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

[[frl]myke 14]

It doesn't need a hardware expert, just a little time to read through the threads to come to following conclusions:

Prefer 4 cores over 2 cores

Go for highest possible clock frequency on the CPU (>3GHz preferably)

never ever use low end GPU's

Generally using a laptop isn't a good idea, although there are exceptions which are also expensive.

That said:

NVIDIA® GeForce® GT540M 2GB

won't give you fun.

[Cyrussm 10]

Myke;1883463']It doesn't need a hardware expert' date=' just a little time to read through the threads to come to following conclusions:

Prefer 4 cores over 2 cores

Go for highest possible clock frequency on the CPU (>3GHz preferably)

never ever use low end GPU's

Generally using a laptop isn't a good idea, although there are exceptions which are also expensive.

That said:

won't give you fun.[/quote']

Ok, thanks for all the help, I will probably get that one as it is better then the actual one I have, and will at least run ArmA 2.

The best one as far as I know is Alienware, but that is like, stupidly expensive in my country so no way...

But do you think I can get something with that one at least?

[[frl]myke 14]

Mate, is there a special reason why you go for a laptop or simply because it looks cool? It's just, you get better peformance with a desktop than with a laptop of the same price.

But anyway, the GT540M is lowend, accordingly you'll have to run ArmA 2 on low to medium settings.

[Cyrussm 10]

Myke;1883469']Mate' date=' is there a special reason why you go for a laptop or simply because it looks cool? It's just, you get better peformance with a desktop than with a laptop of the same price.

But anyway, the GT540M is lowend, accordingly you'll have to run ArmA 2 on low to medium settings.[/quote']

Ok, that's good enough, the other ones are too much expensive as you said.

I take a Laptop cause I prefer it, that's all, normally I take it everywhere, to Uni, to work, and I used to have a Desktop, but I rather not.

Thanks for all the help guys, sorry for giving you guys any trouble.

[birtuma 28]

Myke;1883469']Mate' date=' is there a special reason why you go for a laptop or simply because it looks cool? It's just, you get better peformance with a desktop than with a laptop of the same price.

But anyway, the GT540M is lowend, accordingly you'll have to run ArmA 2 on low to medium settings.[/quote']

I have a notebook with GT 540M and OA runs good on it with medium settings.

[[frl]myke 14]

I have a notebook with GT 540M and OA runs good on it with medium settings.

That's what i've expected. Depending on the CPU somewhat between low and medium.

Maybe it helps Cyrussm if you could post your complete system aswell as your detaled settings.

[Cyrussm 10]

Thanks for all the help really,

I will take the Dell XPS 15, with a good configuration, at least I will have better technology!

Sorry for any inconveniance, and thanks everyone for helping me out :)

[Sugar 10]

Greetings...

I have been playing ARMA 2 on the following system, it is a few years old and it runs the game marginally. I am hoping to get some opinions on what would be the best part or parts to upgrade or replace in order to run the game at higher settings, better fps. I can spend 500-700 US dollars. I can also overclock a bit as I have a decent cooler and case.

Gigabyte Tech P35C-DS3R Motherboard

Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6700 @ 2.66Ghz

NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX

4gigs of RAM

Windows Vista 64

Should I upgrade the GPU to a top-notch one? CPU and GPU to decent level? Bother to account for Win 7? Save my money for a later upgrade that includes most everything? Any other options? BE specific as you want and thanks in advance for any advice....

[Leon86 13]

I'd get a new gpu (oc'd gtx560 or normal 570), overclock your q6700 a bit and see how it runs. 333x10 should be pretty easy with 1.35V or something, try 333x6 first to see if your fsb and ram are stable.

If it runs good and you still want to spend get a ssd. If not you can still get a 2500K, mobo, 4GB ram and just stay within budget.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Leon86

[[frl]myke 14]

@Sugar

best to detemine first which settings are most important for you to raise:

Viewdistance = upgrade CPU

Terrain detail = CPU

ObjectDetail = CPU

The rest depends more on the GPU.

