cobra5000 0 Posted June 22, 2009 Do you know if ARMA2 will supporting the ATI RADEON X1600 SERIES? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SnakePliskin 10 Posted June 22, 2009 Just got my new com and looking forward to recive my hard copy in a day or two, allready have the German DL, but thats on my old pc :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shinobi575 10 Posted June 22, 2009 no it wont be, Minimum requirements as stated below. Time to upgrade!> ---------- Post added at 05:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ---------- Do you know if ARMA2 will supporting the ATI RADEON X1600 SERIES? ^^^^^ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Porter_ 10 Posted June 22, 2009 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. i read your post wrong the first time drkalinium. i see now that you're reiterating what i've been saying. let's hope it's a bug or something that can easily be fixed. i can't justify upgrading to an i7 setup for this game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
earl 0 Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) 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. I was thinking to upgrade E6600 to Q6600 but the price isn't really favourable for such a relatively older CPU. I get similar 20-30 fps in the first third of the campaign. Much higher on an empty terrain via editor. I'm running 1920x1200, 100% fillrate, everything else on normal, post processing off, and view distance 1800-2200m. Nothing really seems to move the FPS at all, none of the graphical settings show much fps change. ASUS commando (P965) C2D E6600 2x1GB Corsair DDR2 800mhz GTX 260 core 216 Nothing is overclocked but I'm going to reconsider that plus get 2GB more ram, for the kinds of prices RAM goes for these days even if it doesn't help A2 so much it's about time. And I'm installing an SSD tonight, so that should do good things for paging. Edited June 22, 2009 by earl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan80 10 Posted June 22, 2009 can someone confirm that arma2 runs better in XP than in VISTA? and the performance difference is obvious? i'm currently on vista and i am considering whether to go back to XP for this reason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azamato 0 Posted June 22, 2009 should i get an E5200 or not? with my 9600gt and 3gb ram cause its either that or nothin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bohemia 10 Posted June 22, 2009 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 Help. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DualCORE1 10 Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) hi just wondering what settings i can run arma 2 on specs Intel Q6600 @ 2.4 Ati 4770 512mb @ stock 2gb of ram 24inch dell monitor up to 1900x1200 resolution Edited June 22, 2009 by DualCORE1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow NX 1 Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) Currently im thinking of possible ways to increase my fun with ArmA2, especially with higher gfx settings... So i have two options, upgrade the GPU only and see what it brings but most likely be limited by my CPU which is a Phenom X4 9850 2,5Ghz. Candidates are either the Palit GTX285 with 2GB or the EVGA GTX285FTW 1GB. The EVGA seems to be of very good quality ( including special warranty ) and is already nicely overclocked. The Palit ( basicly a Gainward GTX285 with a tiny bit more power ) offers 2GB of Ram which may not bring much in most games but regarding how extremely hungry ArmA2 is it may be a good choice, also in some comments to it i read some that play ArmA2 with it seem to like it a lot. So whats the opinion there? The higher quality extremely fast EVGA with 1GB or the Palit/Gainward with 2GB? But as said the Phenom X4 9850 2,5 worries me as ArmA2 seems very CPU hungry aswell and from what i read even a strong card can be limited a lot in ArmA2 if the CPU is bit weak. --- Last but most pricy option is setting up a System based on a Core i7 920 that would get a bit overclocked ( and according to some benchmarks seems to be most capable with ArmA2 ), 6GB DDR-3 Ram and one of the above cards... But im pretty unsure if i really should spend nearly 1300Eur on a new PC if maybe a new GPU already would do the job. . . . Or in the end i wait for the first G300s... geez the market for GPUs is annoyingly fast lately... Edited June 22, 2009 by Shadow NX Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 22, 2009 Shadow - If you go to page 135 and look at the GPU benchmarks, you'll see that going from a HD4870 to a GTX285 will do almost nothing for performance. If I were you, I'd check if your AM2+ motherboard has a BIOS update to let it handle a Phenom II and upgrade to an X4 955. I agree with your assesment of your CPU being a bottleneck - The old Phenom Is were pretty low end, I think the newer CPU would be a much better investment, and you could save on having to buy a new mobo/RAM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow NX 1 Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) Was thinking the same but changing a HD 4870 with 512MB to a GTX285 with 2GB should do wonders for a game like ArmA2 i would think. My ATI aint bad in most games but its crap for ArmA2 because of the 512MB but also im fed up with the driver support that AMD offers lately and all the lil problems that come with it for example the memory leak problem that lead to weird graphic bugs since a few catalyst versions ( seems fixed in 9.6 though ). It seems that the HD4890 1GB works very well in ArmA but my experience in the last months make me worry... guess Nvidia driver support also has its flaws but all Nvidias