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

[logixs 10]

I just ordered these parts Intel i5-750, ga-p55m-ud2 mobo

4gb sdram DDR3 1600

XFX HD-585A-ZNBC Radeon HD 5850 (Cypress Pro) 1GB Black Edition

Will my pc be able to run Arma 2 well?

If so, on what settings? thanks :)

[mc_conor 0]

Hi guys i have a dell 530 slimline. I was not intending on gaming on it obviously but Arma 2 was too much of a pull.

Specs:

e8400 @3.00Ghz

3Gb DDR2 Ram

2400 Pro (which is terrible)

at 800x600 resoultion im getting between 8 and 35 fps on the lowest settings.

Due to a low profile PC my onli option is

9600gt 512mb ddr2 - which also requires another psu which will sit outside of the case

Cost approx £130

or...

a sapphire hd4650 512mb Cost approx £45

i am only planning on playing arma 2 but i hear arma prefers ati cards, but the 9600gt is slightly superior, but is it worth nearly 3 times as much cost for me?

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------

does anyone use any of these two cards? im looking to play on the best settings possible on a playable framerate of 20-25fps minimum.

Would a 9600gt on low/normal settings at 1024*1068 accomplish this?

what about the 4650 is it much worse?

[Dessa 10]

i7 860 @ 2.80ghz

4gb RAM DDR3

geForce 260GTX

What can I expect more or less?

[5133p39 14]

I got my new computer, so here are some ArmA2 benchmark results.

First, the HW configuration:

Mainboard: MSI P55-GD65

CPU: Intel Core i5-750

Memory: 2x 2GB DDR3 1333MHz

VGA: ASUS EAH5970 Series

...everything on factory defaults, no overclocking (maybe later).

ArmA2 settings:

ArmA2 version: 1.05

Visibility: 2565m

Interface resolution: 1280 x 1024 x32

3D resolution: 1280 x 1024

Texture detail: NORMAL

Video memory: HIGH

Anisotropic filtering: NORMAL

Antialiasing: DISABLED (it does nothing anyway)

Terrain detail: NORMAL

Objects detail: NORMAL

Shadow detail: NORMAL

Postprocess effects: DISABLED

Benchmark results (each benchmark is run three times):

Benchmark 1 average FPS: 56, 60, 56

Benchmark 2 average FPS: 20, 20, 19

...well, i was expecting little bit better performance, especially after i seen it run Fallout 3 with maxed out details, but at least it is playable (so far, during normal gameplay the FPS didn't get under 40, and its not on the lowest settings yet, so i can lower the details if i feel the need).

I am not disapointed, but also not excited.

EDIT: Actually i am excited!

This morning, i started ArmA2 again, and now i have 70 FPS MINIMUM!!! Even with Shadows on HIGH.

I really don't understand what happened, but i checked the settings and it is still the same as i stated before, except the Shadows which i now put on HIGH.

I can be riding fast on a motorcycle through the deepest forests of Chernarus, or through the biggest cities of Sahrani, and the FPS just won't go under 70.

Everything is soooo silky smooth, absolutely no lag, the controls feels like its supposed to, i have no words.

So, everyone - go for Radeon 5970, its definitely worth the money!

(btw. and no visual glitches at all with ArmA2 v1.05)

Edited January 8, 2010 by 5133p39
forgot to specify my version of ArmA2

[nikiforos 450]

Radeon 5970 might be a great card but costs a hell of money. For me personally its not an alternative, Im going for Radeon 4890 1 GB. And an AMD II X4 965 3,4 GHZ.

I believe I can make 40 FPS at medium/high.

[MaXyM 10]

I found strange thing. I get more FPS in high shadow settings than on normal!!!

I noticed it in Black Forrest. difference is 23 to 28 fps.

After quick test I got no noticeable difference in the villages.

gfx settings:

Most to normal

AF: low

FSAA: disabled

view distance: 1500

posteffects: low

My specs:

C2D 6400 @ 2.8GHz

P5KC + 4GB@800MHz

GF8800 320MB @ 600/950MHz

[Dessa 10]

Hmmm, 32 fps w/ everything maxed except for FSAA in demo.

Wonder if I should. Steam demo is up to date or is it old, less optimized version?

