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

[flattermann 12]

guys are right, i'd recommend upgrading your mobo+cpu too. 2.5 GHz barely meet the recommended hardware, an i5 2500 k or not k will give you at least 1.0-1.2 GHz more on each core and will greatly improve performance. I suppose you'll be able to play everything (apart from AA and PP) on "High" settings afterwards.

If you're 100 percent sure you're not going to overclock even with bios-integrated overclocking software for your motherboard go for the 2500 with a H67 board. That might cost you ~180€ altogether.

IDK if changing to win7 64bit would bring considerably better performance...

Edited March 16, 2011 by Flattermann

[cartier90 0]

My ARMA2 experience is fine. I keep my VD low and other settings to normal and am happy with the 35 plus FPS I usually get.

I have a I7 920 at stock speed and 4GB RAM. The card is a GTS250 - not awful, but notgreat either. What kind of performance upgrade could I expect with a mid range to upper range (£200 card ) ? - my BIOS is locked so cannot overclock and dont really want to upgrade what I think is still a decent processor....thanks.

.

[ForthRight 10]

Thank you very much for all the replies. :-)

I'm going to get the new CPU and motherboard instead of the 6990.

One particular point that stood out was about the 6990 being a dual-GPU card - i actually hadn't thought about that. If ATI crossfire is bad for Arma 2 i'd expect that card to cause the same kind of problems, and since Arma 2 is my main reason for upgrading it could be very bad.

Thanks again.

[bangtail 0]

I've had problems with every "multi" GPU card I've owned (from both camps). I avoid them like the plague now. Better to use 2 or more single GPU cards for SLI/CF. Apart from anything else, if one card dies, you can still use the other one while you wait for a replacement ;)

Where ArmA 2 is concerned, I'd avoid Crossfire at all costs.

[Leon86 13]

My ARMA2 experience is fine. I keep my VD low and other settings to normal and am happy with the 35 plus FPS I usually get.

I have a I7 920 at stock speed and 4GB RAM. The card is a GTS250 - not awful, but notgreat either. What kind of performance upgrade could I expect with a mid range to upper range (£200 card ) ? - my BIOS is locked so cannot overclock and dont really want to upgrade what I think is still a decent processor....thanks.

.

You'll be able to run on higher resolution or with higher aa and postprocessing making the game look better. It'll also improve performance when there's a lot of smoke (very gpu heavy).

[Herr anfsim 0]

hi. I have just ordered a laptop with the following specs: INTEL Core i7 i7-2720QM/ 2.2GHz 6M , 2 X SAMSUNG 4GB DDR3 PC1060 1333MHz SO-DIMM CL9 (M471B5273BH1-CH9), GeForce GT540 2GB. How do you think it wil run OA?

edit: is it right that the cpu is, by far, the most important component in order to run arma2 smoothly?

Edited March 17, 2011 by Herr anfsim

[Leon86 13]

hi. I have just ordered a laptop with the following specs: INTEL Core i7 i7-2720QM/ 2.2GHz 6M , 2 X SAMSUNG 4GB DDR3 PC1060 1333MHz SO-DIMM CL9 (M471B5273BH1-CH9), GeForce GT540 2GB. How do you think it wil run OA?

edit: is it right that the cpu is, by far, the most important component in order to run arma2 smoothly?

the cpu and gpu are both important. How well something will run is dependant on settings and the scenario.

[EDcase 87]

In simplest terms:

CPU handles AI

GPU handles viewdistance, eye candy etc.

Its more complicated than that of couse as they also affect each other but thats an easy way to think about it.

If you play online the server handles most of the AI so your CPU can be less powerful.

Herr anfsim: Your laptop should be able to run Arma OK, but on low to med gfx settings and not too many AI to get good fps (30ish)

Edited March 17, 2011 by EDcase

[Leon86 13]

In simplest terms:

CPU handles AI

GPU handles viewdistance, eye candy etc.

Its more complicated than that of couse as they also affect each other but thats an easy way to think about it.

If you play online the server handles most of the AI so your CPU can be less powerful.

Herr anfsim: Your laptop should be able to run Arma OK, but on low to med gfx settings and not too many AI to get good fps (30ish)

viewdistance model and terrain detail stress the cpu as well as the gpu. Resolution, antialiasing, anisotropic filtering and postprocessing are near gpu-only settings.

[Bluterus 10]

This game is epic! How the hell can they recommend these video cards.

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT / ATI Radeon 4850 with Shader Model 3 and 512 MB VRAM or faster

I wasn't happy with arma performance at 1920x1080 on my q9550 with 8gb ddr2 1200 and gtx 275 1792mb so I upgraded.

