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

[binkster 0]

I had same issue I couldnt get over 40 and most of the time it stayed in the 20's. This was on win vista 32. I already had a dual boot so I managed to copy the registry keys over to xp and was able to launch.... my performance improved ALOT. I was getting 100fps in some areas. Im not real sure if its xp vs vista performance but something really changed it.

[mugaben 10]

I had same issue I couldnt get over 40 and most of the time it stayed in the 20's. This was on win vista 32. I already had a dual boot so I managed to copy the registry keys over to xp and was able to launch.... my performance improved ALOT. I was getting 100fps in some areas. Im not real sure if its xp vs vista performance but something really changed it.

Youre saying your performance improved by running it on xp? No way im going back to that :(

[Litos 10]

Damn, you guys still hadn't answered me. How well will the game run with 4 GB DDR2 RAM, Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33 ghz (thats my weak part) and a GTX 260? Will it pull off very high?

[galzohar 31]

People generally don't answer because most people will most likely not have the same setup as you, and can only guess how well it will run on yours. Try getting an idea from the mark thread (linked earlier).

[ubascouser 0]

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?

Yes mate im gettin these type of fps all the way up to 75 b

ut as soon as you hit certain parts of the coast ie big cities it drops below 10 then goes back up again as ive said before its like a slide show only when in small villages or country side is it playable with good settings.Im thinging of going over to intel from what ive seen there getting the best scores.For my sake and your's i really do hope that some of the patches fix this but i doubt it.And yes tried with vista now on xp still basically the same.You cant really tell with arma mark as it give out differant scores everytime.

[mugaben 10]

Damn, you guys still hadn't answered me. How well will the game run with 4 GB DDR2 RAM, Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33 ghz (thats my weak part) and a GTX 260? Will it pull off very high?

It wont pull of very high i'd say. Look at my specs. I only get 28 fps. Nothing less, nothing more. Its like its "locked". :s

And thats at Normal settings.

[binkster 0]

Youre saying your performance improved by running it on xp? No way im going back to that :(

Im not sure what the problem was with vista. I think its just my install. Cause people with vista have better FPS/ArmAmark than me. Now since I have it on xp Im up there with I7 users. I still plan to reformat but im not sure if I have activations from Peter games. I had to activate again by putting it on xp.

It also can have something to do with xp on a seperate drive than arma. I have vista and arma on seperate partions but on the same drive.

Ive been seeing alot of Win 7 having better fps/score over xp too.

[Siddern 10]

Hi! Just wondering: Is it true that ArmA 2 runs better than ArmA on most computers?

[sgt gul 0]

not at all i think, i can run arma real fine. but reading stuff here, my system wont be able to run it very good. so it depends really

[Supernova 0]

How much does the screen res affect the FPS (in %) + I saw a site that evaluated settings and their performance costs. But I forgot the link. Anyone knows what I'm talking about?

What do you think. I cannot believe you are asking such a question. The higher the resolution goes the more powerful graphics card(s) you need and possibly the lower settings you have to use.

[ChaK_ 10]

I've changed my GC for a 4890 1go oc edition, and I still have a Q9650 + 5gb DDR2, what I can expect?

at least all on high @30fps?

I run games on 1680*1050

[Supernova 0]

I've changed my GC for a 4890 1go oc edition, and I still have a Q9650 + 5gb DDR2, what I can expect?

at least all on high @30fps?

I run games on 1680*1050

Depends on map and the location but I think 30fps is a realistic expectation @ high.

[montylowe1 10]

Yes mate im gettin these type of fps all the way up to 75 b

ut as soon as you hit certain parts of the coast ie big cities it drops below 10 then goes back up again as ive said before its like a slide show only when in small villages or country side is it playable with good settings.Im thinging of going over to intel from what ive seen there getting the best scores.For my sake and your's i really do hope that some of the patches fix this but i doubt it.And yes tried with vista now on xp still basically the same.You cant really tell with arma mark as it give out differant scores everytime.

Hello Everyone,

weird isn't it? That's what what I'm getting. Anywhere outside cities I'm getting 25-40 ( 60 - 70 in places) But on the 3rd campaign mission where you have to go into the city i'm getting 10-15 - useless. I can take the video settings right down to low and nothing improves (if anything reducing the settings can actually reduce performance in this case)

My rig:

AMD 4600+ X2 2.4 Ghz ( AM2)

4 GB DDR2 6400 RAM

HD 4870 512

750 GB SATA HD

550W PSU

I'm playing the game on 1048x 768 , with everything on normal with 125 fillrate and PP on 'high'. It looks fairly pretty.

Reckon It might be worth overclocking the CPU?

Cheers

[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.

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

OK, for the 3rd time of asking. What does anyone think of this rig?

[Zipper5 74]

It'll probably do just fine at medium to high settings. Don't see why it won't. What OS are you planning on getting?

[Ez3kiel 10]

I was about to buy approximately the same rig as this one. I just changed my mind to an i7 920 due to low score at arma mark (maybe its not a good reason)

By the way, i think you will run this game with mid setting around 20-40fps (according to what i read).

Me i want to play on 1600x1050 on high with more than 40fps, thats why i changed my mind.

Hope it will help you.

[Supernova 0]

I was about to buy approximately the same rig as this one. I just changed my mind to an i7 920 due to low score at arma mark (maybe its not a good reason)

By the way, i think you will run this game with mid setting around 20-40fps (according to what i read).

Me i want to play on 1600x1050 on high with more than 40fps, thats why i changed my mind.

Hope it will help you.

Your going to need to overclock that i7 a good amount otherwise you probably won't see noticeable gains. Also who cares about some flawed benchmark that is really synthetic. If you changed your mind based of a benchmark that is just unwise and you should really reconsider.

OK, for the 3rd time of asking. What does anyone think of this rig?

I think it's pretty decent but I'd switch the Phenom II 940 to the Phenom II X4 955 and pick up a Radeon HD 4890. I'd also suggest getting 4GB of DDR3-1333 or DDR2-1066 depending if you want to use the 955 in an AM3 motherboard or AM2+ motherboard.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Supernova

[Ez3kiel 10]

Your going to need to overclock that i7 a good amount otherwise you probably won't see noticeable gains. Also who cares about some flawed benchmark that is really synthetic. If you changed your mind based of a benchmark that is just unwise and you should really reconsider.

.

Yep, but this benchmark is the only way we have to compare rig today. I was about to buy the Phenom 955, but i7 platform costs only 100€ more for same or better performance.

I 'm buying this rig almost only for this game, i really dont want to be disapointed and spend more than 1000€ for bad performance.

Thats why i use Arma Mark

[Supernova 0]

Yep, but this benchmark is the only way we have to compare rig today. I was about to buy the Phenom 955, but i7 platform costs only 100€ more for same or better performance.

I 'm buying this rig almost only for this game, i really dont want to be disapointed and spend more than 1000€ for bad performance.

Thats why i use Arma Mark

Maybe you don't understand but a Synthetic benchmark is useless. So what if it is the only 'synthetic' benchmark out there today. It still doesn't mean squat really.It's basically a loop using pre-determined missions and settings. There isn't better performance simply because not all of the cores are being utilized. Basing any decisions on a synthetic benchmark is useless. Infact Arma 2 is not optimized for the Core i7 and buying Core i7 SIMPLY for gaming is just a waste of cash really.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Supernova

[jakerod 254]

What do you guys think about this? Will it run it well? I saw someone with similar settings but not the same graphics card and I don't know much about graphics cards so I decided to ask about it. Let me know if you need anymore info.

Intel Pentium D CPU 2.8 Ghz

4 GB RAM

ATI Radeon X1300/X1550

Windows Vista 32-bit

[Azamato 0]

^can you give me a link where you saw someone with those specs and ArmA 2

btw i have

P4 3.0ghz HT (2 cpu's)

9600gt 512mb

2GB

i play 1152/864, DX9,

How will I plau arma 2 on medium settings, shadows low and no AA

[Devilstorm 10]

Hello!

In the past I had a lot of fun with Operation flashpoint!:)

I´d like to buy new hardware (the same as for Ofp years ago) only to play arma 2 with best graphics. So here is my question: Is there any answer from the developer, whether they will bring better performance in the next patch for this game? Did they write anything about that fact?

My maybe future-hardware:

Amd Phenom 2 940 BE

Gigabyte MA770-UD3

Asus Gtx 275

4 (3) Gbyte Ram (on WIN-XP )

1280x1024 resolution

So, what fps can I expect?

Thanks for your answer!

Bye

Devilstorm

[Rista 0]

What do you guys think about this? Will it run it well? I saw someone with similar settings but not the same graphics card and I don't know much about graphics cards so I decided to ask about it. Let me know if you need anymore info.

Intel Pentium D CPU 2.8 Ghz

4 GB RAM

ATI Radeon X1300/X1550

Windows Vista 32-bit

You are not going to get playable frame rates even with everything on low in my opinion.

[Supernova 0]

Hello!

In the past I had a lot of fun with Operation flashpoint!:)

I´d like to buy new hardware (the same as for Ofp years ago) only to play arma 2 with best graphics. So here is my question: Is there any answer from the developer, whether they will bring better performance in the next patch for this game? Did they write anything about that fact?

My maybe future-hardware:

Amd Phenom 2 940 BE

Gigabyte MA770-UD3

Asus Gtx 275

4 (3) Gbyte Ram (on WIN-XP )

1280x1024 resolution

So, what fps can I expect?

Thanks for your answer!

Bye

Devilstorm

I'd swap out the GTX 275 for a HD 4890 and I would also get the ASUS MA49-DELUXE motherboard coupled with the Phenom II X4 955 BE.

[jakerod 254]

^can you give me a link where you saw someone with those specs and ArmA 2

I honestly don't remember where I saw them. I think it was the creator of some ArmA II youtube video and honestly i've watched so many in the past week I don't even know where to begin looking. sorry. If I happen to come across it again I will post it here.

You are not going to get playable frame rates even with everything on low in my opinion.

Damn. Thanks for the answer.