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

[POTS 0]

Has there been anybody thats gotten crossfire to work? And if so, how good is the performance boost?

[Philll 10]

Obviously being the people that developed the game, can you please provide me with the equipment you guys use to run the game at a satisfactory state, and what settings you use? I have access to a vast amount of PC gear and am pretty keen on getting it to run right.

Thank you.

[Peonza 10]

Im guessing my bottlenecks are the CPU and the cheap Hdd.

No, your bottleneck is exactly crappy GPU

[echo1 0]

POTS: Some have, some haven't. Either way, unless you have a 30" monitor, you're not going to need it.

@Orlok - Your CPU is alright, and your hard drive doesn't really have anything to do with performance except with loading times (and it doesnt matter that it runs at SATA I speeds because most traditional hard drives don't actually make use of SATA II's speeds), but as has been said, you need a new graphics card.

550W is more than enough for most people. And the last time I checked, Dell uses good PSUs (made by FSP I think) so that isnt an issue either.

HD4890 1GB is a better option for ArmA2 then the H4870 X2 2GB DDR5 ?

Correct, considering the problem with dual-GPU cards (not only in ArmA II but in general).

[POTS 0]

POTS: Some have, some haven't. Either way, unless you have a 30" monitor, you're not going to need it.

@Orlok - Your CPU is alright, and your hard drive doesn't really have anything to do with performance except with loading times (and it doesnt matter that it runs at SATA I speeds because most traditional hard drives don't actually make use of SATA II's speeds), but as has been said, you need a new graphics card.

550W is more than enough for most people. And the last time I checked, Dell uses good PSUs (made by FSP I think) so that isnt an issue either.

Correct, considering the problem with dual-GPU cards (not only in ArmA II but in general).

No offense ch123, but I'm kind of sick of people saying crossfire and sli is only good for super high res. We've already proven that arma2 requires a lot of power to run, even at low res.

[bravo 6 0]

so are you telling me that the,

HD4890 1GB is a better option for ArmA2 then the H4870 X2 2GB DDR5 ?

Yes. But only for arma 2 or games that don't take advantage of dual cards.

I only intent to have ArmA2 and maybe MS Flight Simulator X, have no interest in any other games.

Can someone please show and explain with some ArmA2 in game pictures so i have an idea as comparison with these too video cards?

as strange as it looks this is important to my decision, because i can save almost 200€ if i choose the,

XFX HD 4890 1GB DDR5 BLACK EDITION PCI-E instead of the ASUS H4870 X2 / HTDI 2GB DDR5 PCI-E

All i want is to have ArmA2 at its TOP Beauty!

Another question, maybe to devs (?):

Will ArmA2 take advantage of dual cards in the future, future patch? Or won't?

ps- This is important for me because I got sick of playing my loved games (OPF, ArmA) in low and very low settings. I want to completely change this for ArmA2, so please help me choose the best option.

[echo1 0]

Unless you have a 30" monitor, the HD4890 will most likely be fast enough for you.

No offense ch123, but I'm kind of sick of people saying crossfire and sli is only good for super high res. We've already proven that arma2 requires a lot of power to run, even at low res.

Yeah, problem is that the game's patchy support for SLI/Crossfire (and the same can be said of a lot of games) means that it isn't really worth the risk unless you have to run it at really high res, which kinda invalidates your point. And people who have a decent quad core and something like a HD4890 seem to have few problems, so again, what's the point?

Edited June 20, 2009 by echo1

[POTS 0]

I only intent to have ArmA2 and maybe MS Flight Simulator X, have no interest in any other games.

Can someone please show and explain with some ArmA2 in game pictures so i have an idea as comparison with these too video cards?

as strange as it looks this is important to my decision, because i can save almost 200€ if i choose the,

XFX HD 4890 1GB DDR5 BLACK EDITION PCI-E instead of the ASUS H4870 X2 / HTDI 2GB DDR5 PCI-E

All i want is to have ArmA2 at its TOP Beauty!

Another question, maybe to devs (?):

Will ArmA2 take advantage of dual cards in the future, future patch? Or won't?

ps- This is important for me because I got sick of playing my loved games (OPF, ArmA) in low and very low settings. I want to completely change this for ArmA2, so please help me choose the best option.