New system specs:

CPU: i7-950, 3.06Ghz, 8MB Cache

Ram: G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 12GB (6x2GB) PC-12800 (1600MHz) 8-8-8-24-2N@1.6V

MB: EVGA X58 FTW3 - 132-GT-E768-KR

GPU: SLI 2x EVGA GTX570 1280Mb 797MHz Core / 3900MHz Memory / 1594MHz Shader

HDD: 2TB Western Digital Black Drive for OS and Games 2TB Western Digital Green Drive for videos, music, downloads

Monitor: Acer GD235HZ 23.6" 3D Vision Monitor 1920x1080 Dual Link DVI

OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64

PSU: Enermax Revolution 85+ 1020w 76A Max on 4 12v rails and SLI Certified

I tested on the chernarus benchmark the one at night over the Krasnostav airbase with all the explosions and these were my results.

Res: 1920x1080

3D: 200% 3840x2160

AA: 8

View Distance: 10,000

All Settings: Very High

Vsync: OFF

Average FPS: 20

Res: 1920x1080

3D: 100% 1920x1080

AA: 8

View Distance: 10,000

All Settings: Very High

Vsync: OFF

Average FPS: 35

To be honest I'm not very happy with those results. I spent like $1500k and I can't run this game max is there something wrong with my pc or is it just not good enough?

Edited March 18, 2011 by Bluterus

[bangtail 0]

10K view distance with acceptable FPS isn't going to happen at 1920 x 1080 with or without 200% 3D resolution.

You're looking at a mix of high/very high @ 1920 x 1080 with a VD of about 4K. Obviously, you're mileage may vary. Best to mess about a bit until you get it where you want it. As always, remember that in built up areas and/or where there are large amounts of AI involved, your FPS will drop regardless of your system config.

Edited March 18, 2011 by BangTail

[liquidpinky 11]

I would suggest disabling your SLi as well and run the game single card, a lesson I have learned with ARMA 2.

[flattermann 12]

Try the E08 benchmark, not that Benchmark2 with all the explosions at night. I haven't heard about anyone yet who had more than 30 there. The E08 should give you about 60 average, maybe more. Use fraps for max and min output.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

I would suggest disabling your SLi as well and run the game single card, a lesson I have learned with ARMA 2.

Please, for the love of god and all that is holy, STOP with the SLI bashing for fucks sake.

(I mean everyone, not just this pinky guy)

As evidenced over and over and over and over and over.......

SLI WORKS FINE.

if it doesnt for you, right now, then its the operator. period.

Edited March 18, 2011 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[bangtail 0]

/QFT

SLI is not the problem.

[Narsil 10]

Hi all.

I'm putting together a new PC, and wonder if anyone here either knows,or even has a pretty good guess, whether or not the newest ("3rd Generation") SSD's would have much (or any) improvements in A2, as opposed to the current 2nd-Gen ones ?

I'm pretty sure I want to buy the generally reliable Intel G2 160 GB. But, I realize it will be falling quite behind in performance against the newest models. ( Vertex 3, Crucial C400, Intel G3, Corsair P3,etc...)

So, would it likely make a definitive difference in gameplay with a faster SSD, or should I just buy the Intel G2 and be content ?

(If it matters, will be in a i7 2600k, 8GB RAM,single GTX 580.)

Thanks for any help.....seems the more I read, the more questions I have!:butbut:

[bangtail 0]

I've got 2 of Intel's 'Elm Crest' SSD's and I'll grab some Vertex 3's as well at some point (when they fix their firmware update software). There is no difference between the Intel drives and my previous Vertex 2, Agility 2 or Crucial SSDs with regards to ArmA 2.

Large file transfers are faster but essentially, the 3rd generation is not going to impact ArmA 2 in any way IMHO.

So, in conclusion, if you work with large files, they are worth the money but as far as gaming goes, the 2nd gen are fine.

Hope that helps mate :)

Edited March 19, 2011 by BangTail

[liquidpinky 11]

-Ziggy-;1877004']Please' date=' for the love of god and all that is holy, STOP with the SLI bashing for fucks sake.

(I mean everyone, not just this pinky guy)

As evidenced over and over and over and over and over.......

SLI WORKS FINE.

if it doesn't for you, right now, then its the operator. period.[/quote']

Not SLi bashing, I have been using SLi for years. It worked great with pretty much everything else but can be problematic in ARMA.

Maybe try using resolutions that makes your SLi do any work and you may see that for yourself.

I am just trying to help someone make an informed decision so they don't regret their cash outlay when they do go SLi and have issues in A2.

I am speaking from 2 cards in SLi experience, maybe you guys are running tri and it is different, maybe you are running SLi on dinkly little monitors and like wasting electricity for nothing and pissing your money up against the wall.

I am not SLi bashing, just advising someone on their choice.

@BangTail. explain to me why my RAM usage show over 3GB in use when idle (the 6GB was wrong I admit) and it would show over two with my SLi 285s when idle if your GFX cards don't automatically get RAM allocated to them equal to their own RAM?

[avengerzx 10]

Rather than the 570, look at the 6950/70 series from ATI, They're going to be cheaper than Nvidia from the right place. Failiing, sell a kidney and upgrade everything.

