a bad idea. The benchmarks linked by Walker show a single core that's faster than yours (Athlon 64 4000) being completely raped by the game.Some people who have 9600GTs say that performance is sluggish unless you turn down the settings. Depends on what res you run it at etc. The Q8200 and Q8300 are a tiny bit faster than the Q6600, but for all intents and purposes the Q6600 would be a good indication of what you could expect from it. How about with a 1024/768 resolution? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CinnamonPun 10 Posted June 18, 2009 it does seem like the benchmarks are off. If you look at the game settings they used and translate a few, they had a few things on very high. I dunno if this is why the game is so hard to run for them, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UKWF-Mental 10 Posted June 18, 2009 My game arrived today,just thought id let people know how im getting on. My Setup: AMD3 720, ATi 4890 1GB, 4GB 6400 Ram, In single player, im getting 60-70 fps np at all settings at High(not Highest) running at 1280 by 1024. In multiplayer with 16+ people playing, not so nice, I get around 20-25 fps, even reducing the settings doesnt seem to make much difference. tried this on various servers. But when i go on an empty server i can get my 50-60 fps back again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow NX 1 Posted June 18, 2009 So I cant play this game on my pc even if I buy a new videocard? :( To me it seems in some missions ArmA2 is even more CPU hungry than GPU hungry. In other words the new card surely will improve things and you can play with settings till it runs ok for you... however in missions with much Ai and as mentioned before especially in missions where the AI makes use of the medic modules things get nasty with slower CPUs. I use a quadcore Phenom with 2,5Ghz and a HD4870 512MB, not great but also not bad hardware and i can tell you that A2 either runs very fluid ( Utes missions, Chernarus missions outside of towns with not as many AI scripts ) or extremely bad ( Missions in Urban or industrial areas, missions with many AI and AI scripts ). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azamato 0 Posted June 18, 2009 Is there anyone with a single core who can share his ArmA 2 experience? :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simon C 0 Posted June 18, 2009 Is there anyone with a single core who can share his ArmA 2 experience? :D I do seem to recall there being one person who had to run the game at a resolution of 340x280 or something like that. So yeah, pretty bad performance on a single core. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 18, 2009 Is there anyone with a single core who can share his ArmA 2 experience? :D Look at those benchmarks on the last page. See the CPU at the bottom of the pile? That's faster than your Pentium 4... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted June 18, 2009 Problems with drivers is an idea that people have about 64bit OSes because of the problems with the initial 64bit Windows and early 64 bit Linux releases. Nowadays, there are little to no driver issues except with some very old hardware. There's no real reason to have 32bit anymore, especially if you have more than 3GB of RAM. Unfortunately not true, I have a rather nice Belkin gigabit USB network adaptor that I couldn't use with XP 64 and can't use with Windows 7 64 due to there not being any drivers :( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) If it's current hardware, there should be 64 drivers for it, at least for Vista (which should be able to work with Windows 7). I hate to sound like I'm making bad excuses like some kind of M$ fanboy (I'm quite the opposite), but if Belkin isn't making 64 bit drivers, that's their fault really. I don't really have much time for Belkin after it took me about two months to get a fix for a dodgy router of theirs I got... Out of curiosity, is the adaptor an Ethernet to USB, or USB to Ethernet? If it's the former, it couldn't actually handle a 1Gbps connection. Hope they don't tell people otherwise Edited June 18, 2009 by echo1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Minkey 10 Posted June 19, 2009 yet to see my cpu mentioned here, which has me slightly concerned weather ill be able to play this game at a decent frame rate? anyone got same dated hardware as me and able to play decently? P4 D 345 @ 3.4GHz 8800 GTS 320Mb 2Gb OCZ 800Mhz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
