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

[Adzy28394 10]

Buy a desktop mate lol

[fitzee 7]

You could always try the demo, but honestly, I wouldnt even bother trying with that computer.

[Scopin-Steve 10]

First of all, can I ask where you get the benchmarking program for this game?

:) u mean Armamark? its a map to load wich result in a benchmark, heres the link;

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=423

lol, on my currently P4 with 2gb ddr2 and a geforce 7900gtx i get an total average of 10 ;P beat that! rofl

(waiting on my new rig)..

Edited August 14, 2009 by Scopin-Steve

[Tankbuster 1744]

What we need is a thread that details system specs and settings for Arma2. If it could be stickied in the General section, that'd be useful.

[*NOB*Perica 10]

Is it me or switching from texture detail NORMAL to VERY HIGH has no impact on framerates?

I have a Athlon II x2 250 @ 3.1 ghz (dual core) and Ati 4670 512mb and I compared FPS with fraps and it seems there's no difference whatsoever?!

[-=seany=- 5]

it shouldn't really, higher textures cause more loading from the Harddisk and memory usage, they don't really take away FPS in the way that Anti Aliasing or some thing would

[fasinatra15 10]

Hey guys. I have a laptop, but I was told on here that there's no way it'll run Arma II. Please tell me if these specs will run better. I'd really appreciate it.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4936723&csid=ITD&body=MAIN#detailspecs

[Scorpio9 10]

Hi guys ,just signed up :)

I recently discovered Arma2 by seeing it @ a friends house, i was in awe the whole day ;P haha

I ordered a Pc a week ago (without arma2 in mind) and from what im seeing i wonder how it would run arma2.

Hay scorpion if you goto my website I have done allot of benchmarking a system very close to yours... in it you will see i OC my i7 920 to 3.8GHz and the GTX 280 to 702 MHz and my benches show a 22.9% incress in preformance with the CPU alone.

http://www.armaman.com

[*NOB*Perica 10]

it shouldn't really, higher textures cause more loading from the Harddisk and memory usage, they don't really take away FPS in the way that Anti Aliasing or some thing would

Ok. how about anisotropic filtering?

[Scopin-Steve 10]

Hay scorpion if you goto my website I have done allot of benchmarking a system very close to yours... in it you will see i OC my i7 920 to 3.8GHz and the GTX 280 to 702 MHz and my benches show a 22.9% incress in preformance with the CPU alone.

http://www.armaman.com

Awesome, this is real helpfull indeed, that's amazing how it runs after clocking up, hehe same system as mine ,most of it tough :)

Also many things learned and didnt knew about the power of 236w for the gfx card, thats sick! haha:eek:

Tough i dont know if im gonna do something about the clockspeeds, i have little to no experience with it.

I remember a p2 380 wich i clocked with a program to 420, but....thats waay back ;)

When i see the default clock speeds and performance of Arma2 im thinking it would run very good already.

Thnx a lot, a great article! (added to fav's :)

Edited August 15, 2009 by Scopin-Steve

[MarineSgt16 0]

Just upgraded my memory and graphics card want to know if this game could run on my comp.

Intel® Core 2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13 GHz

Memory (Ram) 4.00GB

ATI Radeon HD 3650 Over clocked

[echo1 0]

A HD3650 is quite a low end card. It may be fast enough to run the game on lower details, but dont expect amazing performance.

[gabe_ruckus 5]

I tried it on a computer with a 3650, and it choked on vegetation close up, and particle effects, regardless of the detail settings. Don't expect it to be very playable.

[Hbomber110 0]

Hi , im curious what is best FOR ARMAII between a

-Intel Core i7 920 Quad Core 2.66GHZ 8MB

and

-AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Quad Core AM3 3.4GHZ 8MB

[echo1 0]

If you can afford the i7, go for it. It's the one that tops the benchmarks.

[Whyfly? 10]

If you can afford the i7, go for it. It's the one that tops the benchmarks.

AMD is better for gaming....

[echo1 0]

Proof plx?

They were great a while ago because they were so much cheaper than Intel's offerings. Now that Intel has slashed prices across the board, theyre not as attractive an offering.