[Tom1 10]

Um im a console gamer but have given up waiting for an unlikely console version of ArmA2. I am buying a pc from my mate and i realised that it matches all of the system requirerments for ArmA2, somewhere in between "recomended" and Minimal" but that shuld do me as i am fine playing CWC with its graphics. (well actually elite coz i used t b console gamer). I dont need to play on highest settings nd i am not super rich nd cant afford to go out nd buy expensive graphics cards and all and i am just looking for a good singleplayer experience with a gud mission editor like Ofp :CWC/Elite. The one problem i have though is the minimal system requirerment for gfx card is Geforce 7800 but mine is 7500. If i turned down veiw distance and resolution tto low/ medium low would my pc still be able to run arma 2 without to much lag. Remember im fine with CWC graphics but its the lag im worried about. And if i need a new gfx card (say Geforce 8800 or 7800 ) how much am i looking at (preferably in AUD but US dollars is fine too). Thanx in advance.

---------- Post added at 12:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------

Geforce 7500 3.42Ghz if hat makes a differance. :) lol soz im new to pc gaming.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Hi Tom,

ArmAII is not coming to any consule thats for sure. If it is it might be the X-Box 2048.

Add a GTS8800 640MB card or a GTX8800 and you should be just fine.

I had the GTS8800 640MB with ArmAII for a long time before I upgraded.

You should be able to pick 1 up real cheap from either retail or eBay.

I'd give you my old one cept its obviously blown some memory or something.

Edit: Well, that sort of depends what you pluging the card into ..... whats your friend selling you?

[Tom1 10]

Thanx man, il try and find one. I dunno what PC hes givin me, it was gud 2 years ago, and all i know is that it matches the system requirerments apart from graphics card but thanx anyway. Hes coming over today and il ask him but hes also bringing an original xbox and elite that he bought off ebay for me!

[Black0ps 0]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/HP+-+Pavilion+Desktop+with+AMD+Athlon%26%23153%3B+II+X4+Quad-Core+Processor/9549401.p?id=1218122580360&skuId=9549401&st=HP elite 29220&cp=1&lp=7

What do you think of this? If I get this obviosly I will buy another graphics card like the ATI Radeon 9123942342034829348238402 or whatever it recomends for optimal settings, but is there anything else that needs to be upgraded aswell or should I mind as well keep on looking? People told me that it doesnt matter sometimes if I have a quad core unless its XXXXXXX and I have no idea what XXXXXXXX is.... I want a good CPU eitherway. Sorry computer specifications look like an alien language to me :P

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/HP+-+Pavilion+Desktop+with+AMD+Athlon%26%23153%3B+II+X4+Quad-Core+Processor/9549401.p?id=1218122580360&skuId=9549401&st=HP elite 29220&cp=1&lp=7

What do you think of this? If I get this obviosly I will buy another graphics card like the ATI Radeon 9123942342034829348238402 or whatever it recomends for optimal settings, but is there anything else that needs to be upgraded aswell or should I mind as well keep on looking? People told me that it doesnt matter sometimes if I have a quad core unless its XXXXXXX and I have no idea what XXXXXXXX is.... I want a good CPU eitherway. Sorry computer specifications look like an alien language to me :P

its a micro-atx board, that means its smaller, and a large gfx card may have fit issues

memory support for that particular motherboard is limited:

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&dlc=en&cc=us&docname=c01421635

NOTE: HP does not recommend using PC2-8500. This motherboard can support only one PC2-8500 DIMM per channel (2 DIMMS total), which limits the maximum memory.

mixing a good cpu with outdated memory is fail, imho.

I'd advise looking for something else

[andromedagalaxe 10]

CPU: AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition Callisto 3.1GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache: This Cpu can be unlocked to 3 or 4 cores if you have the right motherboard

Motherboard: MSI K9N6PGM2-V2:

Ram: A-DATA 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 Dual Channel Ram

Power Supply:450w raidmax

Hard Drive: 500GB Sata HD, :

Drive: Samsung CD Drive

Case: Raidmax CASE

GRAPHICS CARD: MSI N250GTS-2D512 OC V2 : The defualt Settings are gpu: Clock 760mhz, memory: 1150mhz , Shader : 1836 mhz: This card is excellect it comes oc'd stock and runs 35c @ idle and its easy to overclock.

350$

[Fox '09 14]

that should run fine. But, why don't you get a better card like the 5850? it's faster than 3 of those cards.

