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

[NeMeSiS 11]

-Ziggy-;1812042']benchmark 02 is useless to compare different systems.

use benchmark 01 or E08' date=' preferably E08.[/quote']

Benchmark 2 basically compares CPU's, which is the only thing i care about. Benchmark 1 would give is both 60FPS or something. :p

(He didnt have OA so i never bothered running E08 myself, i used ArmA2.exe to keep it fair)

@AVIBIRD 1: My mate uses his PC for other things (video's etc), its not a PC build with ArmA2 in mind.

Also, keep in mind that the 'dual/quad' core issue no longer excists, all the decent CPU's are already quadcores, 2 extra cores dont really help, so it would seem logical to get the fastest/affordable quad core you can get if you build your PC for ArmA2.

EDIT: I didnt really know what you were trying to say but this should be decent general advice.

Edited December 13, 2010 by NeMeSiS

[avibird 1 154]

Hi I can make a direct comparison between the PII 1090T and the I7 930.

First off, the 1090T will get the job done but... I'm getting a little more out of this intel (possibly due to the triple channel ram)

The 1090T is a good chip though, but the I7930 is better.

Just my personal observation.

Why do you think the Intel Core i7-930 Bloomfield quad core 2.8GHz ($279.00) is better then the AMD phenom 2 1090t thuban 6 core 3.2 GHz(219.00). $60.00 WILL NOT KILL THE BUDGET. I want to know why.

1. Is the intel CPU just that much better then AMD CPU.

2. Is ARMA JUST more SETUP for dual/quad core then 6 core at this time.

3. The AMD has more GHz then the INTEL 0.40 GHz.

I am trying to understand the Relationship between CPU speed and cores but no one can give me a direct answer lol.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I am trying to understand the Relationship between CPU speed and cores but no one can give me a direct answer lol.

You cannot compare ghz between different brands and series of CPU's. Its just not possible, the only way to compare them is by benchmarks.1

And there is no real relationship between cores and ghz. Lets just say that 6 cores at 3.2ghz does not mean that a CPU is 50% faster than a 4 core 3.2ghz CPU because it cannot be programmed that efficiently. In the case of ArmA2 the difference (as seen above) is almost 0.

1Easy example: My Athlon XP1800 @ 1,8ghz easily kicked a Pentium4 3.0ghz's ass and then proceeded to rape his wife as well. Just because the CPU's architecture was better it didnt need to same frequency to perform the same(or better).

Edited December 13, 2010 by NeMeSiS

[avibird 1 154]

Benchmark 2 basically compares CPU's, which is the only thing i care about. Benchmark 1 would give is both 60FPS or something. :p

(He didnt have OA so i never bothered running E08 myself, i used ArmA2.exe to keep it fair)

@AVIBIRD 1: My mate uses his PC for other things (video's etc), its not a PC build with ArmA2 in mind.

Also, keep in mind that the 'dual/quad' core issue no longer excists, all the decent CPU's are already quadcores, 2 extra cores dont really help, so it would seem logical to get the fastest/affordable quad core you can get if you build your PC for ArmA2.

EDIT: I didnt really know what you were trying to say but this should be decent general advice.

If a dual core is faster then a quad core a what point does it make a REAL CHANGE to have more cores THEN a small speed amount with the CPU.

The real question is what is a significant increase in frequency to superseed more cores in a CPU for this game.

1. is 0.17 ghz

2. is 0.30 ghz

3. is 0.70 ghz

For example for around the same cost you can get:

1. AMD phenom 2-970 deneb quad core 3.5 ghz for $185.00

2. INTEL i5-661 clarkdale dual core 3.33 ghz for $209.00

3. AMD phenom 2-1090T thuban 6 core 3.2 ghz for $219.00

4. INTEL i5-760 lynnfield quad core 2.8 ghz for $204.00

Why is the i7-930 Bloomfield quad core 2.8GHz ($279.00) the better of all the CPU here. Do you see what I am trying to say know. I need some help lol.

[NeMeSiS 11]

If a dual core is faster then a quad core a what point does it make a REAL CHANGE to have more cores THEN a small speed amount with the CPU.

The real question is what is a significant increase in frequency to superseed more cores in a CPU for this game.

1. is 0.17 ghz

2. is 0.30 ghz

3. is 0.70 ghz

For example for around the same cost you can get:

1. AMD phenom 2-970 deneb quad core 3.5 ghz for $185.00

2. INTEL i5-661 clarkdale dual core 3.33 ghz for $209.00

3. AMD phenom 2-1090T thuban 6 core 3.2 ghz for $219.00

4. INTEL i5-760 lynnfield quad core 2.8 ghz for $204.00

Why is the i7-930 Bloomfield quad core 2.8GHz ($279.00) the better of all the CPU here. Do you see what I am trying to say know. I need some help lol.

