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

[Rhammstein 10]

You can very easily get 3.7 out of it, I did. When my MCSE buddy comes down from Boston next week, we're going to shoot for the best possible OC I can get on air. Since my Quad SLI is H20 (liquid cooled video cards), and I keep my 1600 watt power supply outside my case, my case is quite possibly the coolest around without investing in anything else except the best fans, placed in the best places, and I've ordered the absolute best fan/sink available, just in case I can in fact get a better OC, otherwise it's getting returned. As it is it doesn't get anywhere near the redzone (my opinion of a redzone) If you wind up going for a higher OC than I have, please PM me all the details, and I'll do the same when I got for a higher OC.

P.S. No need to read on unless you love AMD as I do. :I love AMD, and I'm soooo happy they're back in the mix, perhaps not the outright leader like back when the AMD64 was released, but in the mix woot! My love for AMD is so ridiculous I stuck with my AND Athlon 64 X2 Black Edition, run at 3.55, for years. Since about the week it was released, until about, just under two weeks ago when I built my new Phenom II/Quad SLI GTX 295 H20 system. I don't like to think of myself as closed minded, to the point I'll ignore higher quality things, but I had no interested in upgrading again until a Quad core came available, the let down of the first AMD Quads was frustrating, but it was well worth the wait! The Irony is that still, my Cpu is my bottleneck lol.

Also, are you certain running 8GB of ram isn't slowing you down? Use CPU-Z, made by CPUID, best program ever, tells you ever single detail about your cpu, motherboard, ram, etc etc. See if you're running at 1600 with all 8GB installed, sometimes running 8GB the PC will downclock your ram, and running 4GB will allow you to run at absolute full speed.

I could be wrong, perhaps you're somehow running 8GB of ram at 1600Mhz? Also you don't mention what video card(s) you're running, I'm curious, were running very similar systems.

Myself running absolutely everything maxed out, every available option, using Nv control for AA/AF. Running 8xMSAA and 16X AF with additional msaa and af options enabled. Once my paycheck arrives electronically I'll be buying it through Steam, or maybe just have my girl pick it up retail and I'll pay her back; so I don't have to wait for patches.

---------- Post added at 03:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 AM ----------

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

Trust someone with 27 years experience, get the AMD. Two reasons. Mutli-core friendly games/apps it won't make much different, games/apps optimized for single or dual core are going to want pure Ghz, AMD is the clear winner here, and don't forget the overclock abilities.

First, a must read, because www.TomsHardware.com in my mind is one of the most trusted websites or this type of work. I've always used them to help with my decision making, and they always include the price of a piece of hardware, which is very important. A quote from there website:

Tom's Hardware's interactive CPU Charts offer the most comprehensive x86 processor comparison on the Internet. The 2009 edition will be updated continuously throughout the year with new processors tested across our complete benchmark suite under 64-bit Windows Vista. The benchmarks include popular synthetics, encryption, productivity, gaming, content creation, and compression metrics, allowing you to find the CPU that meets your requirements. The inclusion of real-time price comparison should also help you find the best value for your budget.

Using charts at TomsHardware and going through about ten games and ten programs, it seems pretty even, however I think it's important to mention they didn't even list the Phenom II 965 BE in the list, and it was not tested, only the Phenom II 940BE and the Phenom II 955BE. The 965 probably wasn't available at the time. In many tests the Phenom II 940 beat the Intel Core i7-940, funny IMO. The lower of the AMD beating the Better of the Intel, Grand Theft Auto IV for example.

Regardless in the end it averaged out a bit, but I've gotta give the edge to AMD for gaming, and certain science apps, which as been the case for years. I didn't witness any tests where one got blown away by another, and keep in mind, the Phenom II 965 Black Edition wasn't even listed, they must not have had it at the time they did the tests. It's gonna rock, probably 3.4 or 3.5 ghz, and maybe some extra cache.

