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

[S7_Mega 10]

Run the arma 2 benchmark mission 2 please. No way that'll get high fps maxxed.

+1 And honestly, running FRAPS is not the ideal way to benchmark anything as it's impossible to run the exact same path, AI included.

[zaira 10]

Run the arma 2 benchmark mission 2 please. No way that'll get high fps maxxed.

Why are you telling him that? He will probably cry when he gets sub 20fps on average with his phenom 2...

:D

[bascule42 10]

even at 10000 view its playable.at these settings i get 61 fps in the arma2 benchmark

Bollox. Or a troll post :/

[banenwn 10]

Why are you telling him that? He will probably cry when he gets sub 20fps on average with his phenom 2...

:D

actually i dont even hit 20 fps in the 2nd test and running the first test i hit 54 fps average maxed out i fell below 30 for a few seconds.i get high benchmark scores but it doesnt neccasarily represent ingame like i said i average about 37-38 ingame deffinetley playable

---------- Post added at 03:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 AM ----------

Bollox. Or a troll post :/

and this is from someone who thinks benchmarks are opinions

[bascule42 10]

and this is from someone who thinks benchmarks are opinions

I never claimed this...only that the reviewers will present the results in such a manner, as to fit in with the point that they wish to make, or to fit in with editorial guidelines. I think your claim of "even at 10000 view its playable.at these settings i get 61 fps in the arma2 benchmark" proves my point. Just before the little display of classic back tracking above.

[ScreamingEagle1 10]

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

Hi,

I have an Acer Aspire M3802, with 6GB of RAM, Intel Core Duo processor and an ATI Radeon HD 4380 graphics card. I can only play Arma 2 on low settings, and even then it's very laggy with a bad frame-rate.

I'm thinking of getting a new graphics card, and I was wondering which would be the best to go for. I'm thinking ATI because of their good prices, but the reviews of the 4870, 4890 and 5770 have confused me! Does newer mean better? Which card (not just the ones I mentioned) should I go for?

The benchmarks tell me I hit about 16fps on "low", with AA and postprocessing effects turned off, and on "very high" I can only manage 7fps. Will a new graphics card boost this significantly?

Will I need to do anything else to boost the playability of Arma 2?

Thanks for your help, any advice is much appreciated.

[DaSquade 0]

Just wanted to give some feedback as i finally got my custom build up and running.

*Intel 980x (processor) + Corsair H70 (with custom mount)

*Asus Rampage 3 extreme (mobo)

*Asus Ares (GPU)

*Crucial C300 64GB SSD Sata3 (windows 7 ultimate) & Crucial C300 128GB Sata 3 (BIS/BIA 'games')

*2x150GB WD raptor Sata2 (Workstation HD - Database HD)

*1x74GB WD raptor Sata2 (reference HD)

*1x300GB WD Sata2 (backup HD)

*12GB DDR3 Corsair XMS3 + corsair memory fan

*Thermaltake Kandalf

*3X Samsung syncmaster 2443BW (small bezel)

I have it up and running for a good 2-3 days and i'm pleased to say it was worth the money. Everything still at stock speeds. Did some benchmarks (for SSD drives) and they are running at the SATA3 speeds. Windows7 loads superfast (post/bio's boot tends to take awhile but afaik this is normal especially with all the drives...not that a care).

Now ArmA:

I can finally say (from the short tests i did sofar) it is a must have system if you want to get the most out of ArmA. Comming from a E6600 - 8800GTX - 2Gb DDR2, it is a super improvement. I can run ArmA2OA fully maxed out with the 'needed' FPS (like we know, FPS is only a small part in this engine). Map/mission/texture load is very fast, no stutter (although i had a flicker bug on arma2 1.5 before i upgraded to recent beta etc)... In one word, a complete new game and experience. The one everyone is aiming for, sadly it comes at an insane big price :( . Like said to friends, i guess BIS used this system to test and approve the game...

I decided to push it a bit extra yesterday and configured my screens to the eyefinty setup -> 3 screens acting as one single wooping 5700x1200 pixels. Been a dual screen user and always had a small dream to go triple. As expected on normal use the triple screen is no hit on the system. So i pushed it and checked out ArmA2OA. As expected aswell, with the previous settings i was able to get the system on its knees. Still need to fine tune it, but i nearly got it playable without all to much loss of quality. Personally i don't think it is currently possible to build a system (on the market) that can max out ArmA2 on a triple screen setup.

Some interesting facts i noticed in the short tests i did:

*After renaming the ArmA2OA.exe into ArmA2.exe to get crossfire enabled, although i have the Asus Ares (crossfire based card) with 4Gb on internal ram, i noticed under stress it was using the full 4GB of ram (on triple screen, forgot to check with a single screen at 1900x1200).

*I haven't looked much into it, but i yesterday thought i read even the latest beta isn't fully multi tread compatible, refurring to the shortcut key where you manually define the amount of cores and treads. Not sure if i can use my custom numbers as the ones on the forum are quad core based, but i have 6 cores (versus 4) and 12 tread (versus 7). Guess a mather of testing and checking.

*So far i haven't disabled HT in the bios. As the system runs stable and fine i didn't want to do it yet. Again not sure if that is still a fact and one would have performence improvement when disable HT.

*Still running the Asus catalyst drivers (8.14 - 10.0768). Will try out the latest one of these days.

Anyway additional hints and tips are welcome (i also used an SSD - windows7 tweak guide regarding turning of services and various other things..not sure if they helped, but system runs very stable).

In short (again), a must have system if you wondered if there was a system that can handle BIS games.

Forgot to report the negative points i had to find out after the purchase:

*It isn't possible afaik to run RAID0 for a few of the hard drives. Plan was to have the two 150Gb raptors in RAID0 while the other drives in normal mode as it is a limite of the chipset (atm all in ACHI with Intel drives, haven't installed the Marvell drives..although it detects the 2 SSD drives at full Sata3). I haven't looked deeper into it as the board uses two chipsets afaik (Sata3 & Sata2). Fact is i guess i won't be able to subdive the Sata2 chipset/line. I might need to buy a PCI-E raid card to overcome that...but not sure if it will all make out much more. In the end the two raptors in Raid0 would still be slightly under the speed of the SSD drives. Not sure if PCi-E lines allow the same bandwidth as the Sata3.

*As i was so happy about the SSD drives, it almost makes it sad the board doesn't come stock with more Sata3 ports. On the other hand, still not sure how good a SSD drive is regarding write and wear. Afaik, a spinning drive handles wear still better then the SSD ones. Time will tell i guess. Fact is with +-8770 run houres on my raptors they still performe good wihtout damaged sectors.

*Price...well maybe the 'priceless' experience term can counter it :d .

Edited September 14, 2010 by DaSquade

[Leon86 13]

Well, you can get performance close to your system's for much lower price. If you want super-smoothness you'd be better off spending money on a massive amount of ram and running the game off of a ramdisk instead of more ssd's and controllers imo.

but you can always get both of course :)

[DaSquade 0]

Well i considered the ramdisk thingy, but couldn't find much info on it. Are we taking here about equal amount of ram of what arma folder contains (+mods) + windows7 + what ever programs are running and need ram to work without hitting fullhouse? We are taking about +-20Gb. I was considering it but couldn't really find the wanted ram modules. In the end i still need to find the first post of someone doing that and have test versus running it on SSD drives or both.

Don't get me wrong, feel free to show me some numbers or facts. We can always learn..but i guess for now i will pass (unless someone wants to buy over my 12Gb ramkit).

Anybody can adress my question why ArmA uses 4Gb of GPU ram? Somehow i had hoped i would have a bit left (like said, i haven't full tested on a single screen, maybe there it doesn't uses all gpu ram). Keep in mind i'm pretty noob when it comes to these things (normal ram versus gpu ram). I was just wondering if something could fix it as it looks the GPU ram is the current bottleneck...

Edited September 15, 2010 by DaSquade

[banenwn 10]

I never claimed this...only that the reviewers will present the results in such a manner, as to fit in with the point that they wish to make, or to fit in with editorial guidelines. I think your claim of "even at 10000 view its playable.at these settings i get 61 fps in the arma2 benchmark" proves my point. Just before the little display of classic back tracking above.

obviously you dont read i got 61 fps in operation arrowhead benchmark then i ran the original arma 2 benchmark there are a total of 3 between arma 2 and operation arrowhead theres no back tracking there.i max out everything at 6500 draw distance and yes the game is playable for me at 10000 altho i dont play with 10000 as i will stutter from 10000 from time to time but its still playable.unplayable for me is less then 20 fps anything above that in arma 2 is plenty playable.

