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

[yanquis 10]

its a quad core, dual cores can run it great...if arma 2 can take advantage of all 4 cores properly (not sure it can) youll be fine. i bet its playable.

[JamesGTAIV 10]

its a quad core, dual cores can run it great...if arma 2 can take advantage of all 4 cores properly (not sure it can) youll be fine. i bet its playable.

at 1.60GHz?

Thanks.

[yanquis 10]

thats equivalent to or great than a dual 3GHz IF arma 2 utilizes all 4 cores.

[JamesGTAIV 10]

I have an AMD dual core 3000 2.56GHz on my desktop along side a 9800 gt. How would it compare to that?

Thanks for the help.

[Rhodesia 10]

I don't understand why laptops are not good for gaming, Is it due to the screen? I Use a 26" HDTV as my monitor, So that would be no problem. I am spending little over $2000 for it, so it is rather expensive.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I don't understand why laptops are not good for gaming, Is it due to the screen? I Use a 26" HDTV as my monitor, So that would be no problem. I am spending little over $2000 for it, so it is rather expensive.

You generally have to spend twice as much to get the same performance as a desktop.

[TimRiceSE 10]

its due to the fact that all the hardware is cutdown and castrated and made to run at lower power requirements and in a smaller form than standard desktop hardware

[Rhodesia 10]

I was not aware of that, I hope my Alienware does the trick, I think it should, But I am no expert.

[cas 41]

Well 2nd is better.

But...

Dont buy i7950, rather buy i7920 and decent air cooler, like noctua, or megahalem u mentioned...

In second confo u can set up ramdrive to put all the game in it and run it perfectly.

Go 12GB

If u realy cant change the system 2, buy it and then buy just some decent air cooler, (like 50$ more).

:)

Do you mean I should buy an i7 920 at stock 2,66GHZ or should I buy the expensive OC version i7 920@4GHZ???? (it is so expensive because it coms with watercooling)

BTW it is no problem to change the configuration to better coolers. (does the stock processor need this or do you think about OC?)

[tony39 10]

Hello

Will this:http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/desktops/desktop-studio-xps-9000/pd.aspx?refid=desktop-studio-xps-9000&s=dhs&cs=19&~ck=mn (Furthest one on the right) run ArmA 2 on the highest settings or will i need a better graphics card?

Thanks

[reconteam 19]

Currently I have an I7 920, GTX 260 (216 shader model), and 4GB of DDR3 (I should upgrade to 8GB sometime soon), yet my game is running pretty poorly at 1920x1200 resolution. Any help getting a relatively high FPS?

[special_air_service 10]

Currently I have an I7 920, GTX 260 (216 shader model), and 4GB of DDR3 (I should upgrade to 8GB sometime soon), yet my game is running pretty poorly at 1920x1200 resolution. Any help getting a relatively high FPS?

have u try -cpucount=4 ? n try defragging the drive which ARMA II belongs to.

Download the latest Nvidia driver...

[reconteam 19]

have u try -cpucount=4 ? n try defragging the drive which ARMA II belongs to.

Download the latest Nvidia driver...

I have the steam version, so how do I add this -cpucount=4 line?

[special_air_service 10]

I have the steam version, so how do I add this -cpucount=4 line?

have u patch it with the latest patch 1.04 ?

Read the patch 1.04 configuration in Arma II -> News ->Patch1.04, read it n u will understand what I mean ;)

[wuschel 10]

Hello,

similar questions regarding hardware requirements and game performance might have been asked a thousand times before. However, I do not want to ask the same question in both forums.

Today, I tried the ARMA II demo on my Lenovo T61 notebook (2 Ghz Dual Core Intel, 4GB RAM, Nvidea QUADRO 140M 128 MB, Vista 64 SP1).

Initially, I was surprised that I could see the beginning screen island beeing displayed without any problems and lag. However, once I jumped into the game, I discovered that it is not fluid enough to be played. The Benchmark map gave me 9 FPS on normal settings, and an average of 11 FPS on low settings.

In my understanding it is the graphic card (128 MB) which is the bottleneck of my system, and there is no way to get ARMA 2 running on low details. Or am I wrong, and the latest patches have improved the game so it appears to be more modest in terms of hardware requirements?

I heard that ARMA 2 is making use of multi-core architecture, while Armed Assault does not. Does this mean that my computer may have difficulties even running the first incarnation of the ARMA series? As written somewhere else, the 1.08 patch is said to have improved the performance of the game greatly. Has multi-core support been improved?

Right now, I can run a game like BF2:Project Reality with details on maximum with a resolution of 1400x1050. Is there any chance to see this happening with ARMA, eventhough at lower resolutions? Does ARMA even address 4GB RAM? Or do I have to stick with OFP:WGL to get some?

Regards,

wuschel

Is there any chance to run ARMA with better performance? I heard that ARMA II gives better performance due to the multicore support, which ARMA does lack.

Cheers,

Piotr

[killakaze 10]

cheapest investment will be ram and it will make a big difference in frame drops due to loads if you use ramdrive when you get it.

i dont know how good that videocard is ive never used one but if my pc had an I7 i would be laughing becuase i know ive had my core 2 quad q9550 run this game almost perfect maxed out at 1920 x 1080 with an overclock and my 285gtx

[BradF 10]

hi i was wandering if my laptop would play ArmA 2, im really interested in getting the game but i dont want to waste money on it if it wont work hehe, here are the specs:

Processor Type AMD Athlon X2 Dual Core Processor

Memory Size 3GB MB

Processor speed (2.10Ghz, 1 MB Cache)

Memory Type DDR2

Hard Drive Capacity 250 GB

Graphics Card Type NVIDIA GEFORCE 8200M

Graphics Memory Shared MB

help will be greatly apreciated!

[Bimodal 10]

hi i was wandering if my laptop would play ArmA 2, im really interested in getting the game but i dont want to waste money on it if it wont work hehe, here are the specs:

Processor Type AMD Athlon X2 Dual Core Processor

Memory Size 3GB MB

Processor speed (2.10Ghz, 1 MB Cache)

Memory Type DDR2

Hard Drive Capacity 250 GB

Graphics Card Type NVIDIA GEFORCE 8200M

Graphics Memory Shared MB

help will be greatly apreciated!

It seems very unlikely that you will be able to run this game even on the very lowest settings. That graphics card and processor are just not up to it. If you greatly desire playing the game I suggest you buy a high-end gaming desktop or build one yourself.

[kernriver 4]

Hi guys, I need your help again.

My rig:

CPU: AMD 4600+ @2.4 GHz

MB: Gigabyte 590sli

GFX: nVidia GTX 275, 896 MB

PSU: Chieftek 550W

I recently bought above mentioned GFX card. I installed it and everything was good untill I started to get freezes (in ArmA2) for ~10 seconds or so,

and after that there were artifacts on the screen, every time different ones: sometimes I get almost completely white screen, the other time trees have odd colors etc.

So I thought there was something wrong with VRAM. Just to mention, I also bought new CPU (AMD 6000+ @ 3,1 GHz),

and thought that new CPU coupled with new GFX card is too much for the PSU. I removed it and installed the old CPU.

Same thing happened, artifacts and all.

Then I installed EVGA precision and downclocked (underclocked ?) GFX for about 5% (GPU, memory, shaders), crancked up fan speed to 60%,

and guess what, everything is working perfectly (GPU temp ~70C).

Note that I tried with 60% fan speed on default GFX speeds, and I still got artifacts, so my conclusion is it's not happening because of card overheating.

To make long story short:

Is my PSU too weak? If so, could you guys recommend one that would be able to support both 6000+ and GTX275 at the same time?

Thanks.

---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 AM ----------

EDIT:

Guess I should have posted this in troubleshooting section :o

Edited October 30, 2009 by Kernriver

[wuschel 10]

Hello,

my system:

Lenovo T61 notebook

2 Ghz Dual Core Intel

4GB RAM

Nvidea QUADRO 140M 128 MB

Vista 64 SP1

ARMA 2 demo benchmark 8-12 FPS depending on low/normal detail in 1024*768.

Any chance to beef that up with the ARMA 2 patches?

I can play BF2:PR on 1400*1050 at highest setting without problems. Any chance that I can play Armed Assault (ARMA 1) with normal or high settings on 1024*768? Or does ARMA 1 not support Multi Core, and thus will be as slow as ARMA 2 on my system? Or do the latest patches address this problem and thus boost performance a lot?

Do I have to go back to OPF:WGL?

Cheers,

wuschel

[echo1 0]

I have almost exactly the same laptop as you (mine has a slightly faster CPU and Win7). Problem is that those low end Quadros are pretty mediocre - grand for older games but terrible for new ones. I tried ArmA I on it and it ran like a dog, I cant imagine how ArmA II would run.

[mustiej 10]

Quad core q6600 2.6 ghz 4cores.

3gb of ram.

vista 32 bits.

8600gs nvidia 1.7gb.

Will i able to run it atleast on normal settings?:D

[wooly-back-jack 10]

low to normal I reckon aye

[itsme 10]

If Arma 2 only uses 2 cores, why is it recommended to play with Quad core? or does it actually use 4 cores in some intense gameplay or missions?

This is taken from Arma 2 user support site

optimal PC System Requirements

* Quad Core CPU or fast Dual Core CPU (Intel Core 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster)

* 2 GB RAM

* Fast GPU (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT or ATI Radeon 4850 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 512 or more MB VRAM

* Windows XP or Windows Vista

* DVD (Dual Layer compatible), 10 GB free HDD space

[Rhammstein 10]

If Arma 2 only uses 2 cores, why is it recommended to play with Quad core? or does it actually use 4 cores in some intense gameplay or missions?

This is taken from Arma 2 user support site

optimal PC System Requirements

* Quad Core CPU or fast Dual Core CPU (Intel Core 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster)

* 2 GB RAM

* Fast GPU (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT or ATI Radeon 4850 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 512 or more MB VRAM

* Windows XP or Windows Vista

* DVD (Dual Layer compatible), 10 GB free HDD space

This is a grey area, where people give very bad advice. A quad core is usually a newer Cpu than a dual core, it usually carries more cache memory, more instruction sets, and also more likely to be produced on a smaller die, making less heat, using less power.. Also a quad core, typically being newer, at least a generation ahead of a dual core, is more optimized, just a smarter Cpu.

Other things to consider, with a quad core, when you're gaming it's far less likely to have any issues when your computer does something in the background, with 4 cores Windows has more resources and can allocate better, also, quad cores, since they're "likely" newer, most support faster memory, newer and better chipsets, etc etc.

There are many many qualities to having a quad core. I will say, in many games a highly clocked dual core may outperform a low clocked dual core, but it's only a matter of time before quad cores destroy dual cores all around, including gaming. If you can get your hands on any quad core 2.8Ghz or higher, IMHO, always take it, over "ANY" dual core, it's future proof, better optimized, better for Windows... I could go on for 2,000 pages and get technical, but there's no need. Just avoid slowly clocked quad cores, this way even older games will run just as good, but still probably better.