Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Placebo

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

Recommended Posts

The first one is an am3+ motherboard, that means you'll be able to run bulldozer cpu's with it once they come out. Just take GA-990XA-UD3 motherboard and combine it with a Phenom II X4 955 BE. That way you'll have an affordable and well-performing rig with the possibility for real upgrades in the future without having to replace everything again.

Sixcores are useless in gaming and most other things, save exceptions like video/audio transcoding, raytracing etc.

All mainstream boards are x8 x8, fine for 2 way sli or crossfire, x16 x16 only gains 2% or so, or even less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 cores are fine as far as gaming goes today, but implying 6 cores are 'useless' is just plain bad information.

First off, more threads for more processes is obviously better than less threads and there are games that do use 6 cores (BC2 and L4D2 being two off the top of my head). With AMD and Intel producing 8 core CPUs and beyond you will see more and more games start to use more than 4 cores, so while it may not be that well implemented today, engines like Frostbite 2 (BF3) can use up to 8 cores IIRC, so a 6 core is a way better choice providing the price isn't a huge issue.

Edited by BangTail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies...So I take it that gigabyte Board is better :D...and about that X16 X16, thanks for clarifying that, I was about to post another Board that was actually x16 x16, but I'll go with the newer Gigabyte Board :).

and about the processors, I know the Quad Core may be better now, for games that utilize only 4 cores now, but like BangTail said, in the future I'd be better equipped with the 6 Core one :)...and it's only 20-30 bucks more than a 980 BE :)...So, that's not an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My new pc arrived. the specs are almost on the top, but Arma2CO still have some lags and textures freezing on average graphics.

Specs:

Monitor: Samsung P2770HD LCD 27'' 5ms DVI HDMI WideScreen Black + Remote

Processor: Core i7 2600 3.4Ghz, s1155

Cooling system: CPU Coolers Scythe Mugen II Rev.b CPU Cooler

Motherboard: GIGABYTE Z68A-D3-B3, Intel Z68, DDR3 2133

RAM: DDR3 1600Mhz 2x2GB G.Skill Ripjaws X Edition Dual Channel CL6-8-6-24

SSD: Corsair Force Series 3 60GB SSD Sata III MLC 2.5'' Retail

HDD: Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 7200RPM, 64MB, SATA III WD1002FAEX

Graphic: Zotac GTX580 1536MB GDDR5 DX11 2xDVI Mini HDMI PCI-E

Case: Thermaltake V9 BlacX Edition Midi Tower Black Gaming Case (No PSU)

Power: Chieftec 750W Modular 14cm fan, Active PFC

Game settings:

Resolution: 1920x1080

Viewing distance: 3791m

All settings are set to normal, except AA and AF to very high (because of 27'' monitor)

Vsync: ON

Post FX: Off

Shadows: High.

Game running on SSD Sata 3

Please, recommend for me optimal settings to enjoy the good graphics of game and nice performance for multiplayer (we are about 40-60 players in game). Thank you.

I did some benchmark screenshots (~67mb), including game settings (but language of the game is russian) and benchmark results.

Average fps for first benchmark is 47fps, for second 20fps, for third 58fps (same settings).

Edited by lll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lll: good system and should perform better. I know many say 4gb's of ram is enough but I'd double it if I were you. Plus, think about overclocking that CPU -you could get far more performance upping it to the modest 4.2-4.4 range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 2600 will only clock to 3.9 unless its a K. with vsync on the fps is capped to 60, so the benchmark 3 is performing at near max all the time. Bench 2 is sortof irrelevant because its way heavy on the cpu, 20 fps is sortof expected at those settings. Bench1 has a lot of trees in it and those are really heavy on the gpu, especially with very high antialiasing, I get better results with a higher 3D res and low aa.

If you want decent fps, try 3000 viewdistance, 1920x1080 resolution, 115% 3D res, high shadow detail, normal terrain detail, normal object detail, low antialiasing, postprocessing off. Rest on low/normal.

Edited by Leon86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A 2600 will only clock to 3.9 unless its a K. .

Ouch I forgot about that. Shame that they even sell a non-K version as your missing out on so much unbridled power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for feedback.

I tried next: 3d to 200%, AA is of and textures with video memory - Very high. Got much better picture with same fps. With 200% 3d resolution, seems you dont need AA at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at least what graphics card must i get in order to play CO at 1920x1080 100% 3d res ,with other settings at normal,no AA nor PP effects,with an average fps like 30? thank you.

PC specs right now:

amd 720 3.3ghz,2GB ram,7950GT 256mb,corsair 550w PSU,win 7

my HD4870 just fried,only looking to spend as little as possible for replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so I just bought arma2 been wanting to play it and I have everything I need to run it decently except for my CPU. I just want some opinions on AMD vs. Intel running this game. I've been doing alot of research and need some advice from people who actually play the game.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
at least what graphics card must i get in order to play CO at 1920x1080 100% 3d res ,with other settings at normal,no AA nor PP effects,with an average fps like 30? thank you.

