fecesreturns 10 Posted June 14, 2010 Here is a new one Toshiba Qosmio X505 Q870 Specs here. From what I gather it should play fine. Just looking for a second opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Relemar 10 Posted June 14, 2010 Here is a new one Toshiba Qosmio X505 Q870 Specs here. From what I gather it should play fine. Just looking for a second opinion. Processor clock speed is too low for ArmA 2. For ArmA 2 you need atleast a 3GHz processor, less it just runs terribly .You also need a pretty decent graphics card, and a decent brand hard drive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fecesreturns 10 Posted June 14, 2010 (edited) Processor clock speed is too low for ArmA 2. For ArmA 2 you need atleast a 3GHz processor, less it just runs terribly .You also need a pretty decent graphics card, and a decent brand hard drive. Weird. I just read about the processor and it "Turbo boosts" to 2.8 GHz + it has a 1 GB Graphics card with 4 GB DDR3. I have heard of people running on less than that. and the Nvidia GTS 360M is rated as a Class 1 graphics card by Notebook Check Link Edit: I just looked at a video of a AW M11X playing armed assault and it played fairly smoothly. x505 Q870 > M11x in performance specifications so I think it would be good :) Edited June 14, 2010 by FecesReturns Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sgt gul 0 Posted June 14, 2010 its the cpu clock speed letting you down, overclock and it'll run much better. also try a vegetation mod :) i am not so experienced with overclocking, i never done it. Could you help me with that? and if i overclock, will the cpu get more warmer? please help i want to play so badly BTW any link on good vegetation mod? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Relemar 10 Posted June 14, 2010 in theory ,yes the cpu will get warmed but you always try to find the lowest possible stable voltage without it BSOD'ing. google it, you will get a guide on the internet. look on armaholic for a good vegetation mod, i forgot the name of the one i use at the minute :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
helldesign 10 Posted June 14, 2010 (edited) Hi guys, Soon I'll buy "ARMA 2: Combined Operations" edition and I was advised to check first if my computer system is suitable for smooth play of the game. My system: MB ASUS P5QL iP43, 2D2-1066, 1xE16, GL CPU Intel Desktop Core 2 Quad Q8400 2,66GHz DDR2 4GB 800 Kingston (2 x 2GB) VC GAINWARD PCI Express 2.0 x16 nVidia GeForce GTS 250 Green Edition GDDR3 SDR 1024MB/256bit, 700MHz(core)/1000MHz(mem), HDTV+HDCP, VGA, DVI, HDMI, VGA Cooler (Double Slot) HDD WD SATA II, 500 GB, 16MB Cache, 7200 Power supply Spire 550W I use Windows 7 Ultimate edition and my screen resolution is 1920x1200 pixels. Thanks. Edited June 14, 2010 by helldesign Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Relemar 10 Posted June 15, 2010 Hi guys,Soon I'll buy "ARMA 2: Combined Operations" edition and I was advised to check first if my computer system is suitable for smooth play of the game. My system: MB ASUS P5QL iP43, 2D2-1066, 1xE16, GL CPU Intel Desktop Core 2 Quad Q8400 2,66GHz DDR2 4GB 800 Kingston (2 x 2GB) VC GAINWARD PCI Express 2.0 x16 nVidia GeForce GTS 250 Green Edition GDDR3 SDR 1024MB/256bit, 700MHz(core)/1000MHz(mem), HDTV+HDCP, VGA, DVI, HDMI, VGA Cooler (Double Slot) HDD WD SATA II, 500 GB, 16MB Cache, 7200 Power supply Spire 550W I use Windows 7 Ultimate edition and my screen resolution is 1920x1200 pixels. Thanks. Should run fine, but as I say to everyone if you overclocked your CPU from 2.6GHz to let's say 3.2GHz, you'd see a massive performance increase. I had the q6600 and kept it at 2.4, then overclocked it to 3GHz and saw a massive performance increase. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
