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

[galzohar 31]

Just received my copy. Playing with the German to English patch.

It is possible to max out Arma 2 I am getting fps in Chernogorsk (Red Autumn mission) from high 25's to 30's range and possibly higher. This is with EVERYTHING maxed out. Specifications in signature. I am genuinely impressed with Arma 2 and on this graphic level and settings it's just beautiful.

You should really post some high res screenshots / HD videos ;)

I've yet to found good info about dual core vs quad core at the same price, specifically i7-920 vs E8600. The threads discussing quad-core optimizations only compare the same processor with 2 cores and 4 cores, rather than 2 fast cores to 4 not-as-fast cores.

[Simon C 0]

What do people think of this system? It's what I'm planning to upgrade to:

AMD Phenom II X4 Black @ 3.0GHz

Gigabyte HD4850 1GB (Can't afford a 4870)

Kingston 2GB DDR2 RAM @ 800MHz

This would be running at 1920x1080 by the way, don't mind not playing at full settings. Medium settings will do fine, just as long as I'm able to spot the enemy before they get too close. :p

So, what does anyone think of this? Haven't seen a reply to it yet. :p

[Heatseeker 0]

Is this true?

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

Think i might have pre-ordered a game that will be outdated before i get to play it properly..

[Supernova 0]

You should really post some high res screenshots / HD videos ;)

I've yet to found good info about dual core vs quad core at the same price, specifically i7-920 vs E8600. The threads discussing quad-core optimizations only compare the same processor with 2 cores and 4 cores, rather than 2 fast cores to 4 not-as-fast cores.

Core i7 is for those who can afford a new platform (triple channel memory , new lga 1366 motherboard , lga 1366 core i7 cpu) and specifically those who aren't avid gamers as you might have guessed Core i7 isn't specifically targeted for those who are gamers. I cannot really tell you how a i7 920 would compare to a E8600 because I have never owned an E8600. If you want to upgrade I would recommend a Phenom II X4 955 specifically for games.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/04/23/amd-phenom-ii-x4-955-black-edition-cpu-am3/1 Perhaps that can help you.

[burdy 11]

will i be able to run ARMA 2 with medium to low settings (i dont mind if its all low) with 1024x768 res? my specs are

ATI RADEON X1300 PRO Display Memory: 1022 MB

Dedicated Memory: 255 MB

Shared Memory: 766 MB

intel®core2cpu 4300 @1.8 ghz each (4.0Ghz)

thank you

[lapa 1]

will i be able to run ARMA 2 with medium to low settings (i dont mind if its all low) with 1024x768 res? my specs are

ATI RADEON X1300 PRO Display Memory: 1022 MB

Dedicated Memory: 255 MB

Shared Memory: 766 MB

intel®core2cpu 4300 @1.8 ghz each (4.0Ghz)

thank you

I would say low to very low.

[Killerwatt 0]

Is this true?

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

Think i might have pre-ordered a game that will be outdated before i get to play it properly..

I wouldn't take to much note of an article that cant even get the name of the game correct.

[burdy 11]

at what FPS? and what settings are low and very low (like is terrian low)?

[cartier90 0]

Ppl, how will I fair with a I7 920 @2.67GHZ 4 GB RAM and a GTS250 - FPS wise....I heard Quads are having a hard time of it. Will the 505 release be any different performance wise than the patched German one ?. I know you cant predict the future , but educated guesses would be appreciated...:p

[Heatseeker 0]

Ppl, how will I fair with a I7 920 @2.67GHZ 4 GB RAM and a GTS250 - FPS wise....I heard Quads are having a hard time of it. Will the 505 release be any different performance wise than the patched German one ?. I know you cant predict the future , but educated guesses would be appreciated...:p

Ehmm, i dont think you should be worried because if it doesnt work on that.. it must be broken.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Heatseeker

[lapa 1]

I wouldn't take to much note of an article that cant even get the name of the game correct.

Getting the name wrong affects the benchmark results how?

Furthermore, it clearly says "Armed Assault 2, aka ArmA 2" which is as correct as it can be. The game is has been marketed as the sequel of Armed Assault in many places, so Armed Assault 2 is hardly a crave mistake. In any case, the article gives the "proper" name as well, so I don't know what's the problem here.

[catito14 0]

I read that the 505 version of the game will come with one more patch than the actual German patched version.... i don´t know...maybe a 1.02 or something like that. So i hope this version is going to be more "stable" in performance than the actual version.

Well i finally decided (and already bought it...and waiting for the shipping arrive to my home) this "combo":

-C2Duo E8400 3 ghz + ATI HD4870 1gb VaporX

I hope this will work fine with a descent 25-30 fps in mid-high in ArmA2 :rolleyes:

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

can anyone tell me how well the dual core amd windsor 6000+ runs? mines OCed to 3.29ghz? some people are saying the game runs very well and others saying it runs the game like crap??

[ubascouser 0]

Up to now m8 it runs rubbish but just wiped my whole system to see if thats any better ill do some more tests in arma mark and ill let you no up to now my best score was 2714.44

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Up to now m8 it runs rubbish but just wiped my whole system to see if thats any better ill do some more tests in arma mark and ill let you no up to now my best score was 2714.44

That isn't bad, ill be happy as long as i get a constant 25-35 fps. I upgraded to the 6000+ 2 weeks ago from a crappy 3500+ AMD 2.21ghz. Have you tried OCing it?

[Litos 10]

Guys, how well will the game run with a GeForce GTX 260 and a Core 2 Duo E6550 (2.33 ghz) and 4 GB RAM (the 4 gb ram bug doesn't exist in arma 2 anymore right?)?

Thanks.

[ubascouser 0]

Yes m8 oc to 3.26. Since i reinstalled the game seems a bit smoother but nothing to jump around about set texture detail to normal,vid mem to normal,anti filter to normal,terrain is very low,object detail is very low, shadows disabled,post process to low

1440x900x32 fillrate set to 125% havent tested in arma mark yet.But my conclusion so far is this cpu is rubbish im gonna get myself a quad 940 3ghz.

[Supernova 0]

Guys, how well will the game run with a GeForce GTX 260 and a Core 2 Duo E6550 (2.33 ghz) and 4 GB RAM (the 4 gb ram bug doesn't exist in arma 2 anymore right?)?

Thanks.

Depends on the settings you want to run the game at. I accept nothing less than running any game at it's maximum.

Ppl, how will I fair with a I7 920 @2.67GHZ 4 GB RAM and a GTS250 - FPS wise....I heard Quads are having a hard time of it. Will the 505 release be any different performance wise than the patched German one ?. I know you cant predict the future , but educated guesses would be appreciated...:p

Get yourself a better video card. The GTS 250 is nothing more than a rebranded 9800 GTX that has slightly better clocks and a smaller nanometer process. If I were you I'd consider the GTX 275 or the Radeon HD 4890.

[Heatseeker 0]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/974/974654p1.html

And the good news is that it ran well at very high detail settings with an 8800GTX, which is practically a mid-range graphics card now.

What? :confused: .

[Incognito84 10]

I think I asked this *somewhere* else but was unable to find my post (maybe it was in a different thread). I didn't get an answer so I figure it can't hurt to ask again.

Will I be able to run this on Very High with these specs?

1680x1050 (Native Res)

4GB RAM (XP32bit = 3.5GB)

Dual Core E8200 @ 2.66GHz

XFX GTX 275 (896mb)

[Cellus 10]

I almost doubled my frame rate going from Win7-64 to WinXP-32. I know another person that had a similar experience.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Yes m8 oc to 3.26. Since i reinstalled the game seems a bit smoother but nothing to jump around about set texture detail to normal,vid mem to normal,anti filter to normal,terrain is very low,object detail is very low, shadows disabled,post process to low

1440x900x32 fillrate set to 125% havent tested in arma mark yet.But my conclusion so far is this cpu is rubbish im gonna get myself a quad 940 3ghz.

odd ive asked others who have same cpu and they get high-very high at 25-45 fps no problem..,which is a bit odd, have you tried lowing your resoultion? im planning to play on 1024x768 cause of my 17inch lcd monitor so maybe that would give a better boost. Could also be vista.. i have windows 32bit SP3. Do you run any programs in the background?

Edited June 7, 2009 by =Spetsnaz=

[SnR 1]

-C2Duo E8400 3 ghz + ATI HD4870 1gb VaporX

I hope this will work fine with a descent 25-30 fps in mid-high in ArmA2 :rolleyes:

Iam Playing atmo with the same Specs except i bumped my E8400 to 3.6ghz. Game looks great although plenty of room for Patch improvements. You will be content when you first start playing

[catito14 0]

Iam Playing atmo with the same Specs except i bumped my E8400 to 3.6ghz. Game looks great although plenty of room for Patch improvements. You will be content when you first start playing

Amazing!! How many FPS with that specs???

[Litos 10]

Depends on the settings you want to run the game at. I accept nothing less than running any game at it's maximum.

Well what are the best graphics that I can run it on, that's what I'm trying to ask. Will it pull off very high? I personally accept no less than high, but I'd love to play on very high... can i?