that i had ran very stable and without problems while all my ATIs tend to tiny problems in some games that seemed based on bad drivers. My Gigabyte GA-MA78G-DS3H supports up to the Phenom II X4 940 with 3Ghz but what really makes me think of a system change are benchmarks like this: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2009/06/ArmaA2-CPUs-1280.png Differences between the i7 and the Phenom II seem drastic in ArmA2. However the frames here seem kinda low for such good hardware combined that small resolution and only 100% fillrate. Edited June 22, 2009 by Shadow NX Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IrishTom 10 Posted June 22, 2009 Based on this thread ive now bought an Ati 4890 1Gb and a Phenom X4 9850. Hoping to see a massive jump over my 5000BE clocked to 3Ghz and 8800GTS 512 ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted June 22, 2009 Was thinking the same but changing a HD 4870 with 512MB to a GTX285 with 2GB should do wonders for a game like ArmA2 i would think.... In benchmarks with other games 2GB show only an effect with highest resolutions (2000+) and high AA settings, the latter generally being the domain of ATI. However, I have not seen such benchmarks with ArmA2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow NX 1 Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) Would surely be intresting, very "hungry" games like GTA4 seem to make use of it and considering how much textures ArmA2 handles on high settings i wouldnt be surprised if it also works bit better with it than on a 1GB version. Only thing in these regards i read so far was one user comment that was extremely happy with the Gainward GTX285 who said he runs ArmA2 in 1920x1024 ( with a Phenom II X4 940 and 4GB Ram ) all settings very high and still being fluid. If thats true is another question though... if it is it maybe upgrading is really a option, a chaper option for sure ^^ Edited June 22, 2009 by Shadow NX Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 22, 2009 Considering that ATI has a better track record with ArmA 2, maybe a 2GB HD4890 would be a better idea, I'm pretty sure they're cheaper than the appropriate GTX285 as well. As for the CPU benchmarks, the differenence between the PII X4 940 and the Core i7 920 at stock speeds is only about 3-4 FPS. It would be easy to overclock the 940 to match or beat the Core i7 at stock speeds (of course, you could replace your whole system and overclock the shit out of the Core i7, but that's going to cost alot, and the Core i7s as they exist now are going to be replaced with something much cheaper later leaving no upgrade path for the current i7 motherboards unless you want to buy €1,000 CPUs for workstations) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel 0 Posted June 22, 2009 Didn't really get a reply on this last time so here goes again. Thinking of upgrading to this along with a suitable new motherboard. Q9550 Core2Quad 2.83GHz - £224 GeForce GTx260 - £180 x2 DDR2 1GB - £12 each (in addition to my current 2GB) Have I got the priorities right there? And is fast Quad or faster Duo the way to go in ArmA 2? Cheers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted June 22, 2009 This socket thing is really a pain when considering to build a new rig now, at least with respect to Intel - the 775 is probably at the end of its life, the 1366 going workstation and the 1156 (iirc) coming later, early 2010, iirc. So it seems like only the AMD AM3 might currently have some future... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow NX 1 Posted June 22, 2009 Considering that ATI has a better track record with ArmA 2, maybe a 2GB HD4890 would be a better idea, I'm pretty sure they're cheaper than the appropriate GTX285 as well. Was thinking of that too but it seems to me the HD4890 with 2GB doesnt exist (yet) or did my google fu fail me? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 22, 2009 Or quite possibly my knowlegde of graphics cards has failed me... I'm not sure what the performance benefits of a 2GB GTX285 card over a 1GB one are, and whether or not the gap between the HD4890 and the 2GB GTX could be closed by overclocking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bohemia 10 Posted June 22, 2009 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eagles092 10 Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) Intel Dual core 3.0ghz 2Gb RAM 2x Nividia Geforce 6800 I was thinking that I wont be able to run the game with the 6800 and was looking at something like a 9800. So anyone if I will be able to run arma 2 with this setup however unlikley it sounds? Edited June 22, 2009 by Eagles092 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DualCORE1 10 Posted June 22, 2009 hi just wondering what settings i can run arma 2 on specs Intel Q6600 @ 2.4 Ati 4770 512mb @ stock 2gb of ram 24inch dell monitor up to 1900x1200 resolution Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ubascouser 0 Posted June 22, 2009 To [CAS] Daniel i would go for the Q9650 and an ati 4890 check out scan for some good prices 140 pound for a 1gb 4890 thats a bargain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 22, 2009 Daniel;1322651']Didn't really get a reply on this last time so here goes again.Thinking of upgrading to this along with a suitable new motherboard. Q9550 Core2Quad 2.83GHz - £224 GeForce GTx260 - £180 x2 DDR2 1GB - £12 each (in addition to my current 2GB) Have I got the priorities right there? And is fast Quad or faster Duo the way to go in ArmA 2? Cheers. Dont bother with the Core 2 Quad too expensive for what you get, I'd get a Phenom II 955 instead, and a HD4890. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
