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

[hamis 0]

@ LAGGY.

Yes,it improves fps somewhat.You have to google for tutorials with your comp name or motherboard model.;)

[VICKERS 10]

Q6600

2.4ghz

8600 Geforce.

Ive got resolution 800x600 fill rate 100% and every setting on very low and i get an FOS of 25-35?? whats wrong? any pointers ?

[Horus 83]

EDIT:

I wound up getting an Antec 650W power supply and the Antec nine hundred case. Got a Sony DVD/CD ROM reader and Samsung SATA HDD. I can't wait, should all be here in the next few days.

Take that case,i have1 to, and look this 2 PSU CORSAIR CMPSU-750TX or CORSAIR CMPSU-850TX

[Mafiozo 10]

Any ArmA 2 Experiences with a 8800 GTS 320mb?

I'm equipped with a 2.4ghz Q6600 and 4gb of ram, but I'm afraid my GFX card will limit my experience. not expecting HIGH, but medium is well expected.

however I'm impressed that alot of the performance problems in the game right now are related to optimization so 1.03 will be the answer to all our questions I hope.

[Bigtnaples 10]

It shouldn't need special support. Just set the sound to 7.1.

It is USB driver software, surround won't work in all games, for instance half-life 2 or battlefield you just get stereo sound. But left 4 dead, tf2, brothers in arms ect do.

Can anyone that has them, or preferably a dev, clear this up?

[GLeek 10]

Q6600

2.4ghz

8600 Geforce.

Ive got resolution 800x600 fill rate 100% and every setting on very low and i get an FOS of 25-35?? whats wrong? any pointers ?

gforce8600 is the shit

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

It’s quite daunting reading all these posts trying to work out a system that will run A2 at reasonable level.

I was hoping it would be a simple task after all the dramas with A1. Doesn’t seem to be that way at the moment.

I remembered back from an old post in 2008 by Maruk and the system he used for reviewing A2. My idea is that surely the CEO would run a system that played A2 at a decent level, hopefully at medium/high settings with a decent frame rate.

His system was:

Core2Duo 6750 2.66 GHz

GF8800GT/512

2 GB RAM

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=69154&highlight=gold+old

After reading this thread I’m left wondering did the above system actually performed well or was it just used for screenshots.

This system can't have performed very well as we all know. Maybe you can take some nice screenshots when you pause the game go to the menu and set everything to high and then switch back to take the screens but I doubt that this system was able to run ArmA smooth even on lower settings.

I don't want to sound ungrateful or what ever because I think ArmA2 is quite ok so far (considering it's "pushed" release f.e.) but it's somehow a little strange that all of the BIS games had and still have such dramatically performance problems even on top of the notch systems. Sorting this out should have been the priority point on the to do list before anything else.

What makes it even more strange is that nobody from BIS is commenting on that issue. The only thing we'll get are some confusing comments by some mods that we're unable to set up our systems correctly which isn't the case at least for most of us. That's simply disrespectful against some of the biggest fans and most loyal customers.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

This system can't have performed very well as we all know. Maybe you can take some nice screenshots when you pause the game go to the menu and set everything to high and then switch back to take the screens but I doubt that this system was able to run ArmA smooth even on lower settings.

I don't want to sound ungrateful or what ever because I think ArmA2 is quite ok so far (considering it's "pushed" release f.e.) but it's somehow a little strange that all of the BIS games had and still have such dramatically performance problems even on top of the notch systems. Sorting this out should have been the priority point on the to do list before anything else.

What makes it even more strange is that nobody from BIS is commenting on that issue. The only thing we'll get are some confusing comments by some mods that we're unable to set up our systems correctly which isn't the case at least for most of us. That's simply disrespectful against some of the biggest fans and most loyal customers.

agree...

[buble 0]

I have the same 8800GTS 320 + e7300 - after armaholic optimizations runs very smooth 1650x1050 - xp32 2GB OCed 3.8Ghz

I feel that videocard is not that important CPU clock is!

For me the framerate difference between stock e7300 2.6 and current 3.8Ghz almost 2 times!!

Any ArmA 2 Experiences with a 8800 GTS 320mb?

