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

[cjph 0]

I agree with Bang Tail that the difference is night and day - I bought one of the Kingston SSDs to go with a 5Gb RAMDisk, so that both the game loaded faster and the performance stuttering was reduced. I think a lof of people go from older disks with smaller cache to SSDs, where the change will be very marked. I went from a 4 year old Western Digital 80Gb HDD to a more recent WD 500Gb model, and the change in performance was large, and so when I used the Kingston it improved, but not by as much as if I had gone from the original disk.

So, I have £100 upgrade money burning a hole in my pocket and given the spec below I wonder what the best use of it would be - any thoughts ? I don't think a disk would help so I see two options; a) I could get a new E8500 dual and try and clock over 4Ghz (I have a P5Q Pro mobo I could use) or b) get an 8Gb RAM kit for a 9 Gb total RAMdisk.

What do you think ? A processor would help other games (or would a 775 quad be better), whereas the RAM would only help Arma and would have to be 667MHz at that price, which might impact the overclocking. Perhaps I just answered my question :bounce3:

[killswitch 19]

So, I have £100 upgrade money burning a hole in my pocket and given the spec below I wonder what the best use of it would be - any thoughts ? I don't think a disk would help so I see two options; a) I could get a new E8500 dual and try and clock over 4Ghz (I have a P5Q Pro mobo I could use) or b) get an 8Gb RAM kit for a 9 Gb total RAMdisk.

What do you think ? A processor would help other games (or would a 775 quad be better), whereas the RAM would only help Arma and would have to be 667MHz at that price, which might impact the overclocking. Perhaps I just answered my question :bounce3:

Choosing between more memory or another processor, if you can get a Q9550 for those £100, do it. Otherwise, I wouldn't put more money into that old(*) computer.

(*) Which is still an excellent rig for most other games out there.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Killswitch

[Leon86 13]

I agree with Bang Tail that the difference is night and day - I bought one of the Kingston SSDs to go with a 5Gb RAMDisk, so that both the game loaded faster and the performance stuttering was reduced. I think a lof of people go from older disks with smaller cache to SSDs, where the change will be very marked. I went from a 4 year old Western Digital 80Gb HDD to a more recent WD 500Gb model, and the change in performance was large, and so when I used the Kingston it improved, but not by as much as if I had gone from the original disk.

So, I have £100 upgrade money burning a hole in my pocket and given the spec below I wonder what the best use of it would be - any thoughts ? I don't think a disk would help so I see two options; a) I could get a new E8500 dual and try and clock over 4Ghz (I have a P5Q Pro mobo I could use) or b) get an 8Gb RAM kit for a 9 Gb total RAMdisk.

What do you think ? A processor would help other games (or would a 775 quad be better), whereas the RAM would only help Arma and would have to be 667MHz at that price, which might impact the overclocking. Perhaps I just answered my question :bounce3:

8GB (the 2x 4GB) ramkits are not supported on normal s775 boards, so if you absolutely need to spend that money go get a better cpu. You can probably find cheap q6600's secondhand. Lots of people are upgrading now.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Leon86

[bangtail 0]

I think a lof of people go from older disks with smaller cache to SSDs, where the change will be very marked.

/QFT

I suspect this is why some people automatically assume there is such a big difference.

The Q6600 is still a good little performer with plenty of OCing headroom.

Edited February 14, 2010 by BangTail

[Whoatherefatty 10]

PC Gaming simply isn't pushing the limits of technology at present.

this is something I found surprising and true. I reentered the pc gaming market 6 months ago after a decade long hiatus(my purchase history on pc goes half life, arma 2, bioshock 2) yes an 11 year gap.

My $600 machine runs these games on high. Bioshock only looks marginally better than the 360 version. I'm a little let down.

[bangtail 0]

this is something I found surprising and true. I reentered the pc gaming market 6 months ago after a decade long hiatus(my purchase history on pc goes half life, arma 2, bioshock 2) yes an 11 year gap.

My $600 machine runs these games on high. Bioshock only looks marginally better than the 360 version. I'm a little let down.

It's the sad truth for the moment.

Console's are doing no end of damage to the technological advancement of PC gaming. I finished Bioshock 2 in ~2 hours. Considering older PC titles can take in the neighbourhood of 10+ hours to complete, I am saddened by this trend.

$49.99 for 2 hours of entertainment is simply not acceptable AFAIAC. Most Devs are just not interested in pushing the boundaries technically, or otherwise, as long as the masses will buy whatever over hyped (and usually quasi regurgitated) schlock is thrown at them.

To be fair to Bioshock 2, what there was of it was ok, but it was over before it started.

Gone are the days of games like Ultima for example, which could keep you occupied for weeks on end and that was before we even had cohesive multiplayer games.

