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

[izt_is 0]

Someone please help me. These are my specs below. I can't seem to get this game working smoothly at all and i bought it on the day one release. still really psyched to play this game, but oh gosh the issues trying to get it to run smoothly....

Core i7 860

4GB DDR4

GTX 275

All updated to latest drivers

Game patches to latest 1.05

Can anyone please suggest me the recommended settings I should stick with for everything? Please? Im near desperation.

Thanks.

[catito14 0]

I have a doubt to change my 4890 vapor-X for one of these cards:

-gtx 295

-HD 5870 vapor-x

wich one do you recommend for this game?? ´cause with my 4890 i can run all in mid-high with 30-40 fps

rig:

i7 920 @4ghz

4gb ram ddr3

win7 x64

hdd caviar black 750gb

Regards

[jackass888 0]

@izt_is

Your system should be able to run the game on high... something must be wrong. Maybe your HDD cant handle it. Hm you should use probably something like this:

VD ~3000;terrain high;shadows vhigh;3dresolution 100%;2x AA;objects high...

@catito14

Not completly sure but i think a single GPU 5870 would run Arma2 better. Besides the gtx295 is just a waste of resources.

[Leon86 13]

Someone please help me. These are my specs below. I can't seem to get this game working smoothly at all and i bought it on the day one release. still really psyched to play this game, but oh gosh the issues trying to get it to run smoothly....

Core i7 860

4GB DDR4

GTX 275

All updated to latest drivers

Game patches to latest 1.05

Can anyone please suggest me the recommended settings I should stick with for everything? Please? Im near desperation.

Thanks.

Did you already try adding -cpucount=4 to the shortcut or disabling hyperthreading in the bios?

[domiS 10]

Will the 5970 or the 480 be the best pick? Im using 1920x120 res.

[Leon86 13]

the 5970 will give you the highest average framerate, but a 480 isn't a bad card I think, It performs really wel in very high resolutions and with huge amounts of aa and other complicated trickery. The 5970 is probably the better buy, but for both cards the demand is higher then production so they're either overpriced or our of stock.

[domiS 10]

Thx for the reply.

Would a 480 SLI make a huge difference compared to one 480 or a 5790 (which is a sli if im not wrong). I will use a i7 980 or a 975.

And yes, money does matter im not ritch, but if two 480's will make my arma experience alot better, and hopefully last longer in terms of upgrades and so on. :)

[Whoatherefatty 10]

Thx for the reply.

Would a 480 SLI make a huge difference compared to one 480 or a 5790 (which is a sli if im not wrong). I will use a i7 980 or a 975.

And yes, money does matter im not ritch, but if two 480's will make my arma experience alot better, and hopefully last longer in terms of upgrades and so on. :)

I think our resident multi-millionaire baller and all around pimp of the nation BangTail said his frame rate was typicaly halved when he disabled SLI with his 480s.... Or was that his 5970 cf setup.... At any rate cf and sli work with arma so if you got the money go for it.

On a side note, I came up on another 5770 during the week. Everything went pretty smooth during instal however the new GPU was idle during gaming... that is until I went into regedit and changed the default value under EnableUlps from 1 to 0. I found this fix on the AMD forums but no explanation was given for what this does, why it had to be done and what exactly this did to make my second GPU wake up. I get a little nervous any time I change a file I didn't manually place on my machine. So does this sound like a legitimate fix to the vets here?

I was able to bump 3d resolution to 150%, post processing on high and object detail is now very high and I only lost 1 or 2 fps so I am more than pleased with the results. Just curious why it wasn't as easy to get working as most people make CF to be these days.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Whoatherefatty

[domiS 10]

I was able to bump 3d resolution to 150%, post processing on high and object detail is now very high and I only lost 1 or 2 fps so I am more than pleased with the results. Just curious why it wasn't as easy to get working as most people make CF to be these days.

Ah, thats a great improvement. :)

Its not the first time ive heard, or experienced optimizing/important changes in the registery to get the AMD hardware to work like it should. Which is not good if you ask me.

