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

[NeMeSiS 11]

It cannot run ArmA2 at all.

[Leon86 13]

If a laptop can power mw2 at hich settings will it power arma 2

A friend of mine has a macbook with a gf9400, mw2 runs fine, arma2 is unplayable.

[Azza FHI 50]

just for reference, in benchmark 1 with my comp at stock i got about 39fps average.

after finishing the overclocking (4.2ghz) i get 58fps average lol.

what does that say to all the skeptics out there who are always saying ' arma wont run maxed out on good hardware anyway'. it seems that bis have done an awsome job in optimising this game so far and its only gonna get better, thanks heaps bis!

now for the sys specs and settings

EVERYTHING on very high except AA- normal, video ram -default(always should be), view distance 2500

i7 950 @4.2 (watercooled)

xfx 5970 (watercooled)

x58a ud7 mobo

6gb corsair ram 1600

intel g2 80gb ssd (dedicated win7 64 and arma2)

22'' widescreen 1920x 1080

if u guys want proof i spose i can get video together

in a years time this rig will be worth shit all, but i couldnt wait that long.

anyway im just showing everyone that is possible to run it maxed out at pretty much 60 fps in a normal multiplayer mission.

overclocking ur cpu makes a huge difference and its not that hard to learn how to do it. u just need better cooling that a stock intel heatsink

[Leon86 13]

The problem is not in the benchmark mission, it's in the campain

[rok 0]

What's the best processor for ARMA 2?

Answer:

Giant roundup: 131 Intel and AMD processors! - ARMA 2 performance

:)

[andromedagalaxe 10]

The problem is not in the benchmark mission, it's in the campain

I haven't played the campaign yet. It bogs down more than benchmark 2?

that is a problem

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

I haven't played the campaign yet. It bogs down more than benchmark 2?

that is a problem

'benchmark 2' is more like a stress test, I get worse performance on bench 2 than any other released mission, sp or mp.

reference : http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1524161&postcount=42

[andromedagalaxe 10]

-Ziggy-;1567751']'benchmark 2' is more like a stress test' date=' I get worse performance on bench 2 than any other released mission, sp or mp.

reference : http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1524161&postcount=42

That's a relief. I get 33 fps on benchmark 1 and I haven't overclocked yet, so I'm expecting some improvement there when I do.

Does playing the game in Steam reduce performance because some process somewhere is running?

[Attila91 10]

Could this system be able to max out Arma 2?

Processor: i7 860 2.80 GHZ

Ram: 8 Gig DDR3

Graphic Card: GTX260 Special Edition 1.8 GB

[Azza FHI 50]

thats a decent system, at stock i reckon it would be pretty average tho, if u OC ur cpu ude definitly notice the difference. after that it would just be ur graphics card holdin u back but not by much. remeber Antialiasing is the killer, turn it off and try everything on normal and then work from there till u get a good ratio of fps and looks. download fraps to check ur fps ingame

p.s, yeah benchmark 2 is weird, it has a 'fps cap' at 25 for the average for some reason, i was getting more than 25 throughout but it still only gives me 25 average. so if ur getting 20 its only 5 off the max....

Edited February 13, 2010 by Azer1234

[Attila91 10]

Cpu average? We are talking about i7 mate...I don't think there is anything it wouldn't handle easily without even the OC. It is supposed to do so.

In my mind, I m only a bit skeptical about the graphic card.

But I don't know about Arma2 thats why I ask. The thing is I m getting a new PC very soon (with those specs), and want a PC that would max all games. Tho I know graphic card is not the best out there but its good enough from what I have heard.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Attila91

[mali robot 10]

I said goodbye to my good old E8400, and have bought i5-750. Definite improvement. I use editor to make quick missions in Chernagorsk as a benchmark, and before upgrade i had 20 fps or even lower, now it's 30-40, and that's lowest it gets in any scenario so far.

I have gtx 275 and 4GB ram, so basically all I need now is SSD.

[Azza FHI 50]

@Atilla -yeah well i can tell u this now, at stock the 860 isnt going to handle arma at max- it WILL stutter, especially without an ssd

dunno if u read my post before but my 950 at stock (3.2 after turbo kicks in) stuttered, and after i got it at around 4ghz it made a difference of like 20fps in my system. the gpu will be fine, arma needs high cpu frequency

Edited February 13, 2010 by Azer1234

[jhoson14 10]

I geting myself a new rig just with ArmA II in mind , and i must say that i am loving the HD 5870 i got!!Its a awesome videocard.

If u cant aford a 5850 the 4890 will play very nice, but if you have a extra $ to expend. Just get 5850 and there will be no regret.

And dont forget to get a good processor, ArmA II uses a lot of CPU power.A Phenom II X4 or I5 are very good price x benefit.

[1in1class 0]

So for helping out on the shutters, CPU would be the way to go instead of an graphic card? Gots an 3.00GHZ E8400 750i, and an 9800GT 512MB graphic card. It does good and all yet im not OC, but i do see things popping into fourm when getting close. Thought an 260 or an 275 gtx would work wonders for ArmA 2.