Edited September 15, 2010 by banenwn

[joeshmoe 10]

Hello all,

I am basically ready to make the plunge on some hardware.

I need feedback on the following components AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

WILL THIS RUN ARMA 2: OPERATION ARROWHEAD SATISFACTORILY!?

I want to order the following, tonight.

AMD Athlon II X4 640 Propus 3.0GHz

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103871

A-DATA 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211066

BIOSTAR TA785

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138282

hec HP585D RETAIL 585W (power supply)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817339012

COOLER MASTER ELITE 335 RC-335-KKN1-GP Black SECC Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119161

GIGABYTE GV-R467ZL-1GI Radeon HD 4670 1GB 128-bit DDR3

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125277

_

_

Edited September 15, 2010 by joeshmoe

[zaira 10]

Just wanted to give some feedback as i finally got my custom build up and running.

*Intel 980x (processor) + Corsair H70 (with custom mount)

*Asus Rampage 3 extreme (mobo)

*Asus Ares (GPU)

*Crucial C300 64GB SSD Sata3 (windows 7 ultimate) & Crucial C300 128GB Sata 3 (BIS/BIA 'games')

*2x150GB WD raptor Sata2 (Workstation HD - Database HD)

*1x74GB WD raptor Sata2 (reference HD)

*1x300GB WD Sata2 (backup HD)

*12GB DDR3 Corsair XMS3 + corsair memory fan

*Thermaltake Kandalf

*3X Samsung syncmaster 2443BW (small bezel)

I have it up and running for a good 2-3 days and i'm pleased to say it was worth the money. Everything still at stock speeds. Did some benchmarks (for SSD drives) and they are running at the SATA3 speeds. Windows7 loads superfast (post/bio's boot tends to take awhile but afaik this is normal especially with all the drives...not that a care).

Now ArmA:

I can finally say (from the short tests i did sofar) it is a must have system if you want to get the most out of ArmA. Comming from a E6600 - 8800GTX - 2Gb DDR2, it is a super improvement. I can run ArmA2OA fully maxed out with the 'needed' FPS (like we know, FPS is only a small part in this engine). Map/mission/texture load is very fast, no stutter (although i had a flicker bug on arma2 1.5 before i upgraded to recent beta etc)... In one word, a complete new game and experience. The one everyone is aiming for, sadly it comes at an insane big price :( . Like said to friends, i guess BIS used this system to test and approve the game...

I decided to push it a bit extra yesterday and configured my screens to the eyefinty setup -> 3 screens acting as one single wooping 5700x1200 pixels. Been a dual screen user and always had a small dream to go triple. As expected on normal use the triple screen is no hit on the system. So i pushed it and checked out ArmA2OA. As expected aswell, with the previous settings i was able to get the system on its knees. Still need to fine tune it, but i nearly got it playable without all to much loss of quality. Personally i don't think it is currently possible to build a system (on the market) that can max out ArmA2 on a triple screen setup.

Some interesting facts i noticed in the short tests i did:

*After renaming the ArmA2OA.exe into ArmA2.exe to get crossfire enabled, although i have the Asus Ares (crossfire based card) with 4Gb on internal ram, i noticed under stress it was using the full 4GB of ram (on triple screen, forgot to check with a single screen at 1900x1200).

*I haven't looked much into it, but i yesterday thought i read even the latest beta isn't fully multi tread compatible, refurring to the shortcut key where you manually define the amount of cores and treads. Not sure if i can use my custom numbers as the ones on the forum are quad core based, but i have 6 cores (versus 4) and 12 tread (versus 7). Guess a mather of testing and checking.

*So far i haven't disabled HT in the bios. As the system runs stable and fine i didn't want to do it yet. Again not sure if that is still a fact and one would have performence improvement when disable HT.

*Still running the Asus catalyst drivers (8.14 - 10.0768). Will try out the latest one of these days.

Anyway additional hints and tips are welcome (i also used an SSD - windows7 tweak guide regarding turning of services and various other things..not sure if they helped, but system runs very stable).

In short (again), a must have system if you wondered if there was a system that can handle BIS games.

