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

[--Bp-- Ron!n 10]

phenom|| x4 940 black edition 3ghz

asus m3n72-D mobo

4 gig dom ram

ati 4870 1 gig

what do you think ?

[Daniel 0]

Thanks ubascouser and ch_123! Will have another look.

[echo1 0]

Take a look at the benchmarks on page 135. The Phenom II is almost the same, and, it's more overclockable and a good deal cheaper.

Ron!n: you should be good to go.

[POTS 0]

Is the HD 4890 still the theoretical best card for arma2 after patch 1.02.

[marius00 0]

I got a 4870x2 with intel quad core at 3ghz and 4gbytes ram. Res is 1680x1050

tried messing around with graphics last night..

i was in area with approx 20-30 guys and over 10 tanks and trucks and view distance of 3.7km so that I could get an idea of fps

if i put everything on medium and I get 20-40fps.. mostly 25fps

i put everything on high and i get same 20-40fps and mainly 25fps again

i jammed it on highest settings with view distance of 3.7km still and i still get same fps. wtf?

I tried stuffing around with post render filter and on all settings i get same performance.

I was using fraps to get fps

i'm not pissed cos on highest its solid 25fps and smooth no spikes in performance.

[Bigtnaples 10]

I got a 4870x2 with intel quad core at 3ghz and 4gbytes ram. Res is 1680x1050

tried messing around with graphics last night..

i was in area with approx 20-30 guys and over 10 tanks and trucks and view distance of 3.7km so that I could get an idea of fps

if i put everything on medium and I get 20-40fps.. mostly 25fps

i put everything on high and i get same 20-40fps and mainly 25fps again

i jammed it on highest settings with view distance of 3.7km still and i still get same fps. wtf?

I tried stuffing around with post render filter and on all settings i get same performance.

I was using fraps to get fps

I'm not pissed cos on highest its solid 25fps and smooth no spikes in performance.

This game is very CPU limited. While your graphics card can handle all you can throw at it, your processor struggles to keep up. As does everyone else's.

[Porter_ 10]

marius00, chances are you're limited by your CPU...same thing happens to me. it doesnt matter what settings i have- all very low, all normal, all very high, i still only get 25-30fps.

edit: what Bigtnaples said.

[Goregrind 10]

E6550 @ 2.33 GHZ

6600 GTS

2 gig of ram

Can i play medium ? :butbut:

[Gojulas 10]

Im wondering if i can play the game on high with the specs i have:

Q6600

4GB RAM

NVidia 9500GT OC 1GB

[MPBR 10]

Im wondering if i can play the game on high with the specs i have:

Q6600

4GB RAM

NVidia 9500GT OC 1GB

No

I have Q 6600 @ 3.3 - 3.4 with a 9800GTX +

and @ 1920 or 1680 medium settings are required to get 1/2 way decent fps.

(some to low @ times to boost fps).

No way a 9500gt with q6600 will run high settings with std res @ good fps

[Gojulas 10]

No

I have Q 6600 @ 3.3 - 3.4 with a 9800GTX +

and @ 1920 or 1680 medium settings are required to get 1/2 way decent fps.

(some to low @ times to boost fps).

No way a 9500gt with q6600 will run high settings with std res @ good fps

What if i upgraded my VC to a GTX 285?

[maddogx 13]

What if i upgraded my VC to a GTX 285?

Then you'd have a very similar setup to mine, which means very high settings. :)

[Gojulas 10]

Then you'd have a very similar setup to mine, which means very high settings. :)

Good, then i just need $100 for the PSU(currently have a 550W) and then im off to ebay to look for the card.

EDIT: My CPU isnt OC, will it have an effect on the graphics of the game? And should i OC it?

Edited June 23, 2009 by Gojulas

[earl 0]

It seems all the cpu speed you can get is useful, more cores + overclocking seems to be very rewarding for Arma2 campaign (ai & script) performance.

I haven't seen the benchmarking mission but i would think a some kind of camera script walkthrough ia high poly town would push graphics (gpu), then fast flyover across the island would show any paging slowdowns (hdd, also gpu) and finally an incrementally increasing AI numbers into a huge battle while the camera looks at sky/ground should be a good cpu proofing?

[WhoCares 0]

...

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.

Regarding the benefits of 2GB vs 1GB you might look at this review of a GTX275, in particular the Graphics memory intensive situations, but also the 'normal' benchmarks on the previous pages of the same review. At 1920x1200 and below it is (near) nil. Now one could say that it is GPU limited and a GTX285 might benefit some more, but I am not sure whether the gain would be worth the higher price.

Note that for the other benchmarks the review linked above also compares to 1GB devices with HD4890, GTX275 (896MB) and GTX285, but of course an ArmA2 benchmark is not included :(

Edited June 23, 2009 by WhoCares

[th3flyboy 0]

No

I have Q 6600 @ 3.3 - 3.4 with a 9800GTX +

and @ 1920 or 1680 medium settings are required to get 1/2 way decent fps.

(some to low @ times to boost fps).

No way a 9500gt with q6600 will run high settings with std res @ good fps

Is your Q6600 water or air cooled? I'm thinking of OCing mine, and I was wondering what kind of cooling would be needed to get high enough OC.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Is your Q6600 water or air cooled? I'm thinking of OCing mine, and I was wondering what kind of cooling would be needed to get high enough OC.

2 words mate, "liquid nitrogen" :cool: :cool: :cool:

[maddogx 13]

Is your Q6600 water or air cooled? I'm thinking of OCing mine, and I was wondering what kind of cooling would be needed to get high enough OC.

I'd say 3.5-3.6GHz is the limit on air. I have fairly good air cooling (not the best) and can easily OC the Q6600 to 3.2GHz (8x400MHz, 1,385v). Longest Prime95 test so far was 3 hours, stable at 55°c. While playing Arma2 it usually stays under 50°c.

I could crank the multiplyer up to 9x, giving me 3.6GHz, but I don't like my CPU getting hotter than 60°c. With a better air cooling system it would surely be manageable though.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Hey im just wondering how well do the dual cores at 3.0ghz perform in ArmA 2? say an AMD Athlon 3ghz Dual core against an Intel 3ghz Dual core in this game? Alot of people saying they are giving poor experiences.. compared to Quads..

[rabs 10]

Russianguy, let me know how the game runs for you as I basically have your same system except with an AMD 7750 BE

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Russianguy, let me know how the game runs for you as I basically have your same system except with an AMD 7750 BE

i won't get the game , lets say in by 2 weeks?

[echo1 0]

Hey im just wondering how well do the dual cores at 3.0ghz perform in ArmA 2? say an AMD Athlon 3ghz Dual core against an Intel 3ghz Dual core in this game? Alot of people saying they are giving poor experiences.. compared to Quads..

When you say Intel dual cores, do you mean Pentium Ds or Core 2 Duos? Because a 3GHz Pentium D, a 3GHz Athlon X2 and a 3GHz C2D are going to perform at completely different levels. And have you checked the CPU benchmarks at page 135?

[mrcash2009 0]

My Spec:

ARMA2 1.02

Nvidia 182.50 drivers

Athlon 64 x2 6000+ OC 3.2Ghz

GTX260 OC (216core) 800MB

800 FSB MOBO

XP 32bit Service pack 3

Xfi Extreme Gamer Sound card

I finally stopped some major stuttering and splutters in built up cities and flying and could also raise view distant to up to near 3000 by finding a sweet spot, which was setting my textures level to normal but then setting my video memory to very high .. video memory to anything less caused more stutters and jolts for me.

I tested looking at ti with texture level high etc and the eye candy doesn't drop so much that I could really tell. I could then set fill rate to 133percent also running native at 1440x900, put object detail to high and also landscape detail and then set view distance to just under 3000, shadows to high also.

I tried this under Vista 32 (dual boot) and its still laggy so it was better under XP fo me. I still have a few minor splutters while buffering the data (usual expected thing for arma) but its much more pleasant on the ground in large built up areas.

Massive difference was flying, I had textures high, vid mem high before and flying was a pause fest even at 2000 view distance.

My system is on the fringe in terms of spec for game, but so far with the eye candy you get at these settings and what I have as a rig I expected allot worse to be honest. Sure more AI around = fps drop which is understandable, I will get a quad fairly soon, but I do tend to play small teams in SP which I like the most.

in open large Forrest areas I cant really see an issue here, only when you get to coast areas or areas that have large built up towns/cities. But as I say setting my texture & vid mem options to how I have it made this allot better for me. I tested by placing large units with the biggest areas, running and spinning as fast as I could to see how it lagged and paused, both in full sunshine and rain (testing shadows) and it was far better .. still LOD moments, but far better.

I found that in the rain (even without setting fog) the performance is great, I prefer bad weather anyway

What I liked is down scaling in this game still doesn't give you that much crappy eye candy.

[oldbear 390]

From what I've read on Forums and sites I get 2 lessons :

- It's not necessary to get a high-end rig to play ArmA2,

- The good "combo" is probably a Core2 Quad [intel] cpu and a 48** [ATI] gpu

The benchmarks published for CPUs in ArmA2 and GPUs in ArmA2 by PCGames Hardware are comforting that opinion.

ArmA 2 CPU benchmarks: Conclusion

ArmA 2 needs almost more CPU than GPU power and is scaling surprisingly well with higher frequencies and additional cores - nevertheless a single core is too slow. Intel's Core i7 family is dominating the competition with the Core 2 Quad models about 20 percent behind them. The latter ones are about 20 percent faster than equal Core 2 Duos running at the same clock speed. While AMD's Phenom and Athlon 64 processors are able to compete with the Core 2, the Phenom II line is too slow in comparison - although this is obviously caused by the game itself.

Armed Assault 2: Benchmark Scene and Results

....

In the upper class ArmA 2 likes Radeon graphics cards. So the HD 4890 can beat the GTX 285 and the HD 4870/1G beats the GTX 275. In the middle class the HD 4850/512 and the GTS 250/1G are on the same level. The HD 4770 is slightly faster than the old 8800 Ultra. Only 512 MiByte VRAM are slowing the Geforces down. A GTS 250/1g is about 30 percent faster than a 9800 GTX+/512 which is technically identical except the amount of video memory. On average fps the Radeon HD 4870 receives a benefit of about 10 percent while the minimal fps are also increased about 30 percent.

From my own experience, playing ArmA2 on a now "middle-low zone" PC

[Core2 E6600, ATI 1950 pro 512Mo, 4Go RAM [800mhz), MB Asus P5B] I can say :

- The game is playable on this rig,

- I can get 25/30 FPS with options on low with a 1600 m view distance but it's dull and somewhat blurry all the time lacking the visual impact of the game from my point of view

- I can get 15/20 FPS with options on high/very high with a view distance of 700 m, lacking of course the "far horizon freedom" effect but getting a nice look of close surroundings.

As my PC specs are a bit above minimal requirements, I would conclude that "optimal requirements" are more "a must have" than "optimal", so to play ArmA2, I believe you must have something like a Core2 Quad6600 and an ATI 4850 ...

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

When you say Intel dual cores, do you mean Pentium Ds or Core 2 Duos? Because a 3GHz Pentium D, a 3GHz Athlon X2 and a 3GHz C2D are going to perform at completely different levels. And have you checked the CPU benchmarks at page 135?

hmm no 6000+ but a 6400+ indeed, and says around 15-19.7 im guessing? wow im so disappointed.. but mines OCEd to 3.339ghz from 3ghz so should i see like 10% improvement?? Im really worried cause i can play crysis on max very high everything at 20-25 fps no problems and it doesnt drop at all. But im wondering if my fps will be lower on arma 2 because of my cpu..? It seems really to me that you will need to folk out alot of money on a decent processor to run the game.., i hope to get at least 25-35 fps on the game on medium/high if possible :S

Do you think i will have any luck?

k need help with this question ^ ^ :)

Edited June 23, 2009 by =Spetsnaz=