[Meatball0311 79]

This is my rig:

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

ASUS CG5290 Intel Core i7 CPU 920 @2.67GHz 2.67GHz

SATA 3.5" 1TB (7200 rpm)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX260 896M / I OC'ed it to 680MHz core/ 1360MHz shader / 1100MHz memory

9GB DDR3 memory

Win7 64-bit

NVIDIA Control Panel/Manage 3d Settings/Global Settings

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

Anisotropic filtering: Application-controlled

Antialiasing - Gamma correction: On

Antialiasing - Mode: Application-controlled

Antialiasing - Setting: Use global setting (Application-controlled)

Antialiasing - Transparency: Supersampling

Maximum pre-rendered frames: Use global setting (1)

Multi-display/mixed-GPU acceleration: Single display performance mode

Power management mode: Use global setting (Adaptive)

Texture filtering - Anisotropic sample optimization: Off

Texture filtering - Negative LOD bias: Allow

Texture filtering - Quality: Quality

Texture filtering - Trilinear optimization: Off

Threaded optimization: On

Triple buffering: On

Vertical sync: Force on

In Game Settings

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

Quality Preference: Very High

Interface Resolution: 1920x1080

3D Resolution: 1920x1080

Texture Detail: High

Video Memory: High

Anisotropic Filtering: Normal

Antialiasing: Normal

Terrain Detail: High

Object Detail: High

Shadow Detail: Normal

Postprocess Effects: High

Interface Size: Small

Aspect Ratio: 16:9 Wide

In all I am getting great quality and my performance is not bad at all. However, I do notice at times the game does slow down (not too noticeably laggy, but you can just tell it lags a tad) of course on Chernarus. Any suggestions to my settings? Do you think I can get it to where there is no 'lag' at all?? Is that even possible?

I believe, that I am getting about 30 fps, but I need to confirm this.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Meatball0311

[wardog01 0]

old system :

Q6600

MSI P7N Silenz 750i

4gb ram ddr 800 mhz

xfx gts250 512mb

2x 500gb raid0

W7 64bit

everything on medium and 1920*1080 res.

After the last patch arma2 was running, but not that great.

New system:

CPU i5

msi P55 GD-65

4 gb geil black dragon 1600Mhz

ATI 5850 1Gb

2x 80Gb raid0 for OS

2x 500Gb raid0 for games

1x 1,5 Tb data

W7 64bit

everything on high, view distance 5000 and 1920*1080 res.

Now arma2 is running great !!

FPS is 2 times that of the old system.

Almost no stuttering.

benchmark1 = 50 fps

benchmark2 = 30 fps

armamark = arround 5000

Did not do any tweaks yet, not on the gfx, not on arma2, nothing.

just installed it, patched it, played it.

[MartiUK 10]

since noone seems to be at the PC discussion thread i'll post this:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1543593&postcount=147

[meepr 10]

old system :

Q6600

MSI P7N Silenz 750i

4gb ram ddr 800 mhz

xfx gts250 512mb

2x 500gb raid0

W7 64bit

everything on medium and 1920*1080 res.

After the last patch arma2 was running, but not that great.

New system:

CPU i5

msi P55 GD-65

4 gb geil black dragon 1600Mhz

ATI 5850 1Gb

2x 80Gb raid0 for OS

2x 500Gb raid0 for games

1x 1,5 Tb data

W7 64bit

everything on high, view distance 5000 and 1920*1080 res.

Now arma2 is running great !!

FPS is 2 times that of the old system.

Almost no stuttering.

benchmark1 = 50 fps

benchmark2 = 30 fps

armamark = arround 5000

Did not do any tweaks yet, not on the gfx, not on arma2, nothing.

just installed it, patched it, played it.

How did you do that?

My specs:

Core i5 @3,6ghz

4GB corsair Dominator GT @1800mhz

Asus Maximus III gene

Radeon 5850

1Terabyte Samsung HD

everything on Medium except Texture quality (high)

View distance 2500m

Arma Mark 4300

but still low fps and some stuttering

Did you overclock your CPU?

[Leon86 13]

his harddisks might be a bit faster/more responsive.

[The-Tim 0]

Hey, My exams will end in 2 weeks, so Arma II is coming up then. i'm considering upgrading my pc, i have the opportunity to do so because i have someone to sell my old parts too at a fair price.

Would i get a serious performance increase with the following upgrade

Current System:

C2Duo e6850 2x 3.6 Ghz (over clock).

4 GB DDR2-800,

HD in Raid 0

Ati 4890 (bought a few months ago)

I would upgrade it to

Core i7 860

4GB DDR3-1600

still the Raid 0 HD config

and also still my graphics card. (ati 4890)

Would this increase performance for me, especialy on the campaign and online Warfare. I'm running in 1920x2000 resolution

Edited January 17, 2010 by The-Tim

[Meatball0311 79]

I have corrected my settings in game and am getting great fps, but my quality has taken a hit. It is getting on my nerves that I have a fairly good rig at least I think I do and I cant use any antialiasing or I get crappy fps like 11 when I am in woods or heavy battles.

