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

[Leon86 13]

are we correct to assume that future hardware may make better use of the SATA3? or is it another gimmick from manufacturers to make us spend more cash?

....it sounds like the latter of the two from here.

Fast ssd's have a use for the sata3 protocol. There are some ssd's that make good use of it. The problem is that with current sata3 controllers (the things on the motherboards) the topspeed (sequential transfer) is very high but when accessing a lot of small files (arma2 style) performance is far below decent sata2 controllers. This will probably change with the new sandy bridge mobo's and cpu's to be realeased in a couple of weeks. If you're buying now dont bother with sata3. If you want an insanely fast ssd sometime in the future you can buy an addin card with a decent controller (not yet available afaik).

[bangtail 0]

are we correct to assume that future hardware may make better use of the SATA3? or is it another gimmick from manufacturers to make us spend more cash?

....it sounds like the latter of the two from here.

SB still uses the Marvell controller but the really fast SSDs like IBIS and REVO don't use SATA, they rely on the PCI-E bus and their own high speed controllers.

The Marvell controller will still rely on the addition of PCI-E lanes via a bridge chip which could potentially come with the same issues as SATA 3.0 on the X58 etc. We'll only know for sure when SB get released in a few weeks.

In the case of HDDs, SATA 6.0 is going to do absolutely nothing. In the case of some of the faster SSDs, it helps theoretically, but is easily bested by the aforementioned SSDs that have their own controllers via the PCI-E bus.

Edited December 16, 2010 by BangTail

[Flubadoo 10]

My friend has wants to buy this game, but he has:

-2.93GHz dual-core (don't know model)

-Nvidia GT220 (killing factor)

-3GB ram

[avibird 1 155]

Stay well clear of the 5970 - it's an atrocious card (and not just for Arma 2).

It's not a question of what x likes more, it's a question of what's better and where Arma 2 is concerned, Nvidia > AMD and SLI > CF.

And INTEL is better then AMD CPU's as well as a faster dual core is better then a quad core right now. This is right from BOHEMIA developers.

Nobody can tell me what is a sigificant improvement with CPU speed (ghz) that will superseed more cores. However, BOHEMIA guys told me that most likely ARMA will run better on the quad core after a little more tweaks in the future so go with a QUAD CORE CPU.

[Flubadoo 10]

Hmm, so right now, I have an Intel Core i7-740QM (1.73GHz). Since ArmA 2 for now, does not support quad cores well, should I run the game in dual-core mode to let it turbo boost to ~2.5GHz?

[zaira 10]

Arma 2 uses all cores and for arma2, 4 cores are better than 2 cores of same clockspeed (and same arhitecture). It is about 15% faster, with 4 cores than with 2.

Shure it is better to have 50% more clock on 2 cores than 2 more cores on same clock.

If you have quad you can play with affinity and with arma2 startup parameters ( http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma2:_Startup_Parameters ) and see yourself, with launcher it is even simppler.

[flattermann 12]

And INTEL is better then AMD CPU's as well as a faster dual core is better then a quad core right now. This is right from BOHEMIA developers.

Nobody can tell me what is a sigificant improvement with CPU speed (ghz) that will superseed more cores. However, BOHEMIA guys told me that most likely ARMA will run better on the quad core after a little more tweaks in the future so go with a QUAD CORE CPU.

I've never said anything else, Intel CPUs probably do perform better then AMDs. I haven't checked the prices, but I would contend that Intels over here on Mainland Europa are significantly more expensive then in the US. I think it would be foolish to buy a Core Duo these days, especially for gaming, IMO they are outdated. At least on the market over here one gets a better FPS/€-ratio with AMD. This is again my opinion, i do not claim to have the ultimate knowledge. In matters of Nvidia/AMD(ATI): I haven't seen a Nvidia Card that would beat the 5850 / 6870 in terms of €/FPS. On the other hand, I have almost always been using Nvidia cards and I liked them better than ATI. I just don't want to buy 2 GTX 460 or a way too expensive GTX 580.

[The Hebrew Hammer 10]

Is there any good laptop that can run ArmA II on medium or so settings?

Basically I'm leaving for the Marine Corps in 10-12 months and for christmas I was trying to get a couple of hundred bucks towards a Desktop that I've posted in here about already which seemed like a decent rig for a noob like myself.

However, due to the nature of the Corps and my single status, I would be living in the barracks, so needless to say it wouldn't be good idea to have that kind of rig out in the open, even though I'm a future 0621 comm weenie, the barracks are still pretty rowdy.

Any recommendations? I've heard the Alienware m11x's I should stay away from. I don't need super high graphics, I'm just looking for good playability with decent looking graphics. I'm kind of getting the hang of this, does CPU determine how many AI I can have on the battlefield at once? I don't want to be be to heavily restricted by that.

How would you say a M15x would work for me? My budget is about 1100-1200 dollars.

and NO a desktop is no longer an option for me, it simply cannot be done.

Edited December 17, 2010 by The Hebrew Hammer

[Flubadoo 10]

Arma 2 uses all cores and for arma2, 4 cores are better than 2 cores of same clockspeed (and same arhitecture). It is about 15% faster, with 4 cores than with 2.

Shure it is better to have 50% more clock on 2 cores than 2 more cores on same clock.

If you have quad you can play with affinity and with arma2 startup parameters ( http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma2:_Startup_Parameters ) and see yourself, with launcher it is even simppler.

So I would get more performance by setting -cpucount = 2?

[Leon86 13]

So I would get more performance by setting -cpucount = 2?

