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

[Whoatherefatty 10]

There is no machine that will run A2 on high detail settings with that kind of VD tbh. You'll need to wait a few years :(

Or perhaps another dozen patches or so. Who knows, maybe the engine will always be an untamed monster throwing a wet blanket over my CPU. Right now I'm always split between running mostly normal setting with high post processing or mostly high setting with no post processing. On Utes it's anything goes(almost) but Cherno.... She's just too big and I can only get away with 2500-3000km VD with playable frames per second.

[nikiforos 450]

What is playable frames per second for you?

Is it 20fps? 25 fps?

:)

[Whoatherefatty 10]

What is playable frames per second for you?

Is it 20fps? 25 fps?

:)

Well I usually have 35-45 fps on benchmark 1 and 20ish on benchamrk 2 with my settings. So I'd say with a lot of action a dip down to 15 here and there is okay. As long as the majority of the play is 25+.

[nikiforos 450]

Ok I agree with you im happy if I stay over 25+ :)

[Dwrz 0]

I appreciate the answers. I'm probably just going to sit tight and wait, see what I can do with ArmA and OFP on some more limited hardware for the time being...

[Enemydown 10]

Although I already deinstalled the game cause of framerate drops, I wanna know what you guys think, do you think I should have accepted this with low quality on Arma 2?

Btw. new RIG incoming, ETA a couple of weeks. :pray:

4x 1GB Geil RAM memory DDR2

1x EN8800GT (OC'd)

1x E8400 dual core Wolfdale (OC'd) to 3,6.

1x P5E deluxe Motherboard

[Zipper5 74]

Judging by those specs it looks as if your graphics card is bottleknecking the rest of your PC. I've never owned a 8800 GT but I'd imagine that, given how Arma2 runs with my GTX 280, performance with it isn't that great. So yes, you were probably getting the appropriate FPS for your system.

Out of curiosity, what framerates were you getting which you considered too low? Keep in mind you should not be expecting framerates akin to MW2, Source games, etc.

[Leon86 13]

Judging by those specs it looks as if your graphics card is bottleknecking the rest of your PC. I've never owned a 8800 GT but I'd imagine that, given how Arma2 runs with my GTX 280, performance with it isn't that great. So yes, you were probably getting the appropriate FPS for your system.

Out of curiosity, what framerates were you getting which you considered too low? Keep in mind you should not be expecting framerates akin to MW2, Source games, etc.

I have an 8800gtx, it's not that much faster then the 8800gt, my game runs fine on medium and 1920x1200, on an 8800gt it should run fine on 1680x1050

[Laqueesha 474]

Post deleted.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Laqueesha

[epyon 10]

ASUS P5Q PRO TURBO motherboard

9800GT 1 GB

quad core 2.4 Ghz

2 500 GB HDD's (total of 970 GB space at last look)

3 GB DDR 2 RAM (1GB stick and a 2 GB stick)

Windows Professional 7 (32 bit)

okay so those are my specs I'm wanting to know how well I could run ARMA 2 I've used canyourunit (http://cyri.systemrequirementslab.com/CYRI/intro.aspx) and says my PC would run ARMA 2 really well I'm just after some more opinions before i buy the game

[Enemydown 10]

Judging by those specs it looks as if your graphics card is bottleknecking the rest of your PC. I've never owned a 8800 GT but I'd imagine that, given how Arma2 runs with my GTX 280, performance with it isn't that great. So yes, you were probably getting the appropriate FPS for your system.

Out of curiosity, what framerates were you getting which you considered too low? Keep in mind you should not be expecting framerates akin to MW2, Source games, etc.

Yeah, I guess your'e right about my 8800GT, it's pretty old and just doesn't work with Arma 2, although games like, what you said on the source engine or games like MW2 run like a charm. :)

Framerates were bad, I don't know them exactly cause I didn't check it with Fraps or whatever... :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 08:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 AM ----------

I have an 8800gtx, it's not that much faster then the 8800gt, my game runs fine on medium and 1920x1200, on an 8800gt it should run fine on 1680x1050

Well, you are quite right, it ran on my 22" 1680x1050 screen, but not smoothly, when I tried low settings, it ran pretty well, untill I spawned enough russians to Invade Chernarus with, then it started lagging.

And besides in my opinion you don't really experience Chernarus on low graphics, so for the time being I'll just check the forums at the user-made movies on YT with HD, to see some nice action. ;)

[Jacky60 10]

I've gone from a E8400 and a 4890 to (4GHZ 920/1200) to i7 920 (4ghz) 4890 xfire-massive improvement and for first time playable in medium settings to i7 920 (4ghz) and 5970. At 1900/1200 Its gone from headache inducing stutter to playable to beautiful. Draw distance is a real killer and even with i7 4ghz 5970 (oc 920/1200) I keep it on 1200 visibility. But it does look fking fantastic and I just need to get another 5970 or possibly 5870 and it might keep me happy another year.

