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

[jsa2001 10]

Anyone recommend good mainboard and good overclocking i5 to i7 cpu. Going looking for something later today.

[Leon86 13]

gigabyte ga-p55a-ud3 seems a decent board. i5-750 or i7-860 will both clock to about 4Ghz, the i7 has hyperthreading so it's faster in cinebench and photoshop, performance in arma2 is identical.

[nephros 23]

I'm brand new to A2, and am trying to optomize my system. I've learned a ton from these forums, but am still confused about some things.

I've been reading confilicting things regarding pagefiling. I have ARMA2/OA on my 1TB HDD, and was going to move the pagefile to my 2nd 320GB HDD to help with performance. I know the pagefile should be set min = max, but what size should I set it? Win 7 recommends something around 6000 (don't remember exact number), but if you set it high, will it use that instead of the RAM and slow things down? Should I set it to 1024? Should I buy 4GB more RAM and turn it off or set up a RAMDISK?

System:

Windows 7 Home premium 64 bit

Intel i5-750 OC @ 4.0GHz

EVGA NVIDIA GTX 480

4GB DDR3 1600 RAM

GA-P55 UD4P6

1TB seagate HDD @ 7200rpm

320GB seagate HDD @7200rpm

Audigy x-fi xtreme gamer soundcard

Edited July 6, 2010 by nephros

[Leon86 13]

for the pagefile size doesn't really matter as long as it's big enough, if you have the room why not make it 10GB? Make sure to turn off the pagefile on your first hd as soon as you have the file on the new one.

[jtmedina 10]

@jtmedina

Not sure what level 'the ruins' you mention is, would you mind telling me what you get for Benchmark 02? I just ran it with your settings (barring res of 2560x1600 and view dist @ 1600) and achieved a blistering 13FPS :(. I'm sure this has been higher before, but still bad (17-22).

Thanks again for your thoughts.

I get an average of 13 frames in the benchmark 2. I have been analyzing when those framerate drops happen and I have been noticing problems with the lod switch in the cities, some visual effects like dust(incredibly it lowers my fps) explosions and the lods from the trees(which is a huge fps eater). I guess, just maybe the AI is using part of the CPU and it also creates some stuttering creating their path because as far as I know the AI creates their patch dynamically which it takes CPU.

Try Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead. It runs far better and it has less problems with the building lods in the cities.

You are welcome

[kcresswell 10]

Hi,

I'm new the forum and I'm a pc gamer from way back. I'm about to purchase ARMA2 and am wondering if it will run on my system.

AMD Phenom II 1035T Six-Core 2.8GHz

6GB DDR3

ATI Radeon HD 5450

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit

Thanks Kim

[echo1 0]

The graphics card is too weak for any decent performance. Rest of the system is good though.

[RGS 10]

@jtmedina

Tks again man. I'm running Combined Operations already...

The frame rate can be really good at times, but other times (and frequently) it's bad to awful. Interesting that you get unplayable FPS on Bench_02 also.

Will do a bit more testing this eve if time.

Cheers.

[catito14 0]

What rig recommend me between this two rigs for run the ArmA2 OA with all in high, PP off, visibility 3000 mts, 1600x900 resolution:

1)

i7 920 2.66ghz @ 4ghz

4 gb RAM DDR3 1600

HD 640 Caviar Black

P6t Mobo

ATI HD 5970 2gb

Win 7 x64

or

2)

i7 920 2.66ghz @ 4ghz

6 gb RAM DDR3 1600

HD 640 Caviar Black

P6t Mobo

ATI HD 5870 1gb

Win 7 x64

Thanks in advance

[McGregor_CiA 19]

Ok i'll try again... the basic specs of the computer im thinking of buying is:

CPU: Intel Core i7 860 2.8GHz

RAM: 8GB DDR3

GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX260 S.E 1.8GB

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bitars

how well will ArmA 2 preform you think? I realize i wont be able to max it out but will it at least run ok with medium settings? :j:

[jackass888 0]

What rig recommend me between this two rigs for run the ArmA2 OA with all in high, PP off, visibility 3000 mts, 1600x900 resolution

Arma 2 isnt built to use even 2gb of ram in most situations(~2,5gb is max). Maybe it will be better optimized in further patches, then you can add the 2gb ram. So for better performance only for Arma2 i suggest option nr 1.