moosenoodles 0 Posted June 19, 2009 If it's current hardware, there should be 64 drivers for it, at least for Vista (which should be able to work with Windows 7). I hate to sound like I'm making bad excuses like some kind of M$ fanboy (I'm quite the opposite), but if Belkin isn't making 64 bit drivers, that's their fault really. I don't really have much time for Belkin after it took me about two months to get a fix for a dodgy router of theirs I got...Out of curiosity, is the adaptor an Ethernet to USB, or USB to Ethernet? If it's the former, it couldn't actually handle a 1Gbps connection. Hope they don't tell people otherwise Belkin are a pile of shite, I used theyre stuff a long time ago and had nothing but issues with drivers, will never and have never touched another belkin product again. Ive had my netgear DG834T for ages and the thing is 10 fold better than any belkin shite ive ever seen lol.. Shockingly bad items for shockingly high prices... Stay clear is my view. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bohemia 10 Posted June 19, 2009 AMD Athlon 3800+ X2 64 @ 2.0GHZ Nvidia 8500 GT 512 MB 4 GB RAM --- Can I run? If I cant what can I upgrade to play the game with 60 players online on very nice quality. I'm cheap so not like a $500.00 graphx card Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raznor09 10 Posted June 19, 2009 AMD Athlon 3800+ X2 64 @ 2.0GHZNvidia 8500 GT 512 MB 4 GB RAM --- Can I run? If I cant what can I upgrade to play the game with 60 players online on very nice quality. I'm cheap so not like a $500.00 graphx card well unfortunely u will prob need a $500 video card, or at least $500 worth of gpu, cpu, ram Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pmc foxhound 10 Posted June 19, 2009 all of my specs are in between the minimum and recommended except for my graphics card so would a Sapphire Radeon HD 3850 512MB DDR3 256-bit AGP card run this game with medium settings and no shadows? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Overwatch 10 Posted June 19, 2009 all of my specs are in between the minimum and recommended except for my graphics card so would a Sapphire Radeon HD 3850 512MB DDR3 256-bit AGP card run this game with medium settings and no shadows? I'm running on medium with better specs. a) don't look as good as it can be but decent (who wants decent though??), they need to do some serious optimization b) the FPS isn't great, which again will be resolved by optimization. You might technically be able to run medium settings (not sure you will) but it will be unplayable in terms of frames/sec imo (with this patch of course). Wow I've used brackets in this post (alot) more than wanted to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 19, 2009 well unfortunely u will prob need a $500 video card Best Graphics card for ArmA II is the HD4890 which is about $200-220. :) Sapphire Radeon HD 3850 512MB DDR3 256-bit AGP I doubt it. And if you still have an AGP system, I doubt your CPU would be fast enough unless you've got a fast Athlon 64 X2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) AMD Athlon 3800+ X2 64 @ 2.0GHZNvidia 8500 GT 512 MB 4 GB RAM --- Can I run? If I cant what can I upgrade to play the game with 60 players online on very nice quality. I'm cheap so not like a $500.00 graphx card I have a slightly faster system (thx, ch_123), Athlon64 X2 4200+ @2.6GHz, 2GB RAM @DDR333 :(, Nvidia 7900GS 512MB DDR3 (256bit, 515/710MHz) @1280x1024. I can't say that ArmA2 runs very good. Even on Utes I get hardly over 20FPS, max. 37 60 when looking at the sky. But expecting that beforehand, I currently stick with the armory and the editor and don't bother with the campaign, many AIs or online play. Upgrading this machine doesn't make sense anymore - A8N SLi Deluxe with 939 socket, so no useful CPU upgrade which I haven't already reached by OC'ing (actually above already), RAM limited to DDR, and a fast GPU alone will always be limited by the other components. And I guess that's exactly the problem you might run into as well. E.g. a new 300$ GFX will not help as it will be hamstrung by the CPU. ArmA2 is equally CPU and GFX demanding, so upgrading just one of them has little benefit. If you already have an AM2+ socket board you might try a new set of CPU and GFX, e.g. Phenom 2 X4 920 and a Radeon 4870 1GB or a GTX260. All these are in the range of ~200-250$. With an AM2 socket the fastest CPU might be something like an Athlon X2 6000+ for <90$. In that case a cheaper GFX might do as well, but it will not do wonders... I am planning to buy a competely new system in the next weeks, assembling it right now, looking for the right components and probably waiting until Vista OEM is sold with a Win7 upgrade (supposed to come end of June). Alas, right now I am in a range of 1100-1350€ (incl. OS, keyboard, mouse, case, cooler, fans, PSU, Drives, but not the monitor that will also be replaced), so that's way beyond your limit. Edit: After disabling VSYNC my FPS increased, at least while looking at the sky :p. Together with Pauliesss changes I got about 2 FPS more. Edited June 19, 2009 by WhoCares Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 19, 2009 i have a fairly similar system, athlon x2 4200+ @2.6ghz, 2gb ram @ddr333 :(, nvidia 7900gs 512mb @1280x1024. 7900gs > 8500gt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Minkey 10 Posted June 19, 2009 yet to see my cpu mentioned here, which has me slightly concerned weather ill be able to play this game at a decent frame rate? anyone got same dated hardware as me and able to play decently?P4 D 345 @ 3.4GHz 8800 GTS 320Mb 2Gb OCZ 800Mhz So am i gonna be ok? Just scrapes through then minimum specs i spose? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) I'm afraid it will probably run at a crawl, even with low settings. Single core P4 is too slow. Edited June 19, 2009 by echo1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