I might go for a SLI of 5970 or a 480 when the prices have decreased abit. Its a mess cause im a "i-want-it-right-now" type of guy, well also called inpatient.:j:

[Whoatherefatty 10]

I might go for a SLI of 5970 or a 480 when the prices have decreased abit. Its a mess cause im a "i-want-it-right-now" type of guy, well also called inpatient.:j:

Haha, that "I want it now" attitude is why Im running 5770 x2 instead of a 5850 or 5870. Clearly patience will benefit you in the long run;)

[bangtail 0]

Thx for the reply.

Would a 480 SLI make a huge difference compared to one 480 or a 5790 (which is a sli if im not wrong). I will use a i7 980 or a 975.

And yes, money does matter im not ritch, but if two 480's will make my arma experience alot better, and hopefully last longer in terms of upgrades and so on. :)

The 480 is a much better choice than the 5970 (unless you buy the 4 GB one which is very expensive). I own both of them so I have a lot of firsthand experience with them and I can tell you that having used ATI (5870 and 5970) for 6 months and then going back to Nvidia when the 480 released, I am much happier with Nvidia.

I also prefer SLI to CF, it scales better in my experience and you can adjust profiles as opposed to having to wait for ATI to release their 'hard coded' ones.

The 5970 drops into single digits in many tests.

As you can see here, with high levels of AA etc, the 480 is quite a bit better than the 5970.

http://www.maingearforums.com/entry.php?24-So-You-Want-To-Buy-A-GeForce-Part-2

Edited May 15, 2010 by BangTail

[Azamato 0]

9600GT

Q8200

4GB

Hit me up :D

[domiS 10]

The 480 is a much better choice than the 5970 (unless you buy the 4 GB one which is very expensive). I own both of them so I have a lot of firsthand experience with them and I can tell you that having used ATI (5870 and 5970) for 6 months and then going back to Nvidia when the 480 released, I am much happier with Nvidia.

I also prefer SLI to CF, it scales better in my experience and you can adjust profiles as opposed to having to wait for ATI to release their 'hard coded' ones.

The 5970 drops into single digits in many tests.

As you can see here, with high levels of AA etc, the 480 is quite a bit better than the 5970.

http://www.maingearforums.com/entry.php?24-So-You-Want-To-Buy-A-GeForce-Part-2

Interesting link, im leaning towards dual 480's. I can upgrade to 3 way configuration later on with the right mainboard. How big power supply do i need for a 2 ways fermi? 1500w for a 3 way fermi sounds alot.

edit: and would you recommend to buy a watercooler for the dual cards? (i rather not oc)

Edited May 15, 2010 by domiS

[bangtail 0]

Interesting link, im leaning towards dual 480's. I can upgrade to 3 way configuration later on with the right mainboard. How big power supply do i need for a 2 ways fermi? 1500w for a 3 way fermi sounds alot.

2 way would be 850w at a minimum (and depends what else you have in the box, personally I'd go with 900w+ to be safe)

3 way is a waste of money for the moment (unless you play at silly resolutions). There is nothing you are going to throw at 2 x 480 with a decent 4.0ghz processor that it's not going to deal with in short order.

Believe me, there isn't much I haven't tested out and even Crysis is extremely smooth with these cards.

I can never be bothered with LC tbh and I don't have any need for it. There is nothing wrong with it if you want to keep your temps low and the 480s can run hot. I don't have any trouble with them myself and I think you will be fine provided you have a decent case with proper cooling (using Afterburner's fan profiles doesn't hurt either).

Edited May 15, 2010 by BangTail

[catito14 0]

I will have a big difference between the 5970 and the 5870?? (in ArmA 2 i mean). The difference of price is big, but the difference in performance is bigger too?? or it is just a waste of money?

[bangtail 0]

I will have a big difference between the 5970 and the 5870?? (in ArmA 2 i mean). The difference of price is big, but the difference in performance is bigger too?? or it is just a waste of money?

There'll be a difference but mileage will depend on processor speed etc.

[r3volution 0]

Given the difference between the 5850 and 5870 is supposedly pretty minimal in Arma2, and only really affects the minimum framerate by a couple FPS, I don't know that the 5890 would offer a massive increase over the 5870 (though I'm always happy to be proved wrong). All in all once you get up to those sort of heights in terms of graphics cards, unless you're running an eyefinity type setup with multiple monitors and want to run some screamingly huge resolution display, there's more to be gained from chucking the extra money you'd have spent over the 5870 into either a better CPU or an SSD to tackle the performance issues with texture loading from virtual memory. At the high end, the CPU and HD loading speed seem to be the biggest limiters in Arma2.

