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

[Leon86 13]

A higher cpu frequency will get you higher fps in cpu limited situations, like benchmark 2.

An athlonII should be about as fast as a q6600 on the same frequency, what settings do you run at? I run at 2000 viewdistance with model and terrain detail on low, shadows high, to keep the load off of the cpu. My gtx260's in sli have to work quit a bit because I run on 115% res with low aa, when I pop a lot of smoke I'm still gpu limited.

And with overclocking I'd start with downloading a stress tool (like prime95) and a temperature monitor. OCCT is a tool that does both and it has a "max temp" setting that aborts the stresstest if temps get too high (you can set the max allowed temp).

See how hot things get on stock, what voltage you run at etc. There's bound to be a couple of forums where people share how much volt they need for a certain speed. Every cpu is different but it's a nice ballpark figure.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Leon86

[rangerpl 13]

A higher cpu frequency will get you higher fps in cpu limited situations, like benchmark 2.

An athlonII should be about as fast as a q6600 on the same frequency, what settings do you run at? I run at 2000 viewdistance with model and terrain detail on low, shadows high, to keep the load off of the cpu. My gtx260's in sli have to work quit a bit because I run on 115% res with low aa, when I pop a lot of smoke I'm still gpu limited.

These are my settings:

Resolution: 1920x1080

VD: 1000m (I have a dynamic adjuster, so I turn it down to 1000 when in CQB environments and turn it up when in the open)

Textures: High

Video Mem: Very High

AF: Very High (Didn't see an FPS difference with this)

AA: Low

Terrain: Normal

Objects: High

Shadows: High

HDR: Medium

PP: Low/Off (off in cities)

Vsync: Off

I am certain that I took some kind of performance hit since I got ArmA, in December I was able to record

at 1920x1080 and still maintain good FPS, while playing online. I also didn't experience lag while looking at grass through a scope. Both of these problems have appeared since then and GPU settings have little effect.

Since Fraps is CPU-intensive (drives it to 100% when enabled), I inferred that the CPU is causing this lag.

And with overclocking I'd start with downloading a stress tool (like prime95) and a temperature monitor. OCCT is a tool that does both and it has a "max temp" setting that aborts the stresstest if temps get too high (you can set the max allowed temp).

See how hot things get on stock, what voltage you run at etc. There's bound to be a couple of forums where people share how much volt they need for a certain speed. Every cpu is different but it's a nice ballpark figure.

Yeah, I Prime95'd my CPU back in January to test for damage and it came up clean (or at least it didn't crash). I'm familiar with it. CPU-Z to find out all the deep secrets, etc.

Edited April 28, 2011 by RangerPL

[Leon86 13]

I am certain that I took some kind of performance hit since I got ArmA, in December I was able to record

at 1920x1080 and still maintain good FPS, while playing online.

thats on utes, doesn't count :)

[rangerpl 13]

Ahh, you're right. I just realized that one.

By the way, it shows for me that ArmA is using all four cores. For the record, I have -cpuCount set to four cores. If that matters. Maybe it would use all of the Phenom's six cores?

[Leon86 13]

no it will not. In arma there's no performance difference betweeen 4 and 6 cores.

[rangerpl 13]

Alright then. I'll get started OC'ing but I need to buy an aftermarket cooler first.

Also, what is considered a "maximum" safe temperature for CPUs in general? Just so I could set OCCT to quit automatically once it reaches that threshold.

It should power off on its own, but it's always better to be safe than sorry.

[Leon86 13]

AMD cpu's dont really stay stable at high temps anyway, I'd recommend setting the max at 65 or something.

[Yiako 10]

Hi guys!

I'm just buying my first PC after 15 years of using macs JUST for this game. My actual comp is a mac mini that can play decently the only pc games that interested me right until now: iRacing, Netkar pro and such.

But oh boy, I've discoverd ArmaII and it's such an amazing game... but unplayable in a core2duo 2ghz with a geforce 9400m. So I'm going to switch to the dark side.

I know the obvious election is a Desktop rig: much much power for the same money, but I NEED a portable comp so the question is simple. Could this notebook play ArmaII without problems?:

Asus K35sv

i7 2630QM

4 gigs of Ram

nVidia GeForce 540m w.2 gigs of memory.

It would be sufficient? Could I run ArmaII with good settings and get a fluid game experience?

Thanks in advance!

[Leon86 13]

It'll be playable for sure, even though the gpu is quite slow compared to those in desktops, the screen has a pretty low res so it sortof evens out I guess.

You'll have to play around with settings to get something that looks good and runs well.

[Yiako 10]

Ok, thanks for your answer.

I would play with a 22'' monitor attached to the laptop, but I'm not sure, as you say, about the graphic card. In the benchmarks, is like 6x times slower that a medium desktop card...

Mmm... this is gonna be hard.

[flonoen 10]

Hi.

Thinking about upgrading from my old e4600 and HD4850 to a i5 2500k and HD6970. Will this run Arma2 on full with max view distance? If not, what will it take to do so? I'm currently on a 1680x1050 monitor, but also considering upgrading to a full HD monitor, so keep in mind I would like to have 1920x1080 resolution.

[bangtail 0]

Nothing available will run Arma 2 maxed at 10K VD @ 1080p (maybe on Utes :D )

3 or 4K with a mixture of High/Vhigh would be very doable on that spec.

[flonoen 10]

3 or 4k? Isn't that rather low? I guess it's not often I really need being able to see more than 5km maybe, but still.

Also, not sure about the GPU:

GTX 560Ti 1GB - 342USD

HD 6870 1GB - 285USD

HD 6970 2GB - 505USD

Which give most value for the money? Not just in Arma2, but in general.

