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

[GrandmaWithAGun 10]

If i could get a desktop, i would trust me, i just want to know if this will run Arma 2?

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

If i could get a desktop, i would trust me, i just want to know if this will run Arma 2?

why can't you get a desktop?

[GrandmaWithAGun 10]

Im always moving around, and it wouldnt be good to get a desktop

[SirKnightTG 0]

I've tested..

Vista 64

Windows 7

XP 32bit SP3.

The winner, and by a large margin... XP

XP will give a 30% better armamark2 score than both Vista and Windows 7. Actually Windows 7 ran the worst basically becasue Directx 11 sucks in it's current form.

DX11 has jack shit to do with it. This game is DX9. Each API is its own and has their own DLLs. Just b/c a certain OS may support some new 3D API doesn't mean all games suddenly use that API. That's not how it works.

I play this game with Windows 7 64bit and 6GB of ram and it works fine. No crashes and I run a mix of Normal/High/Very High settings at 2500 vis and 1680 res. I get around 30 fps most of the time.

[Litos 10]

Thanks;

Just curious, why? A friend told me the dual core is better, because games/programs don't use more than 2 cores and such. But I wasn't sure since ArmA 2 depends on the processor more than other games. So why exactly is the quad core better?

Oh and my GTX 260 is good right?

Can anybody answer this? I was referring to this post.

Thanks....

[overk1ll 10]

If i could get a desktop, i would trust me, i just want to know if this will run Arma 2?

I think it would run Arma 2, my alienware with much lower specs can. Now, as to the detail, I can't be sure of that, if i had to guess I would say medium to high.

[AliMag 0]

Originally Posted by Squigibo

I've tested..

Vista 64

Windows 7

XP 32bit SP3.

The winner, and by a large margin... XP

XP will give a 30% better armamark2 score

Hi,

Same here. I have both Vista Ultimate SP1 and XP Pro SP3 and XP wins easily.

Originally Posted by binkster

Info I have gathered from the ArmA2mark scores.....

ATI Cards run better with vista

I have the complete opposite here.

Vista slightly better than XP with a 7900 GT and XP drastically better than Vista with my new card 4870.

Cheers

[Tennouheika 10]

I run Windows 7 and the game runs mostly alright most of the time. It would be kind of nice to see a comparison, using the same hardware, of different operating systems and how they compare.

But even if I could get up to 20+ frames extra in XP, I wouldn't give up Windows 7. This operating system runs wonderfully and looks great too. Also some other features, I dunno.

[Squigibo 10]

Hmmm.....I thought DX 11 wasn't even available yet in any way, shape or form and that Windows 7 RC (and the eventual retail copy) will only have DX 10.1 initially. DX 11 won't be available until next year from my understanding (although I haven't tried the Win 7 RC yet, plan on reformatting to it today though).

Win you install Win 7 RC - It comes with Directx 11. It has some serious graphical glitches. Like I have a game that is old, but still fun that is Directx 8 and with Directx 10 it runs fine. Install win7 with DX 11 and it tears and stutters.

---------- Post added at 02:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 AM ----------

Hi,

Same here. I have both Vista Ultimate SP1 and XP Pro SP3 and XP wins easily.

I have the complete opposite here.

Vista slightly better than XP with a 7900 GT and XP drastically better than Vista with my new card 4870.

Cheers

Really. Odd. That tends me to believe more in the firmware of the cards maybe more compatible with different OS's. I know I get a much smoother game with XP32 so I dual booted it. Just my observation on my little ass rig.

---------- Post added at 02:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 AM ----------

DX11 has jack shit to do with it. This game is DX9. Each API is its own and has their own DLLs. Just b/c a certain OS may support some new 3D API doesn't mean all games suddenly use that API. That's not how it works.

I play this game with Windows 7 64bit and 6GB of ram and it works fine. No crashes and I run a mix of Normal/High/Very High settings at 2500 vis and 1680 res. I get around 30 fps most of the time.

Yes, Directx does have something to do with it. The DX11 doesn't have full backward compatability. It's supposed to but doesn't. I've played two games both with Directx 8 requirement. Vista and Xp run it fine. DX11 gives errors, CTD's, and graphical tearing. Just because a version is one up, doesn't mean it's totally backward compatible.

---------- Post added at 02:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 AM ----------

[iM]http://www.linuxscrew.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ubuntu_logo.gif[/img].

But for ArmA 2 -Some people are reporting Windows 7 to be the best for ArmA 2, some are saying Windows XP. I personally use the former and it works great. Some people seem to have had performance issues with Vista that went away when they tried either 7 or XP.