You HAVE to have a 4 core CPU and at least 4890 x fire setup to enjoy this game (i7 920 and 4890 was still 20 fps stuttering cr-p.

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

PS Thats really for multiplayer and I do play with 64 or 128 players but understand that you want loads of RAM, an I7 CPU or quad core 775 /Phenom 2 all overclocked to the max and really a 5870 (4890 xfire is quicker)at least as GPU. You'll get better value buying 2 top of range last gen cards and sli /xfire imho. With a limited budget I'd buy 2 4890's from ebay, a 920 i7 or 860 i7 and UD3/5 mobo and 1600 mhz ram. (mines a 920)

[Leon86 13]

an i7-860 is wasted money for arma2, the i5-750 has about the same performance (and you dont have to manually disable hyperthreading).

And you dont HAVE to have such crazy specs. The game runs fine on my q6600 with a single 8800gtx (both overclocked of course). You just have take a little time to tweak settings.

[pAuthority 10]

Jacky60: I got E8400 @ 3,6 GHz and a single HD4890, and usually I keep my view distance at 1500-2000 m. Resolution 1680x1050 and with some settings at med/high (textures high), ground detail at low as well as postprocessing low. Depending on situation, FPS can go as low as 20-25, but usually it's around 30-40. I'm thinking my CPU is the main bottleneck for Arma 2. Of course a 5850 or 5870 wouldn't be bad either.

I have a decent crossfire motherboard but I have experimented with dual 4850 setup earlier (which is why i got this mobo first place) but that didn't go as well as I thought. Crossfire just didn't provide that much speed, and in some games there was really no boost at all. Also it's hard to fit custom coolers for two cards. Maybe and just maybe, I'll get some used 4890 and get my old water cooler back in action and try crossfire again. But I might as well get faster CPU and newer graphics card which doesn't chew as much electricity as dual 4890 ;)

edit: Just to clarify, I didn't play ARMA 2 with crossfire, but with a single HD4850 and later on 4890.

Edited April 21, 2010 by pAuthority

[Leon86 13]

Did anybody do benchmarks for arma 2 with and without crossfire? I'd like to know how well it scales, especially on really high resolutions.

[Mightymints 0]

Hey all, I am seriously annoyed at how this game runs on my PC. Im kinda confused really too.

Sapphire 5850

Intel i7 569 2.8

Gigabyte p55-UD4P

Corsair XMS3 8gb (4x 2gb)

Resolution 1600 x 900

Even running this game on low gives me an annoying FPS performance. What am i doing wrong :S ? I see people with windows xp set ups doing better than me.

[Whoatherefatty 10]

Did anybody do benchmarks for arma 2 with and without crossfire? I'd like to know how well it scales, especially on really high resolutions.

I've asked this too. Not many people have tried it, I guess. I would assume with a card like mine which is basically half of a 5870 crossfiring would give me a similar result to someone running a single 5870. But then I look at someone like BangTail still getting stutter and I think this game just wasn't designed to run well on... well... 90% of computers... So I wouldn't be surprised at all if arma didn't care about my second card if I did buy it. Funny thing, work has picked up quite a bit and I would more than happily buy another if I knew it would give me a decent boost:) and yes, I know I should have saved my money earlier and just got the 5870:o I just wanted to play arma for under $700:D

[bangtail 0]

I've asked this too. Not many people have tried it, I guess. I would assume with a card like mine which is basically half of a 5870 crossfiring would give me a similar result to someone running a single 5870. But then I look at someone like BangTail still getting stutter and I think this game just wasn't designed to run well on... well... 90% of computers... So I wouldn't be surprised at all if arma didn't care about my second card if I did buy it. Funny thing, work has picked up quite a bit and I would more than happily buy another if I knew it would give me a decent boost:) and yes, I know I should have saved my money earlier and just got the 5870:o I just wanted to play arma for under $700:D

I don't run off a RAMdisk so there is always going to be some stuttering. I should say that it's pretty minimal and really only happens to the point where it is intrusive in built up areas (like Cherno). SLI does give A2 a healthy boost overall but that is also negated in built up areas.

Edited April 22, 2010 by BangTail

[maddogx 13]

Hey all, I am seriously annoyed at how this game runs on my PC. Im kinda confused really too.

