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

[Kokuya 10]

Firstly; I know most people are instantly thinking "gah, another n00b not posting in the sticky we built", however I felt that with so many people worrying over whether their £500 builds will even run the game it would be good to share my experience from the demo.

Secondly; I do not have the full version yet, I have been running the demo - however I doubt there will be any major difference in quality between the retail and the demo.

Thirdly: I know many people will upgrade anyway, just to get the difference between high and v. high graphics - I'm not trying to put them off in anyway, just showing people that they probably won't need a brand new PC to run it on good graphics settings.

Anyway, so before arma2's release and the couple of days after it (german release) all I saw was people with extremely high end PC's - either quad core or overclocked dual cores running the game, often not even on the highest settings. This alongside the minimum system requirements made me feel like a new PC build would be needed (Note: I've had this PC since ~2001) possibly costing in excess of £500. Now I know there's tons of people asking also "will my PC run this" and giving a full list of their dual core system settings; all I have to say is "yes", maybe not on full but "yes".

To cut to the chase, I have been managing to run on 30+ FPS (more than I need to be happy) with all settings on normal (except object detail and post production, which are on high) at 1024x768 (yes I know it's a low res for you guys, but it's better than having high-res and jaggy objects). All of this, with a good number of units on the screen at once and multiple explosions etc (the general wartime stuff you get in arma2). So the "rig" I've been using to achieve this:

Memory (RAM): 2048 MB

CPU : Intel® Pentium® 4 CPU 3.06GHz

Sound card: Realtek HD Audio rear output

Display Adapters: Radeon X1950 Series

Hard Disks: 260Gb (stock HDD)

Motherboard: ASUSTeK Computer INC. Puffer2

And yes that is the Intel Pentium 4, Single core, from Nov 2000 not overclocked. The graphics card a lot of you will recognise is also DX9. So if you had any worries about whether your intel Q6600 with ati HD4870 will run the game - I hope this has helped squash them.

PS: I Don't mind if you move this if you feel it'll make less clutter on the main page.

[echo1 0]

i have used both and i havent seen much difference between the two.

Well, loads of people are seeing huge performance drops on Vista, yet, it seems that everyone who is running Windows 7 (myself included) seem to have it running smoothly.

Btw what card should i get the HD 4870 512mb or the 1Ggb??

I'd get the 1GB HD4890 (Although, everywhere else except for Ireland, there is a huge price difference between the 4870 and 4890). That failing, get the 1GB 4870, benchmarks show a big difference.

Considering New M17x asskicker

Go build yourself a proper PC...

Edited June 29, 2009 by echo1

[kutocer 10]

Well i must say i'm impressed but because its working for you dosn't mean ti will work for others. Me for instance i run a D820 with 3gb DDR2 ona 9600GT and i have to have everything on low at 1024x768. This really is a hit and miss game in terms of performance. I am upgrading in the next couple of weeks to a Core i7 with 2 x GTX275 in SLI i'm not doing it for this game (well yeah i am but) i'm doing it for all my games present and future.

Good luck to all the peeps trying to play this.

Kut...

Edited June 29, 2009 by kutocer

[echo1 0]

Yeah, we had another P4 user a few days ago who could run the game smoothly, so there's still hope for people who have old PCs and reasonably good graphics cards.

2 x GTX275 in SLI

Don't bother, theyre a gigantic waste of money and cause more problems then they solve.

[jormar23 10]

Hi everyone. First post here. I currently have the demo and I run 26 fps on high except for the aa and post processing. I have an Amd 64 x2 6000 2 gigs of ram. and a 8800 gts 320mb. I don't really have the cash right now to start over. Any one have any idea what kind of performance boost I would get by adding the 4870 to my system? And would it make much difference if I added more ram.

Thanks

Chris

[walker 0]

Hi jormar23

I have a similar system to you.

I upgraded to 4mb of ram from 2mb. I put the old memory in my server as I also bought faster memory than I had before, remember you may have to set memory speed on your mother board in the control panel. DDR2 memory is cheap at the moment.

I had a very noticable improvement.

Kind regards walker

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Hi jormar23

I have a similar system to you.

I upgraded to 4mb of ram from 2mb. I put the old memory in my server as I also bought faster memory than I had before, remember you may have to set memory speed on your mother board in the control panel. DDR2 memory is cheap at the moment.

I had a very noticable improvement.

Kind regards walker

4mb and 2mb??

[echo1 0]

4mb and 2mb??

That's a pretty serious amount of RAM, you'd run Windows 3.11 like a dream on 4MB...

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

That's a pretty serious amount of RAM, you'd run Windows 3.11 like a dream on 4MB...

haha..

[roadrunner20 10]

It would seem from tests going from 2 gb to 4GB and even 6 can really improve overall performance of the machine.

also check the drivers are upto date as we all know ATI drivers are hit and miss and there isnt any "auto update "feature.

Anyother problem that seems to be addressed allready is the auto analise issue, which seems to kill a lot of the performance, try putting it off then run benchmark and i pretty sure performance will go up a lot.

[WangoTango 0]

Meaning, will ARMA2 even run at a playable FPS ?

Minimal PC System Requirements

* Dual Core CPU (Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz, Intel Core 2.0 GHz, AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster)

* 1 GB RAM

* GPU (Nvidia Geforce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM

* Windows XP

* DVD (Dual Layer compatible), 10 GB free HDD space

My Specs

AMD Athlon 64x2 3800+, CPU speed 2.00Ghz rated at 5.70Ghz,2 GB Ram, Geforce 9600 GSO 768MB, Windows XP Home.

[Herbal Influence 10]

@BillyBud:

I just inserted an AMD 6000 x2 instead of the AMD 3800 x2 (about 65 Euros).

Was a thing of a a minute to do.

Effect: I can now play AA1 but still AA2 only on low settings.

But the reason will be my grafikcard: 7600 GT ;-)

Edited June 29, 2009 by Herbal Influence
yep ! ;-)

[WangoTango 0]

@BillyBud:

I just inserted an AMD 6000 x2 instead of the AMD 3800 x2 (about 60 Euros).

Was a thing of a a minute to do.

Effect: I can now play AA1 but still AA2 only on low settings.

But the reason will be my grafikcard: 7600 GT ;-)

CPU socket 939 ?

I can play ARMA 1 no problem.

[Potatomasher 0]

CPU socket 939 ?

I can play ARMA 1 no problem.

Probably not, AM2 more likely. As far as i know s 939 fastest processor is 4800+

[Herbal Influence 10]

Sockel AM2

@Potatomasher:

How does AA2 run with your cpu/graphics?

Perhaps I am happy with your graphics then ?

By the by: I have 22'' TFT with 1650 x 1050 (or so).

Edited June 29, 2009 by Herbal Influence
more Details .. ;-)

[choC 10]

Well I've downloaded the demo and am almost satisfied with its performance.

I get between 20-45 FPS on the following system at 1920x1200 with everything set to high, AA disabled and view distance at 4km's. I can't comment on the multiplayer as the first local server I joined only allowed me to play for a couple of minutes before crashing to desktop :(

Specs:

e6400 (2.13Ghz)

4GB DDR2-800

ATI HD4870 512mb

Should I expect improved performance in the final retail version with the 1.02 patch applied? If not, what upgrade's would you recommend? I was thinking of replacing my CPU/MB/RAM to an i7 920/ Asus P6T/ 6GB DDR3, but not if I don't get a big performance boost.

[fideco 1]

May someone be so kind to explain the difference between:

1) low

2) normal

3) high

4) very high

5) default

I have a Ati 4870x2 videocard (1 Giga)

What's the best option for me?

Cheers

[Deadfast 43]

Basically controls how much video memory the game allocates.

Too low allocation will cause the game to swap a lot (can cause texture loading delay), too high may cause crashes, default will let the game chose on its own.

[mutters 10]

Thanks for the advice,very helpfull

Looks like i need to spend some cash.

[echo1 0]

Meaning, will ARMA2 even run at a playable FPS ?

Minimal PC System Requirements

* Dual Core CPU (Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz, Intel Core 2.0 GHz, AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster)

* 1 GB RAM

* GPU (Nvidia Geforce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM

* Windows XP

* DVD (Dual Layer compatible), 10 GB free HDD space

My Specs

AMD Athlon 64x2 3800+, CPU speed 2.00Ghz rated at 5.70Ghz,2 GB Ram, Geforce 9600 GSO 768MB, Windows XP Home.

It will probably run fine (try the demo sure).

CPU speed 2.00Ghz rated at 5.70Ghz

I somehow doubt that your CPU is running at the 5.7GHz, sure it's not 2x2.85GHz?

[HyperBart 0]

just played around a bit on the demo... my specs:

AMD 9750 Phenom Quad Core (2.4 Ghz per core)

4 GB RAM @ 1066

ATI HD 4850 512mb

I play at a modest 1280x1024 resolution. The benchmark mission gave me 28 FPS with details at normal, and 27 fps with details at highest settings (with exception of the terrain detail)

I have a few problems with that. First it seems the graphics don't influence this game for shit. Having a good graphics card won't improve your performance.

The second problem is that I still hate the fact that in the Arma community we still settle for 30 something fps. It's even worse, we think it's great if we get 30 something fps. That's just not right! FPS should be 50+ and preferably around 70-80. 30 fps just isn't cutting it in modern gaming in my opinion. It was my primary beef with Arma 1, and it seems despite all promises it'll not be much better with Arma 2.

My last problem is that despite setting all settings at (very) high and managing the 30 something fps, I still see buildings, units, vehicles etc change to the ugly LOD's off and on. Objects that are actually at a very modest range. If the visual settings aren't influencing my performance one single bit, then why degrate the visuals of objects at distance this much?

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

just played around a bit on the demo... my specs:

AMD 9750 Phenom Quad Core (2.4 Ghz per core)

4 GB RAM @ 1066

ATI HD 4850 512mb

I play at a modest 1280x1024 resolution. The benchmark mission gave me 28 FPS with details at normal, and 27 fps with details at highest settings (with exception of the terrain detail)

I have a few problems with that. First it seems the graphics don't influence this game for shit. Having a good graphics card won't improve your performance.

The second problem is that I still hate the fact that in the Arma community we still settle for 30 something fps. It's even worse, we think it's great if we get 30 something fps. That's just not right! FPS should be 50+ and preferably around 70-80. 30 fps just isn't cutting it in modern gaming in my opinion. It was my primary beef with Arma 1, and it seems despite all promises it'll not be much better with Arma 2.

My last problem is that despite setting all settings at (very) high and managing the 30 something fps, I still see buildings, units, vehicles etc change to the ugly LOD's off and on. Objects that are actually at a very modest range. If the visual settings aren't influencing my performance one single bit, then why degrate the visuals of objects at distance this much?

Its your core speed, a faster dual core will beat a slower quad core, i have a AMD Athlon Windsor 6000+ x2 at 3.339ghz OCed from 3.01ghz. I get 18-30 fps on everything maxed out at 1.2km and 1280x1024 Resoultion. If i set AA and Shadows to Normal i get an extra fps bonus at 28-40. I also have the same card but i OCed it aswell, from 633 Core Clock to 700 and 993 Memory Clock to 1200. I saw an extra fps boost. It Helps alot!

Try OCing your CPU to around 2.7-2.8ghz then see how it performs..

---------- Post added at 02:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

just played around a bit on the demo... my specs:

AMD 9750 Phenom Quad Core (2.4 Ghz per core)

4 GB RAM @ 1066

ATI HD 4850 512mb

I play at a modest 1280x1024 resolution. The benchmark mission gave me 28 FPS with details at normal, and 27 fps with details at highest settings (with exception of the terrain detail)

I have a few problems with that. First it seems the graphics don't influence this game for shit. Having a good graphics card won't improve your performance.

The second problem is that I still hate the fact that in the Arma community we still settle for 30 something fps. It's even worse, we think it's great if we get 30 something fps. That's just not right! FPS should be 50+ and preferably around 70-80. 30 fps just isn't cutting it in modern gaming in my opinion. It was my primary beef with Arma 1, and it seems despite all promises it'll not be much better with Arma 2.

My last problem is that despite setting all settings at (very) high and managing the 30 something fps, I still see buildings, units, vehicles etc change to the ugly LOD's off and on. Objects that are actually at a very modest range. If the visual settings aren't influencing my performance one single bit, then why degrate the visuals of objects at distance this much?

Arma 2 is a very demanding game, requires alot of cpu and gfx card power! Its very big and open, what you expect?

COD4 and COD5 run very well around 60-100 for me but im more than happy with 25+ FPS on ArmA/ArmA 2.Because its playable..i really think you should stop whining about the 30+ fps, 25+ FPS is enough to play the game smoothly.. have you also tried updating your drivers?

[OL 0]

Would I be right in thinking that a 4890 would be the best addition to my computer to get more FPS? With everything on medium and a view distance of 2.5km, I can barely break 20 FPS in the 3rd or 4th mission at present. Of course upgrading the graphics card is much easier than stripping everything down to upgrade the CPU!

[nikiforos 450]

Hello people :)

Im about to buy the following parts to build a rig:

Antec Nine Hundred Ultimate Gamer Case - Svart (Ej PSU)

Asus - Socket 775 - ATX Intel P45 (P5Q SE) - DDR2 / PCI-E / SATA

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3,16GHz / 6MB / 1333MHz Socket 775 (Boxed)

Corsair XMS2 4096MB DDR2 PC2-6400 800MHz (5-5-5-18) (2x2048MB) (TWIN2X4096-6400C5 G)

XFX Radeon HD4870 XXX Edition 1GB (HD-487A-ZDDC) - PCI-E / 2xDVI / TV-Ut

AXP PowerSupply (PSU) 630W V. 2.20 SLI Ready

Samsung SpinPoint F1 1TB (7200RPM / 32MB Cache / SATA II / NCQ)

Pioneer Intern SATA DVD±RW 20x DVR-216DBK - Svart (Dual Layer) (Bulk)

How well shoud I run the game with these components?

Can I have high details with a monitor 20 " ?

Thanks in advance :)

[tophe 69]

I've been scanning this thread a bit but I'm just looking for a simple answer to this...

Does Arma2 support 4 cores or only 2? I'm choosing between a e8500 and a q9550.

It seems the 9550 is a nice CPU but the e8500 is almost half the price of the q9550...