A good indicator if your GPU has some reserves try the following:

set shadow detail to low and check your FPS

then switch shadow detail to high and check FPS again

if this gives you better FPS than on low, your GPU has some reserves.

Background: shadows on high and very high are calculated by the GPU and on lower settings by the CPU. So taking the load off the CPU and put it on the GPU will show you if your GPU has some unused resources (FPS goes up) or not (FPS remain the same or even go down).

Be careful with the overclocking advice given by Leon86, it isn't that easy. Never ever just switch the settings as he suggests. You'll lose warranty with overclocking. Make sure your cooling system is adequate (especially with summer comin in mind) and when overclocking just one notch at a time. Keep voltage untouched and raise the clock by one notch (your BIOS determines what "one notch" is. After that, do a stress test with Prime95, recommended is one hour. If this runs well raise one notch more and test again. Once your system becomes unstable, start raising CPU core voltage by one notch and test again.

Always keep temperatures in your view. Speedfan can help you there.

[Leon86 13]

I'd recommend 5 hours prime95 before you declare your system stable. I dont think there's much warranty to lose, besides you only lose it on the cpu and 65nm quads are virtually indestructable. 3.3 is a modest overclock, with appropriate voltage (as low as stable) the temps should be ok. For looking at temps I wouldn't recommend speedfan but rather coretemp or occt. And with that board I think it will be that easy :) vcore 1.35 fsb 333 ram on 667, maybe eist off, start occt (has built-in prime-like stresstester and auto-aborts if temps get really high, you can set the abort temp yourself if you want).

I know from experience the 8800gtx is not powerfull enough for good fps on 1920x1080. A single 260 was a decent improvement and now I run 2 260's in sli performance is better yet again, although the biggest gain is in image quality (now I can play with aa on). My cpu is a Q6600 on 3.3 so that's very similar as well.

And to gauge if the gpu has reserves I'd recommend running with and without antialiasing, that's a 100% gpu setting. Shadows off/high should be a decent test as well. Shadow on low strains the cpu more than on high.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Leon86

[Sugar 10]

Thanks to both Leon86 and [GLT]Myke. Thats exactly the type of advice I was looking for. I am going to check how arma runs at different setting with my current set-up, clean out my case with air for maximum cooling, then try some modest OCing using your guy's advice. I have a feeling a new GPU is a good idea no matter what as I can always use it with any other upgrades I make in the future. I'll keep you up to date on my findings as I learned a lot from reading other people's outcomes.

OK, results of benchmarking are done. FPS has huge improvement with shadow from low to high. Shadow very high = 32fps shadow disabled = 47fps. This seems to indicate my GPU is hurting.

The difference between Antialiasing (with disabled shadow) is much less marked. Disabled AA = 47fps Very High AA = 43fps.

For what it is worth my 3d resolution is 1120x700 (67%) with high setting on vid memory, all other settings low or normal and with vsynch enabled.

It seems, using your guys advice, that upgrading my GPU makes a lot of sense and a modest OC might get me pretty good performance with that new vid card.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Sugar

[lao fei mao 21]

@Sugar,

I have been using Q8200@2.93G until last week,and I'm really amazed at the perfomance brought by i5 2500K after I overclocked it 4.6G. I totally agree what Myke said, especially the Viewdistance. Under the same video setting, in Takistan I only got 20FPS @ 10KM by Q8200+HD5770, and but 55 fps @10km by 2500K+HD5770. Three days ago, I bought hd6950, but didn't gain the same excitement, though the HD6950 is much faster than HD5770.

[cjph 0]

Hi @Lao

What version of W7 are you using, and at what resolution ? I have 2500K build in progress, and a 6950 will be the target GPU. 55fps at 10km sounds incredible.

cj

[bangtail 0]

You're not going to get acceptable sustained FPS at 10K VD at any decent resolution/settings.

It just isn't happening with any available hardware.

[Leon86 13]

Well, not on big maps, on utes it's no prob ofcourse.

[liquidpinky 11]

You're not going to get acceptable sustained FPS at 10K VD at any decent resolution/settings.

It just isn't happening with any available hardware.

I would certainly agree with that, I can whack on 10k for some lovely eye candy screenshots but even on Sahrani, which is one of the faster running maps, my PC will sit mostly on or below 30 FPS. Most other maps you are looking at between 11 to 20 FPS on that draw distance at 5960x1080 resolution.

Performance was similar with 2 GTX285s on 1920x1200 resolution also.

Between 4k and 5k is pretty decent looking anyway, unless you favour aircraft and need the extra distance to feel immersed.

[Birdy890 0]

Recommended specs?

I would recommend getting the HD 5870, I've had one for a while now and it is a solid card for Arma2. Been running on the highest details for over a year now.

that should only cost you about 200-250$ on newegg.

then grab a good CPU, ARMA is very taxing on CPU, so it has to be fast.

I sometimes get lag on my i7 (only clocked to 2.6 GHz) and on my i5 (clocked to 3.20) It never lags.

I've heard Arma2 also doesn't like hyperthreading, and I think I can somewhat back that up as on my i7 system it occasionally gets a lag spike if i'm using DAC or something very script heavy.

now you want specifics? hrmm, gimme a minute to cook up the best deals.

from newegg.com

HD 5870: I have this one, and love it. perfect for decent gaming, it won't blast through Metro 2033 or Stalker: CoP, but it gets the job done on ARMA.

(I have run it max on stalker and saw only a few lag spikes, mostly in heavy lighting areas.)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150476

as for CPU, you don't have that many options that will provide a dramatic change. If you got a new mobo and went with the new i7/i5s then you'd see a nice improvement, but I would just stick with what you got.

maybe some more RAM will do you good, I had a PC with 2gb of RAM and put just one more stick in for 3gb of RAM and saw a HUGE improvement, however this was 2gb vs 4gb, not sure if you'll see any improvement... But hey, worth a shot!

Edited March 30, 2011 by Birdy890

[bangtail 0]

JFYI, there are no longer issues with Arma and HT, these were fixed some time ago.

There are much better options for roughly the same money.

I've seen 6870s for $180.00,

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161349&cm_re=6870-_-14-161-349-_-Product

6950:

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161361&cm_re=6950-_-14-161-361-_-Product

$214 after rebate :)

With the price of RAM these days there is no reason to go with less than 4GB (at a minimum).

Edited March 30, 2011 by BangTail

[Birdy890 0]

@Bangtail

although the 6870 is newer, it's not the better choice imo, the 5870 is actually better than it in raw power, and in drivers (Because it's older, and matured)

the 6950 would be a slight improvement to the 5870, but even then, for 190 bucks the 5870 is a great bargain.

[bangtail 0]

Can't agree with you there. The 5870 is showing it's age now and the 6xxx series benefits from much better DX11 performance. The 5870 edges ahead by a couple of fps in some tests and falls behind in others vs the 6870 and is conclusively beaten by the 6950 @ stock speeds.

Not much in it where the 6870 is concerned. Also, not that it ever concerns me particularly, but the 6870 is more efficient than the 5870.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6850-6870-review/16

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6850-6870-review/17

I wouldn't buy a ~1.5 year old video card new when I could buy more current technology for roughly the same price.

Now if you can pick up a 5870 second hand on the cheap, I can't argue with that :)

Can't agree with you on the drivers either. The scaling concerning CF for example, is much better on the 6xxx series (exception of ArmA 2 of course, where CF isn't such a great choice regardless of the card).

6870 CF throws the 5870 CF a beating in a lot of big titles:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6850-6870-crossfirex-review/7

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6850-6870-crossfirex-review/12

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6850-6870-crossfirex-review/13

I mention this only because if you are looking at future proofing by adding a second card at some point, again, the 6xxx series is a much better choice.

Edited April 1, 2011 by BangTail

[lao fei mao 21]

@cjph,

My OS is win7 64bit, gig: 2500K+HD6950+WD 7200 64MB.

I did not feel stutter when suddenly turn around in Takistan at 10KM viewdistance, and gained average 55 fps.

My video setting is: Viewdistance: 10KM, texture&Terrain&Sync: Normal, PE:disable, others: very high;

Under the same setting,I achieved smooth

60fps in Sahrani(CAA1)

40fps in Chernarus

60fps in Duala

And if I set texture detail at very high, there are stutters in Chernarus.So I'd rather keep texture detail at normal.And

But in Zargabad & Proving ground&Desert, there are always stutters at 10km VD, though they are small island. I think it must be caused by the dynamic boundary terrain, which consump much CPU. And AFAIK, there is only one CPU core for caculating island terrain.So a high faster CPU is much important than a GPU.

And I agree BandTail, HD6950 should be prefered rather than HD5870, though they are almost same fast, but HD6950 has 2G RAM, so it has advantage at high resolution and high Anti-aliasing.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Lao Fei Mao

[neven 13]

Noob here trying to buy an Arma II Machine. I have been watching "6th Sense" videos on YouTube for weeks now, and I'm sold on this game.

I've seen the recommended and required specs, But they don't match what I've been looking at purchasing, and the discussions and searching threads are making it even more confusing for me.

I have a budget of a $1k. To make things more interesting, I am in Beijing. I managed to order a Dell from their Chinese website and we got an XPS 8300 -which is touted as being a great gaming machine.

i5 2300 processor (2.8GHz / 6 MB cache)

Windows Home Premium 64-bit 7

4GB (2X2GB) DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz Memory (I can get more ram)

1GB NVIDIA ® GeForce ® GT420

The same machine in the US comes with a 1024MB ATI RadeonTM HD5450 as the video card. Though here it comes with a 1GB NVIDIA ® GeForce ® GT420. After looking at Tom's Hardware linked in another thread, I didn't see my card on there. But I did see the HD5450 on the list, which apparently gets the green light for Arma II.

The machine order was confirmed today. Plans to ship in a week. I am buying this machine for one reason only –to play Arma II on it. I am hoping to call Dell in the morning and adjust/cancel the order only if the card won't give me the performance I need to play the game. OR I can upgrade to the 1GB ATI® Radeon™ HD5770, which is recommended, so does it really matter that much between the NVIDIA ® GeForce ® GT420 and the ATI® Radeon™ HD5770? They are both 1 gig cards.

Your input is greatly appreciated.

[neven 13]

Noob here trying to buy an Arma II Machine. I have been watching "6th Sense" videos on YouTube for weeks now, and I'm sold on this game.

I've seen the recommended and required specs, But they don't match what I've been looking at purchasing, and the discussions and searching threads are making it even more confusing for me.

I have a budget of a $1k. To make things more interesting, I am in Beijing. I managed to order a Dell from their Chinese website and we got an XPS 8300-which is touted as being a great gaming machine.

i5 2300 processor (2.8GHz / 6 MB cache)

Windows Home Premium 64-bit 7

4GB (2X2GB) DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz Memory (I can get more ram)

1GB NVIDIA ® GeForce ® GT420

The same machine in the US comes with a 1024MB ATI RadeonTM HD5450 as the video card. Though here it comes with a 1GB NVIDIA ® GeForce ® GT420. After looking at Tom's Hardware linked in another thread, I didn't see my card on there. But I did see the HD5450 on the list, which apparently gets the green light for Arma II.

The machine order was confirmed today. Plans to ship in a week. I am buying this machine for one reason only –to play Arma II on it. I am hoping to call Dell in the morning and adjust/cancel the order only if the card won't give me the performance I need to play the game. OR I can upgrade to the 1GB ATI® Radeon™ HD5770, which is recommended, so does it really matter that much between the NVIDIA ® GeForce ® GT420 and the ATI® Radeon™ HD5770? They are both 1 gig cards.

Your input is greatly appreciated.

[flattermann 12]

You should built your own PC. You will get much better hardware for 1K: i5-2500k, GeforceGTX560/570 or HD6950/6970. You've already ordered? Consider cancelling, it's way too pricy for that hardware IMHO.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Flattermann