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

[special_air_service 10]

Ok guys treat me like I know nothing about computers (even though I do [a little bit]).

I am looking to build a PC to run Arma 2 for around $1000 (give or take a few $100). The most important thing for me is FPS, which I am looking to get about 25-30. I would like to be able to run it on med settings while maintaining around those frames, but High settings are of course preferred. I am open to any suggestions for specs. I have some ideas in mind, but I just wanted to see what the general opinion is.

Thanks

AMD Phenom II x4 965 BE (price is economically, but the performance is still good enough even for the latest game )

Powercolor HD 4870 (the best video card with the best price also, If u r satisfied with dx10 n no need for dx 11, then this is ur choice )

2 gb of RAM (at least, to make sure u hv enough memory space )

Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit ;) ( the best OS nowaday right ?)

All of it will cost less than $1000

Some cases, High end spec don't always guarantee that u will get great fps, it is also influenced by another issue like data maintenance ( defragment , scandisk , and gamebooster which is 3rd party free software that works by turn off all unnecessary background program which isn't used in game) can improve fps at least enough for playable.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Special_Air_Service

[rosentorf 12]

@andromedagalaxe: Many Thanks!

That sounds like something I will try next then. I recently got me a Ninja II passive cooler (I need my computer to be soilent!) works fine as I have a good case-blower right behind it...haha so I guess it is not really passive! :D If I get another blower and put it right on that thing it should be sufficient to OC the sh*t out of *t. You said you play everything normal (except AA and PP)...same here but I play on low resolution of 1440x900 or so. Distance is set to 1600. How far is your distance setting?

[rikibitta 10]

Ok guys treat me like I know nothing about computers (even though I do [a little bit]).

I am looking to build a PC to run Arma 2 for around $1000 (give or take a few $100). The most important thing for me is FPS, which I am looking to get about 25-30. I would like to be able to run it on med settings while maintaining around those frames, but High settings are of course preferred. I am open to any suggestions for specs. I have some ideas in mind, but I just wanted to see what the general opinion is.

Thanks

AMD 965 is a great overclocking performer(and very easy to do),only choose a good aftermarket cooler(worth it).

about ram 4gb at least.

Seven64 (Ultimate no worth).

ATI 4890 better now quality\price than 4870

ATI 5850 option if ok for your budget

and 2 good hard disks in raid0 (es:Samsung Spinpoint series)

[Leon86 13]

Ok guys treat me like I know nothing about computers (even though I do [a little bit]).

I am looking to build a PC to run Arma 2 for around $1000 (give or take a few $100). The most important thing for me is FPS, which I am looking to get about 25-30. I would like to be able to run it on med settings while maintaining around those frames, but High settings are of course preferred. I am open to any suggestions for specs. I have some ideas in mind, but I just wanted to see what the general opinion is.

Thanks

Just read the last 8 pages of this topic and you'll get a pretty good idea of what to get.

I'd say get a core i5-750 rather than a PhenomII 965BE, it's a bit faster in most cases and more energy efficient, it also overclocks better (both go up to about 4Ghz but the i5 is faster clock for clock). Another cpu that might be interesting is the core i3-530 (a dualcore that seems to overclock well)

4GB of ram is probably best (1GB windows, 1.3 for arma 1.3+1>2) with windows 7x64 (you can get a home oem version for about $100 I think)

Raid doesn't really help arma II a.f.a.i.k, I'd save myself the hassle and just get a single large 7200rpm harddisk.

Gpu-wise get something out of the top4 rows of the table on this page

Edited March 4, 2010 by Leon86

[rikibitta 10]

@Leon86

your statements sound like judgements!

raid no good for Arma? did you test it intensely? benchmarks?

AMD ovberclocked top processor are lower performer than Intel ones?

...urban legends...

boh?!?

[bangtail 0]

@Leon86

your statements sound like judgements!

raid no good for Arma? did you test it intensely? benchmarks?

AMD ovberclocked top processor are lower performer than Intel ones?

...urban legends...

boh?!?

RAID0 is a cheap solution that will boost your performance across the board. Again, it won't bring much to the ArmA 2 situation (or gaming in general), just faster load times.

SSDs help a little as well, it's up to you to decide if the minor gains that they afford you are something you can/will afford (of course, I am referring to SSDs and their performance in the context of A2).

As far as processors go, I'd go with Intel although, if you are on a budget, AMD offers great performance at a lower price (in some cases comparable performance to Intel chips).