And sorry to Intel fans, but the i7 920 is the only i7 under $300, while all of the Phenom II's were under were just over $200, my Cpu, the Phenom 955 is only $209. The i7 940 and and i7 950 are both between $550 and $589, depending where you look. I looked mostly at newegg, tigerdirect and what I couldn't find there I found easily on Amazon.com. Amazon is great. So anyways, I'd like everyone to keep in mind, the benchmarks are incredibly close, most within 5fps, many less than that, I'm actually surprised, I've never seen a group of Cpu's compete so closely, yet prices so far apart. So I ask this question, why would anyone pay almost $600 for an Intel Core i7 Cpu that runs just as well as a $209 Phenom from AMD? I just wish I could have seen the Phenom II 965 in action. Okay, the number one thing I need to mention is, the Core i7 920 is the -only- i7 Cpu within the price range of the Phenom II's. What's frustrating and I don't understand it, is the i7 940 costing around $550 and the i7 950 costing around $589(Of course you can find them cheaper, not much, but by a little bit, these are Amazon.com's prices, and Amazon.com don't rip ppl off, but don't deal exclusively in PC's and PC hardware, at the same time they won't charge more than a couple bucks more for something, otherwise they won't sell the item. I'm a regular at Amazon, -and- newegg and tigerdirect. So, in the end, you can buy an AND Phenom II that competes "absolutely" with the Intel's. Multi-core friendly games, Intel and AMD will perform about even, but the Phenom's I'm certain will absolutely run away from the Intel Cpu's on older games, because as we all know, the number of cores a Cpu has while playing an older (2-4yrs) games when only single or dual core Cpu's existed, won't make use of the extra cores, unless your antivirus kicks in or some background task starts going berzerk, you can continue to play :) Point is, games such as these want all out speed, Ghz Ghz Ghz, and sure all the cache memory you can throw at them will help too, but not much these older games didn't require much.

So I ask, why pay up to 3.5 times more for an Intel Core i7, when you can get a Phenom II 955 like I have, for $209, not over 500, and use the rest of the cash for an incredibly badass video card? And I'll bet anything the Phenom II 965 will cost just a few more dollars than the 955, which is $209. I mean, for $209 dollars I'm running an awesome quad core at 3.7Ghz on air stable, possibly higher, I dunno how to mess with voltages and all that so I'm waiting for my friend to come down from Boston in about a week I pick him up at the airport, and we'll do our best to get a fantastic OC out of it, at $209, I'd replace it yearly LOL if I had to, not that that would ever happen, but. I dunno, I love AMD, and I'd like to say to AMD, you got it right, the first batch, wasn't rushed, it just wasn't ready, and financially you had to look out for your stock holders, and our own buttes, but now that you're back in the loop, and I must say, in fantastic shape, you'd better start taking advantage, because the Athlon 64 was an Intel killer and you guys didn't do a damn thing.. No commercials that I know of, lots of stuff in magz, but...spend some money, you're gonna make it lookin at these numbers. Only the die hard Intel fans are gonna keep buying i7's, if any at all. They'll either buy the Phenom II's which is the smart thing to do, and just lie to their friends about it if theyre that loyal, or they'll stick with E8XXX series and OC them to 4.4, or stick with last gen till a price cut comes, and be ready AMD, if you want to hit them below the belt, slash your prices again.

I'm sorry this went on so long, but I answered the OP's question, and I just had to bring this up. AMD is back, it doesn't look like they're going anywhere. I think they learned their lesson with the Athlons, don't let a good thing age, keep moving forward, if not keep a step ahead, keep a step aside, and work in other ways. <Proud owner of over 17 AMD Cpu's, lol, but only 3 machines. One X2 SLI machine for when friends come over, my new rig I just built from $ I received from an accident, and a used Mac, only bought it to see what the hype was all about, Ive spent around 6 hours on it, that was over a year ago. Maybe I should sell it before the value falls too far. (Mac's run windows and windows games no problem), yeah sure, at only a 60% cost of performance because of all the layers of bs every single operation must go through.

If Amazon's prices are wrong, please, correct me. But after seeing the numbers on TomsHardware.com it just blew me away.