I updated my post but too late apparently. I added a small paragraph about that, its oversimplified but decent enough to stay by my old conclusion.

I will add this to it what i added in my previous post: ArmA2 may not use those 2 extra cores very well, videoconverting software does because it is easier to program, hence why my mate bought a 1090T because he does that a lot.

[Leon86 13]

Thanks for the replay I know the i7 but don't have that kind of money to put into the system.

Did you read my post the developers told me that the ghz are more important then the number of cores in the CPU you and your buddy have the same speed. What I want to know what is the benchmark that speed ghz does not superseed the core number. HOW MUCH IN ghz. One of the developers told me this: sorry no names

[The most important is definitely the CPU (assuming the GPU and harddrive are not really bad). When thinking about Arma 2, dual at 3.33 seems currently a slightly better choice than quad 2.8 GHz, but both should perform quite well. Overall, quad seems a little bit more futureproof to me - even for ArmA 2 it is possible we will still implemented some more threading optimizations, which might shift the picture].

Why does your MATE have so much RAM (16gb ram). I was told the the CPU/ARMA2 does not use more then 6MB in the game!

I am just trying to Learn so I can make the best decision-making when I make my PC within my budget. This is all new to me building a PC and I will ask a lot of questions.

A quad is probably the best choice if it fits your budget. Another nice quad is the i5-760. In games it's as fast as the i7's. In price/performance the PhenomII's might have a slight edge but 760's use less power and an overclocked 760 will beat an overclocked PhenomII easily.

And to make things even more complicated, intel is releasing it's new sandy bridge processors in january, with a couple of similarly priced quads that are faster.

edit: Arma uses a lot of threads. The most demanding thread is the render thread. Dualcores usually have a higher clockspeed so they can execute this faster. This is ok if you are alone on an island. 1 core does the render thread, the other does stuff like sound and other things that are easy to offload. However, if you now spawn a lot of ai, the second core gets "clogged up" and now performance is suddenly terrible. On a quad you'd still have 2 cores left so the render thread can always have it's own core.

And that's why you want a quadcore, a dualcore will only give you higher fps when you dont need it.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Leon86

[avibird 1 154]

You cannot compare ghz between different brands and series of CPU's. Its just not possible, the only way to compare them is by benchmarks.1

And there is no real relationship between cores and ghz. Lets just say that 6 cores at 3.2ghz does not mean that a CPU is 50% faster than a 4 core 3.2ghz CPU because it cannot be programmed that efficiently. In the case of ArmA2 the difference (as seen above) is almost 0.

1Easy example: My Athlon XP1800 @ 1,8ghz easily kicked a Pentium4 3.0ghz's ass and then proceeded to rape his wife as well. Just because the CPU's architecture was better it didnt need to same frequency to perform the same(or better).

Then what I stated before is true. The INTEL CPU is just hands down better then the AMD CPU for running ARMA B/C the way they are build then for the money I should get the

1. i7-930 Bloomfield quad core 2.8GHz ($279.00)

2. i7-950 bloomfield quad core 3.06 GHz ($ 294.00)

over the

1. AMD 1090T 6 core 3.2 GHz ($229.00)

2. AMD 970 quad core 3.5 GHz ($ 185.00)

So what you are saying the number of cores and speed does not make a rats ass differance it's all about the brand and how the specific product is made and the INTEL is better. That's what I am getting from you. So go with a INTEL multiple core > 2.8 GHZ and I will be fine.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Benchmark 2 basically compares CPU's, which is the only thing i care about. Benchmark 1 would give is both 60FPS or something. :p

no one is using that benchmark to compare anything. its a stress test.

if your computer makes it to the end without crashing, you win a cookie. :D

[NeMeSiS 11]

So what you are saying the number of cores and speed does not make a rats ass differance it's all about the brand and how the specific product is made and the INTEL is better. That's what I am getting from you. So go with a INTEL multiple core > 2.8 GHZ and I will be fine.

Basically, yes.

What i do when looking for new parts is looking for the best part that fits my budget. (Take care that its not 'INTEL multiple core > 2.8 GHZ' because that would include the old Core2Duo series from Intel as well, but they are outdated now. You are looking for something in the i7 series from intel)

no one is using that benchmark to compare anything. its a stress test.

