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

[Dwarden 1124]

i would suggest to choose one of the new quadcores (if you mean just change CPU)

anyway i'm sure sixcore Opterons as server gunna kick ass :)

[Pyronick 21]

anyway i'm sure sixcore Opterons as server gunna kick ass :)

Haha, what about the new dual Nehalem-based Intel Xeon W5580? :D

2 physical CPUs, with each 4 cores, each handling 2 simultaneous threads and some serious overclocking potential due to the D0 stepping.

[echo1 0]

That's nothing. Just wait till their Octo-core "Beckton" CPUs come out later this year.

[Riot69 10]

I hope it will works to me:-D I have new pc...one year old

Intel core 2 quad 3.0Ghz

Ram 4gb

Ati radeon 3870x2 1gb

I hope it will be enough for it and for massive MP battles:)

[Pyronick 21]

That's nothing. Just wait till their Octo-core "Beckton" CPUs come out later this year.

HOLY SH*T! :eek:

Octo-core and 4xQPI... That means the possibility of a quadruple Beckton system with 32 logical processors (cores)!

The Jasper Forest tech looks promising aswell, with integrated PCI Express connections (on-die controller?).

Maybe they could do something similar for discrete graphics hardware to directly connect to the CPU instead of going through an I/O hub.

This could multiply bandwidth and decrease latencies by a tenfold!

Anyway, I reckon my stock Q9650 should be more than enough for Armed Assault 2.

But I'm still considering to upgrade to i7 tech, since those X58 boards also have SAS controllers.

Atm. I'm using Ultra320 SCSI instead of SATA, which is faster and offload the processor/Northbridge, but SAS disks and SSDs are becoming more and more affordable these days and it already kills SATA/300 at the same speed not to mention the better efficiency you get with striping.

Edited April 13, 2009 by SgtH3nry3

[echo1 0]

The advantages of SAS over SATA is only noticable if you are making a large array. If that was the case, you'd be better off getting yourself a seperate RAID card, as motherboard controllers tend to waste your RAM and CPU power.

[Pyronick 21]

The advantages of SAS over SATA is only noticable if you are making a large array. If that was the case, you'd be better off getting yourself a seperate RAID card, as motherboard controllers tend to waste your RAM and CPU power.

Well, it depends on the storage medium you are using.

I haven't seen any SATA disks which can anywhere near the iops or (random) burst transfer of SAS disks, this is not due to the speed of the harddisk but rather about the interface.

If you use an entry class 10k RPM, 8 Mb low-level cache SAS disk. It won't be (noticeably) faster than similar SATA disks even though the seek times are much lower of SCSI hardware.

However, the burst transfer (and most of the times sustained transfer aswell) are much higher on SCSI hardware.

Even my old Ultra 160 disks outperform most SATA/300 10k disks, except for sustained transfer which is the only advantage of SATA/300 other than parallel connections.

They even kick Intel SSD's ass on various points.

I can't say anything about motherboard controllers as I usually use Adaptec or LSI Logic controllers, but I don't think it will be any worse than SATA of which the command sets are completely CPU dependant.

RAID configurations (esp. striping) are only interesting for large data transfers and all I want are low seek times and fast random transfers.

[werutsky 0]

I just want to remember everybody that once the developers said that this computer would run ARMA 2 smoothly

Alza Ruby:

#GIGABYTE MA790GP-DS4H

#AMD Phenom 9650 X4 Quad-Core, 2.3GHz

#4GB (KIT 2x2GB) DDR2 1066MHz PC8500 CL5-5-5-18 OCZ Platinum Edition XTC

#SAPPHIRE HD 4850 Toxic, 512MB DDR3

#SEAGATE Barracuda 7200.11 500GB

so ... it's a quad core with just 2.3 Ghz ...

based on that I recently bought a Q8200 with a SAPPHIRE HD 4850 ...

I strongly believe that I will be able to run the game ...

anyone disagree ?

so .. to answer the thread question, my sugestion is a quad core ....

Edited April 14, 2009 by werutsky

[Pyronick 21]

I just want to remember everybody that once the developers said that this computer would run ARMA 2 smoothly

Alza Ruby:

#GIGABYTE MA790GP-DS4H

#AMD Phenom 9650 X4 Quad-Core, 2.3GHz

#4GB (KIT 2x2GB) DDR2 1066MHz PC8500 CL5-5-5-18 OCZ Platinum Edition XTC

#SAPPHIRE HD 4850 Toxic, 512MB DDR3

#SEAGATE Barracuda 7200.11 500GB

so ... it's a quad core with just 2.3 Ghz ...

based on that I recently bought a Q8200 with a SAPPHIRE HD 4850 ...

I strongly believe that I will be able to run the game ...

anyone disagree ?

so .. to answer the thread question, my sugestion is a quad core ....

If I were you and I did that upgrade specifically for ArmA II, I'd postpone that upgrade until after the release of the game.

By then the HD 4890 would have been cheaper and the Core i7 aswell.

But I think you'll run the game just fine if the developers are right.

[echo1 0]

The original Phenoms weren't particularly good. That said, there's nothing good enough around to justify you upgrading your system. You should be good to go for now.

[werutsky 0]

The original Phenoms weren't particularly good. .

yeah ... that's what make me believe that the game IS OPTIMIZED for quad cores

finally !! a game well coded

[Batstat 10]

I agree with SgtH3nry3, newer buy HW before you need it. The price/performace score moving up in your favour, one tick or tack for each day.

In 2019 you could have 500GHz in each of your core. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene

And if BIS still are making Arma, they will launch Arma VI 29. may 2019 :D

[POTS 0]

I agree with SgtH3nry3, newer buy HW before you need it. The price/performace score moving up in your favour, one tick or tack for each day.

In 2019 you could have 500GHz in each of your core. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene

And if BIS still are making Arma, they will launch Arma VI 29. may 2019 :D

Nah, the day speed is realized is the day we move from electronic computers to spintronic-electronic computers.

EDIT: lol, there is a link to spintronics in teh article. Read up to see the potential for "instant" computing and bootup.

Edited April 15, 2009 by POTS

[remoteplayer1 10]

if anyone has been keeping up on current computer and hardware sales, its not economical to buy the latest and greatest computer as all that processing is not necessary unless you are doing something that requires it-- photoshop, maya, autocad , games etc. which the average person only uses their computer for the internet. that being said if you also noticed the extreme decline in computer game sales to many factors, piracy, consoles etc. If this game requires something the equivalent of run crysis at 30fps then its not going to be a very successful game, as that game suffered sales because of that fact. This game has to be optimized for dual and quad core computers that are only mid range- of course with the expandability of the future but i hope it doesn't scale like crap like the first one did. i couldn't buy the original till now being my dual core would chug- and it still does in some areas but in all other games that have came out recently it runs like a dream at 1920x1080 besides crysis which seemed like it was made for a computer that was 4 years ahead of being affordable and would be scaled down to 8 year old graphics to run beyond 30fps.

my setup is a e6600 dual core, 8800gts, 2gb ram

Edited April 15, 2009 by remoteplayer1

[telejunky 0]

Yeah the most player got mid range cpu/hw. But BIS even said that ArmA will look very good on mid settings. So i hope they did it right and we don't have to wait a year until the recommended hardware is affordable for humans :D

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

AMD Phenom 9500 QUAD 2.2Ghz

3GB Ram

Geforece 8800GT 512mb

A bit worried here...

[blackforest_rumbler 0]

;1270315']AMD Phenom 9500 QUAD 2.2Ghz

3GB Ram

Geforece 8800GT 512mb

A bit worried here...

Intel E6850 Core2Duo @ 3,2 Ghz

Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 PCI-E 1G GDDR5

4 GB RAM

a bit worried here as well :confused:

[Maddmatt 1]

Intel E6850 Core2Duo @ 3,2 Ghz

Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 PCI-E 1G GDDR5

4 GB RAM

a bit worried here as well :confused:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800

Geforce 7800GT 256MB

2GB DDR400 RAM

What the hell are you worried about? :p

Of course, I'll probably replace it when ArmA 2 is released. No point upgrading before I need to :)

[sickboy 13]

I've usually upgraded months before game releases, on both Server and Game PC end.

It has cut me in my fingers a few times pretty badly and by now finally decided to actually wait until the game/software is out, then play some on the current machine, wait for some updates of both GPU and game, and THEN decide if and WHAT to upgrade.

I'm on Q6600 @ 3.33 with 8GB DDR2-1066, on a X38, with GTX 280 and 750 watt PC Power & Cool.

After the game is released I hope to upgrade to a Core i7 with 12 GB DDR3-1600 on a X58. (Before anyone asks; I use the memory for Hyper-V virtualization).

Biggest reason for me is currently unexplained instability of the system during games operations. Besides, im pretty excited by Core i7's features, esp for Virtualization.

I wish I could wait for 32nm Core i7 since it will have some interesting improvements, probably induces price drops and possibly delivers the next generation Intel Chipset (X68???), but due to the instability of the system, I don't think I have that choice :)

I would recommend anyone to just wait until the game has been released and you've got some feedback...

[Pirate. 0]

Intel E6850 Core2Duo @ 3,2 Ghz

Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 PCI-E 1G GDDR5

4 GB RAM

a bit worried here as well :confused:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800

Geforce 7800GT 256MB

2GB DDR400 RAM

What the hell are you worried about? :p

Of course, I'll probably replace it when ArmA 2 is released. No point upgrading before I need to :)

Good thinking Matt, I think blackforest is one of those people who's worried that he can't beat the latest 3DMark records...

Tip to everyone with a budget: wait for the ArmA2 benchmark results to come out after the game is released. Only then decide what hardware to get.

All these speculations are a waist of forum space.

And so is my post if you think of it...

[Pyronick 21]

Biggest reason for me is currently unexplained instability of the system during games operations. Besides, im pretty excited by Core i7's features, esp for Virtualization.

I wish I could wait for 32nm Core i7 since it will have some interesting improvements, probably induces price drops and possibly delivers the next generation Intel Chipset (X68???), but due to the instability of the system, I don't think I have that choice :)

Yes, there is a huge shift in CPU technology.

The new Sandy Bridge architecture (which might use that next generation chipset) has a new instruction set for handling very wide vectors.

Which finally solves the floating-point disadvantage of the x86 architecture, but it will still only be a tad faster than the Cell Broadband engine flops-wise.

But for your virtualization needs the new Westmere cores are interesting aswell, they have much lower virtualization latencies and a second generation integrated memory controller. The Westmeres with the LGA 1366 socket also work on the current X58 (Core i7) boards if I'm not mistaken.

I would recommend anyone to just wait until the game has been released and you've got some feedback...

Yes, that always is the wisest decision IMHO.

[Baff1 0]

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800

Geforce 7800GT 256MB

2GB DDR400 RAM

What the hell are you worried about? :p

Of course, I'll probably replace it when ArmA 2 is released. No point upgrading before I need to :)

Don't chuck that chip Matt, that is a lot of power for a single core, it might make a far superior dedicated server than most dual cores for a lot of softwares.

[echo1 0]

Yes, there is a huge shift in CPU technology.

The new Sandy Bridge architecture (which might use that next generation chipset) has a new instruction set for handling very wide vectors.

Which finally solves the floating-point disadvantage of the x86 architecture, but it will still only be a tad faster than the Cell Broadband engine flops-wise..

I don't think that's going to be much of an advantage for gamers. Video editors and folders maybe. Alot of Intel's latest processor tech is designed for enterprise use, not for us mere mortals.

@Baff1: Isn't the X2 3800 a dual core?

Edited April 15, 2009 by echo1

[Baff1 0]

Nevermind then, that kind of removes my intrest in it.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Baff1

[Pyronick 21]

I don't think that's going to be much of an advantage for gamers. Video editors and folders maybe. Alot of Intel's latest processor tech is designed for enterprise use, not for us mere mortals.

Actually, it's specifically designed for games. In fact the new Core i5 (Celeron replacement) will have an integrated graphics processor on the CPU-die next to the integrated memory controller.

The later Haswell architecture will have the addition of an FMA instruction set, this is often used in graphics processors because it can double the raw floating point operations. It might also have scatter and gather instructions, which is also a typical GPU feature.

And raw FLOPS make a fast graphics processor.

@Baff1: Isn't the X2 3800 a dual core?

Yes it is. :D Edited April 15, 2009 by SgtH3nry3