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

[Leon86 13]

@Leon

I should upgrade to 64bit and new GPU

I was thinking about 560 GTX http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125369 and 630W PSU http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182200. whats your thoughts on GPU? btw I will only play MP. I hate bots

64 bit will allow you to use the rest of your ram (now you can only use 3.3 I believe). A small upgrade but a free upgrade as well.

If all you do is MP definately get a new gpu. If you want to know if you psu can handle it look at how much power it can deliver on 12V, and if you trust the brand :P. If it's a bit dodgy you'll want a new psu.

My psu (a bit overkill) can deliver 62A on +12V. that's 12x62=744W of 12V power, GPU's and CPU's use only 12V power. Modern good quality psu's can deliver nearly their entire rating on 12V, older psu's cant. That's why it's more important to look at amps on 12V than total rating. A modern single-card (mid-end) gaming rig will probably use about 270W ingame, 250W (or more) of which is drawn from 12V. With a bit of margin you'll want 25A on 12V, add more margin if the psu or brand feels dodgy :)

Edited April 7, 2011 by Leon86

[Coffeecat 10]

@Leon

I should upgrade to 64bit and new GPU

I was thinking about 560 GTX http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125369 and 630W PSU http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182200. whats your thoughts on GPU? btw I will only play MP. I hate bots

i ran arma2 also with an e8400 on stock with a hd4850 512mb ram.

definitly upgrade your gpu and maybe oc the dualcore.

i oc´d from 3.00 to 3.6 ghz and got a pretty notable performanceboost.

the memory on the gpu will also be a big improvement.

i bought a gtx460 which fits pretty good to the e8400.

bigger cards may bottleneck your cpu if you dont plan to upgrade it in the near future.

[mrmoon 19]

I recently downloaded the arma 2 demo from steam hoping I would discover if the game ran well on my new pc.

After downloading and playing I found that while it was not totally unplayable it was very slow to react and generally sluggish, unless I turned the graphic settings to low/very low in which case the game becomes so blurry there really isn't any point in playing.

These are my system specs

Processor (CPU) AMD PHENOM II X4 955 (3.20GHz/8MB CACHE/AM3) - BLACK EDITION

Motherboard ASUS® M4A78LT-M: mATX MAINBOARD, DDR3, USB 2.0, SATA 3.0Gb/s

Memory (RAM) 4GB SAMSUNG DDR3 DUAL-DDR3 1333MHz (2 X 2GB)

Graphics Card 1GB ATI RADEON™ HD5770 - DVI,HDMI,VGA - DirectX® 11

Memory - 1st Hard Disk 500GB SERIAL ATA 3-Gb/s HARD DRIVE WITH 8MB CACHE (7,200rpm)

Windows 7 64 bit

I brought this desktop thinking that all the hardware available for selection was newer and generally better then the optimal system requirements, but I'm thinking now maybe I was hasty in my selection (my knowledge of graphics hardware etc is mediocre at best).

Ive heard a fully updated version of arma2 works far better and I wasn't sure if the demo available on steam had been updated.

I would just like to know if it is actually worth purchasing the game and patching it up, or if my pc is still to wimpy to handle it?

Thank you.

[Leon86 13]

bigger cards may bottleneck your cpu if you dont plan to upgrade it in the near future.

say what?

---------- Post added at 10:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

I recently downloaded the arma 2 demo from steam hoping I would discover if the game ran well on my new pc.

After downloading and playing I found that while it was not totally unplayable it was very slow to react and generally sluggish, unless I turned the graphic settings to low/very low in which case the game becomes so blurry there really isn't any point in playing.

These are my system specs

Processor (CPU) AMD PHENOM II X4 955 (3.20GHz/8MB CACHE/AM3) - BLACK EDITION

Motherboard ASUS® M4A78LT-M: mATX MAINBOARD, DDR3, USB 2.0, SATA 3.0Gb/s

Memory (RAM) 4GB SAMSUNG DDR3 DUAL-DDR3 1333MHz (2 X 2GB)

Graphics Card 1GB ATI RADEON™ HD5770 - DVI,HDMI,VGA - DirectX® 11

Memory - 1st Hard Disk 500GB SERIAL ATA 3-Gb/s HARD DRIVE WITH 8MB CACHE (7,200rpm)

Windows 7 64 bit

I brought this desktop thinking that all the hardware available for selection was newer and generally better then the optimal system requirements, but I'm thinking now maybe I was hasty in my selection (my knowledge of graphics hardware etc is mediocre at best).

Ive heard a fully updated version of arma2 works far better and I wasn't sure if the demo available on steam had been updated.

I would just like to know if it is actually worth purchasing the game and patching it up, or if my pc is still to wimpy to handle it?

Thank you.

Try the Operation Arrowhead demo, it's much newer.

[domokun 515]

I would just like to know if it is actually worth purchasing the game and patching it up, or if my pc is still to wimpy to handle it?