What is a fix to this problem? What would I need to upgrade to be able to use antialiasing so I can remove those annoying jagged edges!

This is my rig and settings:

edited after some tests and this is the updated

ASUS CG5290 Intel Core i7 CPU 920 @2.67GHz 2.67GHz four multithreaded cores

SATA 3.5" 1TB (7200 rpm)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX260 896M

9GB DDR3 memory

Win7 64-bit

GeForce GTX260 896M

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

Core clock 576

Memory clock 1015

Shader clock 1242

OC'ed

-----

10JAN10

Core clock 680

Memory clock 1100

Shader clock 1360

NVIDIA Control Panel/Manage 3d Settings/Global Settings

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

Anisotropic filtering: Application-controlled

Antialiasing - Gamma correction: On

Antialiasing - Mode: Enhance the application setting

Antialiasing - Setting: 2x

Antialiasing - Transparency: Supersampling

Maximum pre-rendered frames: 8

Multi-display/mixed-GPU acceleration: Single display performance mode

Power management mode: Use global setting (Adaptive)

Texture filtering - Anisotropic sample optimization: Off

Texture filtering - Negative LOD bias: Allow

Texture filtering - Quality: Quality

Texture filtering - Trilinear optimization: On

Threaded optimization: On

Triple buffering: On

Vertical sync: Force On

Ok so what I did was take your advice and turned on "Threaded Optimization"; Basically turned Anisotropic filtering: "Application-controlled" (basically off); turned on "Texture filtering - Trilinear optimization" to give me better performance; set to Allow "Texture filtering - Negative LOD bias" for higher performance

In Game Settings

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

Quality Preference: High

Interface Resolution: 1920x1080

3D Resolution: 1920x1080

Texture Detail: High

Video Memory: Default

Anisotropic Filtering: Disabled

Antialiasing: Low

Terrain Detail: High

Object Detail: High

Shadow Detail: High

Postprocess Effects: Disabled

Interface Size: Small

Aspect Ratio: 16:9 Wide

Here is where the good stuff is at.. first and foremost I turned Postprocess Effects: "Disabled" (this did wonders); Texture Detail to "High"; Video Memory to "Default"; set Antialiasing to "Low" (and in Nvidia control panel I set Antialiasing - Mode: "Enhance the application setting" and Antialiasing - Setting: "2x" to boost the Antialiasing in game); turned Terrain Detail: "High"; Object Detail: "High"; Shadow Detail: "High"

PhysX GPU acceleration

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

Disabled

I have concluded that Postprocess Effects needs to be Disabled if you want to use any setting of antialiasing, and that depending on your graphics card and resolution, this seems to be doing the trick for me and my rig atm, but will check back and would appreciate any advice. Cheers!

Edited January 18, 2010 by Meatball0311

[Stamp74 10]

Hi, I've been currently running the demo with a ATI Radeon HD 3650 256MB card and running everything on low/medium will still some crappy frame rates. I purchased Nvidia GeForce GTX260 896M card recently and am just wonder how this would perform in the accual game. I run at 1920x1080 resolution... I am hoping this will allow me to start using the high options. I can't stand running low/med settings.

Windows Vistom Home Premium 64-bit

Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz 2.40 GHz

6.00 GB of RAM

Nvidia GeForce GTX260 896M

700 watt power supply

Planning on buying this game in the next few days, I've been having a blast in the demo. Just wonder if there will be a large increase in performance with the new card.

Stamp74

[jwalstab 10]

I win,

I run the game on a beast, unleashing the ultimate power of the Intel P4 Processor.

P4 3.00ghz single core

8600gt 256 mb

2 gig ddr1 ram

350 w power supply

I run most settings on low, with res at 1280x1024. Usually get like 15fps average on mission editor but I am pretty used to low fps kind of calibrated myself to handle it.

Edited January 22, 2010 by jwalstab

[sammclean23 10]

Hi, I know the performance issues I get now is from an outdated proccessor.

Spec: 2 x Nvidia Geforce 7950 GT

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 + @ 2.21GHz

CROSSHAIR Motherboard

4GB DDR2 BALLISTIX RAM

Iv been considering the phenom range..9950 etc. Is this a good choice? Also I read the 9950s had been discontinued? If so, is there any, of the eqiuvalent price range, that meet the same spec.

More so, will this be enough power to run the game on normal settings smooothly.

[jolene 10]

if you can, please respond to rgerag@yahoo.com

Thx:confused: