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

[bascule42 10]

To be honest, it seems me hardware reviews are pretty much like gaming reviews. (DR reviews would be good example there). Trustworthy to a point but ultimately serving the editorial guidelines of the publication/website. I never read 'em. I glanced over the specs & customer opinions/reviews before buying, that was about it. Besides, it also seems that the majority of "impartial" reviewers are Intelists. After all, if I'd paid a couple of hundred quid over the odds for my CPU, Id be defedning it ike crazy. As for so called "benchmarks" tests. Meh, again, the results and stats can be presented with any slant the reveier feels is nessesary.

actually the 955 and 965 be 4 core are better for gaming then any of the 6 core amd.

OK the 965 BE @3.40Ghz is better than a x6 @2.80Ghz that "turbos" to 3.40Ghz if needed? Has it got wings?

[banenwn 10]

To be honest, it seems me hardware reviews are pretty much like gaming reviews. (DR reviews would be good example there). Trustworthy to a point but ultimately serving the editorial guidelines of the publication/website. I never read 'em. I glanced over the specs & customer opinions/reviews before buying, that was about it. Besides, it also seems that the majority of "impartial" reviewers are Intelists. After all, if I'd paid a couple of hundred quid over the odds for my CPU, Id be defedning it ike crazy. As for so called "benchmarks" tests. Meh, again, the results and stats can be presented with any slant the reveier feels is nessesary.

OK the 965 BE @3.40Ghz is better than a x6 @2.80Ghz that "turbos" to 3.40Ghz if needed? Has it got wings?

actually the 965 be crushes the 1055T in gaming period.the 1090 T is more or less the same performance gaming wize as the 965 be.Tom's and other tech sites confirm this. If you do a lot of video editing/conversion, graphic design, ray tracing or similar work, a hexacore would be of more benefit. Not saying a 1055T is a bad cpu especially since there decent overclockers and the 1090t isnt worth the extra 100$ over the 1055T in my opinion but gaming wize the 1055t performes closer to the 940 be,you seriously need to look at benches theres atleast a half dozen that compare the two and every bench comes with the same results.like i said not knocking it but the 965 black edition is simply faster in games

Edited September 7, 2010 by banenwn

[bascule42 10]

actually the 965 be crushes the 1055T in gaming period.the 1090 T is more or less the same performance gaming wize as the 965 be.Tom's and other tech sites confirm this. If you do a lot of video editing/conversion, graphic design, ray tracing or similar work, a hexacore would be of more benefit. Not saying a 1055T is a bad cpu especially since there decent overclockers and the 1090t isnt worth the extra 100$ over the 1055T in my opinion but gaming wize the 1055t performes closer to the 940 be,you seriously need to look at benches theres atleast a half dozen that compare the two and every bench comes with the same results.like i said not knocking it but the 965 black edition is simply faster in games

Well, we both have a differing opinion. Fair enough. As I said, I don't follow benchmarks or hardware reviews. I've no reason to believe they are any different to gaming reviews.

My opinion is stemming from what I am seeing right here in front of me. How much is being used when running programs, be it games or apps. And a CPU that is still only using 90% of its total (while running at 100% frequency - not even stressed enough to kick in turbo mode) when running Arma 2, (without fps drop) and encoding a full screen video capture to 1080 format, I'm gonna sing its praises. Benchmarks are good for measuring overall performance. But given that the important thing really is to be measuring performance at any given moment, (not to mention to disparity of differing componants used in BMing), I am going to remain sceptical about any results published, I can't see this changing ever. Besides, I simply don't believe there is such a thing a reviewer impatiality. If there was, all reviewers would come up with the same results.

Having said all that, it is just an opinion, as is yours. And really we have gotten a bit off topic now. So, I'm gonna stick with my recommendation of the 1055t. Why? The cost & because Im using one and it's f**ing brilliant. :p

I agree about the 1090t not being worth the extra though.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Bascule42

[jackass888 0]

My observation is that intel cpus give ~15% more performance per mhz in most of the benchmarks/games. I think im also stuck with waiting for "sandy bridge".

I could buy a i750+mobo for ~190€, but the ddr3 would cost too much. And i doubt the performance gain is enough for my needs.

About CPU usage... my 4 cores also never reach 100%, maybe 70% top, but still the game is cpu limited(lotsa AI+look into sky).

Didnt get it... do you use 1055t with arma2? Does it use all 6 cores?

Edited September 7, 2010 by jackass888

[scruffy 22]

Bascule, the 1055t goes up to 3,3 GHz on three cores if the other three are idle and it's still within the TDP.