Edited February 14, 2010 by BangTail

[Azza FHI 50]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2elDleMp_8

just thought ide chuck this in...

bangtail uve got a pretty crazy rig can post up what u get with the same settings for reference sake?

[Billy-oh 10]

How well would a AMD x4 620 with a GTX 260 run this game, considering my monitor only supports 1280x1024 resolutions.

[bangtail 0]

How well would a AMD x4 620 with a GTX 260 run this game, considering my monitor only supports 1280x1024 resolutions.

Fairly well I'd say. You may have to play with the settings a little to hit the "sweet spot" but you should definitely get some decent performance.

[andromedagalaxe 10]

For any other noobs out there like me, I would highly recommend overclocking as a first move to increase arma 2 performance . I took my e8400 from 3.0 ghz to 3.6 with ease this weekend and the performance increase was amazing. Was at 33 fps on benchmark 1 and now is at 49 fps with everything on normal except low shadows and low anti-aliasing. I was extremely surprised at how much better the game is playing (pop-in still annoying but bearable).

[bangtail 0]

For any other noobs out there like me, I would highly recommend overclocking as a first move to increase arma 2 performance . I took my e8400 from 3.0 ghz to 3.6 with ease this weekend and the performance increase was amazing. Was at 33 fps on benchmark 1 and now is at 49 fps with everything on normal except low shadows and low anti-aliasing. I was extremely surprised at how much better the game is playing (pop-in still annoying but bearable).

I'm not a fan of this advice simply beacuse if you don't know what you are doing, you could potentially do no end of damage to your PC.

Sure, it can boost your FPS, but be sure you know what you are doing before you get started.

[andromedagalaxe 10]

I'm not a fan of this advice simply beacuse if you don't know what you are doing, you could potentially do no end of damage to your PC.

Sure, it can boost your FPS, but be sure you know what you are doing before you get started.

Well, you're right. I should clarify that I thoroughly researched the subject beforehand, installed a new heatsink and fan and stress tested the new settings completely.

But I had never even opened a computer before I started researching OC'ing about 2 weeks ago. I went on several forums about computer cooling and OC and got questions answered.

My point was that even someone who had never poked around a computer before was able to find enough info online to overclock -- it was a lot easier than I anticipated once I looked hard enough for the right information. My cpu was at 49C max during stress test.

Edited February 15, 2010 by andromedagalaxe

[bangtail 0]

Well, you're right. I should clarify that I thoroughly researched the subject beforehand, installed a new heatsink and fan and stress tested the new settings completely.

But I had never even opened a computer before I started researching OC'ing about 2 weeks ago. I went on several forums about computer cooling and OC and got questions answered.

My point was that even someone who had never poked around a computer before was able to find enough info online to overclock -- it was a lot easier than I anticipated once I looked hard enough for the right information. My cpu was at 49C max during stress test.

Agreed, it's all good as long as you do some research first. I just wouldn't want anyone to damage their machine unnecessarily.

[Cymru am byth 10]

Will my PC be able to run this full settings?

I pick it up next week...cant wait :D

Intel i5 750

4gb ddr3 ram

sapphire HD 5850 1gb

[bangtail 0]

Will my PC be able to run this full settings?

I pick it up next week...cant wait :D

Intel i5 750

4gb ddr3 ram

sapphire HD 5850 1gb

Depends on the res. Nobody can max everything at high resolutions for the time being but you should be able to have most things on high/vhigh with a 3K view distance @1680 x 1050.

Most of the time you have to play around a bit to get it right where you want it :)

[Siddhi 10]

hi chaps,

a generous fellow austrian on this forum tried to help me out with my laptop Arma2 requirements, but i missed the opportunity so to speak and would like to ask the round again.

Two Toshiba A500 options:

A500 1F7 ( 2,2 Ghz T660; 4 GB DDR3; GT 220M)

A500 1Gp (2,13 Ghz i3-330M, 4 GB DDR3 RAM; GT 330M)

i KNOW the -1GP will play Arma2 fine but I would really, really like -1F7: not only because of cost but also because of the DVB-antenna in :rolleyes:.

So:

1. Will I be able to play the 1F7 fine on MEDIUM (not high)

2. How big a performance difference do you think there is between the two rigs..

Cheers!

[bangtail 0]

hi chaps,

a generous fellow austrian on this forum tried to help me out with my laptop Arma2 requirements, but i missed the opportunity so to speak and would like to ask the round again.

Two Toshiba A500 options:

A500 1F7 ( 2,2 Ghz T660; 4 GB DDR3; GT 220M)

A500 1Gp (2,13 Ghz i3-330M, 4 GB DDR3 RAM; GT 330M)

i KNOW the -1GP will play Arma2 fine but I would really, really like -1F7: not only because of cost but also because of the DVB-antenna in :rolleyes:.

So:

1. Will I be able to play the 1F7 fine on MEDIUM (not high)

2. How big a performance difference do you think there is between the two rigs..

Cheers!

The 330 will provide between 20 - 40% more performance but ArmA 2 is a cpu limited game. I'm sure you will be able to run at medium settings with a res of 1280 x 1024 for example and a 2K view distance.

As always, you have to play around with the settings to hit the "sweet spot".

[Siddhi 10]

so the 1F7 will work at "medium" - with tweaks?

Cheers, S

[bangtail 0]

so the 1F7 will work at "medium" - with tweaks?

Cheers, S

Yah, I think you'll be ok provided you don't push the resor the view distance to high.

Obviously, the faster video card is the safer bet in that respect because ultimately you want as much horsepower as possible.

However, with A2, the CPU limitation will probably render a lot of the potential gains from the faster GPU moot.

[forteh 11]

With regards to a future machine upgrade....

Current spec is: -

A64x2 4400 @2.65ghz

3gig ddr

9600GT

winxp32

Running A2 at 1600x1200 with most things on normal and 1600 view distance, dropping the resolution or details dont really increase fps. Im getting 15-25fps depending on AI which is reasonably playable due to the game speed, if I load a different island (duala or panthera for example) Ill get 35-40 fps.

To increase performance would I be best to upgrade cpu or gpu first? Thinking along the lines of a quad core phenom or 4870, Im on a pretty tight budget right now but looking to do this in the next couple of months. Obviously whichever I dont upgrade immediately will bottleneck the system, Im leaning towards cpu being a more sensible route though.

Any thoughts? :)

edit: Im not after the latest all sing, all dancing hardware as this usually comes with a horrific price tag, Im quite happy with older generation stuff if its cheaper ;) As it is my machine seems to play any game with fairly decent framerates, A2 has bought it to its knees though!!! :D

Edited February 16, 2010 by forteh

[bangtail 0]

With regards to a future machine upgrade....

Current spec is: -

A64x2 4400 @2.65ghz

3gig ddr

9600GT

winxp32

Running A2 at 1600x1200 with most things on normal and 1600 view distance, dropping the resolution or details dont really increase fps. Im getting 15-25fps depending on AI which is reasonably playable due to the game speed, if I load a different island (duala or panthera for example) Ill get 35-40 fps.

To increase performance would I be best to upgrade cpu or gpu first? Thinking along the lines of a quad core phenom or 4870, Im on a pretty tight budget right now but looking to do this in the next couple of months. Obviously whichever I dont upgrade immediately will bottleneck the system, Im leaning towards cpu being a more sensible route though.

Any thoughts? :)

edit: Im not after the latest all sing, all dancing hardware as this usually comes with a horrific price tag, Im quite happy with older generation stuff if its cheaper ;) As it is my machine seems to play any game with fairly decent framerates, A2 has bought it to its knees though!!! :D

GPU is probably the better bet if you have to make a choice.

The 4870 is a great card and can be had very cheaply.

Being more of an Nvidia guy I would also suggest a good GTX 260 Core 216.

You'll definitely find the 4870 cheaper but the 260 core 16 can pretty much match a 280 performance wise.

[santafee 10]

Any way to play Arma 2 on my secoundary machine without Dual Core?

AMD 3500+ 2,20 Ghz

1 Gig Ram

Geforce 9400Gt :p

?

[bangtail 0]

Any way to play Arma 2 on my secoundary machine without Dual Core?

AMD 3500+ 2,20 Ghz

1 Gig Ram

Geforce 9400Gt :p

?

It's going to be bad dude - very bad :(

[forteh 11]

Ive been using nvidia since the old radeon9800pro but not adverse to trying ati again :)

Upgrading the gpu first is certainly cheaper as Im stuck with s939 cpu and ddr at the moment so Im looking at the thick end of £300 for a decent upgrade. Ill certainly look into the 4870, possibly 2nd hand; alternatively the 5770 is only slightly more expensive and by all accounts about the same performance but better future proofing.

Thanks for the response :)

[bangtail 0]

Ive been using nvidia since the old radeon9800pro but not adverse to trying ati again :)

Upgrading the gpu first is certainly cheaper as Im stuck with s939 cpu and ddr at the moment so Im looking at the thick end of £300 for a decent upgrade. Ill certainly look into the 4870, possibly 2nd hand; alternatively the 5770 is only slightly more expensive and by all accounts about the same performance but better future proofing.

Thanks for the response :)

Yep, if you can spend the extra, get the 5770. Performance is slightly better and it's DX11 compatible.