Thank you.

Provided you don't push all video settings to the max, you should be fine.

Personally I'd buy the Arma Reinforcements as it includes OA and the 2 DLCs (BAF & PMC), plus it allows you to benefit from all the latest optimisations (AFAIk the demo is quite old).

[mrmoon 19]

Hmm the op arrow head demo is slightly better it runs quite nice on the demo campaign mission but in slightly larger battles the response time and sluggishness kills the overall experience.

Im only getting around 18/19 fps on the benchmark mission.

Still not sure if I'm gonna buy it, it says on "will my pc run it" that my graphics card needs to be in the 500 mbs instead of the 700mbs I had no idea it worked that way I thought a higher number of mbs was better :( .

[flattermann 12]

i never tried the demo, are there any advanced video options? try setting video memory to "default" and postprocessing to "low". Turning down AA a bit can help too, 3D resolution >100% is more effective then AA anyway

[Leon86 13]

19 fps is way low, try to find settings that work better.

I suggest 2000 viewdistance, shadows high, rest normal, postprocessing low. see how that runs.

[mrmoon 19]

Even on having most of the settings set to normal or low its still slow to react the only way I have been able to get decent performance is to switch everything to low or very low. Does the fully patched arma 2 oa really perform better then the demo I mean honest to god noticeably better?

Ive been tweeking for days and I cant get a good balance between graphics and performance and I'm sure I should be able to I mean I can run crysis 2 on this thing!

[surferbum 10]

most of the time when Im playing Arma 2, I have to put like all my settings on low to make it run fast. I have a i7 intel core with Q740 @ 1.73GHz and 4.00 GB memory, 64-bit operating system, ATI mobility Radeon HD 5650 Graphic 1 GB, windows 7. 500 GB with only like 200 GB usedm 6MB L3 cache 1600x900 revolution. So am I doing somthing wrong or what?

[PuFu 4600]

most of the time when Im playing Arma 2, I have to put like all my settings on low to make it run fast. I have a i7 intel core with Q740 @ 1.73GHz and 4.00 GB memory, 64-bit operating system, ATI mobility Radeon HD 5650 Graphic 1 GB, windows 7. 500 GB with only like 200 GB usedm 6MB L3 cache 1600x900 revolution. So am I doing somthing wrong or what?

besides playing a very demanding game on a laptop? Or maybe besides the fact that all my settings on low to make it run fast is so damn generic...yet you still want help without giving proper details of your issues.

Is your hdd a 5400 or 7200 one. What is its buffer size etc

How about you put your ATOC to 0, see if that helps.

[cannonouscrash 12]

most of the time when Im playing Arma 2, I have to put like all my settings on low to make it run fast. I have a i7 intel core with Q740 @ 1.73GHz and 4.00 GB memory, 64-bit operating system, ATI mobility Radeon HD 5650 Graphic 1 GB, windows 7. 500 GB with only like 200 GB usedm 6MB L3 cache 1600x900 revolution. So am I doing somthing wrong or what?

Answer is because you have a 1.73ghz processor. Its a good speed for a laptop, which all they are used for these days is playing farmville on facebook. Need a real pc mate to take advantage of this game.

[Leon86 13]

most of the time when Im playing Arma 2, I have to put like all my settings on low to make it run fast. I have a i7 intel core with Q740 @ 1.73GHz and 4.00 GB memory, 64-bit operating system, ATI mobility Radeon HD 5650 Graphic 1 GB, windows 7. 500 GB with only like 200 GB usedm 6MB L3 cache 1600x900 revolution. So am I doing somthing wrong or what?

nope, your notebook just isn't that fast compared to a mainstream pc with a $120 gpu in it.

[grillob3 11]

mrmoon

"Fully patched arma 2 oa" does really perform better much better!!

I have on two pcs and one is a amd fx74 nvidia 8800 ultra 1280x1024 pp off, aa off, shadows all the rest normal video memory very high. and i get 50 to 75 fps when there is not to much ai.

[Flat4ej20 10]

Hey ya. Latest game patch performs alot better than demo. I find OC'ing CPU helps with FPS when alot of AI in mission & having game on its own SSD drive helps with stutter/LOD trashing. As far as crossfire, I had 2 Radeon 4890's. This game &/or GPU software is not worth crossfire. With my rig, catalyst version 11.2, game version 1.59/1.09. I ran 2 different benchmark settings. 1st run @ 1920X1200 everything high, except video memory set to veryhigh, visibility 3027. E08:benchmark 67 FPS & Benchmark 01:Arma2 58 FPS. 2nd run @ 1920x1200 everything very high, visibility 3027. E08:Benchmark 38 FPS & Benchmark 01:Arma2 36 FPS.

[Leon86 13]

Even on having most of the settings set to normal or low its still slow to react the only way I have been able to get decent performance is to switch everything to low or very low. Does the fully patched arma 2 oa really perform better then the demo I mean honest to god noticeably better?