The most recent Intels increase for example 5/4/2/2 steps (133Mhz) if 1/2/3/4 cores are stressed. The steps differ with the model, older ones have 2/2/1/1, and of course they also have to keep within the TDP.

Just an explanation, I hope it's all correct. So you will most likely not get your full Turbo when playing Arma.

A bit more on topic: The question is if Arma profits more from the additional cores 5&6 or from more speed on the 4 "existing" cores? My bet is on the second one, as most people won't process videos in the background while playing, and high clocked dual cores seem to work as fine as smaller quads.

Sadly benchmarks are hard to find, most are older for A2 without patches or didn't bother to disable Hyper Threading. A recent test from a site that knows the game would be nice, checking without HT/with cpuCount and different scenarios, the new -ExThreads changes, advantages of hexacore, triple chanel, SSDs, etc.

[uglystranger 10]

I am buying an Alienware M15x and wonder if a i7 740QM is a good choice for processor?

[Stalemate 10]

My pc runs it, but it's not too well. My specifications are:

Windows Vistaâ„¢ Home Premium (6.0, Build 6001) Service Pack 1

Acer M5640/M3640

Intel® Pentium® Dual CPU E2200 @ 2.20GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.2GHz

3070MB RAM

DirectX 10

NVIDIA GeForce GT 220

What should I upgrade to make it run better?

[bascule42 10]

@Scruffy. Re turbo, yes of course you are right about the turbo mode. But when it does go into turbo, it doubles up on the cores, i.e. using 2 cores and classing then as one. How that would measure up, Im not sure. (The video encoding example was just a test to see how well it did).

do you use 1055t with arma2? Does it use all 6 cores?

Yes and yes.

...using -cpucount=6.

My pc runs it, but it's not too well. My specifications are:

Windows Vistaâ„¢ Home Premium (6.0, Build 6001) Service Pack 1

Acer M5640/M3640

Intel® Pentium® Dual CPU E2200 @ 2.20GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.2GHz

3070MB RAM

DirectX 10

NVIDIA GeForce GT 220

What should I upgrade to make it run better?

New CPU and OS would help. I would recommend..ahh, well, there are alot of options. Depends what you want to spend.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Bascule42

[Stalemate 10]

New CPU and OS would help. I would recommend..ahh, well, there are alot of options. Depends what you want to spend.

What OS do you reccomend? I read somewhere that Windows XP 32 Bit would run Arma a lot better. And A better CPU? Same question.

The graphicscard and RAM are allright? I can set it reasonable high but it runs, anoying. Not sharp, do you understand what I mean?

Edited September 7, 2010 by Stalemate

[bascule42 10]

What OS do you reccomend? I read somewhere that Windows XP 32 Bit would run Arma a lot better. And A better CPU? Same question.

The graphicscard and RAM are allright? I can set it reasonable high but it runs, anoying. Not sharp, do you understand what I mean?

First off edit your post so you are not quoting the image. I think that might be a no no.

CPU..well, first off, I wont reccomend Intel. OK, they do perform better, but you can get an equivalent AMD chip for much much cheaper. In terms of cost/performance ratio, much better value - if you ahve bags of csah go for Intel, if not AMD. So from me assume Im talking about AMD. According to a few people opsting above, the higher frequency quad cores are better for gaming than a lower frequency six core. With most quoting hardware review sites. (For my opinon on that see above). So ,I can only tell you how the six core CPU I am using is running arma 2. And that is excellently. As you can see by the image I posted, it doesn't even push the CPU past 50% of its total capacity. Plus, Intel are going to be releasing a mainstream six core model, (as opposed to the very very expensive x6 they have out now), that a lot more people will be able to afford. When that happens, I believe that we will see more games designed with 6 core use in mind. But for me, it would be AMD for the cost alone. the 1055t, as opposed to the 1095t BE. Why? Again cost. Plus the 1055t is an excellent overclocker. You could get 3.40Ghz out of by just increasing the multiplyer and not touching the voltages, (with decent thermal paste and cooler - Ive read some people are doing it with stock cooler with just a slight increase in temp).

As for the OS, some say win 7 some say win XP. Im using Win 7 Ultimate. But most agree that Vista is a bad choice for gaming.

You RAM seems fine, (indeed if you get XP installed it will only recognise 3GB). Your GFX card?...not sure. Not really up on Nvidia cards.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Bascule42
...cause it didnt make sense.

[Stalemate 10]

Okey so the 1055t costs like 200 euro's here. That's not to much.

The RAM could stay the same.

The OS should be changed to a windows 7 or XP.

And then the graphics card, what kind of card do you use? Or do you have a good alternative for the one I'm using now?

Thank you for your help.