Forgive my rant. And I promise never to post this long again, it's 5am, I got stuck up all night.. long story, and I just happened to see this post asking about this, and it was the outlet had been searching for, I'm sorry guys, sincerely.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Rhammstein
I got bored and type too much.

[grub 10]

Just built a new rig:

Kingston 4gb 1066 RAM kit

CPU: AMD Phenom II Quad Core 3.2ghz

GFX: Sapphire ATI HD4890 Vapor 1gb

Thought I'd be fine but all these people having problems are freaking me out. Any suggestion as to how I will go? HELP!!!!!!!

Edited August 16, 2009 by Grub

[shahin 10]

hi all...xp 32 bit...ati 4850 1 gig...4 gig ram..cpu 3.4 dual core...all driver update...i use german game version....my fps is 15 its too low...is my system is not good for play smoothly or somethng else?all setting normal low...AI is advance...no overclaock...someone help me..:(

[echo1 0]

BF2 fx5700 or Radion 8500

That's because the GeForce FX series of cards were a pile of shite.

" " Nvidia 6600 or Radion 9800

Again a reflection on how bad the FX cards were that they list a low end 6-series than a high end 5-series.

CoD4 pentium4 2.4ghz or AMD 2800+

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+

The ArmA II CPU specs look like they were written by someone who didn't have a clue about what they were talking about. The BF2 one isn't as bad but is still a bit out. Again, the hardware thats on the back of the box, and what actually runs it are often two completely different things.

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

Wouldnt bother. For the price of a fast 939 dual core on ebay, you could treat yourself to an Athlon II, a new motherboard and about 4GB of RAM and still have change leftover.

[shataan 1]

"Also, are you certain running 8GB of ram isn't slowing you down? Use CPU-Z, made by CPUID, best program ever, tells you ever single detail about your cpu, motherboard, ram, etc etc. See if you're running at 1600 with all 8GB installed, "

CPUZ reports dram timings running at 802 mhz, fsb:dram = 1:4

Everything I have read says this indicates my ram is infact running at 1600 mhz.... running in Dual Channel mode.

I am running the BFG 295 GTX Rev. B vid card.

As well, I use the CoolIT System for cpu cooling.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Shataan

[echo1 0]

There are certain issues with 8GB of RAM and ArmA II, if you do a search you should find them.

CPUZ reports dram timings running at 802 mhz, fsb:dram = 1:4

Everything I have read says this indicates my ram is infact running at 1600 mhz.... running in Dual Channel mode.

1600MHz RAM technically runs at 800MHz. Ever since the original DDR the advertised speed is twice that of the actual speed.

[wooly-back-jack 10]

That's because the GeForce FX series of cards were a pile of shite.

you miss my point. The 8500 was competitor to geforce 3, yet a geforce 4 ti couldn't play BF2 and the 8500 could :)

[echo1 0]

But that's still because the ATI cards at the time were better than nVidia's. It's nothing to do with one brand being inherently better than the other. Im sure in a few years from now, the tables will be turned, considering that it took ATI almost 18 months to come up with cards that reliably outperformed cards like the 8800GTX. Point is, buying ATI because ATI used to be better is a pretty bad reason to buy ATI. Buy whatever is the best at the time...

Which happens to be ATI at this moment in time.

Edited August 16, 2009 by echo1

[leehy 0]

very disappointed about that ARMA2 dosent support a SLI

It is expensive to pay upgrading my PC, but all fail

[lonewolf90 10]

Hi guys

Will it run at least in medium at 1024x768?

Athlon64 3000+

2 GB of RAM

ATI HD3870 512mb

Windows XP SP3

Thank you for any help....

btw first post in the forum, nice to meet you all :)

[Rhammstein 10]

Which happens to be ATI at this moment in time.

That's a matter of opinion. I love the numbers on the 4890, totally kick ass. But there are other things to consider, price vs performance, etc etc. People will argue with me on my next comment but I beg of them, just don't, drivers! Nv has treated me well with driver support and without a doubt Nv does produce a higher quality driver. Although my opinion, I believe I'm right.

Now perhaps I'm biased, the last ATI card I bought was a Radeon X800Pro, great at the time, loved it. Had no driver issues of my own, but I think the problem has been more recent. Anyways my point is I run an Nvidia SLI system, but on an AMD board and chipset. (Screwed myself out of being able to run DDR3 ram in the process.) I love AMD and haven't owned an Intel Cpu since the very last Pentium 1, I can't remember, maybe 166mhz, could have been more. So I like both companies, AMD for Cpu's will likely never change, Gpu's, it certainly could, but I'm happy with the quad sli H20 295's. Allows a better OC on air for my Cpu, case is very cool, well I also moved my Psu outside the case, anything over 1kw will heat up a case ridiculous.

However, if it were 6 weeks ago, and I didn't come across the deal on the GTX 295's (I've never ran quad SLI, I was sold instantly at the price) and I knew that I wouldn't find an AM2+/AM3 board that would support SLI and DDR3 memory, things could have gone differently. However I don't see how I could have turned down the two 295's, not for what I paid.

Sry to go off topic.

---------- Post added at 01:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 AM ----------

Hi guys

Will it run at least in medium at 1024x768?

Athlon64 3000+

2 GB of RAM

ATI HD3870 512mb

Windows XP SP3

Thank you for any help....

btw first post in the forum, nice to meet you all :)

You can run it, your video card isn't bad at all, but don't expect a great experience with a HD resolution with graphics maxed out. Your Cpu is hurting you, is your memory at least DDR2? And if so what speed?

Depending how you respond, I could see you running it with some options on medium, and others low, or off.

[telejunky 0]

When i remeber back to ArmA:Armed Assault, my old Pentium 4 3Ghz beat the AMD 3200+ or so. Maybe it even was a 4400+ single core. I think you got a S939, right?

Then it is time to buy a cheap am2+ board plus ddr2 ram and a AMD Phenom II X2 545 or something like that. Remember Suma: take the fastest dual core cpu for your money, because for the same chips there are only slower quad cores...

Second hand hardware on ebay is good, too (e.g. am2+ board and ddr2 ram). But get a new system, because a more powerful s939 cpus cost like hell...

[lonewolf90 10]

That's a matter of opinion. I love the numbers on the 4890, totally kick ass. But there are other things to consider, price vs performance, etc etc. People will argue with me on my next comment but I beg of them, just don't, drivers! Nv has treated me well with driver support and without a doubt Nv does produce a higher quality driver. Although my opinion, I believe I'm right.

Now perhaps I'm biased, the last ATI card I bought was a Radeon X800Pro, great at the time, loved it. Had no driver issues of my own, but I think the problem has been more recent. Anyways my point is I run an Nvidia SLI system, but on an AMD board and chipset. (Screwed myself out of being able to run DDR3 ram in the process.) I love AMD and haven't owned an Intel Cpu since the very last Pentium 1, I can't remember, maybe 166mhz, could have been more. So I like both companies, AMD for Cpu's will likely never change, Gpu's, it certainly could, but I'm happy with the quad sli H20 295's. Allows a better OC on air for my Cpu, case is very cool, well I also moved my Psu outside the case, anything over 1kw will heat up a case ridiculous.

However, if it were 6 weeks ago, and I didn't come across the deal on the GTX 295's (I've never ran quad SLI, I was sold instantly at the price) and I knew that I wouldn't find an AM2+/AM3 board that would support SLI and DDR3 memory, things could have gone differently. However I don't see how I could have turned down the two 295's, not for what I paid.

Sry to go off topic.

---------- Post added at 01:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 AM ----------

You can run it, your video card isn't bad at all, but don't expect a great experience with a HD resolution with graphics maxed out. Your Cpu is hurting you, is your memory at least DDR2? And if so what speed?

Depending how you respond, I could see you running it with some options on medium, and others low, or off.

Yes my memory is DDR2..I forget what speed...but it's PC6400

Anyway, yeah..I wont expect high setting & HD resolution (my monitor doesnt suppoet HD either), that's why Im asking about running it in medium with 1024x768 (my native resolution)

[wooly-back-jack 10]

Rhammstein is probably right, the fact you play in low native res does help you a bit but you are looking at low on most things, maybe medium on a couple and AA off.

look at my specs in sig and Im on all low, very low and off and my native res is 1280x1024

[lonewolf90 10]

Rhammstein is probably right, the fact you play in low native res does help you a bit but you are looking at low on most things, maybe medium on a couple and AA off.

look at my specs in sig and Im on all low, very low and off and my native res is 1280x1024

I see...do you get a stable framerate somehow?

Anyway,I've found a nice thread about optimization:yay:

http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=6713

I dunno how much extra FPS can I get from this way though..

btw I've also heard that next patch will focus on optimization..I hope it's true

[wooly-back-jack 10]

me too!

[The_Angry_Canadian 10]

Good morning guys,

I'm currently using the onboard sound card of my Asus P5N-D mobo. I was wondering 2 things :

1. Will the sound be better with a sound card in arma ?
   
2. Will the game run smoother ( i heard i can gain some fps with a soundcard )
   

What are your experiences with adding a soundcard ?

Any suggestions on a soundcard ?

[echo1 0]

First off, the performance difference between having a dedicated sound card and an integrated one is negligible.

Secondly, as for sound quality, it really depends on how good your speakers/headphones are - no point in outputting good quality sound when you can't listen to it properly, and as such, you're much better off buying better speakers or headphones than a soundcard if you don't already have one. Although a really top notch pair of speakers should have a good sound card to take advantage of them.

I have an ASUS Xonar DX, mainly for music. I know that my music sounded a bit better, and I could do some cool stuff with it. As for games, I don't really pay much attention to sound in games (it's a background thing as far as I'm concerned) so I couldnt tell you for definite.

I would stay away from Creative cards. A lot of people will swear by them, but I, and anyone I know who has owned one, have had nothing but problems with them.

Edited August 18, 2009 by echo1

[GLeek 10]

what size of flip queue size should i use for my ATI card ?

[The_Angry_Canadian 10]

Thank for the advice ch_123.

[Kommiekat 12]

There was a time in computing when, Hardware led Software.

I truly believe that gaming has changed the order in this, that being Software leading Hardware.

That being the case, I slapped down $100 bucks and upgraded from Nvidia 8600 to a 9800 and all my graphics problems were solved.

It's games like this that give one a signal it's time to bite the bullet and upgrade, whether you want to or not.

Soon Dragon Quest will be out, and you'll need all you can get.

[L33t-krew 0]

Best advice I can give is to overclock your CPU. Clocking my Q9550 from 2.8Ghz to 3.8Ghz did wonders for me :)

[kklownboy 43]

Thank for the advice ch_123.

My XFI runs great, has more voices than on board and is better for 5.1 sound placement. I compare from time to time with ppl i play with, and they dont hear the same amount of sounds i hear in game at the same spot.....

---------- Post added at 08:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 AM ----------

Best advice I can give is to overclock your CPU. Clocking my Q9550 from 2.8Ghz to 3.8Ghz did wonders for me :)

Yes I get a good boost in frames at 3.8 and up. 3.8 seems like a sweet spot? In some parts in the game i get 15fps more with 3.8/4.0 than my stock 3.3ish...I think its because its using my quadfire instead of gagging on my gpus...

[echo1 0]

My XFI runs great, has more voices than on board and is better for 5.1 sound placement. I compare from time to time with ppl i play with, and they dont hear the same amount of sounds i hear in game at the same spot.....

The ASUS ones have, as far as I know, just as good sound/gaming capabilities, but don't seem to have the same sort of troubles that Creative cards have.

[Scopin-Steve 10]

Hey guys,

the game runs awesomly good now (new rig), only one thing and i dont know where to post, so sorry if this is not in the right topic.

Anyway i have a gtx275 and due to my lcd it cant get higher as 1360x768,

i cant find drivers for my lcd (kdl40z4500) ,also the dvd that comes withthe lcd didnt contain any :/

so im stuck here, also 60hz meh, the lcd is 200 lol, any help would b greatly appr.

:)

Edited August 19, 2009 by Scopin-Steve