[catito14 0]

There'll be a difference but mileage will depend on processor speed etc.

With this rig the differences will be big?

-i7 920 @4ghz

-mobo P6t

-HD Caviar Black 600gb

-4gb ddr3 1600mhz

-win 7 x64

-19´´ screen on 1600x900

Regards

[bangtail 0]

With this rig the differences will be big?

-i7 920 @4ghz

-mobo P6t

-HD Caviar Black 600gb

-4gb ddr3 1600mhz

-win 7 x64

-19´´ screen on 1600x900

Regards

Not worth it at that resolution.

[catito14 0]

Not worth it at that resolution.

So the 5870 will be the better choice for my rig? or the 5970 will run the game faster and smoother than the 5870 with no matter the resolution? I have the money, and i want to change my vga ... so i want to know what is the best choice, with my rig, to play ArmA2 in all high-v.high.

Thanks again

Regards

[bangtail 0]

So the 5870 will be the better choice for my rig? or the 5970 will run the game faster and smoother than the 5870 with no matter the resolution? I have the money, and i want to change my vga ... so i want to know what is the best choice, with my rig, to play ArmA2 in all high-v.high.

Thanks again

Regards

I'd go with a 470/480 (I'm much happier with Nvidia as far as ArmA 2 goes). If you prefer ATI, I'd go with a 2GB 5870.

Edited May 16, 2010 by BangTail

[r3volution 0]

I'd go for the ATI card if you're going to be primarily getting it to play Arma2. The ATI 58XX series seem to have a phenomenally good minimum framerate relative to (afaik) even the new Nvidia cards. Their maximum framerate seems to be not that much better, but the minimums are far higher with the ATI cards. Kind of bizarre but every review I've read which has tested the 58XX series in Arma2 has pointed towards this.

The resolution you're playing at I'd say you'd be able to play it with most of the pretties turned way up if you got the ATI card. Also, the I7 920 is a Nehalem on the 1366 platform so you're going to need 6gb ram in 3 slots or the whole triple channel thing is not going to work, at least that's what I've heard.

[bangtail 0]

I'd go for the ATI card if you're going to be primarily getting it to play Arma2. The ATI 58XX series seem to have a phenomenally good minimum framerate relative to (afaik) even the new Nvidia cards. Their maximum framerate seems to be not that much better, but the minimums are far higher with the ATI cards. Kind of bizarre but every review I've read which has tested the 58XX series in Arma2 has pointed towards this.

The resolution you're playing at I'd say you'd be able to play it with most of the pretties turned way up if you got the ATI card. Also, the I7 920 is a Nehalem on the 1366 platform so you're going to need 6gb ram in 3 slots or the whole triple channel thing is not going to work, at least that's what I've heard.

That is certainly not my experience and I have both. Now, don't get me wrong, ATI make great cards but they are certainly bested, for the most part, by the 480.

Further, SLI scales better than CF across the board.

RAM performance does little to nothing where games are concerned so it's not a concern.

I'd take a look at some of the benches on the review I posted on the previous page, I know A2 isn't there but it shows the 480 staying in the 20+ FPS region while the 5970 is into single digits. ATI's vanilla 5970 is also limited by RAM which hurts it when it comes to AA/AF/High resolutions.

Edited May 16, 2010 by BangTail

[domiS 10]

After some more research i support bantails statement about 480 beeing the best bang for the buck at compared to ATI's flagship, 5790.

I have a NEC 26 inch display which only supports 1920x1200, so im not sure if a 2-way 480 config will be worth the money. I do know i will upgrade to a 30 inch later, and maybe then the SLI will do its job.

[bangtail 0]

After some more research i support bantails statement about 480 beeing the best bang for the buck at compared to ATI's flagship, 5790.

I have a NEC 26 inch display which only supports 1920x1200, so im not sure if a 2-way 480 config will be worth the money. I do know i will upgrade to a 30 inch later, and maybe then the SLI will do its job.

At 1080p or more, the 480 SLI is the best choice, enjoy :)

I used to run 26" NEC WUXI monitors - nice choice :D