Ive been tweeking for days and I cant get a good balance between graphics and performance and I'm sure I should be able to I mean I can run crysis 2 on this thing!

being able to run crysis 2 doesn't mean anything. I dont know how much worse oa demo performs compared to the full.

Try running on 2000 viewdistance, aa off, post very low, video memory default, texture normal, anisotropic normal, shadows high, object detail low, terrain detail normal.

I dunno what you'd call unplayable, but of course the fps in a big battle will always be lower.

If you're bothered by mouselag try to put max perendered frames on 0, it's in a config file in your documents folder.

[mrmoon 19]

By pre rendered frames do you mean max frames ahead and detected frames ahead?

I've got it running at a reasonable performance level not briliant but not unplayable either.

I probably overreacted when I said it was unplayable it just wasn't especially immersive which is what I was going for.

I think I'm just going to take a leap of faith and buy the damn game already, at worst Ill just have to save for a new graphics card and at best it will be a lot smoother ride and Ill get what I want out of it.

Thank you all for helping.

[Leon86 13]

By pre rendered frames do you mean max frames ahead and detected frames ahead?

I've got it running at a reasonable performance level not briliant but not unplayable either.

I probably overreacted when I said it was unplayable it just wasn't especially immersive which is what I was going for.

I think I'm just going to take a leap of faith and buy the damn game already, at worst Ill just have to save for a new graphics card and at best it will be a lot smoother ride and Ill get what I want out of it.

Thank you all for helping.

yes, max frames ahead and detected. In the nvidia control panel it's called prerendered frames.

Be sure to buy the combined operations thingy. it's arma2 + arrowhead, only cheaper :).

[Incognito84 10]

Hey everyone.

I finally got this done. I upgraded my old PC and it's pretty much entirely different. I had to do this on a limited budget, however so it's not as jaw dropping as I would've hoped. I'm more concerned if this is "good enough" to run Arma 2 on med-high settings with decent frame rates:

i5-2500k SANDYBRIDGE (unlocked)

ZALMAN ZM660-XT 660W PSU

ASROCK P67 Pro 3 mainboard

2x2GB Gskill 12800 RIPJAWS DDR3 (going to upgrade to 8GB later on)

GTX 460 1GB ZOTAC

Windows 7 64-bit

So, is it good enough? What settings will I be able to run it at?

If it's still not enough to run Arma 2 decently at high settings, what should I consider upgrading next? RAM?

Thanks.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Incognito84

[SteveJA 12]

With my limited knowlege i would say thats a fine choice!

Your build is exactly (with a few changes) the same as im hoping to buy. It will run Arma on high to V high.

[Incognito84 10]

With my limited knowlege i would say thats a fine choice!

Your build is exactly (with a few changes) the same as im hoping to buy. It will run Arma on high to V high.

Oh, wow! Nice. Great to hear!

I bought it today and am getting it tomorrow. Believe it or not it didn't cost me very much (traded a lot of old stuff in) and I've been out of the loop as far as new hardware is concerned (first time I heard about Sandybridge was yesterday) so I wasn't sure if it was up to snuff or not. It looks like it is!

Looking forward to finally playing Arma2 in the way it's meant to be played.

[Leon86 13]

Hey everyone.

I finally got this done. I upgraded my old PC and it's pretty much entirely different. I had to do this on a limited budget, however so it's not as jaw dropping as I would've hoped. I'm more concerned if this is "good enough" to run Arma 2 on med-high settings with decent frame rates:

i5-2500k SANDYBRIDGE (unlocked)

ZALMAN ZM660-XT 660W PSU

ASROCK P67 Pro 3 mainboard

2x2GB Gskill 12800 RIPJAWS DDR3 (going to upgrade to 8GB later on)

GTX 460 1GB ZOTAC

Windows 7 64-bit

So, is it good enough? What settings will I be able to run it at?

If it's still not enough to run Arma 2 decently at high settings, what should I consider upgrading next? RAM?

Thanks.

should work, although the gpu is a bit on the light side for such a machine. Will run great if you dont go overboard with the "eyecandy settings" like postprocessing, hdr rendering, antialiasing etc.

cpu is really fast, so viewdistance and lots of units on screen shouldn't be much of a problem.

[Neopas 10]

Make sure the hard drive is a decent one also Incognito84.

[peter-evo 10]

Intel Core i5 CPU @ 2.8GHz

4gb RAM

Nvidea Geforce GT 430

Im not expecting any good graphics at all, just wondering if I can run it :)

[Leon86 13]

@peter

It'll start but the performance will be horrible. That gpu is just not fast enough for gaming.

edit: look at this table every 3 rows performance roughly doubles. Your GT430 is on or below minimum requirements. To put things in perspective, the 5850 which is at least 3-4 times faster has been discounted to $130.

those oem machines never have a decent gpu in them.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Leon86