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

[ck-claw 1]

Right held back my post till i've had a good test!

Bought the game (Nexway d/load) last sunday!

Would of bought it at German released but very aprehensive cause of my pc specs!

Settings:-

VD-1200

Most on normal-bar things like PP disabled.

Changing settings to lower made no diff what so ever!

Fillrate on lowest.

Campaign:-

Started off well almost 20 fps but was very playable!

But as the missions went on-degraded loads to single fps.

Single Player:-

Most missions unplayable as only 8 fps.

But the warfare type mission on 'Utes' ran at 19 fps and was playable.

User Made Missions By The Unit I'm With:-

(Which is what i give a Fook about!)

Average fps 24! (which is damn playable in ArmA2)

But if arty kicks off does slow down considerably)

After adding Sgt.Ace clutter mod-upped fps by average 4 fps!

Also allowed me to up fillrate setting to 75%

At the end of the day?-its far from perfect,but all im interested in is playing user made missions within our unit and thats good enough for me.

And allows me to play ArmA2 with my Unit!

Now i might add those fps figures are not good!

But if i had those in ArmA 1 it would be a slide show!

So def an engine improvement!

Oh btw my pc specs! :eek:

Pentium 4 - 2.9 Ghz

3 Gig SD Ram

ATI Sapphire 2600 HD 512mb

Windows XP Sp3 :p:p

Edited June 25, 2009 by ck-claw

[BLSmith2112 0]

I just purchased a new system and while I'll be waiting for a few days - I was wondering if anyone has a similar setup to which they would be able to tell me what they were able to get their settings to:

CPU: i7 920

Ram: 6GB Triple Channel

Video: GTX 285 1GB

Monitor/Resolution: 24'' 1920x1200 16:10

My hope is that with a view Distance of at least 3000, can have everything on high with a stable 30fps. But... I have my doubts.

@Victor, why did you choose the GTX 285 1GB and not the XFX Ati HD4890 Black Edition 1024MB DDR5 PCI-E?

Look at results: ArmaA2_GPUs

edit: the XFX Ati HD4890 Black Edition 1024MB DDR5 PCI-E is cheaper

Ah. Yea this cards 14 day return period just ended. Not to mention that in the past I have neeever have had good experiences with ATI cards. Its always some compatibility or some random glitch that I find out cant be fixed without some sort of patch. The price difference was pretty huge though. Too late now.

So yea according to that benchmark site they overclocked the i7 920 to 3.5Ghz.. which sucks because I am absolutely 100% terrified of overclocking anything.. mostly as I've never done it before.

[BoxiouS 10]

Pentium 4 - 2.9 Ghz

3 Gig SD Ram

ATI Sapphire 2600 HD 512mb

Windows XP Sp3 :p:p

I was :eek: until i saw your specs:D I loved my P4 but GTA4 forced my big upgrade (everything basically due to AGP GFX card) but i stretched my 3.0 P4 to 3.6 with a stock cooler and i also had XP. If you've got the time and patience, there's an awesome XP guide on Tweakguides site. I stripped the crap out of my XP and managed to run Crysis on all medium with a lot better frame rate than you're getting with a lesser GFX card (ATI X1950 pro 512) which i bought for £90 and sold 9 months later for £15 less:cool: You can sqeeze more out of your rig. P4s love being pushed. Just don't do it all in one go and it'll make a noticable difference to your game.

[sate 10]

Im pretty sure this was mentioned b4 but i cant find the post. does arma 2 take full advantage of Quad cores?

[nominesine 0]

Reading this forum thread before I bought the game made me feel reluctant at first. Playing the game on a low end computer for one week has made everything better. I am very pleased with how the game behaves with specs that are no better than:

Intel Dualcore 6600 @ 2,3 Ghz/6600 @ 2,3 Ghz

Nvidia GeForce 7900 256 Mb

4 Mb RAM

I play on low-normal settings with little or no lag in any of the included single player scenarios. I have yet to finsih the final stages of the campaign, but so far I am more than pleased with the performance I've seen.

I wrote this because a lot of posts in this thread gives the impression that you need a super computer to enjoy the game. That is simply not true. All you need is a little patience and some tweaking in the Options department.

[cobra5000 0]

hi, do you know if arma2 will support my computer:

Edited June 26, 2009 by Placebo
Removed DX Diag crap

[BoxiouS 10]

hi, do you know if arma2 will support my computer:

XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2

Processor: Intel® Core2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13GHz (2 CPUs)

Memory: 1024MB RAM

Card name: WinFast PX9800 GT(NVIDIA)

Was all you needed to post.

CPU and GFX card should be fine, though don't expeect to run it maxed. You really need more memory for an enjoyable experience though.

EDIT: and install service pack 3!!

[r1ckyr4y 10]

I understand what they were trying to do but I dont get it, I loved the first ARMA but I cant play ARMA2 due to my specs not being high enough (I even tried at a 1280 resolution, at least I think it was 1280). Its a shame though, the game could have been that much more popular if they took it easy with the graphics. Now probably 1/2 the people that wanted to play it wont be able to. I'm just lucky I plan on upgrading my system in July. I think the game would have been just as enjoyable with graphics similar to the first ARMA.. anybody agree? disagree?

ATI radeon HD 2600XT

Dual core 2.0 ghz 2.0ghz

4 GB RAM

Is there any reason i cant run this?

BTW the STEAM version of the demo is alot faster of a download, only took me almost 2 hours.

[Norwegian 10]

Will my computer run Arma 2 good?

512MB NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT

A 2.26-7-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo CPU P8400

4 giggs memory

Its also a notebook/laptop HP HDX 16

[BoxiouS 10]

Will my computer run Arma 2 good?

512MB NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT

A 2.26-7-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo CPU P8400

4 giggs memory

Its also a notebook/laptop HP HDX 16

Try here for your CPU and here for your GPU. I can't vouch for their accuaracy but it should give you an idea.

[Netherscourge 10]

I understand what they were trying to do but I dont get it, I loved the first ARMA but I cant play ARMA2 due to my specs not being high enough (I even tried at a 1280 resolution, at least I think it was 1280). Its a shame though, the game could have been that much more popular if they took it easy with the graphics. Now probably 1/2 the people that wanted to play it wont be able to. I'm just lucky I plan on upgrading my system in July. I think the game would have been just as enjoyable with graphics similar to the first ARMA.. anybody agree? disagree?

ATI radeon HD 2600XT

Dual core 2.0 ghz 2.0ghz

4 GB RAM

Is there any reason i cant run this?

BTW the STEAM version of the demo is alot faster of a download, only took me almost 2 hours.

To quote Qui-Gon Jin:

There's always a bigger fish.

I was running a Socket-939 AMD system until last month. I stretched it out over 3 years but games like this and other upcoming games are just too demanding.

AT least upgrading is much cheaper now - heck, 6-GB of DDR3 ram is only $100! Take advantage while stuff is cheap IMO.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Netherscourge

[Porter_ 10]

i'm glad they updated the graphics. the game play of ARMA1 and ARMA2 is great, better graphics is icing on the cake.

[echo1 0]

Alternatively, download the Demo and try that. Working fine on my PC -

~3GHz Athlon 64 X2

4GB DDR2

9600GT (overclocked)

Windows 7 64bit

[Netherscourge 10]

Plus - Sandbox warfare gameplay NEEDS graphic updates. The gameplay is always solid in most of these games - it's the realism and attention to details that separates these games now.

[BoxiouS 10]

ATI radeon HD 2600XT

Is there any reason i cant run this?

Yup.

Remember a game called Crysis? When it came out everyone whined about the system specs being so high that it would put loads of people off playing it. If BIS had made Arma2 with graphics so sub par that any computer could run it maxed out, then this forum would be overrun with 'Why aren't the graphics better' or 'I've got a new gaming rig and this game looks like crap and runs at 500 frames per second'

Instead we get a game that pushes our PCs to the limit, and one that will grow with our systems and look better and better with age.

P.S. Only now am i able to run Crysis maxed out with AA & AF maxed. it looks amazing. It's just a shame that i've played through it so many times that i have no inclination to do it again. This isn't (and never will be) an issue with Arma 2.

[r1ckyr4y 10]

Well can one of you point me in the right direction, what should I be looking for in terms of a new graphics card? I just want to be able to run this.

[EDcase 87]

-=Delete=-

I was too slow.

[Netherscourge 10]

Well can one of you point me in the right direction, what should I be looking for in terms of a new graphics card? I just want to be able to run this.

I would wait a while and see people's benchmarking results before figuring that out.

I'm not hoping for much on my 8800 GTS, but I'm not eager to run out to get a new video card either.

[GregP 10]

When a game comes out that pushes your system to the limits, sure, it's annoying, but I think their logic here was correct: the ArmA crowd is pretty hardcore, relative to the gaming community in general, and they tend to be more comfortable with (and willing to) upgrade their systems accordingly. And when trying to draw in new gamers, ArmA-level graphics in 2009 just don't cut it - it's just a fact.

That being said, another plain fact is that the 2600XT is just about 2 solid generations old by now.

I run a relatively powerful but by no means top-of-the-line system and I can get reasonable framerates at 1920x1080 with all graphics details set to highest. In my mind, my machine is representative of the upper-middle-range of systems the devs had in mind when optimizing the game, and I think that's reasonable because you could certainly design a much, much faster system than what I have (quad-core, or a Core i7, or SLI, or GeForce 295, etc.).

Edited June 25, 2009 by GregP

[eJay 1]

Can anyone say how GF GTS 250 512 MB RAM works with ArmA II?

Which card do you preffer to play this kick ass game? HD 4850 or GTS 250?

[Netherscourge 10]

Here's a decent breakdown of mid-range Video Cards right now and their performance levels:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-radeon,2326-16.html

Keep in mind, NONE of these has been tested against ARMA2 yet... so take it with a grain of salt.

[Devinewind 10]

I think when it comes to a hardcore game with a strong community, (ARMA, Falcon 4.0, Silent Hunter Series, EQ etc.) its best to go with the best graphics possible. That way the game will have a longer shelf life down the ways. There are a lot of people still playing XCOM because it was such a great game, but all agree it would be excellent to have an overhaul. Just think what this game will be like in 16 months... ACE is out, a few patches to work the bugs out and the ADHD kids have moved back to Counter Strike.

My god, it will be beautiful.

[MareNostrum 10]

sorry but your video card would be like a person with a playstation 2 asking why they can't play playstation 3 games. its the next generation of Armed Asssault you have to upgrade eventually or it just holds everyone back.

[Aidy70060 10]

Hai peoplez

My computer, being the old thing it is, won't run ArmA II, it's 3 years old, and it has a 6-series GCard. Now me being a serious gamer, wants to play ArmA II with minimal lag. I was having a look at Alienware, i heard it's a bit bad, but the prices are pretty good. So apart from Alienware, can anyone suggest to me a good PC, and i might get a new monitor too, to be able to blow stuff up, except bigger :D

[echo1 0]

Those two cards are about equal in ArmA II, but I hear the GTS250 is a better all round card for other games as well, so that's what I'd pick.