Forgot to report the negative points i had to find out after the purchase:

*It isn't possible afaik to run RAID0 for a few of the hard drives. Plan was to have the two 150Gb raptors in RAID0 while the other drives in normal mode as it is a limite of the chipset (atm all in ACHI with Intel drives, haven't installed the Marvell drives..although it detects the 2 SSD drives at full Sata3). I haven't looked deeper into it as the board uses two chipsets afaik (Sata3 & Sata2). Fact is i guess i won't be able to subdive the Sata2 chipset/line. I might need to buy a PCI-E raid card to overcome that...but not sure if it will all make out much more. In the end the two raptors in Raid0 would still be slightly under the speed of the SSD drives. Not sure if PCi-E lines allow the same bandwidth as the Sata3.

*As i was so happy about the SSD drives, it almost makes it sad the board doesn't come stock with more Sata3 ports. On the other hand, still not sure how good a SSD drive is regarding write and wear. Afaik, a spinning drive handles wear still better then the SSD ones. Time will tell i guess. Fact is with +-8770 run houres on my raptors they still performe good wihtout damaged sectors.

*Price...well maybe the 'priceless' experience term can counter it :d .

Few things to have in mind.

1) Use H70 to blow air out of your case (not as corsair suggested)

2) C300 had big bug with old firmware regarding degradation of read and write speed, so check you have latest firmware

3) Use default in video memory setings

4) Use arma loader and set to 6 cores, this wont use HT "cores", and by default arma2 (1.07) runs with 4+ core chips at exthreads 7 (thread all)

Overclock your CPU, i know you payed alot of money, but in reality cheap i7s like 750 and 920 are much faster than gulftown if they are on 4+GHz, arma just likes Freq, more than cores.

Only then will your machine fly with good fps.

If you use 3d resoution disable aa (you have same effect).

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Joeshmoe,

If that computer is being build with Arma2 OA in mind, I think satisfactory performance with that hardware is highly dependent on your definition of satisfactory.

in my opinion, that board is shit, the memory old, graphics card weak

the CPU is a 3.0ghz quad core, that should be okay.

again, my opinion, you are setting yourself for disappointment for Arma2.

I am by no means an expert in computer Hardware, but I have been through a lot of hardware changes and tweaking to attain my satisfactory performance, and my components, with the exception of my motherboard, are not top of the line.

I hope you take a little more time to read this thread, skim the last 50-100 pages, and get an idea of what this community is using for hardware, before you make your final decision.

system and benchmark reference:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1698937&postcount=37[

Edited September 15, 2010 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[joeshmoe 10]

Can I pull off decent frame-rates on medium settings with that hardware? By decent I mean, 26+.

-Ziggy-;1749815']Joeshmoe' date='

If that computer is being build with Arma2 OA in mind, I think satisfactory performance with that hardware is highly dependent on your definition of satisfactory.

in my opinion, that board is shit, the memory old, graphics card weak

the CPU is a 3.0ghz quad core, that should be okay.

again, my opinion, you are setting yourself for disappointment for Arma2.

I am by no means an expert in computer Hardware, but I have been through a lot of hardware changes and tweaking to attain my satisfactory performance, and my components, with the exception of my motherboard, are not top of the line.

I hope you take a little more time to read this thread, skim the last 50-100 pages, and get an idea of what this community is using for hardware, before you make your final decision.

system and benchmark reference:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1698937&postcount=37[

Edited September 15, 2010 by joeshmoe

[Leon86 13]

Hello all,

I am basically ready to make the plunge on some hardware.

I need feedback on the following components AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

WILL THIS RUN ARMA 2: OPERATION ARROWHEAD SATISFACTORILY!?

I want to order the following, tonight.

AMD Athlon II X4 640 Propus 3.0GHz

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103871

A-DATA 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211066

BIOSTAR TA785

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138282

hec HP585D RETAIL 585W (power supply)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817339012

COOLER MASTER ELITE 335 RC-335-KKN1-GP Black SECC Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119161

GIGABYTE GV-R467ZL-1GI Radeon HD 4670 1GB 128-bit DDR3

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125277

_

_

DDR2 isn't that much cheaper than DDR3 anymore so I suggest you get a real am3 board with DDR3. And I recommend 4GB ram. A faster gpu woudn't hurt either. Get one in de top six or at least top 8 in this chart

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Can I pull off decent frame-rates on medium settings with that hardware? By decent I mean, 26+.

