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

[DrLame 10]

Well, I got all my parts in, and put together my system...

Core i7 920 (stock @ 2.66GHz)

6GB Patriot Viper Series DDR3 (stock @ 1066MHz)

600GB Raid0 Data Stripe

SLI'd 2x EVGA GTX 275s (3584MB memory total)

I overclocked it a little to check my processor heat at a low OC, and then set it back to stock. A few days later one of my memory modules burned out :j:

So today, I tested Arma2 on the system (with only 4Gigs ram, since one module is burned out). I went into video options and set the pulldown to Very High, and then manually made everything Very High that wasn't, and set the view distance to 10k. I started the game and went around. So far it hasn't dropped below 40 FPS, usually runs about 55, and sometimes goes over 70. I'm pretty amazed at the performance...

[-=seany=- 5]

^is that on your own in the editor perchance?

[jmc 0]

Would you guys know if demo performance would translate over to the full retail game? I downloaded the demo to see if it would run acceptably on my machine and it's been good so far with medium/low settings and minimal tweaking.

Visibilty 2046

interface res 1900X1200

3D res 1900X1200

Texture Detail- Very High

Video Memory- Very High

AF- LOW

AA- LOW

Terrain Detail- Very Low

Object Detail- Very High

Shadow Detail- Normal

PostProcess- Disabled

Aspect ratio 16:10

Q9450/4Gig ram

XP32

Ati 4870 1Gig

Beta 1.04-59210

DEMO benchmark- 44

Full game benchmark mission (from DEMO)- 52

So full game runs about 18% faster then demo.

Hmm, turned off AA and FPS only jumped to 58

On simple misson, no AI, just looking at village the FPS

jumps from 50 to 88 with AA off.

jmc

[PyroMan Dan 0]

Graphics Card:ATI Radeon HD 4850 1024MB GDDR3

Hard Drive:Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB SATA-II 16MB Cache

Memory:Corsair XMS2 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 PC2-6400C5 TwinX Dual Channel

Motherboard:Gigabyte GA-M61PME-S2P nForce 430 PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard

Optical Drive:LG GH22NS30 22x DVD±RW SATA Dual Layer ReWriter

Power Supply:Corsair HX 450W ATX Modular SLI Compliant Power Supply

Processor:AMD Athlon II X2 Dual Core 245 2.90GHz

Processor Cooler: AMD Black Edition Approved CPU Cooler

Sound Card:High Definition 7.1 OnBoard Sound Card

Will this run Arma 2 and at what settings?

[DrLame 10]

^is that on your own in the editor perchance?

No, but it was in the armory doing missions there, which isn't much better I suppose.

[aulias 10]

Got the parts in, ended up with:

i5-750

4gb of ddr3 (gskill 2 x 2 gb set)

gigabyte ud3 mobo

plus already had Nvidia GTX295.

running at 1920x1200

So, loaded up game, doing a coop mission (insurgent airfield) with me as host. In areas in forrest of chenarus were I was previously getting 26-28 fps with previous cpu (E6600, 2gb ram), I'm now getting 55-60fps!! This was with terrain detail low, object and shadows on normal.

From my experimenting with settings so far, I can either have AA off, then have most texture and detail settings on very high (exeption is terrain detail, going from normal to high costs about 8 fps, all for a few tufts of grass, so turned it back to normal), and still stay around 55-60fps.

Or if I turn AA to normal with textures as above, instant 8-10fps hit, back to 40's. But if drop object & shadow details back to high from very high I get similar fps to very high with no AA.

This was looking across a town with quite a few vehicles, buildings, trees in foreground and background etc, and also in the forrest, so probably fairly graphically stressful.

Thinking it probably looks better with no AA and higher texture etc settings though, its all fairly subtle though anyway.

Overall, very happy, really wasn't expecting such a jump!

Oh, I'm using the Nvidia beta drives that are supposed to help Arma II out. No issues with them so far.

And all above at 5000km draw distance, not sure I see much point to making it longer, not sure what affect it would have on frames either, so many options to test, so little time!

[cjph 0]

Hi All

See the specs in my rig - play mostly all on normal and 2000m VD and get a pretty playable game. Would like to improve things to high and have a current budget of around 200 pounds/euros, but am really struggling to know which area to focus on when upcoming games are utilising quads. I see the options as :

a) new GPU, possibly ATi5850

b) new CPU, since the new AMD 620 Quad + AM3 mobo could add PCIe 2/Crossfire and leave me with change for some DDR3 RAM (or even simpler, a move to Q9550 for the extra cache and cores, but still limited by 965p mobo in a number of ways)

c) wait for win7 and a new disk (raptor or SSD) to replace the bulging OEM SATA drive (though I have Arma on an old 37Gb Raptor).

Any thoughts on the best route to take ? I am watching the progress of the MSI P55 Big Bang mobo as it has multi-GPU potential, but as it would mean a complete system overhaul it is out of budget for now. There is also TrackIR to take gameplay in a different direction.

[Bishie 10]

I'm curious as to how my newly acquired system would fare.

Intel Core i5 750 @ 3.60GHz, 4GB DDR3 1600MHz, GeForce GTX 275 896MB GDDR3

[CinnamonPun 10]

would this laptop manage low?

Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.53 GHz

4 GB DDR2 ram

ATI Mobility Radeon 4650 1 Gb

[Stu6945 10]

Hey, I think this is the place to post this

will this PC be able to run ArmA 2:

Processor AMD Phenomâ„¢ II X4 955 Black Quad Core Processor AM3 (3.20GHz, 8MB Cache)

Ram 4GB 800MHz Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM - (2x 2GB)

Graphic card 1GB ATi HD4870 Graphics accelerator DVI, DirectX 10.1 PCI Express 2 and 512MB Onboard ATI Radeon HD 3200 GPU (CrossFire)

Hard drive 1TB Serial ATA 2 Hard Drive with 32MB Buffer

So what do you guys think will it be able to run ArmA 2?

Cheers :)

[namman2 0]

@harry i have a laptop

2.2 , 3gb ram and intel4500 mhd and i can run the game smoothly on low

[Sined_{Oz} 10]

-Ziggy-;1450488']the 3gb of ram (using different pairs) and the gfx card are weaknesses that will affect how well the game will play on the higher settings

try this app to gauge how well it will run

Can You Run It

lol' date=' my web browsing computer fails[/quote']

Nice little application thanks i got a pass with a CPU fail so not above recommended

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

Can somebody please buy me a new CPU? Preferably AMD.

[kMaN175 34]

Has anyone tried to run ARMA II on a macbook 13" or macbookpro 13" using bootcamp, etc?

If so, was it playable?

[echo1 0]

what is the spec of the laptop?

[kMaN175 34]

what is the spec of the laptop?

Sorry, specs are:

Core 2 Duo 2.53

4gig RAM

9400M GPU

Edited December 9, 2009 by kMaN_(KYA)

[echo1 0]

It's probably not going to run that well, the 9400M isn't a very powerful card.

[Stu6945 10]

hey im getting a new PC and its got a ATi HD4890 Graphic card will this be able to run ArmA 2 on Medium to high settings?

cheers

[nukey 10]

I've got a 4890, and im running all high. but no AA. Tha game runs really well,but its not just the card need. Your also want a good CPU aswell.

[Cobra Pilot 10]

I have a 9600GT and it typically runs about 45C when im not really doing anything. Is that normal? Also, what would qualify as an unsafe temperature for this card?

[Rainmanrainman 10]

Is quad core really worth investing in?

I run an E6850 clocked to 3.4GHz and I have ArmA2 running beautifully. I cannot see what a quad would do for me? I also have a GTX 260 and 4GB ram. The next upgrade is Win7 64 on an SSD which I already have, just waiting for Win7 to drop through the post.

I have pondered about a quad core, maybe a E9550, but cannot see what difference to gaming this will bring.

I have noticed on a lot of games now there's a logo, 'runs great on i7', like DR, don't ask, i cant believe I bought this game, anyway. DR runs on high using a core duo, no probs as does ArmA2.

Are we just being led to believe that we simply must have the latest processor when really we don't.

I think a quad core maybe necessary in a few years, and although game developers might want you to believe that their game runs great on i7, in my experience games run great on a core duo, just turn up the Hz!

[cjph 0]

+1

I am wondering if the high cost of a quad on the 775 platform will show more benefit than say a faster SSD disk or even other peripherals such as TrackIR. It is expensive to move to a new Intel platform, or there is the new AMD X4 620 which costs about the same when a new motherboard is added (assuming all other elements can be used). As I don't think the 620 would like like the current C2D I am wondering the best option.

cjph

[yanquis 10]

hi everyone, i am wondering what settings i should use for an i7 ati 4870 1GB system. i just have the demo right now and i can run everything maxed out ok but i figure it will slowdown when it gets populated & hot. i am wondering simply what settings will provide the most bang for the buck & which ones just basically slow down the computer and dont provide much real change. id like to run at a good clip, with no slowdowns, from the demo benchmark i got the impression there will be slowdowns. so im curious about things like postprocess/AA/filtering etc, resolution, which details are most noticeable, draw distance, etc. is there a stock set of settings which wil basically render the game in its full glory (as far as the user is concerned) that doesnt require a mega system?

btw, the ads about running great on intel from DR are because DR is sponsored by intel. intel DOES make better processors but its not like it wont blaze on a good AMD chip. u dont need a quad or an i7 to run it maxed out thats just marketing for intel.

[Rhammstein 10]

I'll just say that it's "your" opinion Intel makes better Cpu's, as it go's back and forth, I don't go down that road.

Anyways, medium settings overall give great graphics, post process can absolutely be left low or even off. IMO shadows are important for good immersion and realism. I run medium mostly, high on I think only two settings. I can run a little higher, but I prefer overhead for those situations where the frame rate might drop below 60, it barely reaches 60, and I don't use Vsync.

The 4890 is a great card, you should be able to handle a few settings cranked up, especially resolution, which is number one in my book. Just play it a little and you'll find comfort.

[yanquis 10]

thanks for the reply, i actually love the post-processing, in experimenting a little bit so far ive found its one of my favorite things about the graphics engine. i really like the soft-focus & lighting effect it creates (i hate sharp/jagged graphics, they seem unlifelike & annoying to me). the difference b/w high & low (or off) is huge imo. but i msgd dslyecxi on yt & he said he leaves it off, so maybe that is a minority opinion. i also agree about the shadows, i turned them way down thinking it would just make the game run faster & not really be noticeable & was surprised how different the game felt.

what about AA? i know thats a huge chore for the GPU, does anyone think its worth it?