What i'm going to do is:

A. HD 4870 runs good by itself: Get another HD 4870 and crossfire motherboard and wait tell arma2 fully supports crossfire (or if it already does)

B. HD 4870 runs ok: Get an HD 4890 and temporarly crossfire it with my HD 4870 (or run it by itself if ArmA2 doesn't support crossfire), then get another HD 4890 later for cards matching.

C. HD 4870 runs bad: Get a HD 4890 1ghz (full power lol) and sell my HD 4870 and pick up a crossfire motherboard for later crossfire.

But i'm looking at where things go as top single gpu's change from time to time with patches. Dual gpu's are pointless as crossfire/sli always outperform it.

[MPBR 10]

I only intent to have ArmA2 and maybe MS Flight Simulator X, have no interest in any other games.

Can someone please show and explain with some ArmA2 in game pictures so i have an idea as comparison with these too video cards?

as strange as it looks this is important to my decision, because i can save almost 200€ if i choose the,

XFX HD 4890 1GB DDR5 BLACK EDITION PCI-E instead of the ASUS H4870 X2 / HTDI 2GB DDR5 PCI-E

All i want is to have ArmA2 at its TOP Beauty!

Another question, maybe to devs (?):

Will ArmA2 take advantage of dual cards in the future, future patch? Or won't?

ps- This is important for me because I got sick of playing my loved games (OPF, ArmA) in low and very low settings. I want to completely change this for ArmA2, so please help me choose the best option.

I expect that SLi - X-Fire issues will be addressed and improved upon over time. This may also require work from ATI on drivers as well etc.

In game pictures, while ok as a comparason, really will not tell the true difference. Accecptable speed vs quality is a subjective on a personal level. Some may love lots of eye candy and 25-30 fps.. other may preferr less pretty gfx's and 50-60+ fps.

perhaps a fraps comparasion might help more.

As for other games... Well, having been down the road of getting hardware that only liked a few games (ones I swore I would only be playing) and I have been caught when attention does change to another title unexpectatly.

Rule of thumb for PC upgrades, get the fastest you can afford...(depending on product lifecycle etc)

[POTS 0]

Unless you have a 30" monitor, the HD4890 will most likely be fast enough for you.

Yeah, problem is that the game's patchy support for SLI/Crossfire (and the same can be said of a lot of games) means that it isn't really worth the risk unless you have to run it at really high res, which kinda invalidates your point. And people who have a decent quad core and something like a HD4890 seem to have few problems, so again, what's the point?

The point is that I'm going to be upgrading anyway this summer and I need the most performance for my money. I've got the options listed so far.

EDIT: And yes, it would be nice to have something I can upgrade my monitor on.

[echo1 0]

then get another HD 4890 later for cards matching.

If it's not an immeadiate priority, then why not just replace the one card with a faster one down the line? That way, you don't have the power/heat problems, and the issues associated with SLI, and you get whatever new features the next gen cards have (eg. next generation of cards will be DX11)

[POTS 0]

If it's not an immeadiate priority, then why not just replace the one card with a faster one down the line? That way, you don't have the power/heat problems, and the issues associated with SLI, and you get whatever new features the next gen cards have (eg. next generation of cards will be DX11)

Well, that will depend on how better the new cards perform. If crossfiring another card brings better performance than a 1 card upgrade then i'll just get another of the same one (probably cheaper due to new cards).

[Minkey 10]

There are benchmarks about two pages back of CPUs (and they do it using a faster graphics card than the one you have). The one at the very bottom of the pile is faster than the one you have. Even if the patches could improve performance by 2-3x, your CPU would still be far too slow to run the game... I'm afraid you'll need to replace your 5 year old CPU

I looked into it some and i think i will be fine tbh, hopeing for 1280X1024 or something like that and low/medium settings. Dont think i made it clear enough that i have a Pentium dual cpu @ 3.4 Ghz which from what i can make out has performance close to athlon X2 4400.