Edited May 1, 2011 by flonoen

[Leon86 13]

You only need 4k when flying, otherwise even 1.5k is fine. I guess the gtx560ti gets you best value but it's always close with gpu's, ati and nvidia will let you choose cards in $40 increments it seems, best value is usually in the eu $200-300 range. If you dont shop on the internet prices will be 10-15% higher.

not sure why your prices are so high, on newegg the 560's are 240.-

Edited May 1, 2011 by Leon86

[flonoen 10]

You only need 4k when flying, otherwise even 1.5k is fine. I guess the gtx560ti gets you best value but it's always close with gpu's, ati and nvidia will let you choose cards in $40 increments it seems, best value is usually in the eu $200-300 range. If you dont shop on the internet prices will be 10-15% higher.

not sure why your prices are so high, on newegg the 560's are 240.-

Prices are probably high because I'm in Norway, we have high taxes on everything. The 560TI is better than the 6870? I've always liked ati cards, but maybe I should try nvidia for a change.

[Leon86 13]

since you posted prices in usd I assumed you were buying in that currency as well.

Well, the 6950 2GB performs and costs about the same as the 560Ti. The 6970 is roughly on par with 570. The 6870 will soon have the 560 (non ti) as a direct competitor. ati cards perform fine in arma as long as you dont crossfire them. If you want to run a dualcard setup in the future I'd recommend nvdia because sli has much fewer problems with arma 2.

[Coffeecat 10]

After changing to a 2500k my gpu is now limiting the FPS in some areas.

I want to play with ATOC very high, is this card able to do that?

http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/info/p700801_2048MB-Sapphire-HD-6950-GDDR5-PCIe.html

Atm i have the GTX460 with 1 gigabyte in my rig.

[Gorgi Knootewoot 0]

I still own a crappy PC which can't run Arma2 (although I bought it some time ago). I read there are quite some expansions for the game now which are uberfun. So when I get my hard earned money the next month or the month after that I wanna buy a new computer. I just finished OFP again and ArmA (+expansions) so it's time to move on.

I was thinking of this processor: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T

And I need a good graphic card for that. Still can't decide whether to buy Nvidia or ATI.

Either the ASUS EAH6970 or something nvidia similar.

What card do you guys suggest... thanks in advance :)

[Leon86 13]

for arma an i5 2500K is a better choice I think. Gpu wise you cant go wrong with gtx560 and up or 6950 and up.

some less powerfull cards will work fine as well as long as run on appropriate settings.

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

After changing to a 2500k my gpu is now limiting the FPS in some areas.

I want to play with ATOC very high, is this card able to do that?

http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/info/p700801_2048MB-Sapphire-HD-6950-GDDR5-PCIe.html

Atm i have the GTX460 with 1 gigabyte in my rig.

The 6950 is faster but I doubt it'll handle the atoc antialiased trees in chernarus without probs.

[Coffeecat 10]

Yea the AA on all the trees costs so much performance...

well guess il stick with my 460 then. it runs all games maxed out anyways.

arma is also the most GPU demanding game if maxed out i guess.

il just wait till my card gets old, maybe then in 2 years after arma was released 4 years before the game runs it maxed out with a decent gpu;-)

[Gorgi Knootewoot 0]

for arma an i5 2500K is a better choice I think. Gpu wise you cant go wrong with gtx560 and up or 6950 and up.

some less powerfull cards will work fine as well as long as run on appropriate settings.

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

The 6950 is faster but I doubt it'll handle the atoc antialiased trees in chernarus without probs.

Why is that?

I don't understand much of the AMD vs. Intel debate. But I always had AMD. Is there no noticable difference in gaming rigs?

Since you suggest this processor I can get the

Intel® Core™ i5-2500K for 180 euro

and the ENGTX560 Ti for 215 euro (or the EAH6950 for 243 euro)

So I guess I'll stick to Nvidia this time again and go for the intel processor.

Since I will do it within 1-2 months maybe the price will drop a bit too :)

Thanks for the replies

Nvm, i read the section http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/301103-28-core-2500k-phenom-1090t

and the 2500k outperformes amd in all ways. So its the i5-2500k for me :)

Edited May 2, 2011 by Gorgi Knootewoot

[BasileyOne 10]

Yea the AA on all the trees costs so much performance...

well guess il stick with my 460 then. it runs all games maxed out anyways.

arma is also the most GPU demanding game if maxed out i guess.

il just wait till my card gets old, maybe then in 2 years after arma was released 4 years before the game runs it maxed out with a decent gpu;-)

more capped by CPU w/viewdistances above 2km with GFX regardless setting, except than turning 8x FSAA or playing in 2500x1600 and above resolutions.

anyway, in case of GPU, fillrate and correct Z-space handling is more critical than texture speed and IQ, so NVidia is better [for same money], so pick 570 or 560. but if you need better IQ for work[photography, video and etc], pick ATi, esp for CRT screens.

[Leon86 13]

but if you need better IQ for work[photography, video and etc], pick ATi, esp for CRT screens.

euhm, isnt 2d image quality completely dependant on the screen?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

SSD's have no effect on FPS. They will drastically reduce loading times and provide a smoother gaming experience due to better streaming where ArmA 2 is concerned.

FFe3Tnh3e-o

An SSD is on an order of magnitude faster than a 10k raptor.

_SfAtAqyQpY

rZ1HBFOnIis

Edited May 3, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Leon86 13]

that movie is way too old to be of any use, arma 2 has been patched multiple times since then. Besides, the point is still valid since fps is about the same only the slow disk makes it stutter.