Addonis 10 Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) Goddamn it! I've got "AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+", GeForce 8600GTS, 2GB RAM on WinXP and ArmA 2 runs terribly... I thought that I could play on normal settings... When I adjust graphics to look 'not-so-bad' I get less than 18FPS... I don't mention situations with lots of units and explosions when game is unplayable. I use "no-blur" mod and modified config (to fit my width/height render) but that gives me nothing... It seems that I can play with good framerate only if I set everything to the lowest points, but whatever? Game looks like crap with fillrate <50%... This sucks! What can I do to have more FPS? It's all about graphic card (because mine is only 256MB) or the processor? Edited June 23, 2009 by Addonis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=Spetsnaz= 0 Posted June 23, 2009 Goddamn it! I've got "AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+", GeForce 8600GTS, 2GB RAM on WinXP and ArmA 2 runs terribly...When I adjust graphics to look 'not-so-bad' I get less than 18FPS... I don't mention situations with lots of units and explosions when game is unplayable. I use "no-blur" mod and modified config (to fit my width/height render) but that gives me nothing... It seems that I can play with good framerate only if I set everything to the lowest points, but whatever? Game looks like crap with fillrate <50%... This sucks! What can I do to have more FPS? It's all about graphic card (because mine is only 256MB) or the processor? More your GPU then your CPU.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) Goddamn it! I've got "AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+", GeForce 8600GTS, 2GB RAM on WinXP and ArmA 2 runs terribly...I thought that I could play on normal settings... When I adjust graphics to look 'not-so-bad' I get less than 18FPS... I don't mention situations with lots of units and explosions when game is unplayable. I use "no-blur" mod and modified config (to fit my width/height render) but that gives me nothing... It seems that I can play with good framerate only if I set everything to the lowest points, but whatever? Game looks like crap with fillrate <50%... This sucks! What can I do to have more FPS? It's all about graphic card (because mine is only 256MB) or the processor? Not surprising, your graphics card is slower than the minimum requirement. Replace that and you shouldnt have any problems. How much money are you prepared to spend on a new card? 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 :SDo you think i will have any luck? Hard to know till you get the game itself. But looking at the manufacturer's page for your motherboard, I see you could upgrade to a Phenom II x4 940 (not a 945 or 955 though) which would be more than enough power if it turns out you have a CPU limitation. Edited June 23, 2009 by echo1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Addonis 10 Posted June 23, 2009 So no good advice for me... I'm not so happy about that. Ok, so what equipment do I need at least?:) EDIT: Oh, I don't know how much money... You know, I live in Poland and graphics cards are rather expensive... I need something cheap I guess :) However game needs more optimalisantion at all. Patches don't help that much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=Spetsnaz= 0 Posted June 23, 2009 So no good advice for me...I'm not so happy about that. Ok, so what equipment do I need at least?:) EDIT: Oh, I don't know how much money... You know, I live in Poland and graphics cards are rather expensive... I need something cheap I guess :) However game needs more optimalisantion at all. Patches don't help that much. try get a 4850 512mb if possible? ---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ---------- Not surprising, your graphics card is slower than the minimum requirement. Replace that and you shouldnt have any problems. How much money are you prepared to spend on a new card?Hard to know till you get the game itself. But looking at the manufacturer's page for your motherboard, I see you could upgrade to a Phenom II x4 940 (not a 945 or 955 though) which would be more than enough power if it turns out you have a CPU limitation. i can't upgrade i upgraded to the 6000 x2 a month ago from a AMD Athlon 3500+ 2.21ghz Single Core CPU hoping that i can run arma 2 well. I can't afford the phenom as its out of my price range at around $350+ NZD.