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

[zaira 10]

I'm talking about maxed, I can easily get it up to 30 FPS if I turn some things down.

Sandy Bridge E and Waimea bay should be interesting though. Kepler will arrive at roughly the same time :D

And by maxed, you are not thinking about rendering at 200% :j:

But it will definetly be some interesing stuff when it all comes up,

I think i will get some 6 core socket R and 4GBx4 of ddr3 1600MHz, manly for Pro Engineer and Catia + some of other CAD, and Matlab (doing alot of simulink). Video card will be mainstream, but should be enough to run ARMA2 decent

[bangtail 0]

And by maxed, you are not thinking about rendering at 200% :j:

LOL, whatever.

[Ripsaw5165 10]

I'd get something with 4GB, DDR3 and a more modern gpu.

And an Intel CPU. Core for core, Ghz for Ghz, Intel is the stronger processor. This is not a cut against AMD. AMD may pull ahead of Intel again as they once were, but for now Intel has the upper hand.

[W.- -.R.R.e.L. 10]

My Core i5 runs at 3,7Ghz. IF I can get it to 4Ghz, should I notice a (big) performance boost? Or just stick to the 3,7.

Most of the things I have on very high, exept PP, AA and shadows(high)

[bangtail 0]

.R.R.e.L.;1782768']My Core i5 runs at 3' date='7Ghz. IF I can get it to 4Ghz, should I notice a (big) performance boost? Or just stick to the 3,7.

Most of the things I have on very high, exept PP, AA and shadows(high)[/quote']

Won't do much but if you can run at 4.0, then why not.

Edited November 5, 2010 by BangTail

[Leon86 13]

And an Intel CPU. Core for core, Ghz for Ghz, Intel is the stronger processor. This is not a cut against AMD. AMD may pull ahead of Intel again as they once were, but for now Intel has the upper hand.

Id say the ranking from slow to fast /Ghz/core goes like this: AMD AthlonII -> Intel core2 -> AMD Phenom II-> Intel Core i

But a phenomII quad will easily beat a core i3 processor in anything that's slightly multithreaded.

If all you care about is playing arma 2 then there's only 3 processors to look at, the cheap athlonII X3 for ultra-budget, the PhenomII X4 955 BE for budget and the Intel i5-760. An overclocked i5-760 will only be beaten by an overclocked X980, so no real point in spending more imo. Unless you have plenty of money or also use your pc for things other than gaming, like photo rendering by raytracing, video rendering etc.

[Macadam Cow 1]

Hi everyone

Well I'm not exactly here to know if my PC can run this game but to know why it can't handle it better...

My rig :

i7 860 @ 2.8Ghz

GeForce GT 320

4 Gb DDR3

Win 7 64Bit

Native resolution : 1920x1080

Ingame settings for a map like Chernarus or Takistan :

Textures : Normal

Video Memory : Normal

Terrain detail : low/normal

Object detail : Normal

Shadows : Normal

Aniso Filter : Off

AA : Off/low

PP : Off/low

View Distance : 2500

3D resolution : 1440x900

And with this I get an average FPS of 20-25 and it quickly drop to 15-20 when I walk into chernarussian forest...that's not exactly what I expected...

Like this the game is quite playable and not ugly but there's a lot of aliasing.

1 year ago I was playing ArmA2 on my 2 years old laptop which didn't even met the required spec(C2Duo 2Ghz with a Geforce 7600, all settings on very low/low and res: 800x600).

So with an i7 I was really expecting to be able to put a few settings on high...

I don't want to push everything to the maximum but I'd like to play in Native resolution with an average view distance of 5000 on any map.

I have a big drop of FPS when I try to push up the 3D resolution to fit my screen resolution.

I know my GPU is the weak point of my rig but I'm really a dickhead when it comes to hardware and I don't know which one should I choose to fit what I want.

As I said I don't want to play with everything on very high, I'm quite happy with the rendering I have now all I want is to play in native resolution to get rid of this damn aliasing,

especially annoying in a game like arma where you have to spot and shoot ennemies at long distance.

Thanks for your help

Edited November 7, 2010 by Macadam Cow
I want to play with BB code

[PhillyB 10]

Hi everyone

Well I'm not exactly here to know if my PC can run this game but to know why it can't handle it better...

My rig :

i7 860 @ 2.8Ghz

GeForce GT 320

4 Gb DDR3

Win 7 64Bit

Native resolution : 1920x1080

Ingame settings for a map like Chernarus or Takistan :

Textures : Normal

Video Memory : Normal

Terrain detail : low/normal

Object detail : Normal

Shadows : Normal

Aniso Filter : Off

AA : Off/low

PP : Off/low

View Distance : 2500

3D resolution : 1440x900

And with this I get an average FPS of 20-25 and it quickly drop to 15-20 when I walk into chernarussian forest...that's not exactly what I expected...

Like this the game is quite playable and not ugly but there's a lot of aliasing.

1 year ago I was playing ArmA2 on my 2 years old laptop which didn't even met the required spec(C2Duo 2Ghz with a Geforce 7600, all settings on very low/low and res: 800x600).

So with an i7 I was really expecting to be able to put a few settings on high...

I don't want to push everything to the maximum but I'd like to play in Native resolution with an average view distance of 5000 on any map.

I have a big drop of FPS when I try to push up the 3D resolution to fit my screen resolution.

I know my GPU is the weak point of my rig but I'm really a dickhead when it comes to hardware and I don't know which one should I choose to fit what I want.

As I said I don't want to play with everything on very high, I'm quite happy with the rendering I have now all I want is to play in native resolution to get rid of this damn aliasing,

especially annoying in a game like arma where you have to spot and shoot ennemies at long distance.

Thanks for your help

Graphics cards:

If you're on a budget: 6870, best value

If you want something really good: 5970, 6990 (Not out yet), gtx 480, 580 (Not out yet)

[Macadam Cow 1]

Ok, thanks, I'll have a look a those.

I guess it will depends on how much money I give to santa this years...he's such a stingy guy...

:D

[Leon86 13]

Hi everyone

Well I'm not exactly here to know if my PC can run this game but to know why it can't handle it better...

My rig :

i7 860 @ 2.8Ghz

GeForce GT 320

4 Gb DDR3

Win 7 64Bit

Native resolution : 1920x1080

Ingame settings for a map like Chernarus or Takistan :

Textures : Normal

Video Memory : Normal

Terrain detail : low/normal

Object detail : Normal

Shadows : Normal

Aniso Filter : Off

AA : Off/low

PP : Off/low

View Distance : 2500

3D resolution : 1440x900

And with this I get an average FPS of 20-25 and it quickly drop to 15-20 when I walk into chernarussian forest...that's not exactly what I expected...

Like this the game is quite playable and not ugly but there's a lot of aliasing.

1 year ago I was playing ArmA2 on my 2 years old laptop which didn't even met the required spec(C2Duo 2Ghz with a Geforce 7600, all settings on very low/low and res: 800x600).

So with an i7 I was really expecting to be able to put a few settings on high...

I don't want to push everything to the maximum but I'd like to play in Native resolution with an average view distance of 5000 on any map.

I have a big drop of FPS when I try to push up the 3D resolution to fit my screen resolution.

I know my GPU is the weak point of my rig but I'm really a dickhead when it comes to hardware and I don't know which one should I choose to fit what I want.

As I said I don't want to play with everything on very high, I'm quite happy with the rendering I have now all I want is to play in native resolution to get rid of this damn aliasing,

especially annoying in a game like arma where you have to spot and shoot ennemies at long distance.

Thanks for your help

If I want a rough comparison of all gpu's I always look at the hierarchy chart Not 100% accurate as there's performance differences between games and resolutions, but pretty usefull.

[EDcase 87]

Salut Macam Cow,

If its within the budget I would suggest the ATI HD5870 (THIS is the cheapest I found and the one I got)

I just replaced my GTX285 with the 5870 and WOW what a difference!!!!!!!!!

I did consider the GTX480 (I know its more powerful) but didn't want the heat and power usage and the 5870 is cheaper. The ATI drivers are a bit crap tho because you have to use separate "ATI Tray Tools" to turn off vertical sync.

I now use:

Res=1920x1200

ViewDistance=4k

Object detail and shadows = VERY HIGH (this makes the biggest difference)

AA=NORMAL with no jaggies

PP=LOW.

IT LOOKS AMAZING!!!!

FPS does depend on CPU load of course. High number of AI units will reduce FPS no matter what GPU you have.

Playing online "Insurgency" (Takistan) where the server takes the CPU load I get between 60 and 80 fps. (does go bit lower for short times if there are big explosions but never feels slow)

Edited November 9, 2010 by EDcase

[bangtail 0]

Go 6850/6870 if you are going AMD.

