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

[bangtail 0]

Thanks fellas.I use a GTX480 and was looking at the 5970 since I go down to 25 to 30fps in red forests areas.Thing is that many sites show the 5970 beating down on the 480 in past.But some new tests are showingthe 480 actually beating the 5970 in some games.There is also word going around that some sites are lying about the actual fps the 480 is getting.

The 5970 is 2 GPUs, the 480 is one, so it's not surprising that the 5970 wins in some cases. Having said that, I have seen many benchmarks where the 480 beats the 5970 at high resolutions/AA levels.

There was (and is) so much bullshit being spread around about the 480 (mostly from Anti Nvidia sites like semiaccurate). I almost didn't buy mine based on the initial reviews but I took a chance and at least IMHO, the initial reviews were FOS concerning heat and performance.

They do use a lot of power but that's not a concern for enthusiasts for the most part and they run quite a bit cooler than my previous TRI-SLI 280 setup.

I have to give ATI the nod for heat/power consumption but I much prefer the performance of the 480.

JM2C

Edited June 19, 2010 by BangTail

[Wolfstriked 11]

Sold then or rather I am sticking with my 480 and saving 200 bucks.Thanks Bangtail.

[fragbear 10]

Hey everyone, I'm new here. :)

I'm buying a new gaming PC with (maybe) this hardware:

AsRock 890GX-EXTREME3 motherboard

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T processor

Scythe Mugen 2 processor cooler

DDR3 2x2GB (1333MHz) RAM

Ati Radeon HD5770 1GB graphics card

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

What settings will I be able to play with? And what if I replace the processor with X4 of the same series and instead take Ati Radeon HD5850?

Thank you already.

[EDcase 87]

Hi and welcome fragbear,

Its very hard to predict how well a system will run ARMA2 as there are so many combinations of hardware. Unless someone happens to have a very similar system t yours. Your system should run well as far as I know but not with all settings at highest. (not many machines can at the moment)

The CPU handles the AI and GPU all the pretty stuff. (better CPU will improve fps a bit of course but must be balanced with capable GPU to get the benefit)

A better CPU will allow more AI without slowdown (and probably make em react faster)

A better GPU will give higher fps, more effects, greater view distance etc.

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

Now a question from me to ARMA land...

Looking to get a lappy and options I'm undecided about are:

-CPU: i7 620m@3.06GHz or 720qm@1.6GHz? (any ARMA related bench comparisons?)

I know 620 is dual core and 720 is quad but will the higher clock balance it out for ARMA?

-GPU: GTX285m or HD5870m? (ATI seems to have the edge looking at this and this. They're desktop versions so I'm assuming the mobile ones will scale the same)

Anyone with experience or links relating to these?

Cheers all

ED

Edited June 19, 2010 by EDcase

[Relemar 10]

i7 will own the 720qm, end of.

[fecesreturns 10]

Now a question from me to ARMA land...

Looking to get a lappy and options I'm undecided about are:

-CPU: i7 620m@3.06GHz DC or I7 720qm@2.8GHz QC? (any ARMA related bench comparisons?)

I know 620 is dual core and 720 is quad but will the higher clock balance it out for ARMA?

Anyone with experience or links relating to these?

Cheers all

ED

Fixed.

Seems to depend and someone help me out on this. Whether ARMA2 is a heavily threaded program-game or lightly threaded.

Or in layman's terms does it like quad cores more or dual cores?

From what I have read it was supposed to like the quad cores but ended up favoring the dual cores.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

But from my research they both have their upsides and down sides depending on what you want them to do.

Huge thread on the two here.

[Leon86 13]

Hey everyone, I'm new here. :)

I'm buying a new gaming PC with (maybe) this hardware:

AsRock 890GX-EXTREME3 motherboard

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T processor

Scythe Mugen 2 processor cooler

DDR3 2x2GB (1333MHz) RAM

Ati Radeon HD5770 1GB graphics card

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

What settings will I be able to play with? And what if I replace the processor with X4 of the same series and instead take Ati Radeon HD5850?

Thank you already.

Arma doesn't really benefit from anything beyond triple-core, I'd get the quadcore and the 5850.

[EDcase 87]

Fixed.

Seems to depend and someone help me out on this. Whether ARMA2 is a heavily threaded program-game or lightly threaded.

Or in layman's terms does it like quad cores more or dual cores?

From what I have read it was supposed to like the quad cores but ended up favoring the dual cores.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

But from my research they both have their upsides and down sides depending on what you want them to do.

Huge thread on the two here.

No, actually the 720qm runs at 1.6GHz not 2.8GHz You are thinking of the speed step which I'm not interested in.

Yeah, thats the point of the question...

Will ARMA run better on 4x 1.6GHz cores or 2x 3.06GHz cores.

(I did say that the 620 is 2 core and 720 is 4 but everyone should know that by now ;)

Relemar: Don't know what you're on about. They're both i7's

Edited June 19, 2010 by EDcase

[Cheeseman 0]

Hi and welcome fragbear,

Its very hard to predict how well a system will run ARMA2 as there are so many combinations of hardware. Unless someone happens to have a very similar system t yours. Your system should run well as far as I know but not with all settings at highest. (not many machines can at the moment)

The CPU handles the AI and GPU all the pretty stuff. (better CPU will improve fps a bit of course but must be balanced with capable GPU to get the benefit)

A better CPU will allow more AI without slowdown (and probably make em react faster)

A better GPU will give higher fps, more effects, greater view distance etc.

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

Now a question from me to ARMA land...

Looking to get a lappy and options I'm undecided about are:

-CPU: i7 620m@3.06GHz or 720qm@1.6GHz? (any ARMA related bench comparisons?)

I know 620 is dual core and 720 is quad but will the higher clock balance it out for ARMA?

-GPU: GTX285m or HD5870m? (ATI seems to have the edge looking at this and this. They're desktop versions so I'm assuming the mobile ones will scale the same)

Anyone with experience or links relating to these?

Cheers all

ED

I'd suggest the Mobility HD 5870 over the GTX 285M. Overall it is a more powerful GPU while the Geforce GTX 285M is nothing more than a highly overclocked Geforce GTX 280M. The Mobility HD 5870 also supports DirectX 11 which makes it more future-proof. I own a ASUS G73JH-A2 with very similar specifications to what you're looking to purchase:

CPU: Intel Core i7-720QM (1.6Ghz Quad Core with 2.8Ghz Turbo)

GPU: ATi Mobility Radeon HD 5870 1GB GDDR5

RAM: 8GB DDR3

HDD: 1TB (2x500GB 7200rpm)

OS: Windows 7 64bit Home Premium

Screen: 17.3" FHD at 1920x1080

I haven't got around to installing ArmA 2 yet since I've got the digital download version so its a bi*ch reinstalling, but I have installed Battlefield Bad Company 2 and the game runs maxed out (except for AA x1) at 1920x1080 resolution with an avg of 35-47 FPS. Of course you can wait it out a month or two for the Geforce GTX 480M which should be 20% faster, but it'll be a lot more power hungry while running warmer.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Cheeseman

[Leon86 13]

No, actually the 720qm runs at 1.6GHz not 2.8GHz You are thinking of the speed step which I'm not interested in.

Yeah, thats the point of the question...

Will ARMA run better on 4x 1.6GHz cores or 2x 3.06GHz cores.

(I did say that the 620 is 2 core and 720 is 4 but everyone should know that by now ;)

Relemar: Don't know what you're on about. They're both i7's

I googled the turbo modes of the 720 qm:

1.73GHz 4 cores/2.4GHz 2 cores/2.8GHz 1 core

2 cores on 3Ghz will still be better for arma than 4 on 1.7 I think. Afaik arma doesn't benefit from anything beyond triplecores, so let's make a very crude calculation: 1.73x3 < 2x3.06

[fecesreturns 10]

No, actually the 720qm runs at 1.6GHz not 2.8GHz You are thinking of the speed step which I'm not interested in.

Yeah, thats the point of the question...

Will ARMA run better on 4x 1.6GHz cores or 2x 3.06GHz cores.

(I did say that the 620 is 2 core and 720 is 4 but everyone should know that by now ;)

Relemar: Don't know what you're on about. They're both i7's

Well if we really want to get fancy with this we will go about it this way :)

Here are the exact specs as it stands on both processors

Both I7's

620QM Dual core

2.66 ghz regular

3.33 ghz "Turbo boosted"

720QM Quad core

1.6 ghz regular

2.8 ghz "turbo boosted"

I have been trying to figure out how well the 720 would run for a week now but nobody seems to have a good answer or any good videos on youtube that dont involve the demo.

---------- Post added at 11:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

I googled the turbo modes of the 720 qm:

1.73GHz 4 cores/2.4GHz 2 cores/2.8GHz 1 core

2 cores on 3Ghz will still be better for arma than 4 on 1.7 I think. Afaik arma doesn't benefit from anything beyond triplecores, so let's make a very crude calculation: 1.6x4 > 2.66x2

fixed. However in the "turbo boost" mode the dual has the quad beat.

taken from other forums and sites.

Here are the differences

Cinebench R10: - Single Rendering

620M - 3346

720QM - 2952-3757

Cinebench R10: - Multiple CPU Rendering

620M - 7002

720QM - 7791-10398

Super Pi 1M

620M - 13

720QM - 15-19

Super Pi 2M

620M - 33

720QM - 35-37

Super Pi 32M

620M - 799

720QM - 839-857

3DMark 2006 CPU (1280x1024)

620M - 2994

720QM - 2934-3284

wPrime: - 32m

620M - 16

720QM - 15.26-16.58

Total ghz for apps that can take advantage of 4 cores:

620M 5.32ghz (6.12ghz dual core turbo)

720M 6.4ghz (6.92ghz quad core turbo)

Total ghz for apps that an take advantage of 2 cores:

620M 5.32ghz (6.12ghz dual core turbo)

720M 3.2ghz (4.8ghz dual core turbo)

Total ghz for apps that can take advantage of 1 core:

620M 2.66ghz (3.33ghz single core turbo)

720M 1.6ghz (2.80ghz single core turbo)

But in all reality this is kind of like arguing whether a geo metro or fiat panda are better :D

My final conclusion however is that the 620 will run this game better than the 720.

Edited June 20, 2010 by FecesReturns

[logion 10]

I own a Clevo W860cu/Sager NPNP8690 with the following hardware:

CPU: Intel Core i7-720QM

GPU: ATi Mobility Radeon HD 5870 1GB GDDR5

RAM: 4GB DDR3

HDD: 320GB (7200rpm)

OS: Windows 7 64bit Professional

Screen: 15.6" Full HD at 1920x1080

I've run some benchmarks at these setting:

Results from the first ingame benchmark(labeled Benchmark1 under SP missions):

Results from the second ingame benchmark(labeled Benchmark2 under SP missions):

Results from benchmarking tool named Arma2 FPS Analyser:

All benchmarks were run with the latest official arma2 patch(1.05).

edit: if you have any specific benchmark request, post them and I'll see what I can do

---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 AM ----------

I should mention that those arma2 fps analyser benchmarks aren't that representable for a normal gaming situation. They consist of camera fly bys through waypoints.

I guess they would only be a good comparison when you're piloting high speed aircrafts.

[Leon86 13]

Well if we really want to get fancy with this we will go about it this way :)

Here are the exact specs as it stands on both processors

Both I7's

620QM Dual core

2.66 ghz regular

3.33 ghz "Turbo boosted"

720QM Quad core

1.6 ghz regular

2.8 ghz "turbo boosted"

I have been trying to figure out how well the 720 would run for a week now but nobody seems to have a good answer or any good videos on youtube that dont involve the demo.

---------- Post added at 11:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

fixed. However in the "turbo boost" mode the dual has the quad beat.

taken from other forums and sites.

Here are the differences

Cinebench R10: - Single Rendering

620M - 3346

720QM - 2952-3757

Cinebench R10: - Multiple CPU Rendering

620M - 7002

720QM - 7791-10398

Super Pi 1M

620M - 13

720QM - 15-19

Super Pi 2M

620M - 33

720QM - 35-37

Super Pi 32M

620M - 799

720QM - 839-857

3DMark 2006 CPU (1280x1024)

620M - 2994

720QM - 2934-3284

wPrime: - 32m

620M - 16

720QM - 15.26-16.58

Total ghz for apps that can take advantage of 4 cores:

620M 5.32ghz (6.12ghz dual core turbo)

720M 6.4ghz (6.92ghz quad core turbo)

Total ghz for apps that an take advantage of 2 cores:

620M 5.32ghz (6.12ghz dual core turbo)

720M 3.2ghz (4.8ghz dual core turbo)

Total ghz for apps that can take advantage of 1 core:

620M 2.66ghz (3.33ghz single core turbo)

720M 1.6ghz (2.80ghz single core turbo)

But in all reality this is kind of like arguing whether a geo metro or fiat panda are better :D

My final conclusion however is that the 620 will run this game better than the 720.

The turbo mode will let all 4 cores to go to 1.73 so please don't use 1.6. Also, cinebench scores scale very well with more cores and hyperthreading, there is no point using it to predict arma 2 performance.

Arma has 1 thread that's much heavier then the others, if you're on a quadcore that thread is the performance limiter, all other load can be run by the other cores no problem. If you're on a dualcore the remaining load only has 1 core and that becomes the limit. Triplecores seem to be the sweetspot so that's why I said 3x1.73 < 2x3.03 I think the 620 will be the faster processor in nearly every case. In benchmarks like cinebench the quadcore will be slightly faster but the difference will be small because 4x1.7 just isn't that much faster than 2x3.03.

I'd get the 620, it's probably cheaper as well.