[echo1 0]

Well, one you go from one generation of cards to another (except for when nVidia rebrands their old cards as next generation cards like they did with the 9- series) you generally get a performance increase of 2x, so that pretty much renders the extra investment you put into SLI pointless. That's the way I look at it anyway.

i have a Pentium dual cpu

Oh, you said you had a Pentium 4. If you have a Pentium D you're probably alright.

[MulleDK19 21]

Buy roadrunner. It's only 133 million dollars.

[Shadow NX 1]

Would be intresting what BIS runs the game on for sure especially as ArmA2 isnt like all other games and when picking hardware for it things really arent easy and much research has to be done.

So far it seems to me the Intel CPUs especially the i7 series seem to run it lot better.

On GPUs the differences seem not so big, however it seems to me the last Catalysts were all not so great for A2, at least on my stock HD4870 its so so but maybe i rather blame this on the 512MB it has.

What also would be intresting is on which hardware where the promo and fraction videos made?

[UltraSur76 10]

The only game I used for my PC was for ProEvo (because of all the great mods)...however ARMA 2 seems to have pretty good community also (with mods, etc..). I downloaded the game last nite and I'm getting about 10 FPS, if anyone can give me suggestions would be much appreciated:

- Dell XPS 400

- Pentium ® D CPU 3.00ghz

- 2.99 ghz, 2.00gb of ram

- xfx 8600 gt 512mb

[echo1 0]

Would be intresting what BIS runs the game on for sure especially as ArmA2 isnt like all other games and when picking hardware for it things really arent easy and much research has to be done.

I think they used Core 2 Quads, HD4870s and 4/8GB RAM.

- Dell XPS 400

- Pentium ® D CPU 3.00ghz

- 2.99 ghz, 2.00gb of ram

- xfx 8600 gt 512mb

The graphics card is below the minimum requirement, so there's no guarantee that it will run at all.

[UltraSur76 10]

I think they used Core 2 Quads, HD4870s and 4/8GB RAM.

The graphics card is below the minimum requirement, so there's no guarantee that it will run at all.

It's running....not so great though (as mentioned before like 10 fps @1280 X 1024). Would an upgrade of the graphic card to the trick or anything else that I should add?

[Azamato 0]

lower the settings and ffs lower the resolution :D

and also your cpu isnt too good

[echo1 0]

Sorry, I misread your post and thought you were asking whether it would run. And yes, upgrading the video card would help. However, your CPU is also quite slow. Here are some CPU benchmarks with all of them using the HD4890 graphics card. Your Pentium D CPU would probably perform somewhere in between the bottom two... You might want to think about a CPU/Motherboard upgrade along with a new graphics card.

Have you tried the 1.02 patch?

[Bigtnaples 10]

It's running....not so great though (as mentioned before like 10 fps @1280 X 1024). Would an upgrade of the graphic card to the trick or anything else that I should add?

Your entire rig is heavily outdated, however a nice graphics card in there and you should be able to play it on medium settings at a good FPS.

[Minkey 10]

It's running....not so great though (as mentioned before like 10 fps @1280 X 1024). Would an upgrade of the graphic card to the trick or anything else that I should add?

Nice to see you can get 10fps with that lowly HW my cpu a gpu are litteraly the next ones up from what you have, gives plenty of hope to me especilay if turning the blur off will give me a few extra frames. This game dosent appear to be the gpu and cpu killer some of us less fortunate are dreading.

[UltraSur76 10]

Thanks for the response guys....my rig is about 5 yrs. old (I kind of figure that would be the case). ch_123, I haven't tried the new patch yet (but I don't think it'll make much difference). Azamato ffs....thanks for the tip :D.

I think I'll try a new graphics card and see how it goes.

[stainer 0]

Hi guys, got Arma 2 through the post today, desperately hoping that my system would be able to cope with it...unfortunately not. At least not well enough for me to enjoy it.

Here's what I've got:

Intel Core 6600 2CPU @ 2.40GHz

2GB RAM

2x NVIDIA Geforce 7950GX2 512mb

Windows XP

What's my best bet to increase performance? I know my GFX card is a bit lame, are there any suggestions for decent ones that aren't too expensive? I'm not looking to max out the settings just have it running nicely on medium/high.

Cheers