AMD's fastest processor will not compete with the flagship i7. Yes, you can overclock the AMD but you can overclock the Intel as well. The i7 is the performance king as far as desktop CPUs go.

---------- Post added at 09:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

Okay I'm trying to make a decision on graphic card

I was initially going to get a ATI 5870

then I saw they have just released the 5970

BUT I just saw a 5970 arma 2 video on youtube that says basically arma 2 does not support xfire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6lXzfa990M

I researched and found that a lot of last summer threads were talking about the same thing

THEN I figured I would just get the 5870, and if I wasn't satified I would just get another one... BUT I just saw another youtube video with 2x 5870's and the fps was like 29...WTF

Have they patched this or is it just not worth it...let me know because it's a $300 difference.

Thanks in advance

I'd wait until Nvidia release their new cards in about 30 days or so. Whether they are good or not, they will likely cause ATI to drop their prices and you'll be able to make a more informed choice.

Edited March 4, 2010 by BangTail

[rikibitta 10]

I noticed some noticeable improvment with raid0 on Arma texture loading

and this is a cheap upgrade(we're here about a budget system or not?)

core i7 not outperform AMD top processor in gaming,that say benchmarks

and we're not talking about multitasking or else,only gaming.

AMD Black Editions are the ideal for principiants that start simple and affordable overclocking

I experienced on Arma2 better improvement with opitimasation(O.S. set up,disk defragment,cleam registry etc.) than uber hardware.

a good AMD platform have nothing to envy about gaming to my rig for example to a fraction for the cost(unfortunately!).

sorry but your statements for me it's nothing.

best regards.

[bangtail 0]

I noticed some noticeable improvment with raid0 on Arma texture loading

and this is a cheap upgrade(we're here about a budget system or not?)

core i7 not outperform AMD top processor in gaming,that say benchmarks

and we're not talking about multitasking or else,only gaming.

AMD Black Editions are the ideal for principiants that start simple and affordable overclocking

I experienced on Arma2 better improvement with opitimasation(O.S. set up,disk defragment,cleam registry etc.) than uber hardware.

a good AMD platform have nothing to envy about gaming to my rig for example to a fraction for the cost(unfortunately!).

sorry but your statements for me it's nothing.

best regards.

I don't buy PCs solely for gaming and you never specified that you were only talking about gaming (where you are of course wrong, the i7 is the performance king).

http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x4-965-be-revision-c3-review-test/17

That's not looking comparable to me chief :rolleyes:

Budget, yes 2 x 1 TB WD Blacks are ~$200.00. 1 x 80 GB SSD is ~$250.00. Do the math!

Dont turn this into a brand war by acting like a fanboy. There is nothing wrong with AMD, I just prefer Intel.

Edited March 4, 2010 by BangTail

[Leon86 13]

@Leon86

your statements sound like judgements!

raid no good for Arma? did you test it intensely? benchmarks?

AMD ovberclocked top processor are lower performer than Intel ones?

...urban legends...

boh?!?

As for raid, if I look at this topic you can see that the volume of traffic (MB/s) isn't that high, its a lot of small chunks. If you have 2 harddisks you're probably better off moving half the .pbo's to the other harddisk and running them from there rather than making a raid. With raid you still have to wait the harddisk response time before you can start reading files. I only have 1 harddisk so no raid benchmarks, no, but I doubt people who recommend raid setups did benchmarks. An intel 40GB ssd should be superior to a normal raid yet people still complain they have stutters, so I doubt a raid will do you much good.

As for the intel/amd thing I said they were a BIT faster in MOST cases. The i5-750 is only 7 euros more expensive than the 965BE where I live, while the 955BE is 20 euro's cheaper for only 200 mhz less. I built a phenom II system for my parents when the i5's weren't out yet because all hardware reviews said phenom II's are generally faster then core2quads, it was a better deal at the time. Now they say i5-750's are faster than phenomII's so I recommend i5's. And if it sounds like a judgement it's because it is, it's my judgement based on reviews I'm too lazy to look up again and post links to.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Leon86

[bangtail 0]

As for raid, if I look at this topic you can see that the volume of traffic (MB/s) isn't that high, its a lot of small chunks. If you have 2 harddisks you're probably better off moving half the .pbo's to the other harddisk and running them from there rather than making a raid. With raid you still have to wait the harddisk response time before you can start reading files. I only have 1 harddisk so no raid benchmarks, no, but I doubt people who recommend raid setups did benchmarks. An intel 40GB ssd should be superior to a normal raid yet people still complain they have stutters, so I doubt a raid will do you much good.

RAID/SSD will speed up level loading, that's it. RAID is just the cheaper option at the moment.

[Leon86 13]

Budget, yes 2 x 1 TB WD Blacks are ~$200.00. 1 x 80 GB SSD is ~$250.00. Do the math!

RAID/SSD will speed up level loading, that's it. RAID is just the cheaper option at the moment.

You could get the 40GB intel for $130 here, that's cheaper then the 2x1TB. but you'll still want a normal harddisk anyway because 40GB isn't enough for most users, so then a raid becomes cheaper, yes.

edit:

I dont know how it is with patch 1.05 but here you can see improvements with a disk that has low response times, an ssd should be even better. Edited March 4, 2010 by Leon86

[rikibitta 10]

ok ok the gods say the truth...

my own experience on my own system is zero.

fanboy?

1. respect. read all my posts,I never treat this way people,I'm not one of your family.

2. respect.

best regards.

riki riccobon

trieste(italy)

[andromedagalaxe 10]

@andromedagalaxe: Many Thanks!

That sounds like something I will try next then. I recently got me a Ninja II passive cooler (I need my computer to be soilent!) works fine as I have a good case-blower right behind it...haha so I guess it is not really passive! :D If I get another blower and put it right on that thing it should be sufficient to OC the sh*t out of *t. You said you play everything normal (except AA and PP)...same here but I play on low resolution of 1440x900 or so. Distance is set to 1600. How far is your distance setting?

I have distance set just under 2000 and my resolution is 1600x1280. I still get the occasional stutter but I don't know what to do about it. The frames I get are playing Steam version in offline mode. when playing MP, I didn't really notice a frame drop on public servers because those usually don't have grass and seem to have low settings.

ARMA 2 -- the only game you need!

[bangtail 0]

You could get the 40GB intel for $130 here, that's cheaper then the 2x1TB. but you'll still want a normal harddisk anyway because 40GB isn't enough for most users, so then a raid becomes cheaper, yes.

edit:

I dont know how it is with patch 1.05 but here you can see improvements with a disk that has low response times, an ssd should be even better.

The AAKS series of drives (the 640GB drive used in that test) are dated. WD RE4 and Blacks are as fast or faster than the Vraptor (not to mention cheaper and considerably larger in terms of storage space).

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/24310-western-digital-caviar-black-2tb-hard-drive-review-12.html

I notice very little difference between RAID0 on WD blacks or SSDs when it comes to A2. Levels load are a little faster but that's about it.

I'm really looking forward to Intel's Gen 3 SSD's.

Edited March 6, 2010 by BangTail

[Leon86 13]

ok ok the gods say the truth...

my own experience on my own system is zero.

fanboy?

1. respect. read all my posts,I never treat this way people,I'm not one of your family.

2. respect.

best regards.

riki riccobon

trieste(italy)

Sorry if I offended you, I guess repeating myself in this topic makes me a bit too blunt and direct.

Also remember someone once showing this on the forum: arma 2 cpu test Wish I had your cpu m8, I'm about halfway down the list with my q6600.

And if you want to share your experiences with raid, I found this dead topic

Come to think of it I might be able to get hold of a couple of old sata disks and run raid benchmarks but I wont have time for that any time soon.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Leon86

[rikibitta 10]

Sorry if I offended you, I guess repeating myself in this topic makes me a bit too blunt and direct.

Also remember someone once showing this on the forum: arma 2 cpu test Wish I had your cpu m8, I'm about halfway down the list with my q6600.

And if you want to share your experiences with raid, I found this dead topic

Come to think of it I might be able to get hold of a couple of old sata disks and run raid benchmarks but I wont have time for that any time soon.

no no Leon,your posts were absolutely correct.sure all ok.

It was about someone else that use the"fanboy"definition in a bit arrogant way.

bye! :) :) :)

[bangtail 0]

no no Leon,your posts were absolutely correct.sure all ok.

It was about someone else that use the"fanboy"definition in a bit arrogant way.

bye! :) :) :)

There was nothing arrogant about it.

You were making claims that were absolutely incorrect based on your stated preference of AMD (among other things).

People make purchasing decisions based on what is said in here and you are not part of the solution when you spread misinformation.

At any rate, there is no need to derail the thread so let's just leave it at that and move on :)

Edited March 5, 2010 by BangTail

[rosentorf 12]

I have distance set just under 2000 and my resolution is 1600x1280. I still get the occasional stutter but I don't know what to do about it. The frames I get are playing Steam version in offline mode. when playing MP, I didn't really notice a frame drop on public servers because those usually don't have grass and seem to have low settings.