[fecesreturns 10]

I own a Clevo W860cu/Sager NPNP8690 with the following hardware:

CPU: Intel Core i7-720QM

GPU: ATi Mobility Radeon HD 5870 1GB GDDR5

RAM: 4GB DDR3

HDD: 320GB (7200rpm)

OS: Windows 7 64bit Professional

Screen: 15.6" Full HD at 1920x1080

You are running about the same specs I will be running minus I will be running a nvidia GTS 360m.

What settings can you run at normally without having consistent lag?

[Azamato 0]

Is there anyone out here with an hd4850 512mb that can tell me how it runs? :p

[logion 10]

You are running about the same specs I will be running minus I will be running a nvidia GTS 360m.

What settings can you run at normally without having consistent lag?

I play with :

reso 1920x1080

visibility 1600m

AA & AF : low

terrain detail, texture detail, shadow detail, object detail: normal

post procsessing: low

This makes it playable for me but don't expect a consistent 30fps+

[munchbunch 10]

Hey, I just got my new computer, looking forward to play this game. Anyone know how well it will run before I buy it?

CPU: AMD Phenom 965 (3.4GHz)

GPU: ATI Radeon 5770 1GB x2 (Crossfire)

RAM: 4GB DDR3

OS: Windows 7 64 Bit Home

Thanks. :D

Edited June 20, 2010 by munchbunch
Typo

[fecesreturns 10]

I play with :

reso 1920x1080

visibility 1600m

AA & AF : low

terrain detail, texture detail, shadow detail, object detail: normal

post procsessing: low

This makes it playable for me but don't expect a consistent 30fps+

Thanks for the input. Definitely put my mind at ease.

Cant wait to play too bad I have to wait for my laptop and game to get to me in Iraq.

[Wolfstriked 11]

Is there anyone out here with an hd4850 512mb that can tell me how it runs? :p

That was my old card before I got the GTX480.I will say this...yes I had to play at lower resolution and settings and yes upgrading to the 480 allows me to play at higher resolutions and settings BUT the game still stutters everywhere and so I feel that the money was not well spent.I had just as much fun at less visual setting with the 4850.The crisper visulas are very nice and all but....

I even have a ramdrive at 4gb with the terrain pbo's in it and its still the turn,wait for game to load textures,gameplay.I have tried the beta and its horrible on my system.The ground textures flash and it takes close to 20 seconds to load the initial textures when you first appear.I will wait for final release to see whats up with that.

[Azamato 0]

That was my old card before I got the GTX480.I will say this...yes I had to play at lower resolution and settings and yes upgrading to the 480 allows me to play at higher resolutions and settings BUT the game still stutters everywhere and so I feel that the money was not well spent.I had just as much fun at less visual setting with the 4850.The crisper visulas are very nice and all but....

I even have a ramdrive at 4gb with the terrain pbo's in it and its still the turn,wait for game to load textures,gameplay.I have tried the beta and its horrible on my system.The ground textures flash and it takes close to 20 seconds to load the initial textures when you first appear.I will wait for final release to see whats up with that.

I'm playing with a 1366/768 resolution. So should I go for it ?

[Wolfstriked 11]

Whats your cpu and ram situation.With Arma2 it can be better to stick with current video card and upgrade cpu instead.What video card do u have now?

[Azamato 0]

Im on a

Q8200 2.33ghz

4GB Ram

9600GT

but I need a new card cause the 9600gt is broken

[EDcase 87]

Thanks for all the input guys.

I'll go with the HD5870 for the gcard and probably the 720 for CPU since it will help with my 3d rendering work.

(I wish there was an ARMA2 test between the two CPU's)

Logion, thanks for the post. Have you tried with the latest Beta? They seem to improve the multi-core usage quite a bit.

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

Azamato: Look for the 9600gt and hd4850 here so you can see the difference.

I think with your CPU and hd4850 you will be able to play well on average settings or maybe a bit higher.

Edited June 20, 2010 by EDcase

[Wolfstriked 11]

Im on a

Q8200 2.33ghz

4GB Ram

9600GT

but I need a new card cause the 9600gt is broken

Then the 4850 is your best bet.I would also install a USB flash drive in since you only have 4gb and this will net you a much smoother experience for only $10 bucks!!!I ran my pagefile on it and it gave performance close to my upgrade to an SSD drive.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/SanDisk+-+2GB+USB+2.0+Flash+Drive/8281352.p;jsessionid=B1E97D23577E600ECFB1A8AA606813A6.bbolsp-app06-09?id=1171672069828&skuId=8281352

[logion 10]

Logion, thanks for the post. Have you tried with the latest Beta? They seem to improve the multi-core usage quite a bit.

I have not tried the latest beta patch, does it allow to be installed next to v1.05? Because from time to time I play online with a few mates and they don't have the beta patch installed. Or isn't there an issue in mixing versions?