The best OS and the OS that people may have to hand are completely seperate things. If everyone had your attitude, we'd all still be using the PC in my sig...

That said, I'd agree to a certain extent in that I wouldn't upgrade or downgrade an operating system just to use one game. But if all you use your PC for is gaming it may be worth using the one that gives the best performance. But out of all three Windows versions, I'd say Windows 7 is the best for all-around usage and stability.

Unless you have more than 4GB of RAM.

Uh.... Arma2 is a 32 bit game. Even on Vista64 your 4Gig won't matter. Actually if you have more than 2Gig does it matter. On a 32 bit system, the memory above 2 gig is paged. Not 4.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Placebo

[sate 10]

has anyone tested the game with vista 64bit sp1 vs sp2?

[Bloodofthedragon 0]

Hey guys

I've thought about buying a new pc for Arma 2, as it runs pretty bad. Well bad for me (20-35 fps or so, depending on settings of course)

My current computer is only 1.5 years old though and consists of the following:

Core 2 duo 6850 @3.0 GHz

2 gigs of RAM

Nvidia Geforce 8800GT 512 mb

Running XP home

Do you think it would be a better idea to just buy a HD4890 for instance, instead of investing in a whole new system??

Would that be enough to get a signifact increase in performance?

wow snowfox we have the exact same specs!

I just bought a 4890 this weekend, i'll be putting it in on tues or wends I'll post back on how much of a boost I get.

What mobo do you have?

[bono_lv 10]

Well, the answer to that is simple. 4:3 ratio gives you better resolution because it has narrower FOV than is that of 16:9 or 16:10. The greater FOV it is the more objects has to be drawn on screen, and less FPS you get. FOV is related to object culling frustrum, which is area in which objects are drawn.

Cheers.

Quite good explanation.

I just tried using CCC to centre my 1680x1050 resolution (native 1920x1200) and it seems to have had a dramatic impact on performance. At the opening screen I used to get 18-20 frames and lots of stuttering until the camera panned over the first chopper, and now I'm getting 40-45 for the same scene... Odd

What's your system specification. I'm more interested what's your GPU.

Maybe it's somehow related to dual-GPU cards (4870x2, GTX280)?

[pbz06 10]

Hey guys

I've thought about buying a new pc for Arma 2, as it runs pretty bad. Well bad for me (20-35 fps or so, depending on settings of course)

My current computer is only 1.5 years old though and consists of the following:

Core 2 duo 6850 @3.0 GHz

2 gigs of RAM

Nvidia Geforce 8800GT 512 mb

Running XP home

Do you think it would be a better idea to just buy a HD4890 for instance, instead of investing in a whole new system??

Would that be enough to get a signifact increase in performance?

I have basically the same setup but the 8800 GTS and 4 gigs of RAM, and actually on Vista instead of XP.

I also get fps in the 30-40 range, depending on settings. The big killers for me are Anti-Aliasing, Shadows, and Post Processing. I noticed not much difference in all the other settings between "High" and "Normal", we're talking about 5 frames per second differences.

I don't even think it's a video card issue. Lots of people with much better systems are also struggling to run the game with more than 35fps, so I think it's an optimization issue.

By the way, I run it on 1680x1050.

[Cobra Pilot 10]

What FPS would I get with these specs?

-AMD Athlonâ„¢ X2 6000+ Dual-Core CPU w/ HyperTransport Technology

-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

-4GB DDR2-800 PC6400 RAM

-NVIDIA GeForce 9800GT 1GB

[pbz06 10]

What FPS would I get with these specs?

-AMD Athlonâ„¢ X2 6000+ Dual-Core CPU w/ HyperTransport Technology

-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

-4GB DDR2-800 PC6400 RAM

-NVIDIA GeForce 9800GT 1GB

I wish I could give you a solid answer, but it seems like even some guys with hardcore gaming rigs are having problems getting more than 30-40fps, while guys with average rigs are in the same range of fps. Then there's guys in the 15-20 range, heh.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

What FPS would I get with these specs?

-AMD Athlonâ„¢ X2 6000+ Dual-Core CPU w/ HyperTransport Technology

-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

-4GB DDR2-800 PC6400 RAM

-NVIDIA GeForce 9800GT 1GB

im getting a constant 20-60 fps on mine :) , Im not so sure about your graphics card but yeah you should be good at medium-high :)

I run mine all at medium-very high

[SnowFox 10]

Thx for the answers guys and looking forward to seeing your result with the new card Bloodofthedragon.

My mobo is a Gigabyte P35-DS3L

Will that be able to hand a 4890?

