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

[boomar. 10]

What does everyone make of this report on the technical side of Arma2?

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/

[nodunit 397]

Somewhat enlightening but nothing to take to heart, from my experience in all games as much as we'd like, games do not run the same for everyone.

I find in terms of how well something runs, and if you do not have access to it you should compile the data from various reports and see what the majority says.

[boomar. 10]

Yeah already ppl saying they ran on less but got far better results. : /

[nodunit 397]

I wouldn't be suprised if that had been the case due to some other technicality, and that's why I never ever go by one benchmark test.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Okay then, since ArmA II now hates single core processors I am now in need of a small upgrade. For my computer and budget this is what I am looking at. Any thoughts?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116072

Not sure if that CPU is necessary (Can I get a cheaper one for same performance?)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150370

How is that? I'm not looking to destroy games I just want to have good performance and nice eyecandy.

Oh and will that hurt my 400 Watt power supply?

An answer by tomorrow would be nice since Sunday is the end of the month and I want to order probably tomorrow.

I suggest you get a AMD Athlon 6000+ AM2 3.0ghz x2 like i did a week ago, not even regretting it, cheap bang for buck and awesome performance,big improvement i suggest you don't get intel too expensive with their over estimated prices.\

Also upgrade your PSU from 400W to 500W+

And i suggest if you wanna save money dont get a 1gb nvidia, get a ati radeon 4870 512mb pci-e. I have a 3850 and its good, but if you wanna be up there get a 4870.

[ZIKAN 0]

I am using windows XP Home. I have 2gb of RAM installed, with 4 slots.

I believe the motherboard can handle up to 8gb, according to the manual.

So can anyone tell me how much Ram i can actually use with Windows XP Home?

Because im not too sure about upgrading to more RAM yet.

Thanks.

[Cheeseman 0]

I am using windows XP Home. I have 2gb of RAM installed, with 4 slots.

I believe the motherboard can handle up to 8gb, according to the manual.

So can anyone tell me how much Ram i can actually use with Windows XP Home?

Because im not too sure about upgrading to more RAM yet.

Thanks.

To use more than 4GB+ of system memory you'll need Windows XP 64 Bit, cause the 32 Bit version of Windows only recognizes around 3.2 to 3.5 GB of RAM. Anyhow, as long as you have around 3GB of RAM you're fine. My laptop has a 2nd LCD screen that informs me of my computers resources and while playing ArmA 2 RAM is usually around 70% and this is under Windows Vista Ultimate 64 Bit SP2 which is more resource hungry than Windows XP.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Cheeseman

[bravo 6 0]

I thought Windows XP could only handle with 4G max.

Though i'm no expert on the subject.

[Cheeseman 0]

I thought Windows XP could only handle with 4G max.

Though i'm no expert on the subject.

I believe for the 64 Bit version of Windows XP that is true, but 64 Bit Vista can handle more than 4GB of RAM.

[ZIKAN 0]

To use more than 4GB+ of system memory you'll need Windows XP 64 Bit, cause the 32 Bit version of Windows only recognizes around 3.2 to 3.5 GB of RAM. Anyhow, as long as you have around 3GB of RAM you're fine. My laptop has a 2nd LCD screen that informs me of my computers resources and while playing ArmA 2 RAM is usually around 70% and this is under Windows Vista Ultimate 64 Bit SP2 which is more resource hungry than Windows XP.

Ok thanks for your help Cheeseman!

I guess i will just buy a 1GB stick of Ram and upgrade to 3GB's total.

Cheers.

[Deadfast 43]

Any 64 bit based operating system can handle way more than 4GB of RAM :rolleyes:

2^64

[cartier90 0]

Its worrying to hear in the other thread ppl having issues performance wise with Quad cores ! - I have a I7 920 - 4 GB - surely the game will run smooth on mine :butbut: :butbut:

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Its worrying to hear in the other thread ppl having issues performance wise with Quad cores ! - I have a I7 920 - 4 GB - surely the game will run smooth on mine :butbut: :butbut:

Yea thats what i hear, its something to do with the optimized multi threading, seems that if the dual core has a higher speed rate than a quad core it will run better than the quad. I think the reason is that theres 4 cores in the quad and the game can't process multi threading well compared to 2 cores on dual core. Hopefully a patch should fix this.

[Ez3kiel 10]

I'm about to buy my new rig but i 'm hesitating between

ATI-AMD (Phenom 955 BE - 4890)

Intel - nVidia (C2D E8400 - GTX 280).

The nVidia seems to run well A2, but i didn't find feedback on Amd-ATI platform

[sidhellfire 0]

No it's not like that it works better on DC. It just happen to DC have higher clock rates which is still vital in gaming. ie. DC@3.2GHz is faster than Q@2.66GHz. Often dual cores have also bigger L2 cache. But you're right, there is place for improvement there.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

No it's not like that it works better on DC. It just happen to DC have higher clock rates which is still vital in gaming. ie. DC@3.2GHz is faster than Q@2.66GHz. Often dual cores have also bigger L2 cache. But you're right, there is place for improvement there.

Yea, well im happy with my dual core upgrade which i got last week, was on a crappy single core AMD 3500+ 2.21ghz, saw a big improvement on all my games, i can't wait to see how ArmA2 runs :P

[walker 0]

Hi all

Various beta testers and developers have said many times that speed of multi core processor is more important than the number of cores. Not so much how big it is but what you do with it.

A Dual core with a higher clock speed will beat a quad core with less speed. I dare say if the clock speeds are close then the quad core will win. But if we are talking 3.29 Dual core versus a 2.5 Quad core, the Dual core is going to win.

Kind Regards walker

Edited May 30, 2009 by walker

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Hi all

Various beta testers and developers have said many times that speed of multi core processor is more important than the number of cores. Not so much how big it is but what you do with it.

A Dual core with a higher clock speed will beat a quad core with less speed. I dare say if the clock speeds are close then the quad core will win. But if we are talking 3.5 Dual core versus a 2.5 Quad core, the Dual core is going to win.

Kind Regards walker

yep exactly what i was trying to say.. cheers you made the assumption much easier for everyone :yay:

[cross 1]

There is a GFX card benchmark & comparison article;

http://cfarma2.com/?p=104

ATI 4890 gets the best FPS.

edit...sorry if linked earlier ;) .... i like the second page where they compare gfx settings

Edited May 30, 2009 by Cross

[boomar. 10]

Theres a few going around, altho not very accurate in my opinion.

Wait, thats the one i linked earlier.

Also, i thought they were gona fix the radio chatter.

From this:

It still sounds really bad, like i think it speaks for itself...

Edited May 30, 2009 by boomar.

[Molke2005 10]

AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition Box

MSI K9A2GM-F V3, Sockel AM2+, mATX, PCIe

EVGA e-Geforce GTX 260 55nm, 896MB, PCI-Express

2 x 2048MB GEIL Value PC2-6400 DDR2-800 CL5

Would this system probably pass plays for liquid [High] (mass battles)

Edited May 30, 2009 by Molke2005

[diveplane 0]

am happy with my rig should handle aa2 fairly good

........................

E8400 stock 3.0 wolfdale

Nvidia 9800gtxOC 512mb pci express

x-fi xtreme gamer sound card 64mb

4GB DDR2 corsair ram , winxp 32 bit =3.25 ram

...........

still a fairly fast rig .

Edited May 30, 2009 by diveplane

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Stay on topic guys, plenty other threads to discuss other aspects of A2.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

There is a GFX card benchmark & comparison article;

http://cfarma2.com/?p=104

ATI 4890 gets the best FPS.

edit...sorry if linked earlier ;) .... i like the second page where they compare gfx settings

awww.. so the 3870 has the lowest fps? :(

i have a HIS HD ATi Radeon 512MB 3850 PCI-E OCed.. erghh could i play on medium at least :/? cause i am most likely gonna play on a 1024x768 resoultion but now im worried.. maybe can upgrade to a 4870 if i sell my card..

[cross 1]

awww.. so the 3870 has the lowest fps? :(

i have a HIS HD ATi Radeon 512MB 3850 PCI-E OCed.. erghh could i play on medium at least :/? cause i am most likely gonna play on a 1024x768 resoultion but now im worried.. maybe can upgrade to a 4870 if i sell my card..

Note the fillrate. It's @ 150%.... should be much smoother with 100% as it is known to be an FPS killer.

Make sure you read the settings well and interpret accordingly ;)