[wooly-back-jack 10]

I think he may mean they seem to outlast them in terms of minimum/recommended spec on the back of the box (ala ArmaII)

[nukey 10]

i have just done an arma2 mark in vista x64 everything in highest apart form AA and AF which was turned off,had an average score of 22,done a fresh install of xp same settings as before,run amra mark again...my score was only 23.so no difference at all between vista/xp.i have a ok system...4x3.0 amd,4 gig corsar @ 1066,and a hd4890.i can run the game on high settings,not highest,but i normally keep AA and AF off.can get choppy when theres alot going on,but 95% it looks and plays great.its just you always want more :)

[echo1 0]

I think he may mean they seem to outlast them in terms of minimum/recommended spec on the back of the box (ala ArmaII)

Again, not following you. The processor that lasts the longest is the one which is the fastest. There are very few things where the Phenom matches the Core i7, let along surpass it.

[Whyfly? 10]

Again, not following you. The processor that lasts the longest is the one which is the fastest. There are very few things where the Phenom matches the Core i7, let along surpass it.

A review, it says i7 is better for many things but the 955 is better gaming.

The 955 is the best for gaming, it smokes the i7, just in gaming.

If the 955 is better then the i7, then the 965.... will totally surpass.

EDIT:

Some more

[echo1 0]

If you actually read the conclusions of both of those articles, you'd note that their point is that the Phenom II is better value for money, and you can sink more money into other parts of your PC. If you look at the benchmarks on Tom's hardware, you'll see that the Core i7 wins out on seemingly every test.

The thing is, that Core i7s are a good bit cheaper than they were even two months ago, so it's not quite as clear cut. The Phenom II is still a good choice, and I plan on getting one before the year is out. But if I had the money and was building a new system from scratch, I'd probably consider a Core i7.

Oh, the one thing that the Phenom II definitely has in it's favor is the upgradability. The LGA1366 motherboards of the Core i7 are going to be reserved for high end workstation chips in future. But by then, you may have to toss your motherboard either way so maybe that's not that big of a consideration.

[wooly-back-jack 10]

Again, not following you. The processor that lasts the longest is the one which is the fastest. There are very few things where the Phenom matches the Core i7, let along surpass it.

have you never noticed on games in general, AMD and ATi usually outlasts Intel/Nvidia? It's usually the latter that needs to upgrade first to play the next new game.

BF2 fx5700 or Radion 8500

CoD4 pentium4 2.4ghz or AMD 2800+

" " Nvidia 6600 or Radion 9800

Arma II DUAL CORE pentium 4 3.0ghz or SINGLE CORE AMD 3200+

Arma2 optimal - Quad core or fast dual core Intel 2.8ghz or AMD x2 4400+

bit of a nothing really but there you go.

Never owned an ATi card myself but its certainly going to be my next one as Nvidia always seem to get caught out by some new shader where you need to upgrade. (or something similarly stupid)

I'll probably stick with AMD for my processor too (I'm still on socket 939 now and getting away with it!)

When the Intels first came out with their new shiney processors I thought that would be the way to go for me, but looking at websites at parts I think I'd rather stick with AMD.

yeah you can get decent Intels for cheap but if you want the top notch gaming Xtreme Quad xxx99.9 you find yourself paying stupid money, tbh they are aimed at a stupid market.

hell I may even stay on socket 939 and just get an FX60 and a decent amount of ram :D

Edited August 16, 2009 by wooly-back-jack

[Rhammstein 10]

thaFunkster, if you were asking me about the benchmarking program, and as long as you were referring to Arma 2, it's right in the demo, main menu. But IMO it's not a very good benchmark. When I play the demo I get nearly double the the frame rate I get than that which I get in the benchmark.

I've always preffered bencharmks not be precached, and if it's a FPS, the benchmark should be run from this point of view to give you an idea what your FPS will be the majority of the time, even if there are times you're in a heli or jet or whatever, where I would expect a better frame rate if the game/sim is optimized properly.

---------- Post added at 02:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 AM ----------

Nevermind the options, but I gotta ask, does this game support hardware physics acceleration or no?

[shataan 1]

I got the Crosshair III, AMD Phenom 955 BE, 8 gigs DDR III 1600 Corsair Dominator, 2 x VelociRaptors in RAID 0, M$ Habu Razor mouse, Samsung 2233RZ @ 120 hz... running ARMA 2 at 1680x1050x32 (atm, going 64 bit when win 7 arrives)...and absolutely loving it!!!!!!!!! Bugs and all. hehhhehhehhe All settings on Highest, no AA/AF tho.

Using AMD Overdrive to o/c to 3.4 gigs (atm) boooooyaaah