Stress tests are the best benchmarks. :p

(I dont know about E08, but really, Benchmark 1 can only be used to compare GPU power if you put your settings really high or something. It doesnt stress the CPU at all)

Edited December 13, 2010 by NeMeSiS

[avibird 1 154]

A quad is probably the best choice if it fits your budget. Another nice quad is the i5-760. In games it's as fast as the i7's. In price/performance the PhenomII's might have a slight edge but 760's use less power and an overclocked 760 will beat an overclocked PhenomII easily.

And to make things even more complicated, intel is releasing it's new sandy bridge processors in january, with a couple of similarly priced quads that are faster.

edit: Arma uses a lot of threads. The most demanding thread is the render thread. Dualcores usually have a higher clockspeed so they can execute this faster. This is ok if you are alone on an island. 1 core does the render thread, the other does stuff like sound and other things that are easy to offload. However, if you now spawn a lot of ai, the second core gets "clogged up" and now performance is suddenly terrible. On a quad you'd still have 2 cores left so the render thread can always have it's own core.

And that's why you want a quadcore, a dualcore will only give you higher fps when you dont need it.

hey Leon86 thanks for all your input so what I am hearing you say wait one more month before making the system. Go with the fasters quad core i5/i7 INTEL CPU in my budget. I wish someone would have told me that a week ago lol. THANKS guys for the help.

Edited December 13, 2010 by AVIBIRD 1

[Banderas 0]

I'm planning to get a new config in the early autumn, and I looked for some parts (CPU, VGA, ect...) and benchmarks. Now I have Segal-syndrome (too much information).

Can someone dim me up if is there a big performance difference in ArmA 2 between Core i5 and i7 CPUs? Judging by benchmarks (found on youtube mainly) I was first going to i7 870, but a friend told me I'd be good with an i5 750 or 760, as they are much cheaper and performance difference is very little.

I'm tempering to go with overclocking too, both i5 and i7 seemingly can take it well.

I'm not on a giant budget, so right now I think I'll go with the cheaper i5, but I'd like to know how much "craft" should I loose in ArmA 2 if I skip the i7.

[Leon86 13]

I'm planning to get a new config in the early autumn, and I looked for some parts (CPU, VGA, ect...) and benchmarks. Now I have Segal-syndrome (too much information).

Can someone dim me up if is there a big performance difference in ArmA 2 between Core i5 and i7 CPUs? Judging by benchmarks (found on youtube mainly) I was first going to i7 870, but a friend told me I'd be good with an i5 750 or 760, as they are much cheaper and performance difference is very little.

I'm tempering to go with overclocking too, both i5 and i7 seemingly can take it well.

I'm not on a giant budget, so right now I think I'll go with the cheaper i5, but I'd like to know how much "craft" should I loose in ArmA 2 if I skip the i7.

your friend is right, in games the i5 is just as fast as the i7 clock/clock.

the 870 tubo's up to 3.2 for quadcore ops, the 760 to 2.93. so the i7 is 10% faster. If you overclock there is no real difference.

[das attorney 858]

I'm planning to get a new config in the early autumn, and I looked for some parts (CPU, VGA, ect...) and benchmarks. Now I have Segal-syndrome (too much information).

Can someone dim me up if is there a big performance difference in ArmA 2 between Core i5 and i7 CPUs? Judging by benchmarks (found on youtube mainly) I was first going to i7 870, but a friend told me I'd be good with an i5 750 or 760, as they are much cheaper and performance difference is very little.

I'm tempering to go with overclocking too, both i5 and i7 seemingly can take it well.

I'm not on a giant budget, so right now I think I'll go with the cheaper i5, but I'd like to know how much "craft" should I loose in ArmA 2 if I skip the i7.

Hi mate,

I've got an i7 920 clocked in at 3.8GHz, but my mate's i5 rig is comparable in speed to my computer for Arma 2 . His is OC'd too and has similar RAM configuration (6Gig), GFX card (ATI 5870) and possibly motherboard (EX58-UD5). I've got different priorities for my PC, like running X-Plane 9 at the best settings I can get it, but he runs Arma 2 at pretty much the same speed...

I'd say, get the best stuff you can afford for your budget. If you have to stretch it, then do so. You'll enjoy it in the long run and you will be better placed later on to know what you want to upgrade. :)

EDIT: lol at Leon86's comment :) I didn't know you wrote that when I replied.

[millerhighlife 1]

Well, I do audio recording as well, So I went with the i7-950 3.06, I know I can easily oc it to 4.0 but really is there any need to for arma 2? Not to mention I also just got the Super clocked evga 580 black ops edition. The best part is i got mine for $212 bucks from micocenter on black friday! So I know I didn't waste any money!