Sapphire 5850

Intel i7 569 2.8

Gigabyte p55-UD4P

Corsair XMS3 8gb (4x 2gb)

Resolution 1600 x 900

Even running this game on low gives me an annoying FPS performance. What am i doing wrong :S ? I see people with windows xp set ups doing better than me.

How do you define "annoying FPS performance"?

[dren 0]

i have all texture settings on normal and shadows on low (rest is off).

in SP i go with 60fps most of the time, but on MP and some parts of SP my fps bounces alot and i have that annoying shuttering problem, where it starts slowly loading textures. and well these hic ups in PvP are lethal.

So any suggestions what to upgrade? i asked from PC store about upgrading my GPU and the reply was "its unnesessary, as its more of the clockspeed"

(as its trial version of everon... i have 6BG of RAM)

Computer:

Computer Type ACPI x64-based PC

Operating System Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate

OS Service Pack [ TRIAL VERSION ]

DirectX DirectX 11.0

Date / Time 2010-04-22 / 23:11

Motherboard:

CPU Type DualCore Intel Core 2 Duo E8500, 3175 MHz (9.5 x 334)

Motherboard Name MSI P45 Neo (MS-7519) (3 PCI, 2 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x16, 4 DDR2 DIMM, Audio, Gigabit LAN)

System Memory [ TRIAL VERSION ]

DIMM1: Kingston " 2 GB DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM (5-5-5-18 @ 400 MHz) (4-4-4-12 @ 266 MHz) (3-3-3-9 @ 200 MHz)

DIMM2: Kingston 9905316-005.A04LF [ TRIAL VERSION ]

DIMM4: Kingston 9905316-005.A04LF [ TRIAL VERSION ]

Display:

Video Adapter NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+ (512 MB)

[santafee 10]

I got a similar system and i say, DONT upgrade anything.

Arma2 is the most badly programmed game when it comes to performance.

Even peoples with HD5850 cards got that terrible slow-loading-textures issue.

It kills so much atmosphere of the game. The fps arent my problem at all. im ok with 20-35.

My System:

WIN XP

E8400[3.00Ghz]

HD 4850 ATI

4 Gigabyte RAM

I thought about buying a card with more memory, like the 5770[1024MB},

but im pretty sure this will not solve it. From what your hear, the problem is the slow streaming from the HDD. People start to buy SDD drives for 300€, only to solve this issue. :rolleyes:

I would love to hear some words from BIS on the texture blob problem..im pretty sure they know its there..So, dont upgrade!Its not worth for ARMAII.

Also, like you said, your PC Guy said its unnecassary to upgrade. And hes right. I can run all other games on nearly very high settings, you should too. Its Arma...

Edited April 22, 2010 by Himmelsfeuer

[Super Darly 10]

I recently upgraded my rig and got some great performance boosts.

Old system:

Mobo: Asus P5Q

CPU: C2D E8500 @ 3.8Ghz

Ram: Corsair Dominator 4GB DDR2 @ 1066Mhz

HDD: 250Gig and 500Gig 7200 RPM Barracudas

GPU: Geforce GTX 275 896MB

Sound: X-Fi Titanium Fatality

PSU: Ultra 750 Watt

DVD-RW: Sony

New System:

Mobo: Asus P7P55D-E

CPU: Core i5 750 @ 3.4Ghz

Ram: G.Skill 4GB DDR3 @ 1600Mhz

HDD: Kingston 64Gig SSD for OS and select games

GPU: Geforce GTX 275 896MB

Sound: X-Fi Titanium Fatality

PSU: Ultra 750 Watt

DVD-RW: Sony

At 1680 X 1050, went from medium - high settings and 1500 draw distance running at 22fps in city areas to high everything (except terrain and no AA) and 3000 draw distance running over 30+ FPS at all times.40-50 in outdoors areas. Load times are also astounding with the SSD and there's very little stutter if I spin around in a new area.

[Mightymints 0]

How do you define "annoying FPS performance"?

I get like 25 FPS, which can increase and drop drastically all over the place. It really makes the game unplayable. I see people with much lower rigs than me getting like 50 fps :S.

[maddogx 13]

I get like 25 FPS, which can increase and drop drastically all over the place. It really makes the game unplayable. I see people with much lower rigs than me getting like 50 fps :S.

Ah, ok. I see you have an Intel i7 processor. People seem to have been experiencing problems with those, specifically the hyperthreading feature. Have you tried disabling hyperthreading in the BIOS?

[Leon86 13]

I get like 25 FPS, which can increase and drop drastically all over the place. It really makes the game unplayable. I see people with much lower rigs than me getting like 50 fps :S.

did you turn off hyperthreading?