PC specs right now:

amd 720 3.3ghz,2GB ram,7950GT 256mb,corsair 550w PSU,win 7

my HD4870 just fried,only looking to spend as little as possible for replacement.

Secondhand gtx260's (55-60 euros) hd4870's (50 euros) and even 5770's (65 eu) are quite cheap now.

---------- Post added at 12:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 PM ----------

OK so I just bought arma2 been wanting to play it and I have everything I need to run it decently except for my CPU. I just want some opinions on AMD vs. Intel running this game. I've been doing alot of research and need some advice from people who actually play the game.

Thanks

If you have everything you need except cpu that means you have the motherboard, and there are no boards that both have intel and amd support.

As for cpu choice, if it fits the budget go for i5-2500K with a Z68 board and sli support, that way you have all the features available and they're not even that expensive. If you dont care for sli or overclocking you can save a lot by getting a 1155 board with other chipset, and maybe one of the cheaper i5's.

If you cant afford that go for an AM3+ board with at phenom II 955 BE. Do some research on if sli is worth the premium.

I take it you have a decent gpu? if you're on a limited budget a 955BE + more powerfull gpu will often beat a 2500K with cheapass gpu. Of course this depends on settings as well as the scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My board will be need to be upgraded if I change the cpu of course. Its a basic intel pentium dual core with 2.8 ghz : ( My GPU is a Nvidia 8800 GTS and has served me well through battlefield 2 and league of legends lol. Price is kinda an issue seeing I bought my first car a few months back and own quite a note. AMD is more bang for the buck but Intel has more features. looking to spend maybe 350 on a board ram and cpu. AMD runs this game well? I heard it is was rigged more towards intel..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 2500K + Z68 board + 4GB ram is 370,- on newegg. For that kind of money it's by far the best performing cpu.

this gigabyte board has sli. As for memory I'd just go for kingston valueram 1333, very cheap and reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey just wondering if anyone runs an ATI HD 6770? If so how do you like it? Does it get choppy when combat gets heavy? What settings do you run it on?

I got a 9800gtx+ 512. Works nice but gets choppy if shit hits the fan, Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mate, I had a 4870 which matches the 6770 very very closely. It works quite well for ARMA 2 but it is too close to the 6850 in price (my new card) if you are considering a 6770 then go for the 6850. Powercolor is the cheapest brand here, I have one of those, and I am very very happy with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 6770 is faster than the 9800 but not a lot. I'd recommend an ati hd6870 or nvidia gtx560 as upgrade. 1.6x as expensive but nearly twice as fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys.. Yea i just saw a sheet comparison between the two. And it is indeed a pretty close match. Il give the 6850 a check

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys!

I'm getting a I7 2600K + Asus Sabertooth P67 + GTX 560 next month.

I would like to know if the GTX 560 1GB is enough to play it with all settings on high without frame problems, lag,etc.Specially when playing with 80+ people online or lots of enemies on single player.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what fps you think is acceptable. if you run on 1080p with high antialiasing a bunch of trees or smoke will decrease your fps a lot. A gtx560ti is still good price/performance, and maybe a better choice for a system with a 2600K in it. All cards higher get considerably worse price/performance points.

Why are you getting a P67 board now the Z68 chipset is out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends on what fps you think is acceptable. if you run on 1080p with high antialiasing a bunch of trees or smoke will decrease your fps a lot. A gtx560ti is still good price/performance, and maybe a better choice for a system with a 2600K in it. All cards higher get considerably worse price/performance points.

Why are you getting a P67 board now the Z68 chipset is out?

Thanks for the quick answer!!

I don't know how many fps I'll get the with the GTX 560, but I hope I can get around 60 on 1080p.

About the antialiasing, which is the minimum recommended?

I'm getting the P67 board because I've found it for a good price. But,if the boards with Z68 work better with the 2600K and the GTX560, I could get one instead.

Do you have any suggestions for a good price/performance Z68 board?

I'm building the PC mostly to play ArmA, and I really want to optimize it for the game.

Anyway, I'm still researching about which board and card I'll get, any suggestions are welcome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the same CPU and board (SaberTooth P67) on one of the PCs (see spoiler). The game runs fine, i guess a proper SSD (or in fact two on them) would be needed in the near future.

If you ask me, i would get the 560TI 2GB version (manufacturer is subjective, i really like Gainward Phatom one).

As Leon said, Z68 boards have a set of advantages (like hybrid SSD-HDD) over the p67, but that doesn't mean things would work "faster" on the z68. Oh, btw, the Sabertooth has very good OC capability (i am running my CPU on a stable 4Ghz, although i was able to push it even further towards the 4.6 mark)

I would suggest you buy a proper aftermarket cooler though, i was expecting to get the i7 970/980 one with the 2600k (like the sample ones the press used for reviews), but wasn't the case so had to go get myself one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With sandy bridge the chip is much more important than the board, Z68 has usefull features and costs about the same as P67.

If you're mainly building this for arma I'd recommend the 2500K. It performs the same as the 2600K in arma and other games. That'll save some money to put in a faster gpu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×