I'm equipped with a 2.4ghz Q6600 and 4gb of ram, but I'm afraid my GFX card will limit my experience. not expecting HIGH, but medium is well expected.

however I'm impressed that alot of the performance problems in the game right now are related to optimization so 1.03 will be the answer to all our questions I hope.

[Azamato 0]

is an E6300 2.8ghz with 9600gt 2gb ram any good for arma?

[mad rabbit 0]

Hi.

First I want to thank all the sites that were scaring people, that they won`t be able to play this GREAT game, incredible approach really ! :D

Got my hands on the German edition + updated it to 1.01, tried, and was pretty surprised, despite the HW recommendation reviews because I have a:

System : Alienware m15x [Laptop !]

CPU: Intel® Core2 Duo CPU T9300 @ 2.50GHz [6MB L2 Cache]

Memory: 2.50GB DDR2

Chipset: Quanta Computer Mobile PM965/GM965/GL960

GPU: 512MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8800M GTX

HDD: 120GB Sata 7200 RPM [+500GB in Smart Bay]

OS: Windows Vista® Home Premium SP1 32bit

... and I am playing till now with this with no graphic issues on res.1920x1200 in High details [except shadows on normal] ... and with visibility of `2000`.

Don`t know what`s going on, but thank you very much to the BIS team for great mobile system `optimalization`, Cheers guys ! :cool: :D

This is good news for me, thanks for posting. I have a Clevo M860TU which has the same architecture as your Alienware. However, I have 4GB of RAM and a 9800m rather than the 8800m. Looks like I'll be fine performance wise :D

I've got the same system Olasee except for 4GB DDR2 instead of 2.5GB. My ArmA2 order just got dispatched today and I was concerned I'd invested in a game I wouldn't be able to run, so thankyou for your post!

[guttersnipe 1]

The only thing we'll get are some confusing comments by some mods that we're unable to set up our systems correctly which isn't the case at least for most of us. That's simply disrespectful against some of the biggest fans and most loyal customers.

totally agree. I've been PC gaming for 20+ years, and the suggestion that I'm not configuring my system properly, updating my drivers, defragging etc etc is more than a little irrirating - and I don't believe those test specs were even used for anything other than screenies.....

[Mafiozo 10]

I have the same 8800GTS 320 + e7300 - after armaholic optimizations runs very smooth 1650x1050 - xp32 2GB OCed 3.8Ghz

I feel that videocard is not that important CPU clock is!

For me the framerate difference between stock e7300 2.6 and current 3.8Ghz almost 2 times!!

Thanks for the reply - will be happy to get a link to that optimization guide in PM.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Mafiozo

[Bohemia 10]

PowerColor AX4870 512MB (graphx card)

Intel Pentium E5200 2.5GHz Wolfdale (cpu)

MSI P43 Neo3-F LGA (motherboard)

Crucial 2GB DDR2 SDRAM 800 (ram)

---------

Can I play a all out 60 player online battle? Smooth? Details? Quality

[echo1 0]

gforce8600 is the shit

Dunno about you, but where Im from, saying that something is "the shit" means that it's very good. A more accurate description of the 8600GT is that it is just "shit".

Vickers: Get a Radeon HD4870/4890 into that system and it will run very smoothly.

[drkalinium 10]

i have Q6600 stock 4GB ram and 2x8800 GTS 512 and play 1680x1050 all high no aa 1600m view distance and get 20-30 should i get better? i was expecting to max it out even with a greatly reduced view distance considering i can play crysis maxed out same res with mods that hit performance smoother than this.

[Porter_ 10]

i have Q6600 stock 4GB ram and 2x8800 GTS 512 and play 1680x1050 all high no aa 1600m view distance and get 20-30 should i get better? i was expecting to max it out even with a greatly reduced view distance considering i can play crysis maxed out same res with mods that hit performance smoother than this.

i get the same performance - testing both a 4870 512MB and a GTX285 1GB in my system. if i lower the settings to their absolute lowest i still get 20-30 fps. if i load up a gun in the armory and run around at normal/high settings i get 60+. i believe we are bound by our cpu's. the Q6600 doesn't seem to cut it for ARMA2. i'm using Vista 64bit and apparently XP gives better performance. i'm not going to buy XP and change OS (or dual boot) just for this game though. crossing my fingers that a future patch improves Vista performance.