Nope, the most valuable card in the market now is the MSI GTX560 Ti Twin Frozr II 1GB GDDR5 OC Edition. Much better performance than the 6870 a little bit lesser performance compared to Reference GTX570 yet the price is perfect.

In simplest terms:

CPU handles AI

GPU handles viewdistance, eye candy etc.

Its more complicated than that of couse as they also affect each other but thats an easy way to think about it.

If you play online the server handles most of the AI so your CPU can be less powerful.

Herr anfsim: Your laptop should be able to run Arma OK, but on low to med gfx settings and not too many AI to get good fps (30ish)

You are half correct.

CPU: Basically calculates Characters, Models, AIs & Scripts.

Other jobs for the CPU is to render the draw distance, so the longer the draw, the more objects it will need to calculate

GPU: Basically renders everything you see, from resolution to textures to shadows to anti-aliasing etc.

So if you have an supreme overclocked monster rig, you may probably run 10000 view distance at >60 frames.

Edited March 19, 2011 by avengerzx

[bangtail 0]

Not SLi bashing, I have been using SLi for years. It worked great with pretty much everything else but can be problematic in ARMA.

Maybe try using resolutions that makes your SLi do any work and you may see that for yourself.

I am just trying to help someone make an informed decision so they don't regret their cash outlay when they do go SLi and have issues in A2.

I am speaking from 2 cards in SLi experience, maybe you guys are running tri and it is different, maybe you are running SLi on dinkly little monitors and like wasting electricity for nothing and pissing your money up against the wall.

I am not SLi bashing, just advising someone on their choice.

@BangTail. explain to me why my RAM usage show over 3GB in use when idle (the 6GB was wrong I admit) and it would show over two with my SLi 285s when idle if your GFX cards don't automatically get RAM allocated to them equal to their own RAM?

You continuously maintain that SLI doesn't work in ArmA 2. Apart from anything else, it's quite simply not true. Your 'advice' isn't helping anybody.

/moving on

Edited March 19, 2011 by BangTail

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

my monitor is 22", my resolution is 1600x900, and my 2xx series nvidia cards in SLI grant me twice the performance in Arma2 than using a single 2xx card.

I paid 250 for each card, the first is almost 2 years old, the second was bought a year ago.

considering my game performance, and my upgrading options a year ago, I'd wager it was money well spent. :rolleyes:

I am set for a while, unless/until I get a bigger monitor.

That's when the ram of the gtx275 would show its weakness (896mb).

OFP->Geforce 5900 / Arma1->7950GT / Arma2->gtx275 / Arma2OA->SLI 275s

when you have kids, you need to make the most of your (quite infrequent) hardware purchases. ;) :D

[liquidpinky 11]

You continuously maintain that SLI doesn't work in ArmA 2. Apart from anything else, it's quite simply not true. Your 'advice' isn't helping anybody.

/moving on

Hold on, at what point did I say it didn't work. I said it is problematic.

Now it maybe works great for you guys but for others it doesn't, I am only interested in helping people out here and not getting into some pissing contest.

I am like the little devil on their shoulder to your angel, people have to know about both sides of the story otherwise it really isn't an informed decision is it? They would be as well calling up an NVIDIA salesman who would of course sing up and praise A2 in SLi for obvious sales reasons.

SLi has put me through hoops to get it working in A2, I know the best drivers (for my system at the time) and all the dirty tricks and setting to use.

For instance do you guys get frequent driver crashes like others get?

BSODs?

Now I could stop my machine having those just by disabling SLi, now tell me it wasn't a problem in that case.

Just because the game works great for you, it doesn't mean it works for others. And again vice versa, what fails for me can work for others.

You need to widen your vision a bit guys and not stick to the narrow I am always right vision, which admittedly I was starting to get on this topic also.

People need to know both sides of the story.

In my personal opinion if you want decent performance in A2, graphically, then a good single card option is the most hassle free way to go.

Preference would be for one with a lot of RAM.

[bangtail 0]

Your 'opinion' is wrong, that's the problem. If SLI isn't working properly for you it's because you are doing something wrong (or potentially faulty gear).

I don't have a problem with you saying it doesn't work well in your particular case, my problem lies with you declaring it a universal problem, which it isn't.

BSODs generally indicate that there is a problem with your setup and since I've never had one while playing ArmA 2 (or crashes) with SLI enabled, I'm going to stand by that assessment.

This nonsense is derailing the thread, take it to PM if you have anything else to say.

Edited March 20, 2011 by BangTail

[Leon86 13]

Yeah, sli works here as well. and I dont even have a sli certified mobo. The only issue I have is the flickering "recieving" screen when I press preview in the editor.

570's in sli is a level of performance you cant get without sli, but I would recommend a 580 over a 560sli setup for instance.

[yogdogz 11]

hi can this spec running arma 2 smoothly?

CPU : Intel Core 2 duo E7400 @2,8 Ghz

VGA : HD 5770

RAM : 2GB

Windows 7 64 bit

can this spec running arma 2 on high setting? thanks alot ;)