frogOR 10 Posted July 16, 2009 I've got a Geforce GT220, which is basically a Geforce 9500 GT. Am I going to be able to play arma2 and still have good image quality? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow NX 1 Posted July 16, 2009 Best answer to this is get the demo and see how it runs. ArmA is really unpredicteable, i tested it on a friends PC with a 8800 and even there it ran ok with normal settings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeMeSiS 11 Posted July 16, 2009 Yes. Designed to allow the 9 series capabilities without the power for gaming. It is slower than the 7800 i think? Definitely slower than the 8800. Yet, I am sure he realizes the restrictions brought from this card. However, that does not make our points about how fast different os's run or how other computers run any less relevant. It is actually slower then a 7600GT so it is going to run pretty crap no matter what. :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kotov9011 10 Posted July 17, 2009 This system good enough to play this? AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ 3.0Ghz 8GB Ram DDR2 I believe? NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thaFunkster 0 Posted July 17, 2009 Ok, along with kotov, I would like to ask about my system: I am just purchasing this system second hand: Core2 E8400 3.0Gz 2G DDR 2 800 Ram GeForce 6600GT (yes, I intend to replace before long). Samsung 19" monitor which I beleive runs at only 1280 X 1024 @ 60hz. CoolerMaster 460W PSU. WinXP So, first of all, will Arma run with that video card? Secondly, down the track I am going to replace that card with either an 8800GT 512MB ($112 AU) or, a Radeon 4850 ($145 AU). Will I be able to get smooth framerates on high detail with either of those, and which is the best choice? THanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Momaw 10 Posted July 17, 2009 I'd just like to offer that my system is an E8400 processor (Core2 duo, 3ghz), running at stock speed, with 4gbytes of system memory and a Geforce 9600. I am using 64 bit Vista. The game runs just fine at 1440x900 using the default video settings. Though I disabled the post process effects because I think the game looks better without. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thaFunkster 0 Posted July 17, 2009 Sweet, thanks for that, is good to know! I should probably even be able to play it with myh 6600 still in there, though no doubt I better grab a bit more memory and swap it out asap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cjph 0 Posted July 17, 2009 For the record in case it helps anyone with C2D/8800 systems, I have the following : C2D E5200 o/c to 3.7GHz (Gigabyte 965P-DS3 mobo) 4Gb DDR2 1066 8800GTS 512 o/c to 780/1100 (I think 182.xx drivers) Win XP 22" screen at 1650x1080 37Gb Raptor drive for game, Win XP on a standard SATA disk I play with all settings normal except shadows (v high), Post process off and AA set to high. VD is 2000m. I did have video memory at very high, so tried high but got the receiving error in MP so put it down to normal where it seems to be OK so far. framerates are very playable at 20-40 fps using fraps (slowdowns in the usual places), with AA and VD having the biggest impact on performance of the things I have so far tried. Playing MP Domination the performance is pretty much the same even with VD set to 2500m and grass at medium, though I have not played with more than 6 people on the server. SP play is the same though I have only played the scenarios and first couple of missions of the campaign. Upgrade plan would be an SSD disk to reduce the texture popping and LOD which I see, then graphics upgrade to 1Gb (4890 maybe). Or a Q9550 so I don't have to swap the mobo and RAM etc. I hope it helps - the performance of the setup is better than I expected, mainly (I think) because of the o/c on the processor. cjph Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedDemon 10 Posted July 17, 2009 I got 25 fps on the Demo's benchmark with these specs, Is my processor causing the low fps? AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.1 ghz dual core Evga GTX 280 1GB 4GB of Ram Windows Xp 1680x1050 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=Spetsnaz= 0 Posted July 17, 2009 I got 25 fps on the Demo's benchmark with these specs, Is my processor causing the low fps?AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.1 ghz dual core Evga GTX 280 1GB 4GB of Ram Windows Xp 1680x1050 I have same Dual core as you, and i get 20-60 fps, depending on how heavy the mission/map is set to. Have you tried a lower resoultion? whats your settings? also try OCing it by 200mhz it can help. I OCed mine by about 293ghz as it was stable at that. Also i noticed formating and removing other processes can help. Otherwise wait for further patches as the game needs more optimization and alot of people are getting the same results! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedDemon 10 Posted July 17, 2009 I have same Dual core as you, and i get 20-60 fps, depending on how heavy the mission/map is set to. Have you tried a lower resoultion? whats your settings? also try OCing it by 200mhz it can help. I OCed mine by about 293ghz as it was stable at that. Also i noticed formating and removing other processes can help.Otherwise wait for further patches as the game needs more optimization and alot of people are getting the same results! Well I'd rather not lower the native resolution of my monitor because that would look pretty crappy lol. I'm running the game with these settings: Texture Detail: Very High Video Memory: Very High Anisotropic filtering: High Antialiasing: Disabled Terrain detail: Very High Objects detail: Very High Shadow detail: High Postprocess Effects: Very high Did you have to change the voltage when overclocking? Because I'm trying to find a guide on overclocking that process but I have not been able to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=Spetsnaz= 0 Posted July 17, 2009 Well I'd rather not lower the native resolution of my monitor because that would look pretty crappy lol.I'm running the game with these settings: Texture Detail: Very High Video Memory: Very High Anisotropic filtering: High Antialiasing: Disabled Terrain detail: Very High Objects detail: Very High Shadow detail: High Postprocess Effects: Very high Did you have to change the voltage when overclocking? Because I'm trying to find a guide on overclocking that process but I have not been able to. Shadow set it to normal or disabled and tell me, maybe also try setting Objects Detail and Terrain, Post Processing and Anisotropic Filtering to High. Whats your distance? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S7_Mega 10 Posted July 17, 2009 Doesn't matter what cpu you have, trying to run everything on very high is pretty much impossible at this time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedDemon 10 Posted July 17, 2009 Shadow set it to normal or disabled and tell me, maybe also try setting Objects Detail and Terrain, Post Processing and Anisotropic Filtering to High. Whats your distance? Ok, I set anisotropic, objects, terrain, and post processing to high and the average frame rate only went up to 26. My view distance is default Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=Spetsnaz= 0 Posted July 17, 2009 Ok, I set anisotropic, objects, terrain, and post processing to high and the average frame rate only went up to 26. My view distance is default yep then i suppose your going to have to stick to that until further patch, i have same problem. But im thinking maybe OC your CPU a bit more and see how it performs. And in my honest opinion i think its the resoultion killing you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedDemon 10 Posted July 17, 2009 yep then i suppose your going to have to stick to that until further patch, i have same problem. But im thinking maybe OC your CPU a bit more and see how it performs. And in my honest opinion i think its the resoultion killing you. Well I do have two monitors, the other one is 1440x900, but I've tested that with crysis and experienced no fps boost even with the lower resolution so i don't think that's the problem. If anything its my processor but I will try overclocking it and see if that helps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=Spetsnaz= 0 Posted July 17, 2009 Well I do have two monitors, the other one is 1440x900, but I've tested that with crysis and experienced no fps boost even with the lower resolution so i don't think that's the problem. If anything its my processor but I will try overclocking it and see if that helps. Hmm yea try that but i have the same cpu but i know that ArmA 2 needs more optimization, basically at 25 fps, alot of systems get that even the very power i7-920 systems! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ubascouser 0 Posted July 17, 2009 guys ive just upgraded from the 6000+ and i had my object details on normal also terrain normal and shadows disabled and it ran decent now i got an i7 920 and i still wouldnt run those options on very high ive got them set to high. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbz06 10 Posted July 17, 2009 Well I do have two monitors, the other one is 1440x900, but I've tested that with crysis and experienced no fps boost even with the lower resolution so i don't think that's the problem. If anything its my processor but I will try overclocking it and see if that helps. Resolution makes a pretty big difference in my system my native resolution is 1680x1050, but I turned down the game to 1600x900 and it gave it a nice boost The rest of the video settings don't make that big of differences from "normal" to "high", other than turning off shadows completely, but then the game is just ugly. Anti-aliasing still seems to be a performance hog too, even after the patch. Safe to say though, that the game is just poorly optimized. Most people seem to be in the 20-35fps range, even guys with top of the line high end systems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FieldMarshallZhukov 10 Posted July 18, 2009 guys ive just upgraded from the 6000+ and i had my object details on normal also terrain normal and shadows disabled and it ran decent now i got an i7 920 and i still wouldnt run those options on very high ive got them set to high. so even with the best processor out there this game still doesn't run all that well at the higher res? I don't think this game will ever be playable on settings no matter what card/processor/operating system you have Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedDemon 10 Posted July 18, 2009 Well I overclocked my AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+ to 3.3 ghz (from 3.1ghz) and only experienced 1-2 fps boost. Hopefully they release a patch soon and optimize the game a lot more Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herbal Influence 10 Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) After I upgraded my PC from AMD 3800 X2 to AMD 6000 X2 (AM2 slot) for about 60 Euros and my graphic from 7600 GT to 9600 GT for 99 Euro I do really enjoy highest settings. Especially after I switched off "Nachbearbeitung" (don't know the English word .. maybe "Fillrate" ?). EDIT: Nachbearbeitung is "Post Processing" ! ;-) But my gaming settings are: resolution 1680x1050 (both!) and terrain detail low, shadow low, antialiasing off - and I have the finest graphics nevertheless with a framerate of about a 38 +/- 6. I feel it being nicely playable also with about a 23 fps - and this I do when I want all of the settings on max. But graphics are great far below this settings. This way I think, I proved, that AA2 is nicely playable with an up to date PC - mine is from late 2006, so I had to spend 99 + 60 Euros on cpu and graphic. From my experience I can say that OFP was much more demanding at the time of release and the effect is: People play it since then with great pleasure, including me. More on the AMD 6000 X2 in http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=77206 Edited July 18, 2009 by Herbal Influence Added AMD 6000 x2 thread Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wams05 10 Posted July 18, 2009 Hello everyone, Im brand new and this is my first thread (I hope this is the right place) I have just bought a Compaq Presario CQ-60 Notebook PC, I would like to know if its specs are compatible with ArmA 2 Vista GeForce8200M G AMD Turion RM-72 2.10 GHz x2 4GB Memory 250 Hard Drive Dual Layer CD-Rom 32-Bit Operating System. Many Thanks Wams05 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azamato 0 Posted July 19, 2009 wich one is the best for gaming E8400 3.0ghz 9600GT 4GB Ram or Intel Q8200 Quad core 9600GT 4GB Ram or AMD Phenom X3 710 2.6 9600GT 4GB Ram or AMD X2 7750 2.7 9600GT 4GB Ram Thats it :D playing with 1024/1052 or whatever that reso is, win xp dx9, no ocerclocking ^^ Also what settings would i be using? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted July 19, 2009 wams05: The graphics card on that laptop is very weak. Won't be much good for ArmA 2, or indeed, most modern games. Azamato: The one with the Q8200... How come you keep on coming up with all these different specs? Have you not bought one yet? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
