pbz06 10 Posted June 29, 2009 I copied and pasted the info for System Requirement Labs. Are you sure it wasn't your Performance Index score used by Vista? Mine is at 5.7 too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WangoTango 0 Posted June 29, 2009 Are you sure it wasn't your Performance Index score used by Vista? Mine is at 5.7 too. I am running XP Home. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pieman13 10 Posted June 29, 2009 Hey guys I have this PC:http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9172496&type=product&id=1218043607105I'm hoping i can upgrade it to run Arma 2. Will this card run it?:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001V1PBR4/ref=s9_simp_gw_s0_p23_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1P5ZK6YJ6J3BJCRZEVC1&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846 I think i might also need a new power supply so any suggestions? Thanks :) ^ So would that card run Arma 2? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Siberian 10 Posted June 29, 2009 I've pretty much decided to go with either two HD 4870 or two GTX260 of some kind, using SLI. Together with the rest of my specs below could someone give me a ballpark figure on FPS? CPU: AMD X2 6400+ 3.21 GHz RAM: 3 GB DDR2 Power: 600 W Main board: M2N32-SLI I'm running XP by the way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thefoolio888 10 Posted June 29, 2009 I'm really confused... My spec is the following... e8500 @ 3.14GHz BFG GTX 285 OC2 4GB DDR3 RAM Vista 32bit I'm running at 1240*1024 with most things on high or normal...and get an average of 35-40FPS. Sometimes as low as 25. To me that sounds like crap. Surely I should be getting more like 50-60fps with the res as low as that and the settings on normal. Now I've been reading the forum and there are people with a sorts of specs, running all sorts of configs and getting completely different results. None of it seems to add up. Am I just expecting too much? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
commiekiller 10 Posted June 29, 2009 hello im new to this forum and new to arma i just bought a pc, here are the specs could you tell me if it will run arma2 good havent got the pc yet i7-920 2.66ghz HDD-300gb 10,000rpm 2 GPU SLI gtx 280 1 GB 16x 6GB DDr3 RAM vista 64bit i hope i can run high graphics right now on the pc i currently have i put them on lowest and the none ops and the game still runs like crap i would like to get the settings on very high????? thanx if any 1 answers:) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 29, 2009 I've pretty much decided to go with either two HD 4870 or two GTX260 of some kind, using SLI. Together with the rest of my specs below could someone give me a ballpark figure on FPS?CPU: AMD X2 6400+ 3.21 GHz RAM: 3 GB DDR2 Power: 600 W Main board: M2N32-SLI I'm running XP by the way. Well, the game doesnt properly use SLI (or at least there are a load of problems with it). So I'd just get a single HD4890 1GB, which will run the game fine. In fact, instead of spending all that money on two cards, you'd get a much better performance boost from one card and upgrading the CPU to something faster like a Phenom II. If you were to put 2xHD4870s into that system, the slow-ish CPU would really limit their effectiveness anyway. hello im new to this forum and new to arma i just bought a pc, here are the specs could you tell me if it will run arma2 good havent got the pc yet It will, but the game wont take proper advantage of two cards, besides, one is more than enough to run it right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
commiekiller 10 Posted June 29, 2009 It will, but the game wont take proper advantage of two cards, besides, one is more than enough to run it right. Thanx thats all i needed to hear:D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tophe 69 Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Think about it, how could you run the benchmark mission without having the game? Obviously the demo has more than just the benchmark, but if the demo only contained the benchmark, the size difference wouldn't be that big. Just download it and leave it run overnight. Um.. I have the full game. That's why I don't want to download the demo. But never mind, I went with Fraps, works fine. Edited June 29, 2009 by Tophe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olasee 10 Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Considering New M17x asskicker Go build yourself a proper PC... Proper?! What`s that? Something that ties me to a chair? hell no! Proper?! With the choice from these, I can only laugh at some `boxes` :rolleyes: Coreâ„¢ 2 Quad Coreâ„¢ 2 Extreme Quad Coreâ„¢ i7 Extreme [late `09] Single 1GB GDDR3 GeForce GTX 280M Dual 2GB GDDR3 GeForce GTX 280M ... and all that on the move, and when I sit down in the livingroom, will just plug HDMI to the 42"plazma and play Arma 2 or NFS: Shift, OFP 2, Assassins creed 2, and ofcourse Diablo 3 on best detail available. ... you have probably value for money on your mind, well, not on mine. I take it more like a gaming investment for another 2 years and makin` my self a delight :cool: Edited June 29, 2009 by Olasee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 29, 2009 Oh right, sorry for misunderstanding you. So the real deal doesnt have the benchmark? That's pretty odd, BIS should probably add it in the patch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dominix 10 Posted June 30, 2009 hi one more time, i have new option for my pc upgrade. and i need advice, so now i can choose between 4890 Vapor-x Toxic (Gpu 960Mhz mem 1050) or MSI GTX 280 OC (Gpu 650 mem 2300) hd is new and gtx is used but with warranty to agu 2k11. my res i 1280x102 so 1gb is enough, but which is better/quieter (if there is difference like 5fps more but much louder i go for slower card) and of course can my psu handle gtx 280? or maybe should i wait for next gen g.card? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted June 30, 2009 so now i can choose between 4890 Vapor-x Toxic (Gpu 960Mhz mem 1050) or MSI GTX 280 OC (Gpu 650 mem 2300) Purely in terms of performance vs. cost, I'd say go for the 4890. but which is better/quieter (if there is difference like 5fps more but much louder i go for slower card) From my experience, ATI cards get a bit louder by default with the new drivers, but you can set the fan speeds yourself if you want. The NVidias are quieter but can also get pretty hot because their fans are set very slow by default. Personally I use a custom RivaTuner profile to increase the fan speed on the card, so it gets a lot louder but never warmer than 65°c. and of course can my psu handle gtx 280?or maybe should i wait for next gen g.card? Should be fine. I run a GTX285 on a 600w PSU with no problems. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dominix 10 Posted June 30, 2009 oh i forgot cuz i can get these cards for the same price, cuz 280 is used. and as i know vapor-x is very quite than ref cooling. its really hard to find test to compare these to cards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OL 0 Posted June 30, 2009 I'm really confused...My spec is the following... e8500 @ 3.14GHz BFG GTX 285 OC2 4GB DDR3 RAM Vista 32bit I'm running at 1240*1024 with most things on high or normal...and get an average of 35-40FPS. Sometimes as low as 25. To me that sounds like crap. Surely I should be getting more like 50-60fps with the res as low as that and the settings on normal. Now I've been reading the forum and there are people with a sorts of specs, running all sorts of configs and getting completely different results. None of it seems to add up. Am I just expecting too much? Your CPU needs to be faster. You should be able to overclock to 4Ghz+, which would improve performance massively. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 30, 2009 Proper?! What`s that? Something that ties me to a chair? hell no! Well, considering that you're getting a 5Kg+ laptop that more than likely doesnt have a long battery life, I think you're going to be stuck at a chair anyway. Proper?! With the choice from these, I can only laugh at some `boxes` :rolleyes:Core™ 2 Quad Core™ 2 Extreme Quad Core™ i7 Extreme [late `09] Single 1GB GDDR3 GeForce GTX 280M Dual 2GB GDDR3 GeForce GTX 280M The problem is that all of the above are the mobile versions, not the desktop ones. The CPUs trade in a good deal of power for battery life, and those nVidia graphics cards are really rebranded versions of their old 9800M series. So while it may look like you're getting a premium-grade "asskicker" you're getting something with decidedly mid-range performance. Of course, you pay €2,000+ for it, and can't upgrade it. Seriously, where do people like you get all this money? :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thefoolio888 10 Posted June 30, 2009 Your CPU needs to be faster. You should be able to overclock to 4Ghz+, which would improve performance massively. Really? I always thought that the RAM and GPU were the most important when it comes to gaming. Surely, I shouldn't need to start overclocking the CPU just to get a decent graphics frame rate? Anywho...thanks for the tip. I'll take a look. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 30, 2009 Depends on the game - some want faster graphics, some want fast CPU. (RAM speed isnt all that important). ArmA II Likes fast CPUs, overclocking your should help. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dukeuk76 10 Posted June 30, 2009 All these super duper rigs. You dont need some ninja system to run the game. It runs fine for me on my X2 4400, 2GB ram and a 1GB HD4650. Thats everything on normal apart from video memory, thats set to high. A lot of posts within this thread was almost putting me off geting the game...$1200 rig to play a $40 game...you guys are crazy! It cost me £50 for the graphics card, and £38 for the game, im well happy. Good job BIS! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