Doubt it. Besides, the way turbo on the intel cpu's works means it'll be in dualcore mode when it's faster anyways. If you have a lot of ai/vehicles you'd be better off with a quad and the turbo goes to quadcore mode. Sure, fps will drop, but not as bad as if it were still on dual cores.

[ZER0_W0LF 10]

Hey Guys. I went to my local Wal-Mart and senn this game and decided what the hey and bought it. I have fell in love with ARMA 2. I am giving myself a Christmas gift and buying an Alienware Aurora just for this game with the following specs. Tell me what I can expect because I am not a computer techie:

Overclocked Intel Core i7 930 QC (3.36GHz, 8MB Cache)

6GB Triple Channel 1333Mhz DDR3

Dual 1GB ATI Radeon HD 6870 cards

I am hoping I can run it at some really good settings. Let me know what you think. My last comp was a Intel Q9550/ 2GB RAM/ RadeonHD 5770

[bangtail 0]

6870 CF is problematic with ArmA 2.

[cookoo04 10]

can this run Arma 2: Combined Operations?

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8GHz, 4GB DDR3, 1TB HDD, DVDRW, Radeon HD 5770 1GB VRAM, Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, Black

Edit: And approximately what settings?

Edited December 18, 2010 by cookoo04
needed to mention something else

[Flubadoo 10]

Can an Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8 GHz and an Nvidia GT220 run this game?

[sprayer_faust 0]

The Core2 Duo at 2,8 GHz could, but that graphics card probably couldn't.

[flattermann 12]

can this run Arma 2: Combined Operations?

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8GHz, 4GB DDR3, 1TB HDD, DVDRW, Radeon HD 5770 1GB VRAM, Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, Black

Edit: And approximately what settings?

Medium towards high, you might want to change the graphic card though

[cookoo04 10]

Medium towards high, you might want to change the graphic card though

Yeah Ill probably buy it and see how well everything runs when the game is all patched up, and If I want better performance I will eventually upgrade my card.

[avibird 1 155]

Hey does anyone have input on this. I am getting the I7-950

GPU ?

HD 5870 (279) or two GTX 460 using SLI for almost the same cost a little over 300 dollars. The 580,480 and the 5970 are all out of my budget for the new system.

What are thr pro and cons of two vs one vid card. I may in the future OC the system but not now. I need to know more about PC to fuck around with that!

[millerhighlife 1]

avid I would go for the evga 570 instead of 2 460's. I'm hearing rad things about them, and they are 350 bucks.

[avibird 1 155]

I want to thank all community members,developers and the mod out of control for all the feedback about making a budget system to run ARMA2/OA (more towards high settings/FPS rate then getting the game just to run fair).

Backbone of the system:

1. i7-950 with HD 5870 ~ $565.00

2. i7-950 with GTX 460 ~ $475.00

3. i5-760 with HD 5870 ~ $445.00

4. i5-760 with GTX 460 ~ $375.00

For less then #200.00 I can have the best that I can buy however I still have to by RAM, HD's,PSU, fans, dvd,case ect for a budget of $850.00 +

How much of a real differance in multiplayer gameplay/FPS rate with number 1 system over my number 4 pick. If only a little then for the $200.00 I could get a SSD for ARMA/win app and HDD for the rest. To help ARMA run better.

Thanks for all the feedback I want to make this system this week. All parts will be from newegg thanks.

---------- Post added at 12:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------

avid I would go for the evga 570 instead of 2 460's. I'm hearing rad things about them, and they are 350 bucks.

No you can get the gtx 460 from 200.00- 149.00 but What I was told that SLI does not work that great with ARMA2 so it would be wise just to get one card. This is what I was told.

[bangtail 0]

No you can get the gtx 460 from 200.00- 149.00 but What I was told that SLI does not work that great with ARMA2 so it would be wise just to get one card. This is what I was told.

SLI works perfectly with A2.

---------- Post added at 07:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 PM ----------

I'd also suggest that you stay well away from multi GPU setups if you are new to PC gaming. You are adding a whole set of problems you can avoid by sticking with one card.

[burdy 11]

I just got my new PC today and I tried out arma 2 OA on it (demo) and the game is like 10 fps and im running most low and low res (its only 10 FPS with like 3 ai groups, forrest, Cities, but in the desert its around 60). I know my PC isnt the greatest but it should run arma 2 on like normal and get a good FPS right?

MY SPECS-

- Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

- Intel® Core i5-760 quad-core processor [2.8GHz, 1MB L2 + 8MB shared L3 cache]

-6GB DDR3-1333MHz SDRAM [3 DIMMs]

-1GB NVIDIA GeForce 315 [DVI, HDMI, VGA adapter]

-1TB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive

-Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Gamer

Has performance been increased on the real game (from what I heard) so it runs ALOT better then the demo?

[birtuma 28]

Buy a new graphics card

[burdy 11]

I just got this PC today... Is there anything to do? or does the actual game run alot smoother

And because theres a new page ill post my question again

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

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

I just got my new PC today and I tried out arma 2 OA on it (demo) and the game is like 10 fps and im running most low and low res (its only 10 FPS with like 3 ai groups, forrest, Cities, but in the desert its around 60). I know my PC isnt the greatest but it should run arma 2 on like normal and get a good FPS right?

MY SPECS-

- Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

- Intel® Core i5-760 quad-core processor [2.8GHz, 1MB L2 + 8MB shared L3 cache]

-6GB DDR3-1333MHz SDRAM [3 DIMMs]

-1GB NVIDIA GeForce 315 [DVI, HDMI, VGA adapter]

-1TB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive

-Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Gamer

Has performance been increased on the real game (from what I heard) so it runs ALOT better then the demo?

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

1GB NVIDIA GeForce 315

this is your weakspot. got the receipt? lol ;)