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rabs 10 Posted June 23, 2009 If going by those gauges on that benchmark, theres no way in the world a 2.0ghz AMD dualcore is going to be able to run the game at reasonable level. So this guy upgrading his graphics card wont help. I dont understand, I am worried about my 7750, vastly superior to a 3500, running the game on normal settings with a 4850 but if he gets a 4850 with his chip he will be able to run it on normal. It just doesnt sound likely to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=Spetsnaz= 0 Posted June 23, 2009 If going by those gauges on that benchmark, theres no way in the world a 2.0ghz AMD dualcore is going to be able to run the game at reasonable level. So this guy upgrading his graphics card wont help.I dont understand, I am worried about my 7750, vastly superior to a 3500, running the game on normal settings with a 4850 but if he gets a 4850 with his chip he will be able to run it on normal. It just doesnt sound likely to me. i agree, i just really wished that the developers could of somehow worked on it longer and improved optimization, its not very clear why people need to spend so much money on very expensive components to run this game. They promised that we should be able to run the game better than arma and that it should run much smoother. But alot of people are having problems and we did not get what we were promised. People are going out there and spending so much cash and still can't run the game very well. I spent about $550 NZD just to upgrade for arma 2, and im waiting, but if im going to have crappy performance im not going to blame it on my system, because it should be enough to run arma 2 well. To me i think the developers need to at least release more patches where they focus on that number one priority ( MAKE ARMA 2 PLAYABLE that means better optimization ), yes it can be hard for the developers but they did that with ArmA and once thats fixed then work on the other bugs and issues. If i can't run the game then im not going to bother upgrading again, i don't wanna draw more cash out of my pocket just to play arma 2, i already spent enough and thats it.. but anyhow enough rambling, it seems some people with my cpu are having problems with that game... and i hope thats going to improve with further patches.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Addonis 10 Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) So this guy upgrading his graphics card wont help. So you think that upgrading my video card won't help? What if I get some extreme stuff with 1024MBs? I don't know anything about video cards, but what about "GF 9400GT 1024MB DDR2" and "ATI Radeon HD4650"? Those are rather expensive (350zł so it's aprox 100$ after calculation to dollars... but it's not equal...) To me i think the developers need to at least release more patches where they focus on that number one priority ( MAKE ARMA 2 PLAYABLE that means better optimization ) Totally agree! Game still needs more optimalisation. Pathes are not good way to improve game. Everyone will have to download tons of MBs just to improve little details... Maybe just one, big, good and perfect patch would help... Edited June 23, 2009 by Addonis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rabs 10 Posted June 23, 2009 So you think that upgrading my video card won't help?What if I get some extreme stuff with 1024MBs? I don't know anything about video cards, but what about "GF 9400GT 1024MB DDR2" and "ATI Radeon HD4650"? Those are rather expensive (350zł so it's aprox 100$ after calculation to dollars... but it's not equal...) Not to be a jerk dude, but you might just want to save up some more, because those cards are still considered to be heavily obsolete for modern games. Also, regardless of how good of a graphics card you get your going to be bottled up by your CPU, and you have to be careful of the power requirements as well. You want at LEAST a 450-500w PSU. Why not make the short hop over to Germany and go on a little shopping spree at some more favorable exchange rates. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edworld 10 Posted June 23, 2009 I'm ready o play with my notebook: Asus N51VF Intel Core 2 Duo P9550, 2.66 GHz, 3MB cache L2, FSB 1066 MHz 4096 MB DDR2 800MHz 15.6'' WXGA HD (1366 x 768) LED - Color Shine NVIDIA GeForce GT 130M, 1024MB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jade77 10 Posted June 23, 2009 Heya lads, just looking at some of the screenshots some have posted up in the sticky above, and the graphics in them are beautiful. Can someone post up a config setup for the best possible graphics. My specs are: Q6850 3ghz GTX295 8gig DDR3 ram Vista Ultimate 64 Now i know that there is some issues with the GTX295 cards and this game, but id love to have this config file for when they do sort it. Hope you can help :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted June 23, 2009 BIS is IMO just too lazy to do good work I'm pretty sure if you try, you can post without being so insulting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rabs 10 Posted June 23, 2009 Q6850 3ghz GTX295 8gig DDR3 ram Vista Ultimate 64 I would say your pretty well set to play the game however damn well you see fit to play it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Malleus 0 Posted June 23, 2009 Just a report: My PC: ASUS P4C800 P4 Prescott 3.0GHz (Hyperthreading enabled) 2GB RAM x1950pro AGP 512MB 1280x1024 LCD Monitor I run the game at Low detail - everything on Low, except AA/AF/PP Off, and Shadows on Medium. Resolution is 1280x1024, Fillrate Optimization at 75%. On missions with low population it's about 15-30 fps, in cities 15-25, in cities with combat (third mission in campaign) or in huge non linear missions (like Manhattan) it's 15-17 average. With all that said, I'm quite satisfied with the performance. I didn't even expect my ancient PC to run this - I'm probably the only one who is positively surprised by the game's performance. :) So, thumbs up for BIS on this one! :ok: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jade77 10 Posted June 23, 2009 I would say your pretty well set to play the game however damn well you see fit to play it. Lol yeah thats what i would of hoped ;) But with things on normal to high, shadows off etc im only getting 20 to 30fps :) This is a game/driver issue as on other games with everything on max im getting 200 to 400 fps, if i turn shadows off in games i get up to 499 fps. So something is not right with this game or the driver support for my card. but hopefully when its sorted i can run everything of max. But for someone who can run it at MAX i am interested in your config, if you could post it in here so i can give it a try :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M1Garand 10 Posted June 23, 2009 Hi, Im new to the forums, i have been following ArmA2 for a while now. im just wondering what would be the best Specs to have for ArmA2?:) Sorry if this is in the wrong place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bigtnaples 10 Posted June 23, 2009 Lol yeah thats what i would of hoped ;)But with things on normal to high, shadows off etc im only getting 20 to 30fps :) This is a game/driver issue as on other games with everything on max im getting 200 to 400 fps, if i turn shadows off in games i get up to 499 fps. So something is not right with this game or the driver support for my card. but hopefully when its sorted i can run everything of max. But for someone who can run it at MAX i am interested in your config, if you could post it in here so i can give it a try :D Try playing Cryisis at max and it will humble your rig as well. ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Minkey 10 Posted June 23, 2009 Picked up my copy today, and from a newbies point of view it wasnt the steep learning curve i expected. I patched to 1.02 and run the benchmark. I got 19fps at 1280*1024 under xp 32. my specs: 8800 Gts 320Mb Pentium D 345 @3.4Ghz 2Gb OCZ XTC Gold at 800Mhz all set to normal and post pro effects off, nothing done to the configs or special optomizations done. Very happy with my purchase, thankyou BIS ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Todgger Dougstyles 10 Posted June 23, 2009 Specs: Intel Core 2 CPU 6420 @ 2.13GHz 2048MB RAM NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS I'd be happy with a solid framerate on low settings, but I'm not feeling good about it at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azamato 0 Posted June 23, 2009 Just a report:My PC: ASUS P4C800 P4 Prescott 3.0GHz (Hyperthreading enabled) 2GB RAM x1950pro AGP 512MB 1280x1024 LCD Monitor I run the game at Low detail - everything on Low, except AA/AF/PP Off, and Shadows on Medium. Resolution is 1280x1024, Fillrate Optimization at 75%. On missions with low population it's about 15-30 fps, in cities 15-25, in cities with combat (third mission in campaign) or in huge non linear missions (like Manhattan) it's 15-17 average. With all that said, I'm quite satisfied with the performance. I didn't even expect my ancient PC to run this - I'm probably the only one who is positively surprised by the game's performance. :) So, thumbs up for BIS on this one! :ok: is it good playable or not to enjoy? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Malleus 0 Posted June 23, 2009 is it good playable or not to enjoy? It's fine and playable for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azamato 0 Posted June 23, 2009 ^mind posting some screens in the screenshot topic? :D if you got time Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mc Speedfreak 10 Posted June 23, 2009 Specs:Intel Core 2 CPU 6420 @ 2.13GHz 2048MB RAM NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS I'd be happy with a solid framerate on low settings, but I'm not feeling good about it at all. processor and RAM should be "ok"... could be better though i have doubts about your graphic board though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
longers 10 Posted June 23, 2009 AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE overclocked to 3.8ghz 4GB DDR 3 Ram ATI Radeon 4890 1GB I can max crysis out with 8xaa at 720p and have it run smooth but arma on high (not very high) runs horribly at certain points, mainly the city levels. It just feels like the game is really poorly coded or something, it should run much smoother than it does ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DualCORE1 10 Posted June 23, 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