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

Will I get a very good (20+ FPS improvement) improvement in FPS if I upgrade my Dual Core Pentium D 935 to a Core 2 Quad Q8400?

[Jake34x 10]

-Ziggy-;1811072']I disagree with this assessment. my old Core2duo e7400 and single gtx275 ran Arma2 with mostly high settings' date=' AA normal and PP low. framerate was 20-40.[/quote']

Thanks, my system should be a bit better than that. So you were able to play on high visual settings? Or what types of settings were you able to play best at?

[Banderas 0]

@Leon, Attorney, thank you very much

Attorney, if I wouldn't face marriage within the next one year I probably would go for the maximum I could get, but as this business comes with compromises, I have to trade-off a bit on ambitions :)

[NeMeSiS 11]

Will I get a very good (20+ FPS improvement) improvement in FPS if I upgrade my Dual Core Pentium D 935 to a Core 2 Quad Q8400?

Very good improvement: Yes

20+ FPS over your current FPS: No, unless you have roughly 1FPS right now.

(I would still go for a faster CPU than the Q8400 if i were you)

[Leon86 13]

Will I get a very good (20+ FPS improvement) improvement in FPS if I upgrade my Dual Core Pentium D 935 to a Core 2 Quad Q8400?

yeah, but make sure your motherboard supports that cpu. If it's an old chipset (965, 975 or something) it's not going to work.

If you were planning on buying a new board as well then buy something else.

[avibird 1 154]

Hello community thanks for all the input about the CPU's. I am going with the INTEL quad core I5 or I7. I am going to wait to see how much the I7 will drop after 1/9/12 with the new INTEL CPU out.

What is the best VID CARD within my budget using the I5/I7 CPU.

all are within my budget.

1. ATI 5870

2. HD 6870

3. GTX 460

What is the one thing you should look at within these cards.

Is core clock speed or who makes the card like mis,his,asus,xfx,gigabyte,sapphire

I just need some feedback on how to pick the VID CARD. budget $250-150 would be nice. How much better is the ATI 5870 over GTX 460.

Edited December 14, 2010 by AVIBIRD 1

[ChicAgO_89_ 10]

Hey guys, is the i7 740qm good enough for this game? its 1.73ghz 2.93 turbo mode. Also, is it possible to switch out the cpu on a laptop?

[Leon86 13]

Hey guys, is the i7 740qm good enough for this game? its 1.73ghz 2.93 turbo mode. Also, is it possible to switch out the cpu on a laptop?

look a couple of pages back, there's a discussion about that type of cpu and arma on laptops in general. You can change cpu's on a laptop but you have to find out what cpu's are supported in the bios. Some cpu's might fit but they wont work properly.

[ChicAgO_89_ 10]

look a couple of pages back, there's a discussion about that type of cpu and arma on laptops in general. You can change cpu's on a laptop but you have to find out what cpu's are supported in the bios. Some cpu's might fit but they wont work properly.

Thanks, I'll have a look

[flattermann 12]

Hello community thanks for all the input about the CPU's. I am going with the INTEL quad core I5 or I7. I am going to wait to see how much the I7 will drop after 1/9/12 with the new INTEL CPU out.

What is the best VID CARD within my budget using the I5/I7 CPU.

all are within my budget.

1. ATI 5870

2. HD 6870

3. GTX 460

What is the one thing you should look at within these cards.

Is core clock speed or who makes the card like mis,his,asus,xfx,gigabyte,sapphire

I just need some feedback on how to pick the VID CARD. budget $250-150 would be nice. How much better is the ATI 5870 over GTX 460.

I'd go for the AMD HD 6870. There is a post some pages back with a benchmark that compares several cards, including the Geforce GTX 580:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/11/09/nvidia-geforce-gtx-580-review/5

I am tempted to buy the 6870 too, even though the 5850 stands at a killer price now.. Guess I'm gonna wait just a couple of days after Christmas, i reckon with a price drop aka Christmas sale :bounce3:

Edited December 14, 2010 by Flattermann
typos, preklepy :)

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

yeah, but make sure your motherboard supports that cpu. If it's an old chipset (965, 975 or something) it's not going to work.

If you were planning on buying a new board as well then buy something else.

I wasn't planning on buying a new board, I thought it'd work on my current board, it's LGA 775 just like the Q8400 is...

I think it might not work, now that you mention chipset...It is a 945G and I've never upgraded it. :(