[zaira 10]

My observation is that intel cpus give ~15% more performance per mhz in most of the benchmarks/games. I think im also stuck with waiting for "sandy bridge".

I could buy a i750+mobo for ~190€, but the ddr3 would cost too much. And i doubt the performance gain is enough for my needs.

About CPU usage... my 4 cores also never reach 100%, maybe 70% top, but still the game is cpu limited(lotsa AI+look into sky).

Didnt get it... do you use 1055t with arma2? Does it use all 6 cores?

I totaly agree with you (and im not Intel fanboy, i had athlon 1000, xp mobile barton 2500, at the time better than intel).

Only your last line..

Arma uses all 6 cores, but u just dont get any gain in performance.

I think (im 99.99999999% shure) problem is that some of the thread/s in process wait for others to finish. For example core 0, 2, 3 "finished" tasks but whole process "waits" for core 1. You can have how many cores you want but when that is the case you wont get fps incr.

The most threads i seen arma2 uses is 20, i dont know what is distribution to cores, but i guess by performance.

To me core 1 (2nd core) is used bit more than other cores, and i guess on that core there are AI thread/s (maybe rendering).

For my conclusion i used hundreds hours of server hosting with alot of ai.

[banenwn 10]

Well, we both have a differing opinion. Fair enough. As I said, I don't follow benchmarks or hardware reviews. I've no reason to believe they are any different to gaming reviews.

My opinion is stemming from what I am seeing right here in front of me. How much is being used when running programs, be it games or apps. And a CPU that is still only using 90% of its total (while running at 100% frequency - not even stressed enough to kick in turbo mode) when running Arma 2, (without fps drop) and encoding a full screen video capture to 1080 format, I'm gonna sing its praises. Benchmarks are good for measuring overall performance. But given that the important thing really is to be measuring performance at any given moment, (not to mention to disparity of differing componants used in BMing), I am going to remain sceptical about any results published, I can't see this changing ever. Besides, I simply don't believe there is such a thing a reviewer impatiality. If there was, all reviewers would come up with the same results.

Having said all that, it is just an opinion, as is yours. And really we have gotten a bit off topic now. So, I'm gonna stick with my recommendation of the 1055t. Why? The cost & because Im using one and it's f**ing brilliant. :p

I agree about the 1090t not being worth the extra though.

mine is not an opinion it is a fact.i almost got 1055T myself so im not knocking it.The guys running the benchmarks know what they are doing im pretty sure they are not out to lie to the public.1055T was made for an all around chip it does everything well but not great.if your happy with it thats all that matters but in the end the 1055 simply cant keep with the 965 be gaming wize and it even out performs the 1090t most of the time

[bascule42 10]

The guys running the benchmarks know what they are doing im pretty sure they are not out to lie to the public.

Just like the game reviewers. Big name dev..at least a 70% rating. Sycophantic journos whos impartiality is on an editors leash. Im sure they do know what they are doing. Afterall, even governments manage to "massage" statistics to present an opinion. Sorry, but I can't understand why people are so determined to believe everything they read. Im sure they are not lying, just presenting results the way they want you to read them. It would be intersting to see some results with games that have been developed with x6's in mind, or at least tested and optimised for them during development. But as it is, older games will probably seem to run better on CPU's they were tested for. Doesn't mean a game in six months will, or even a patch in six months. Speaking of OLD games. I see these reviewers still use Crysis as a test. How old is that now? Nearly 3 an half years? Come on! Bit old to be testing a six month old CPU on dont you think? But if people want to buy a CPU for past releases..fair enough.

And yes, you are just stating an opinion- it's just someone elses. Only the super arrogant would say anything is a fact without generations of scientific study backing them up.

This is the wrong place for a debate on the semantics of reviews.

[banenwn 10]

Just like the game reviewers. Big name dev..at least a 70% rating. Sycophantic journos whos impartiality is on an editors leash. Im sure they do know what they are doing. Afterall, even governments manage to "massage" statistics to present an opinion. Sorry, but I can't understand why people are so determined to believe everything they read. Im sure they are not lying, just presenting results the way they want you to read them. It would be intersting to see some results with games that have been developed with x6's in mind, or at least tested and optimised for them during development. But as it is, older games will probably seem to run better on CPU's they were tested for. Doesn't mean a game in six months will, or even a patch in six months. Speaking of OLD games. I see these reviewers still use Crysis as a test. How old is that now? Nearly 3 an half years? Come on! Bit old to be testing a six month old CPU on dont you think? But if people want to buy a CPU for past releases..fair enough.

And yes, you are just stating an opinion- it's just someone elses. Only the super arrogant would say anything is a fact without generations of scientific study backing them up.