ARMA 2 -- the only game you need!

Yesterday I tried ArmA2 under winXP 32bit...sorry I totally forgot to mention that I use win7 64bit in my specs. I am sure it makes a difference. I wasn't able to check frame rates by the numbers but in my opinion it was a little bit smoother. Also your settings (everything normal and such) gave me a smoother experience. I used to have some things like terrain and texture high and/or very high an distance 1500 or so. I just like the looks of it. In most missions I could deal with the lower frame rates but in the campaign missions like DOW it was too much. I think I will now play with lower settings as it makes the fighting easier.

[forteh 11]

Sorry, another silly query regarding upgrades for arma2 :)

I will soon be upgrading my cpu from a 2.5ghz A64x2, am I correct in saying that arma2 runs better on a fast dual core than on a slightly slower quad core? i.e. arma doesnt make full use of quad cores.

I was looking at an I3 530 @4ghz overclocked bundle from ocuk, obviously increasing the clock going from 2.5 to 4 is going to make a huge difference but would I perhaps be better looking for a q6600 and overclocking it to 3.5ghz?

Any thoughts would be appreciated :)

edit: will be running with 4 gig ram, winxp32 and a gtx260 216.

[cjph 0]

Will you be running any other applications/games on the system ? Video encoding etc usually performs better on a quad, so the overall system use is worth considering.

As I understand it (from various posts in a number of forums) there is one thread (which handles the AI) which cannot be split, and so performs better on a faster processor. As duals tend to overclock or be generally faster at stock than their tri/quad cousins, one processor can can handle this thread faster on its own while the other threads can be split and handled by the remaining compute power, which is why a fast dual can outperform a slightly slower quad.

Of course, stuttering due to the effect of disk streaming and other system factors may also impact the final performance, but I believe the AI thread to be the biggest feature between the number of processors. And, I would be interested in the views of more technical readers, as my heavily overclocked dual may soon run out of life, and I can't guarantee to get a quad to the same speed !

[forteh 11]

I wont be doing any video encoding, about the only other cpu intensive applications are likely to be solidworks, 3dsmax or photoshop; all of which are fine on a dual core.

Currently my 4400+ A64x2 @ 2.5ghz is being brought to its knees by any sizeable quantity of AI (I am running ACE, SLX and Zeus which probably doesnt help the issue:o). Playing flashpoint chenarus last night I had a 10 man fireteam defending a small town, I was lucky to see 12 fps :D

Playing in the armoury or editor I get 45-50 fps most of the time.

[Leon86 13]

i5-750:

4 cores, no hyperthreading

8 MB L3 cache

clocks up to about 4Ghz-ish speeds

160 euro's

i3-530:

2 cores, with hyperthreading (but you'll turn it off for arma2)

4 MB L3 cache

clocks easily to 4Ghz, seen a screenshot of 4.4Ghz saying it's a quick, just out of the box test

built-in igp, useless for playing arma2, but maybe ideal for dedicated servers.

100 euro's

[fireballs619 10]

Ok so far I've decided on i5-750 for cpu, the 9800 GTX+ for graphics, and im thinking the ASUS LGA1156 for motherboard, but im not sure about that. Any other suggestions for memory/motherboard/hardrive/ or anything else? You guys are helping alot, thanks.

[Leon86 13]

the ASUS LGA1156 for motherboard

they have a lot of 1156 boards

Some of those boards have sata3 (or sata-600, if they call it that) and USB3 ports, you might as well get one of those, not much use for it right away but I've seen a test of a USB3 external harddrive and it was as fast as it would be in the system.

For memory be sure you get a DDR3 set that runs on 1.65V (the maximum allowed by intel) and look on the QVL on the asus site to make sure your memory is compatible.

For harddrives I think any large 7200rpm drive will do, intel has some nice affordable 40GB ssd's too if you want to speed things (load times, unzipping files, starting programs etc.) up a bit, the price/GB is still a bit high though, but a lot of people say it's the most noticable upgrade you can do.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Leon86

[fireballs619 10]

Ok guys, due to an investment from a family member, my budget is now $1500 (or 1,100 euros). Any additions/modifications to this list:

i5-750

asus p7h57d-v evo motherboard

http://tinyurl.com/yj89jx5 for hardrive

looking for a good case

don't know about memory, but DDR3 obviously

I also need help picking a cooling system, because i intend to overclock.

Other components yet to be decided.

Any recommendations appreciated, thanks