[Azza FHI 50]

remember we are talking about max settings here...

arma still looks incredible when things are on normal but those settings have nothing or little to do (other than maybe view distance) with how much info needs to be processed by cpu and hard drive.

also a cpu under 4ghz is a bottle neck for the decent gpus on the market now.

ssd's will increase performance but not fps, they will just make the textures load 100% on time so ull never be looking at a white/grey house etc, they also help with stutter. if ur on a budget i would go the kingston 40gb ssd for bout $100, its probly the slowest ssd around but it will still murder any hard drive out.

u need more than 30 fps to enjoy arma, an average rig will be able to do that on normal settings no worries and for alot of people that will be satisfying enough.

remember turning anti-aliasing on or off will change ur fps like 50% unless u got a really powerful comp

[1in1class 0]

ssd's what is this? I was going to get an 275 gtx to help out the load textures so im not seeing most objects popping in and out like trees ect... But i would like to know what this ssd's is, if it will make it much better for the loads, so that when getting next to an vehicle it just dont pop into fourm.

[Whoatherefatty 10]

ssd's what is this? I was going to get an 275 gtx to help out the load textures so im not seeing most objects popping in and out like trees ect... But i would like to know what this ssd's is, if it will make it much better for the loads, so that when getting next to an vehicle it just dont pop into fourm.

Ssd = solid state drive = no mechanical movement = very fast hard drive.

[bangtail 0]

ssd's will increase performance but not fps, they will just make the textures load 100% on time so ull never be looking at a white/grey house etc, they also help with stutter. if ur on a budget i would go the kingston 40gb ssd for bout $100, its probly the slowest ssd around but it will still murder any hard drive out.

As I said in another thread, SSDs will not solve your problems vis a vis A2 performance. I've tried many many SSDs including the Z-Drive (which is PCI-E and has it's own controller) and the problems are still there.

People who buy SSDs often try to tell you that the difference between SSDs and HDDs is "night and day" and while there are areas where they will absolutely demolish an HDD, gaming is NOT one of them. Your levels will load faster, that's about it.

The bottom line is that I would not run out and drop money on an SSD solely for ArmA 2 and secondly, if you do buy an SSD, do not listen to this guy and buy a cheap one. Do your research and get something decent.

Edited February 13, 2010 by BangTail

[Leon86 13]

do not listen to this guy and buy a cheap one. Do your research and get something decent.

That's a solid advice for buying pretty much anything I would say.:)

The kingston 40GB ssd is discontinued and replaced by the intel 40GB ssd, the intel even has the trim command thingy. It's actually a pretty fast ssd, not the highest top-speed but great performance where it matters most: with lots of small files. Where I live you cant get it for under 100 euro's so if I see one for 100 dollars I'd get one.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Leon86

[Azza FHI 50]

sorry i stand corrected if uve done the tests, i was under the impression any ssd is better than any HD. ive got the intel g2 and its worked wonders but that isnt a cheap one. i recommended the cheap one coz everyone seems to want high performance for low cost, but in reality if u wanna max it out at 60 fps ull either have to spend heaps or wait a year...

[bangtail 0]

sorry i stand corrected if uve done the tests, i was under the impression any ssd is better than any HD. ive got the intel g2 and its worked wonders but that isnt a cheap one. i recommended the cheap one coz everyone seems to want high performance for low cost, but in reality if u wanna max it out at 60 fps ull either have to spend heaps or wait a year...

It's all good bud. I've done a lot of testing with a lot of units and believe me when I tell you I wish they did more for ArmA 2 than simply speeding up the load times :(

[1in1class 0]

So best to say for shutters and how vehicles and trees pop into view, would be an 260 gtx 275 gtx? This would be for the best? Not CPU, cause i would just like to know what would help out on how the vehicles pop into view and what would solve that.

[Whoatherefatty 10]

It's all good bud. I've done a lot of testing with a lot of units and believe me when I tell you I wish they did more for ArmA 2 than simply speeding up the load times :(

I'm not questioning you because I haven't tested any ssd at all but it does seem odd that loading screens would speed up however there would be no difference in loading in game assets. It would only make sense to me that loading would be faster all around. But then again this is a BIS game we are talking about and sense went out the window a long time ago.

[bangtail 0]

I'm not questioning you because I haven't tested any ssd at all but it does seem odd that loading screens would speed up however there would be no difference in loading in game assets. It would only make sense to me that loading would be faster all around. But then again this is a BIS game we are talking about and sense went out the window a long time ago.

I said they were a little faster but they are certainly not the "night and day" difference I have seen some people here proclaiming they are.

I really don't notice much of a difference between SSDs and HDDs (RAID0) in the actual game (ArmA 2). There is a difference in load times and that is noticeable.

Just to be clear, I love SSDs and I find they are very useful (especially when it comes to video editing). I just wouldn't want anyone to drop a lot of money expecting some earth shattering changes in ArmA 2.

It's got nothing to do with BIS, SSD's just don't bring a lot to the table where gaming is concerned (at least not for the moment). It's very similar to the "experts" who are waffling on about how much faster Gulftown will be for gaming. I've had an ES for a while now and guess what, it does absolutely nothing for games, yet there will be a whole bunch of gamers who will run out and drop $1200.00 on launch day (if they havent already grabbed an ES off Ebay) and they'll all be trying to tell you it is so much faster than a 4 core i7. People like to try and justify the money they've spent, usually in the face of facts that speak contrarily to their claims.

PC Gaming simply isn't pushing the limits of technology at present. Another example are ATI's latest cards, even Gulftown has trouble keeping them "fed" at stock speeds, you really need to get into 4+Ghz to get the most from those cards and then you have Nvidia SLI which will still run into bottlenecks and there we are talking about 2 year old GPUs. The next game that will truly push exisiting technology will probably be Crysis 2. Most of the games being released now are console ports and demand very little of PC hardware.

Edited February 14, 2010 by BangTail