This is the wrong place for a debate on the semantics of reviews.

you cant compare game reviews to a review with numbers involved.A game review is how someone percieves it not actual benchmarks that have numbers to back it up that is a fact.there still isnt a game with better graphics then crysis that game cameout 5 years before its time.problem is no game utilizes 6 cores now and by the time they do the 1055T will be outdated and wont benifit much from it.so are you going to tell me that a nissan sentra is faster then a corvette?are you saying that is an opinion because the numbers are just opinion? there is no opinion when it comes to this its either faster or its not if you want i can link to the 10 sites or so ive found and the 1055T doesnt beat the 965 be in any game tested at any resolution it is slower in all games and i do mean all why i got th 965 to begin with i did my research.

Edited September 8, 2010 by banenwn

[Leon86 13]

My pc runs it, but it's not too well. My specifications are:

Windows Vistaâ„¢ Home Premium (6.0, Build 6001) Service Pack 1

Acer M5640/M3640

Intel® Pentium® Dual CPU E2200 @ 2.20GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.2GHz

3070MB RAM

DirectX 10

NVIDIA GeForce GT 220

What should I upgrade to make it run better?

Your pc is just over minimum requirements with cpu and gpu. I'd recommend a new gpu but not spend too much on it. A new or secondhand 4850 for about 50-60 euro's or a 9800gtx for something similar should be a pretty good upgrade.

[Stalemate 10]

Okey so upgrading to a 9800gtx would cost about 120 euros, and you recommend a newer cpu, and that would be like?

And how much would this improve my performance? I now have what you see in my post, getting 4 gb ram wouldn't be a problem, the newer videocard neither.

But what would I gain with it? I mean I'd love to play with maximum graphics and no lagg but is that realistic with some improvements?

[catito14 0]

Hi, a CF of HD 5870 will improve A LOT the performance in comparison with an HD 4890 Vapor-X ??

Rig:

-Windows 7 x64

-6gb ddr3

-Mother P6

-i7 920 @ 4ghz

Thanks

[lao fei mao 21]

For ArmA2 series, double GPUs work less efficiently than they do for other games.

[banenwn 10]

Hi, a CF of HD 5870 will improve A LOT the performance in comparison with an HD 4890 Vapor-X ??

Rig:

-Windows 7 x64

-6gb ddr3

-Mother P6

-i7 920 @ 4ghz

Thanks

u wont see more then a 5 fps improvement id guess.i went from a gtx 260 to a radeon 5850 and i noticed very little improvement and the stepup you are talking about is roughley the same.the game is very cpu dependant and with an i7 920 like you have i doubt u would see much improvemnt nomatter what you did.for me sli would not work for arma 2 if you can get crossfire to work it would deffinetly help.i had sli gtx 465's and i actually lost 1 fps in the benchmark with 2 cards over 1.some people can seem to get it to work but i guess i was just one of the unlucky ones.if anything id try to crossfire those 4890's

Edited September 9, 2010 by banenwn

[Craig_VG 20]

I just recently bought a new rig. (in sig)

I am in LOVE! Before I had a dual core 2.4 GHz and a 7900gtx. I've got almost all my settings maxed and getting great frame rates! I didn't know arma could be this good.

[Leon86 13]

Okey so upgrading to a 9800gtx would cost about 120 euros, and you recommend a newer cpu, and that would be like?

And how much would this improve my performance? I now have what you see in my post, getting 4 gb ram wouldn't be a problem, the newer videocard neither.

But what would I gain with it? I mean I'd love to play with maximum graphics and no lagg but is that realistic with some improvements?

I don't know what cpu's are supported on that pc. Maybe a new one will work, maybe not. 120 euro's is way too expensive for a 9800gtx, you can get an ati 5750 for that. Maybe you can get a new ati 4850 for about 80 euro's. With that kind of processor you really shouldn't spend too much. When upgrading the gpu you can probably play simple missions smoothly but you'll still struggle in missions with vast numbers of ai.

[Stalemate 10]

Possibilities to upgrade the CPU depends on what type of motherboard I have? It's getting complicated now haha. I'm trying to figure out how much it would cost me to have my pc arma 2 ready.

[Leon86 13]

You have an acer pc, if there's another acer pc with exactly that motherboard but with a better processor like a q6600 you could upgrade to that. The e2200 is one of the cheapest (and slightly slower) core2duo's. In fact I just bought a (faster) e3300 for my htpc for only 20 euro's (secondhand). q6600's go for about 80 euro's. The real power of the q6600 is it's overclockability but you can't really do that with an acer pc I think.

[lao fei mao 21]

Well, there are two sets of CPU+Mother board: i7 870x+P55, i7 920+X58, which one would you choose for playing ArmA2?