Nvidia's 5xx series releases today as well but I think it's just the 580 for the moment which is ~$499.99

Edited November 9, 2010 by BangTail

[birtuma 28]

I was thinking of getting a new system. How well would this run arma2:

AMD Phenom II X4 Quad Core 995.

2GB DDR2 Memory (< 800MHz)

NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250

1. There is no such CPU. There are 945, 955, 965. I would say, buy 955BE, it's good, cheaper than 965 and you can overclock it.

2. 2GB RAM is not that much, 4GB is better.

3. The graphics card is too old. New one costs 100-120€, ATI HD 5770 is better (faster, DirectX 11 etc) and costs the same. Or you can also buy Nvdia 460GTX or AMD HD 6850.

[Leon86 13]

Nvidia's 5xx series releases today as well but I think it's just the 580 for the moment which is ~$499.99

Most reviews seem positive, about 20% faster, cooler and very silent due to vapor chamber cooling and a power draw limiter. Ati has the limiter too I believe and it is a good idea imo, takes a big chunk out of furmark power use and doesnt compromise realworld performance unless you overclock like a maniac. Well, bad news for maniacs I guess :).

[bangtail 0]

Most reviews seem positive, about 20% faster, cooler and very silent due to vapor chamber cooling and a power draw limiter. Ati has the limiter too I believe and it is a good idea imo, takes a big chunk out of furmark power use and doesnt compromise realworld performance unless you overclock like a maniac. Well, bad news for maniacs I guess :).

I have 2 ordered but they haven't shipped yet AFAIK.

[archsceptic. 10]

I'm looking for a new gpu to give my system a boost until I replace it, maybe in a year's time.

I was considering the ATI HD 5870 1gb to replace my 4870 X2 2gb. Would the performance gain be worthwhile?

I'd be running it on an i7 940 (overclocked), 6gb ram, Win7 64bit.

At the moment once the action hots up on screen I'm dipping below 20fps with most settings at high or medium - not that settings seem to make much of a scaleable difference with this game...

Worth it???

:confused:

[bangtail 0]

Can't find anything more recent but it seems that it would help significantly :)

http://www.nordichardware.com/test-lab/25-graphics/11233-radeon-hd-5870-conquers-the-market.html?start=15#content

6870 results - I'd go with a 6870 tbh, it's cheaper and pretty much on par with a 5870 while being newer.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/10/22/ati-radeon-hd-6870-review/6

Edited November 9, 2010 by BangTail

[Leon86 13]

I have 2 ordered but they haven't shipped yet AFAIK.

can I haz one of your old 480's then? :D.

Do these kind of gpu's also make arma2 performance better you think? or is arma always cpu limited above the 480 sli/5870cf level? (without "cheating" with 200% resolution or course :) )

[bangtail 0]

can I haz one of your old 480's then? :D.

Do these kind of gpu's also make arma2 performance better you think? or is arma always cpu limited above the 480 sli/5870cf level? (without "cheating" with 200% resolution or course :) )

LOL

They probably won't do much for ArmA 2 but every little bit helps in terms of gaming in general :D

[Leon86 13]

now you can finally run crysis on "enthousiast" :)

[bangtail 0]

now you can finally run crysis on "enthusiast" :)

Could do that with the 480s tbh.

Good start for Crysis 2 :)

[archsceptic. 10]

Thanks BangTail, the 6870 seems to be a wise suggestion for a stop-gap.

The 4870 X2 2gb has been a bit of a let-down for me since I bought it.

:mad:

[bangtail 0]

Thanks BangTail, the 6870 seems to be a wise suggestion for a stop-gap.

The 4870 X2 2gb has been a bit of a let-down for me since I bought it.

:mad:

Yah, dual GPU cards are not a favorite of mine - from either camp.

The 6870 is a great card, you won't be disappointed :)

[Rushhour33 10]

Building a computer here in a month and my main focuz is gonna be playing ARMA2. How will this PC run arma 2

Intel Pentium G6950 2.8Ghz

4GB 1600MHZ

Nvidia GTS 450 (fermi)

Want to know at what settings i will be able to play ARMA 2 and at about what Frames if u know. WOuld appreciate any help, thanks.

[AnimalMother92 10]

There just happens to be a whole thread for this.

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