binkster 0 Posted July 11, 2009 q9650 that way you dont need new mobo and ram. Then get you a gtx285 and you will be set. You could run ArmA2 on an average of 50 to 60fps. $600 usd... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maturin 12 Posted July 11, 2009 This laptop looks pretty good, but I am an amateur at this. HP Pro Book 4150s Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 GHz Processor P8700 3MB L2 Cache 1066 MHz FSB 4GB RAM 250GB 5400 rpm Hard Drive ATI Radeon HD4330 512MB dedicated graphics card 1366x768 resolution 8 cell lithium ion battery Windows XP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ubascouser 0 Posted July 11, 2009 cartier 90 m8 ive read on numerous forums that you can increase the speed up to about about 3.4 just by increasing the base clock but will probably leave as standard for now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
klycxup 10 Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) Hmm, you've got a good system, judging by your CPU and GPU. However, if you're going to upgrade your CPU, you also have to replace your motherboard and RAM, just like No Use For A Name said. A Q9300 should be enough for Arma II!If you're serious about upgrading, I'd go for the GPU. You didn't mention how much RAM you have, though... Well i have like 6 gb ram so im sure that that isnt a problem, Also my resolution is 1440x900, and I am running Vista 64 bit. I cant even get better than 25 fps no matter what quality settings, on very low i get a max of 25 fps and average 17 and same with very high. Its frustrating!:mad_o: Edited July 12, 2009 by klycxup Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azamato 0 Posted July 12, 2009 okay another setup i would liek to know. X3 8450 2.1ghz 4GB DDR2 800mhz 9600GT 512mb Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sergeant Poop 10 Posted July 12, 2009 Does anyone know, precisely, what different things the "post-processing effects" includes. I can tell it has an effect on bloom, it seems, and I'm wondering if it effects the quality or detail of the explosion effects. I'm watching vids on youtube of people running with all their setting maxed out and the explosions seem far more dynamic and just generally bad@$$ than what I'm getting in-game. Also, what does the "video memory" setting effect? I have a nVidia 9500 GT w/512 ram, and I'm guessing that's normal..or maybe..high. Does my video memory setting need to be the same as my texture setting, as the two seem to be linked? I have my settings on 1680x1050 (3d-rendering, too) textures: low video memory: normal anisotrophic filtering: very high aa: disabled (can't enable for some reason) terrain detail: normal object detail: normal shadow detail: high post-processing: high I'm running an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33ghz, 2gb ram, nVidia 9500GT w/512ram (overclocked to 700/1375/950mhz using rivatuner). My system is nothing special at all, but does anyone have any suggestions that may help me optimize my frame-rate while maintaining the best visual experience? Thanks, Sergeant Poop Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex72 1 Posted July 12, 2009 Post Proc effects is from what i can see: DISABLED=No PP and no Bloom and no Blurs LOW=Blurs and Bloom, but no PP (maybe some on/in something? Not sure) HIGH=Bloom and PP and Blurs VERY HIGH=Never seen any difference from HIGH in this one. No matter how hard i try PP doesnt make explosions less detailed. It adds PP filter wich smoothens/blurs the image more and more the further away from the player it gets to create a 3D effect plus... yeah smoothen the whole image. I find it nice for screens and playing around. Not in combat though - too "hazy" for my taste. Some details might appear to get lost over distance because of the filter on top of the actual explosion though. But it doesnt lower the explosions detail per se. I would try NORMAL for a while and HIGH for a while with VIDEO MEMORY setting. But i think NORMAL is best for you. Some problems might occur if you over do it. LOW/NORMAL 256/320/512, HIGH/VHIGH 800+, DEFAULT 1-2GB (read that somewhere). Alex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted July 12, 2009 This laptop looks pretty good, but I am an amateur at this.HP Pro Book 4150s Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 GHz Processor P8700 3MB L2 Cache 1066 MHz FSB 4GB RAM 250GB 5400 rpm Hard Drive ATI Radeon HD4330 512MB dedicated graphics card 1366x768 resolution 8 cell lithium ion battery Windows XP The Graphics card is pretty shit... May be able to run it on low. X3 8450 2.1ghz4GB DDR2 800mhz 9600GT 512mb Will probably run it fine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cpt.Goose 10 Posted July 12, 2009 (edited) Currently I run the game at Normal/High settings @ 1680x1050 with view distance in the middle. I have been trying to figure this engine out. It seems to be a hog on the CPU and the ram looks like it should be optimized to use up more of it. But the video card, just how much is being used?? I have a 8800GTS G92 512MB and I want to know if I were to upgrade to a HD4870/4890 or a GTX260/280 would I be able to crank the settings up or is the game engine still relying to much on the CPU and I wouldn't notice much difference? Intel Duel Core @ 3.6ghz 4GB DDR2 @ 1066mhz EVGA 8800GTS G92 512MB Win 7 64Bit RC Edited July 12, 2009 by Cpt.Goose Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FieldMarshallZhukov 10 Posted July 12, 2009 Could someone plese tell me either a link or 1.what processor 2.What card 3.ram I will need to run arma II at the highest settings and smoothly? My current computer is at least three years old , vista, so it probably would not be of anyuse with current arma II I bought the original arma and it was horrible with my original computer I am most concerned with the processor since I can always switch cards/add ram Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squirrel 911 0 Posted July 12, 2009 Hi there, 1. Processor - Something like an entry level i7 would do fine. You can clock them well over 3ghz! 2. Depends on what res you'll be running. The game will be optimized at some point soon with a new update. Best card is probably 295 gtx but a 285 will do a good job. 3. Ram - 3gb would probably be fine tbh. 6gb would be great but not sure if i'll make much difference Let us know what res you're running and might be able to help you a bit better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SoloDallas 10 Posted July 12, 2009 These are my specs and I will NOT be able to run everything maxed out. Food for thought I believe: MOTHERBOARD Sk1366 DFI Lanparty JR X58-T3H6 X58 DDR3 PCI-E SATA: CPU INTEL Core i7-965 Extreme 3.2GHz 8Mb Sk1366 BOX: RAM DDR3 6Gb (3x2Gb) Corsair PC12800 1600MHz Dominator DHX+ CL8: HDD Western Digital 150Gb S-ATA 3.5 Velociraptor 10000rpm 16Mb: Graphics GPU: nVidia GTX-295 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
datter 0 Posted July 12, 2009 System in my sig runs ArmA2 wonderfully at the settings also provided in the sig. The only trouble I'm having now is constant crashing in the campaign ("Manhattan") but I'm hoping a patch (or 5) will fix that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squirrel 911 0 Posted July 12, 2009 These are my specs and I will NOT be able to run everything maxed out.Food for thought I believe: MOTHERBOARD Sk1366 DFI Lanparty JR X58-T3H6 X58 DDR3 PCI-E SATA: CPU INTEL Core i7-965 Extreme 3.2GHz 8Mb Sk1366 BOX: RAM DDR3 6Gb (3x2Gb) Corsair PC12800 1600MHz Dominator DHX+ CL8: HDD Western Digital 150Gb S-ATA 3.5 Velociraptor 10000rpm 16Mb: Graphics GPU: nVidia GTX-295 You might do at 800x600 :-p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FieldMarshallZhukov 10 Posted July 12, 2009 Hi there,1. Processor - Something like an entry level i7 would do fine. You can clock them well over 3ghz! 2. Depends on what res you'll be running. The game will be optimized at some point soon with a new update. Best card is probably 295 gtx but a 285 will do a good job. 3. Ram - 3gb would probably be fine tbh. 6gb would be great but not sure if i'll make much difference Let us know what res you're running and might be able to help you a bit better. If I don't want to overclock, what would be best processor..like I said , I want to run game at highest resolution and max view distance with minimal "lumpiness" in movement, stuttering etc, allow for max characters on screen if that type of procesor/vid card is in my budget, I will get it, otherwise I will work my way down Last time with original arma, I had to buy a special power amp for fan...eventually the game screwed up my computer, had to to reformat...got rid of game I hope this time around bi gets it's act togehter, (they have 8 years to do so) if game is pain in the ass, I won't bother it seems you can just buy a game and hope it works anymore Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maturin 12 Posted July 12, 2009 The Graphics card is pretty shit... May be able to run it on low. Is the graphics card better or worse than the ATI HD3800 series cards? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted July 13, 2009 Could someone plese tell me either a link or1.what processor 2.What card 3.ram I will need to run arma II at the highest settings and smoothly? My current computer is at least three years old , vista, so it probably would not be of anyuse with current arma II I bought the original arma and it was horrible with my original computer I am most concerned with the processor since I can always switch cards/add ram A Phenom II with a Gigabyte MA790 motherboard. HD4890 graphics card, and about 4GB of OCZ DDR3. Is the graphics card better or worse than the ATI HD3800 series cards? The HD3800 is probably better, but not great either. The HD3870 is in the rough ballpark as the 9600GT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flightster 10 Posted July 13, 2009 Now, I already have the game and I can run it.. I'm just wondering what settings would be best suited for me to play on. I want to get the most out of my gaming experience without frying my system, so here goes: Intel Core 2 Duo CPU P8400 @ 2.26GHz 4GB RAM 64bit (Vista) NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT (512MB dedicated memory) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted July 13, 2009 Try playing around with your settings yourself? The odds that someone has exactly the same config as yourself is pretty slim, so, no one can tell you what the best settings are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FieldMarshallZhukov 10 Posted July 13, 2009 A Phenom II with a Gigabyte MA790 motherboard. HD4890 graphics card, and about 4GB of OCZ DDR3.. Ok what about the processor how fast, quad etc? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FieldMarshallZhukov 10 Posted July 13, 2009 Phenom II X4 955. what about x7 2.66? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted July 13, 2009 Faster, but better value for money. Although the pirces of i7s and their matching motherboards are coming down in price so the Phenom's advantage isn't as great as it used to be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
armedassault2 10 Posted July 13, 2009 Hi, Could you tell me if my PC will run ArmA 2 or not ? I'm wondering if my graphic card will be good enough for ArmA 2 even if I do not want necessary to run it in its highest graphical levels... - Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 - 4 Gb DD2 - Nvidia GeForce GT 130 - hard disk 640 Go SATA 300 / 7 200 RPM - windows vista thanks ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sergeant Poop 10 Posted July 13, 2009 Hi,Could you tell me if my PC will run ArmA 2 or not ? I'm wondering if my graphic card will be good enough for ArmA 2 even if I do not want necessary to run it in its highest graphical levels... - Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 - 4 Gb DD2 - Nvidia GeForce GT 130 - hard disk 640 Go SATA 300 / 7 200 RPM - windows vista thanks ! Yeah, you should be good to go. You've got a better system than I do and I'm running it. I had to oc' my gpu and turn most of the settings to low but I'm still running it at a full 1680x1050 and getting between 20-30 fps avg. I'm running it on: Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2 Gb DDR2 Nvidia GeForce 9500 GT 512ram Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