[gossamer5150 0]

Sorry I don't know one processor from another I was just curious if I would be able to play this game though,

Intel Core 2 Duo Processor P8400 (2.26GHz, 3MB L2, 1066MHz FSB)

17" WXGA+ Glossy LCD display at 1440x900 (Reviewed with a 1920x1200 WUXGA Panel)

NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GTS with 1GB GDDR3 memory

Intel 5100AGN Wireless

4GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM (2GB x 2)

Windows 7

Thank you in advance fro your help.

I play arma 2 now and was wondering if I could play Operation arrowhead.

[RGS 10]

Well I tried a bit more, played with various settings etc yet still unable to get a solid frame rate in most missions (tried some of the scenarios too).

What I find frustrating is that even when I'm getting decent FPS (40-60) the game doesn't really feel like it... It still seems jerky, a tad unresponsive (mouse) and LODs visibly bink in and out fairly frequently ;(. I think it might just be something about the engine, though not sure...

As I've said before I'd really like to get into this game, but right now it's giving me ArmA 1 deja vu, i.e. many hours of tweaking without success ending in me eventually giving up on the game. It's still relatively early days (only just bought CO from Steam) so I'm hopeful of a breakthrough. On paper and in screenshots it's perfect, though in reality it's quite a different matter at the moment.

Anyone else had similar experiences but 'found a way through?'

EDIT: Actually after playing with it more yest it *does* seem ok when you have a good frame rate. Not as smooth as other shooters maybe, but still decent and prob something I can get used to. Went through a lot of the tutorial missions and they're pretty silky at 45-60FPS. This feels very nice, problem is that the actual combat is mostly in the 20's and even when over 30 there's often a drop as you turn the camera round - it appears that the engine is taking a hit loading in previously off screen assets resulting in a stutter and sometimes LOD pop.

As we all know the combat is pretty demanding in ArmA 2 (which I love) but trying to draw a bead on enemies with a poor frame rate is very frustrating (esp when coupled with the slight mouse lag aiming). I wish that the actual missions ran as smooth as the tutorials or even in the same ball park. I know there's *a lot* more going on, but mid to low 20's and sometimes teens is a real pain in the butt...

Edited July 7, 2010 by RGS

[Buckster 10]

RGS - mines the same - its just not smooth ...

Benchmark (OA one) - was 44 fps - but its really laggy :(

[echo1 0]

What rig recommend me between this two rigs for run the ArmA2 OA with all in high, PP off, visibility 3000 mts, 1600x900 resolution:

1)

i7 920 2.66ghz @ 4ghz

4 gb RAM DDR3 1600

HD 640 Caviar Black

P6t Mobo

ATI HD 5970 2gb

Win 7 x64

or

2)

i7 920 2.66ghz @ 4ghz

6 gb RAM DDR3 1600

HD 640 Caviar Black

P6t Mobo

ATI HD 5870 1gb

Win 7 x64

Thanks in advance

Second one.

Dual GPU cards, such as the HD5970, cause all sorts of problems, especially with the BIS game engine.

[McGregor_CiA 19]

I found this while surfing processor info... http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/26/IMG0026807.png

http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/767/

So my question is: should I deactivate hyperthreading???

[Buckster 10]

mmm - increased settings somewhat - ran Benchmark

35 fps with CPU @ 3.56 gig, RAM @ 780 CAS4

then rebooted :

45 fps with CPU @ 3.35 gig, RAM @ 1100 CAS5

RAM speed seems to improve frame rates

[catito14 0]

Second one.

Dual GPU cards, such as the HD5970, cause all sorts of problems, especially with the BIS game engine.

So, if i choose the GTX480 instead of the 5970 (very similar prices here where i live) the game will be run better than if i put the 5870 or the difference will be unjustifiable for the price? (I read several reviews about the GTX 480 and a lot of people complained about the noise and the temperature and therefore I have a little scared)

[NeMeSiS 11]

I found this while surfing processor info... http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/26/IMG0026807.png

http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/767/

So my question is: should I deactivate hyperthreading???