helldesign 10 Posted June 15, 2010 Thanks Relemar :ok: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HmoobSoldier 10 Posted June 16, 2010 I'm running dual 5870s in crossfire with a q8400 @ 3.8ghz. I'm running eyefinity at 3600 x 1920 with most settings at high and AA, AF at normal and 2400 draw distance. With the cpu at the stock 2.66ghz I was getting 24fps. At 3.8ghz I'm only up to 31fps. Also, turning crossfire on and off doesn't seem to make any difference. I have yet to try a single monitor at 1920x1200 though. But it looks gorgeous at 3600x1200 so I'd hate to resort to a single monitor to get good frame rates. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leon86 13 Posted June 16, 2010 I'm running dual 5870s in crossfire with a q8400 @ 3.8ghz. I'm running eyefinity at 3600 x 1920 with most settings at high and AA, AF at normal and 2400 draw distance. With the cpu at the stock 2.66ghz I was getting 24fps. At 3.8ghz I'm only up to 31fps. Also, turning crossfire on and off doesn't seem to make any difference. I have yet to try a single monitor at 1920x1200 though. But it looks gorgeous at 3600x1200 so I'd hate to resort to a single monitor to get good frame rates. That's a pretty insane resolution, you're sure crossfire doesn't do anything? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SWAT_Glock 10 Posted June 16, 2010 I am getting ready to update my 9800 and I am looking at either a 200 series or 400 series card. How much better will ARMA II run? Any recommendations? Thanks. My System: Core i7 920 - 2.66GHz (Overclocked to 3GHz w/ Corsair H50 Cooler) 12GB Corsair Dominator Memory Rampage II GENE MB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Relemar 10 Posted June 16, 2010 The resolution is really high, I can see that being 'average' for such a resolution, its pretty good performance too for such a high res. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wolfstriked 11 Posted June 16, 2010 Anyone play with HD5970?I do not see it mentioned here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usmc123 1 Posted June 17, 2010 Just curious how OA will run since I havn't played ArmA II with this computer: Windows Vista 64 bit Intel Quad Core Q8200 @ 2.33ghz Nvidia 9800GT 1GB VRAM 8GB DDR2 RAM I know I can run the game but mainly I want to know how well I can run it, we talking high settings here or... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bangtail 0 Posted June 17, 2010 Anyone play with HD5970?I do not see it mentioned here. I used to. I wasn't overly impressed tbh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fecesreturns 10 Posted June 17, 2010 Ok I am going to try this again. The specs I put down before were not exact. Intel Core i7 720QM Quad core 2.8 GHz Nvidia GTS 360M Specs here 1 GB GDDR5 SDRAM 2298 MB available graphics memory 4 GB DDR3 SDRAM Running on WIN 7 64 Tested with armed assault and it runs smoothly on 100% Graphics including 10000 view distance What graphics settings could I expect out of this rig? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MRLEGEND 10 Posted June 17, 2010 Anyone play with HD5970?I do not see it mentioned here. I have an HD5970 with an i7-950 Everything is stock and I got 54fps But from what I hear, it is severely underclocked The foilage still seems to grow right in front of me despite it being installed on a SSD...but I heard this problem can only be solved by installing it to a ram disk... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HmoobSoldier 10 Posted June 17, 2010 That's a pretty insane resolution, you're sure crossfire doesn't do anything? Something is definitely going on. I disabled eyefinity and used a single monitor @ 1920x1200. I benched again using a less demanding game (Resident Evil 5) and only got 48fps. A review of the 5870 is getting 105fps. The review did use a i7 so I won't get identical framerates but my Q8400 @ 3.5ghz should be good for atleast framerates in the high 70's. I also tried it with and without CF, no difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wolfstriked 11 Posted June 18, 2010 Thanks fellas.I use a GTX480 and was looking at the 5970 since I go down to 25 to 30fps in red forests areas.Thing is that many sites show the 5970 beating down on the 480 in past.But some new tests are showingthe 480 actually beating the 5970 in some games.There is also word going around that some sites are lying about the actual fps the 480 is getting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-martin- 10 Posted June 18, 2010 Thanks fellas.I use a GTX480 and was looking at the 5970 since I go down to 25 to 30fps in red forests areas.Thing is that many sites show the 5970 beating down on the 480 in past.But