I really have my doubts about that, but you just cant tell until you try. :confused:

[santafee 10]

Hi there,

im thinking about gettin a new graphic card soon for Arma2 and i wonder if i dont have a bottleneck with that CPU and the following cards:

CPU

E8400 3.00 Ghz Standard Clock

Current Card

HD 4850 512 MB

My Options are:

GTX 460 786MB

or

HD 5770 with 1024 MB

I play other games as well so DX11 would be a nice feature...

Can you guys tell how much faster the cards would be compared to my 4850?

also i have to be sure im not bottlenecked..

thanks!

[Leon86 13]

The gpu never has to be a bottleneck, it all depends on the settings you run at. The GTX460 is a bit faster compared to the 5770, so I'd get that one. Both cards are faster than the 4850 but they're certainly not twice as fast.

[santafee 10]

i did some researches and it says its only 20% faster:butbut:

for 120€ id expect more..guess il wait some time and upgrade CPU and Graphic which is mostly the best..thx

[zaira 10]

Hi there,

im thinking about gettin a new graphic card soon for Arma2 and i wonder if i dont have a bottleneck with that CPU and the following cards:

CPU

E8400 3.00 Ghz Standard Clock

Current Card

HD 4850 512 MB

My Options are:

GTX 460 786MB

or

HD 5770 with 1024 MB

I play other games as well so DX11 would be a nice feature...

Can you guys tell how much faster the cards would be compared to my 4850?

also i have to be sure im not bottlenecked..

thanks!

Everyone has bottleneck with cpu, so rather invest in some decent cooler and overclock.

[banenwn 10]

-Ziggy-;1749815']Joeshmoe' date='

If that computer is being build with Arma2 OA in mind, I think satisfactory performance with that hardware is highly dependent on your definition of satisfactory.

in my opinion, that board is shit, the memory old, graphics card weak

the CPU is a 3.0ghz quad core, that should be okay.

again, my opinion, you are setting yourself for disappointment for Arma2.

I am by no means an expert in computer Hardware, but I have been through a lot of hardware changes and tweaking to attain my satisfactory performance, and my components, with the exception of my motherboard, are not top of the line.

I hope you take a little more time to read this thread, skim the last 50-100 pages, and get an idea of what this community is using for hardware, before you make your final decision.

system and benchmark reference:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1698937&postcount=37[

actually that is a decent board ive owned a few biostar boards there solid motherboards.motherboards are overrated you wont see any perfromance gain between a 60$ board or a 200$ board the only difference is added features

[banenwn 10]

ok i stand corrected on my benchmark scores.i went through my settings and somehow most of my settings were set to medium.i switched everything to very high and for some reason most of my settings were still set to normal.i just set everything to very high and turned off aa and af and post proccessing and i scored 33 fps average.1920x1080 res.not sure why my settings were normal must be something i hit in there that set it back to that.should also add my view distance was set to 4000 so i apologize for my stupidity

Edited September 16, 2010 by banenwn

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

actually that is a decent board ive owned a few biostar boards there solid motherboards.motherboards are overrated you wont see any perfromance gain between a 60$ board or a 200$ board the only difference is added features

hes not asking of the board is decent, hes asking if it will run Arma2 at a satisfactory level.

NO it wont, because its shit !

[banenwn 10]

-Ziggy-;1750945']hes not asking of the board is decent' date=' hes asking if it will run Arma2 at a satisfactory level.

NO it wont, because its shit ! [/quote']

and im telling you that motherboard will run games just as good as any other motherboard of its class.that is a good motherboard and you cant go wrong buying it.are you not aware that motherboards dont affect performance?if you havent owned any biostar motherboards stop saying its shit they make good boards plain and simple

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

and im telling you that motherboard will run games just as good as any other motherboard of its class.

hmm ... but will it run Arma2, as the poster asked for advice concerning satisfactory performance with the hardware he listed?

run yes. satisfactory? LOL ! show me another person who is using that hardware, even just that board, and is happy...

Personally I wouldn't drop a dime into that crap. the motherboard is your main component, and if you aren't buying to try to future proof to some degree, then you are a fool. As an amateur enthusiast, I want more performance potential (~IN THE FORM OF MORE FEATURES~) than that board offers.

Edited September 17, 2010 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-