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

You can try something out. Open your Arma2.cfg (under "My Documents" -> ArmA2) with a Texteditor (Editor, WordPad etc.), find the "HDRPrecision=" line and change the value to 0 (I guess it's set to 8 by default). Of course the game won't look that impressive anymore but you should get a way better performance this way. At least for me this was the case (now 30-100 fps with VD 2400, 100% FR and high to very high settings).

It should look somehow like this...

language="German";
adapter=-1;
3D_Performance=46875;
Resolution_Bpp=32;
Resolution_W=1680;
Resolution_H=1050;
refresh="100";
Render_W=1680;
Render_H=1050;
FSAA=0;
postFX=2;
HDRPrecision=0;
lastDeviceId="";
localVRAM=1054670752;
nonlocalVRAM=123076576;

Don't forget to set the ArmA2.cfg to "writeprotected" because elsewise ArmA will automatically overwrite your settings.

[Porter_ 10]

You can try something out. Open your Arma2.cfg (under "My Documents" -> ArmA2) with a Texteditor (Editor, WordPad etc.), find the "HDRPrecision=" line and change the value to 0 (I guess it's set to 8 by default). Of course the game won't look that impressive anymore but you should get a way better performance this way. At least for me this was the case (now 30-100 fps with VD 2400, 100% FR and high to very high settings).

It should look somehow like this...

language="German";
adapter=-1;
3D_Performance=46875;
Resolution_Bpp=32;
Resolution_W=1680;
Resolution_H=1050;
refresh="100";
Render_W=1680;
Render_H=1050;
FSAA=0;
postFX=2;
HDRPrecision=0;
lastDeviceId="";
localVRAM=1054670752;
nonlocalVRAM=123076576;

Don't forget to set the ArmA2.cfg to "writeprotected" because elsewise ArmA will automatically overwrite your settings.

interesting...what's your system specs and OS? (sorry if you've already listed them in this thread, haven't had time to read all of it)

[drkalinium 10]

i get the same performance - testing both a 4870 512MB and a GTX285 1GB in my system. if i lower the settings to their absolute lowest i still get 20-30 fps. if i load up a gun in the armory and run around at normal/high settings i get 60+. i believe we are bound by our cpu's. the Q6600 doesn't seem to cut it for ARMA2. i'm using Vista 64bit and apparently XP gives better performance. i'm not going to buy XP and change OS (or dual boot) just for this game though. crossing my fingers that a future patch improves Vista performance.

if it was cpu bound then changing settings down should improve performance so unless there is a bug concerning quad support there must be something especially when less powerful dual cores run better.

[Chillwi-e 10]

I have a 9550 Quad Core 2.83 2xNvdia 260gtx in sli 4gb ram 1 terabyte Hd.....I should be able to run this game on highest setting right? I'm also running Vista 64bit OS.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Chillwi$e
left somethings out

[Porter_ 10]

if it was cpu bound then changing settings down should improve performance so unless there is a bug concerning quad support there must be something especially when less powerful dual cores run better.

you got it backwards. lowering the graphical settings to their lowest settings takes the gpu out of the equation (essentially). if i was not cpu bound, and instead gpu bound, then when i lower the graphical settings my framerate should skyrocket. this is not the case for me though- lowering the graphical settings has absolutely no impact on performance. it could be a bug, or something goofy with my system, but my performance is consistent with this CPU benchmark.

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2GHz)

Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P

4GB OCZ Platinum PC3-16000 (currently @1066MHz) *

Sapphire HD4890 (OC version)

* Only 3.25GB of RAM are adressed because I'm still running XP (32-bit).

[Porter_ 10]

AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2GHz)

Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P

4GB OCZ Platinum PC3-16000 (currently @1066MHz) *

Sapphire HD4890 (OC version)

* Only 3.25GB of RAM are adressed because I'm still running XP (32-bit).

thanks, i'll give your setting a try tonight when i get home from work. it doesn't look like you're limited by your gpu, so maybe this will work for me as well.

[buble 0]

Thanks for the reply - will be happy to get a link to that optimization guide in PM.

Its in the troubleshooting section

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73947

Cheers