[jazhoe 10]

Intel ® Core 2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33 GHZ 2.34 GHZ

RAM: 4GB

32-bit operating system

Windows Vista

Nvidia G-Force 9800 GT

Samsung SyncMaster P2250 monitor think it's 22/24 inch

How should this run it? Just got it for my 21st birthday.

If you have a 2 quad 2.33 ghz and 2.34 does that mean your computer is 4.67ghz?

Where does my graphic card lie with all the others?

Anything else you need to know? ta

Game arrived today, so with these specs what graphic settings should I play at and what button tells you fps?

[Cuzer 0]

I'm new into Arma 2 and ploughing through these forums seems I'm not alone in being a little dissappointed on the visual image of the game, despite what I feel is a high system spec. Could somebody tell me the best settings I can use to play the game with decent speed and good graphics?

My Spec is

System Information

Operating System: Windows Vistaâ„¢ Home Premium (6.0, Build 6002) Service Pack 2 (6002.lh_sp2rtm.090410-1830)

Language: English (Regional Setting: English)

System Manufacturer: System manufacturer

System Model: System Product Name

BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG

Processor: Intel® Core2 Quad CPU @ 2.66GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.8GHz

Memory: 3326MB RAM

Page File: 1239MB used, 5622MB available

Windows Dir: C:\Windows

DirectX Version: DirectX 10

DX Setup Parameters: Not found

DxDiag Version: 6.00.6001.18000 32bit Unicode

DxDiag Previously: Crashed in system information (stage 4)

Display Devices

---------------

Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX

Manufacturer: NVIDIA

Chip type: GeForce 8800 GTX

DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC

Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0191&SUBSYS_039C10DE&REV_A2

Display Memory: 2148 MB

Dedicated Memory: 741 MB

Shared Memory: 1407 MB

Current Mode: 1440 x 900 (32 bit) (60Hz)

I'm tweaking around with the settings all the time but can't seem to find a balance that's right

Any help would be appreciated

Cheers

Cuzer

[scruffy 22]

Thx for the answers guys and looking forward to seeing your result with the new card Bloodofthedragon.

My mobo is a Gigabyte P35-DS3L

Will that be able to hand a 4890?

I run a 4890 on a P35-DS3R, so yes.

But it's only a PCIe 1.1 slot instead of 2.0 so it might lose some speed. No idea how much that is (depending on game etc.), here is a test about it.

It works and really good here, regardless of some % ;)

[AlexGstudios 10]

Hi will this be enough?

i've had my eyes on this for a long time...

Format: Antec Three Hundred Corsair TX 650 Watt nätaggregat

Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 940 (2 MB cache)

Processorrspeed: 3.0 GHz

Chip: 790GX / SB750

Front Side Bus: 5200 (AM2+/AM3) / 2000 / 1600 MT/s

memory: DDR2 PC6400 800 MHz

memory included: 4 GB (2 x 2GB)

Max memory: 16 GB

memoryspace: (free) 4(2)

Harddrive: Serial ATA-300 (size 1 TB (1000 GB))

Grafikcard: ATI Radeon HD4890 1GB GDDR5

Sound: High-Definition, Optisk S/PDIF

[swe 10]

om det är tillräckligt, ja, vad tror du själv?

[AlexGstudios 10]

jo men jag menar o lira spelet på hög/högsta.

Tack swe!

(Translation:

I want to be able to play at hig/very high settings.

Txh swe!)

[noubernou 77]

Hey guys, I was wondering if a graphics card upgrade would give me a nominal boost to my FPS.

Right now I am running this:

CPU: Intel QX6700 OC @ 3.2Ghz

RAM: 4Gb (3.1 visible in windows)

OS: Windows XP Professional SP3

GPU: nVidia GeForce 8800GTX 768Mb

If I were to upgrade to a ATI 4890 1Gb would that provide a nice increase?

I just want to be able to run with a higher framerate than I do now with Object detail turned up to high. Right now at normal LOD is all wacked out even at fairly close ranges. Tanks and IFVs look like paper cut outs until I right click and zoom on them. :mad:

I have found it perfectly fine looking and playable with low or normal FSAA and AF and shadows and the other things set to high or normal.

I usually play with Post Processing off, but thats more because I cant stand the blur. :p I would love to have more PP controls.

also would it utilize the max 32 bit userspace for memory if I ran XP64?

Edited July 6, 2009 by NouberNou

[swe 10]

alexgstudios

I have a q9550, 4gb ram and a GTX 280 and i play on medium/low and have maybe 15-27 fps, which is pretty bad. You will have better but from what i understand, its verry individuall from computer to computer, even with the same setup.

In statistics it is called that the standard error/variance is large.