Yes.

/5char

[Leon86 13]

mmm - increased settings somewhat - ran Benchmark

35 fps with CPU @ 3.56 gig, RAM @ 780 CAS4

then rebooted :

45 fps with CPU @ 3.35 gig, RAM @ 1100 CAS5

RAM speed seems to improve frame rates

And if you reboot and run 3.56/780c4 again?

[Buckster 10]

Leon will retry later :)

[bangtail 0]

So, if i choose the GTX480 instead of the 5970 (very similar prices here where i live) the game will be run better than if i put the 5870 or the difference will be unjustifiable for the price? (I read several reviews about the GTX 480 and a lot of people complained about the noise and the temperature and therefore I have a little scared)

480s run quieter than the 5870 in my experience. ATI's fan noise gets annoying at ~50% and Nvidia's don't start annoying me until ~80% (and I never run them that fast).

The 480 runs perfectly well provided your case is properly ventilated. Certain anti Nvidia sites put out a lot of bullshit about the 480 around launch time which is why a lot of people (most of whom don't even own 480s) insist that they run hot.

As for power consumption, if you can't afford the extra few dollars/euros or whatever (peanuts tbh, I worked it out to $10.00 every 3 months for my main box - see sig) that any enthusiast card(s) will add to your utility bill, you probably shouldn't be buying $500.00 video cards in the first place ;)

---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------

I found this while surfing processor info... http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/26/IMG0026807.png

http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/767/

So my question is: should I deactivate hyperthreading???

If all you do is play games, then turning it off 'might' help Arma 2 but as of 1.07, I believe the game automatically uses 4 cores if they are available which should eliminate the need for turning HT off or using the '-cpucount' switch on 4 core processors. I still need to use 'cpucount' for the 980s otherwise it's a stutterfest (this applies to OA as well).

Edited July 8, 2010 by BangTail

[jsa2001 10]

And if you reboot and run 3.56/780c4 again?

Whatever happend to plug and play:yay:

i feel like i'm back in the days of making a bootdisk to play a game..lol

[MiniGunDad 0]

I've read various posts on frame rate increases and tweaks but i seem to have come up against a brick wall. I can play with all the video settings at Normal and obtain 60FPS, on High i can sustain 50-55 and in Very High (AA 8) i get 35-40FPS. (Obviously terrain dependant etc though i designed a map with 100+ guys storming a beach in RHIB's with a force of 30 defending whilst two aircraft bomb the hell out of the beach). Now if i play at Low, i still max out at 60FPS now presumably this is becaus the cheapy monitor i have only has a 60Hz refresh at max (native) resolution of 1440x900. Can anyone confirm this theory and also if i remortgage :p and buy a 120Hz monitor (say the Samsung SM2233RZ) can i expect a better frame rate? I know there are other variables that also affect this - having read the post that is 40 pages long :rolleyes:. So if i ask the bank manager for a loan as well as a remortgage i could buy a solid state drive and install ArmA 2 to that and that alone.

These two upgrades may provide an increase in framerates but my question is will they? :386:

Just a minor annoyance but i have v1.07.71750 so why does it still tell me v1.07 is available for download :mad: And why do i still see 'shearing' on some menu screens?

Most likely irrelevant but this is without any OC - which would be my next step, Oh and yes my system is;

Win 7 64 Bit

DirectX 11.0

NVIDIA Driver 257.21

ArmA 2 v1.07.71750

Intel® Core™i7-975 (3.33GHz)

MB ASUS RAMPAGE II EXTREME

6GB DOMINATOR GT TRI-DDR3 2000MHz

2x2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX285 PCI EXPRESS in SLI

(I currently have the CPU doing PhysX)

HD 300GB WD VelociRaptor

[Buckster 10]

on further testing it seems to be Post Processing that really hammers the frame rates, if I disable it completely - then put all other settings (aprt from resolution = 1900) at very high (FSAA at normal, and Antiost Very High) - I almost get a locked 60fps ! unheard of for me in this game, and its much much smoother

why does post processing have such a frame rate hit ?

Edited July 8, 2010 by Buckster