choC 10 Posted June 30, 2009 All these super duper rigs. You dont need some ninja system to run the game. It runs fine for me on my X2 4400, 2GB ram and a 1GB HD4650. Thats everything on normal apart from video memory, thats set to high.A lot of posts within this thread was almost putting me off geting the game...$1200 rig to play a $40 game...you guys are crazy! It cost me £50 for the graphics card, and £38 for the game, im well happy. Good job BIS! I don't know about you but I love maxing out settings in games, just adds to the cinematic quality imo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbz06 10 Posted June 30, 2009 Really? I always thought that the RAM and GPU were the most important when it comes to gaming. Surely, I shouldn't need to start overclocking the CPU just to get a decent graphics frame rate?Anywho...thanks for the tip. I'll take a look. It just depends on the game. MOST games, yea, they're more GPU and RAM dependant. But a couple games (usually when it's AI or physics driven or large scale where there's a lot of units or things going on) will need a really strong CPU. Of course, having everything is the best way to go :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pele 10 Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) Does it work on GTX Geforce 260? Edited June 30, 2009 by Pele Wrong typ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobra Pilot 10 Posted June 30, 2009 Hello. Im new to computer gaming (consoles ever since I can remember), and I am trying to build my own system on ibuypower.com. I have to keep it to at most $700 and I was wondering if this configuration would be a good one for playing ArmA2. What would I have to set all of the video settings in game to with this? -PSI ArmorX Gaming Tower Case Red -450 Watt -- Standard Power Supply -[== Triple Core ==] AMD Phenom™ II X3 720 Triple-Core CPU w/HyperTransport Technology AM3 & AM2+ support -AVC Silent AMD CPU Fan and Heatsink Quiet & Overclocking Proof -Asus M3A78-CM AMD 780V/SB700 Chipset w/Integrated ATI video, 8-channels, Gb LAN, S-ATA Raid, USB 2.0, Single PCI-E MB -4 GB [2 GB X2] DDR2-800 PC6400 Memory Module Corsair-Value or Major Brand -NVIDIA GeForce 9400GT 1GB w/DVI + TV Out Video -320 GB HARD DRIVE [serial-ATA-II, 3Gb, 7200 RPM, 16M Cache] -LG 22X Dual Format/Double Layer DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW Drive -3D Premium Surround Sound Onboard (Sound Card) -iBUYPOWER 2.1 Channel Stereo Super Bass Subwoofer Speaker System -Onboard LAN Network (Gb or 10/100) -17" TFT LCD Monitor -iBUYPOWER USB Keyboard w/ 18 Internet Hot /Multimedia Keys All for $668.00 I already have an OS, but Im just going to use that to boot the rig and then Im going to download win7. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted June 30, 2009 The 9400GT is nowhere near powerful enough for this game. If you only have a 17" screen, you might get away with a 9600GT, but it would be much better to try and get a HD4850. Btw - the "standard" 400W PSU isnt going to cut it... Probably better off going for something like the Corsair 550W unit. I wouldn't bother with that third party fan, the one that comes with the CPU will probably be good enough. If you want to do some overclocking, you'd be better off with something more substantial than some cheap non-brand fan. 3D Premium Surround Sound Onboard I'm a bit confused, is that a seperate sound card or the one built into the motherboard? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gonzo89 10 Posted June 30, 2009 -NVIDIA GeForce 9400GT 1GB w/DVI + TV Out Video That's the main thing that you need to change, that card isn't designed for gaming. Go for something like an ATI 4850 or at least a 260 from GeForce if you want to run ArmA2 well. Also, if you're getting a triple core, you might as well shell out a little bit more for a quad core. If you make those changes, you'll also have to bump up the power supply to 600+. EDIT: Beaten to it :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