some new tests are showingthe 480 actually beating the 5970 in some games.There is also word going around that some sites are lying about the actual fps the 480 is getting. I have a 250GT 1GB and I run the game just fine a around 50 -60 fps most of the time but sometimes it drops down to 25 - 30 when looking at a lot of models with bad LOD's. I think that these cards that you and me have are more than good enough for the game but it gets bottlenecked by other things like CPU and RAM speed/amount. I have this system: AMD Phenom x3 @ 2.1 Ghz Overlocked 2Gb 400MHz RAM Nvidia 250GT 1GB 7200rpm hard disk The system isn't that bad as I said I have around 50 - 60 fps which is quite surprising because a lot of people with much better systems then me have lower FPS but I noticed that when playing on my friends Intel CPU which is a 4 Core 3Ghz CPU the performance is much poorer then my AMD in most games. I'm not a AMD fan boy but even since old school computing AMD always had some kind of better performance then most Intel chips, but then again the worse performance could be because of his other components, I'm just saying :smile: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wolfstriked 11 Posted June 18, 2010 Well I have a 3.6cpu and just got my ramdrive working and still it thrashes,textures popping up and low fps.So i started tinkering and found some stuff that may interest people here. First off is setting shadows to very high IS NOT the same fps as a lower setting.I seen this mentioned alot here and its wrong.At certain times changing the shadow setting causes no change in fps but when in areas where you get verylow fps I get a difference of 10fps from very high to high. What I found is that AA and AF are two major culprits in stutter and low fps.These two settings use to be the rich mans settings and were always tinkered with for good fps.Of these two I disabled anti-aliasing since anistropic filtering at even high makes trees look terrible.With AA disabled the game is super smooth now and I am finally happy! Oh,and I find that shadows at high looks better since you do not get the leaves glittering in the shadow effect IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leon86 13 Posted June 18, 2010 Well I have a 3.6cpu and just got my ramdrive working and still it thrashes,textures popping up and low fps.So i started tinkering and found some stuff that may interest people here.First off is setting shadows to very high IS NOT the same fps as a lower setting.I seen this mentioned alot here and its wrong.At certain times changing the shadow setting causes no change in fps but when in areas where you get verylow fps I get a difference of 10fps from very high to high. What I found is that AA and AF are two major culprits in stutter and low fps.These two settings use to be the rich mans settings and were always tinkered with for good fps.Of these two I disabled anti-aliasing since anistropic filtering at even high makes trees look terrible.With AA disabled the game is super smooth now and I am finally happy! Oh,and I find that shadows at high looks better since you do not get the leaves glittering in the shadow effect IMO. Shadows on medium uses the cpu and on high uses the gpu. That's why it's probably better on high. If you have a bad-ass gpu or play at a relatively low res you can put anisotropic filtering, aa and postprocessing pretty high. What gpu do you have and what resolution do you play at? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wolfstriked 11 Posted June 19, 2010 GTX480 at 1600x1200.Whats weird is that I try lower resolutions and the fps doesn't change.Also the fact that I can't run default makes me wonder if I am using my card to its fullest.I hit default video memory and it freezes the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rowdied 44 Posted June 19, 2010 GTX480 at 1600x1200.Whats weird is that I try lower resolutions and the fps doesn't change.Also the fact that I can't run default makes me wonder if I am using my card to its fullest.I hit default video memory and it freezes the game. Don't use this setting. It's caused nothing but crashes for me on 3 seperate cards. Use high or very high. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites