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

[Malleus 0]

^mind posting some screens in the screenshot topic? :D if you got time

Here you go.

[The Omega Man 10]

Hi, after watching the videos I just got hyped and bought the game trough Steam.

Can someone with a pc with the same specs as mine tell me what performance and settings should I expect? Thank you!!

specs

Intel Q6600 @ 3.0

Nvidia 8800 GTS 512 slightly overclocked

4gb of ram

Monitor LCD 1680x1050 resolution

Windows Vista 32bit

I want the max eye candy possible while keeping around 30~40fps

Thank you!

[SeanRamey 10]

I would like to know if my PC can run ArmA 2 pretty good.

I have: Windows XP SP3

Gigabyte Ultra Durable 3 EP45-UD3P motherboard

2 gigabytes of Corsair DDR2 RAM

Nvidia GeForce 9800 GT with 512mb DDR3 RAM with overclocking abilities

Intel Core 2 Duo Processor with 3.2 GHz/3200 MHz

Antec 500 watt Power Supply

HANNS-G LCD monitor with a max of 1280 * 960 resolution

I would like to run it at the best graphics possible while still maintaining about 50-70 fps

Edited June 23, 2009 by SeanRamey

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Hi, after watching the videos I just got hyped and bought the game trough Steam.

Can someone with a pc with the same specs as mine tell me what performance and settings should I expect? Thank you!!

specs

Intel Q6600 @ 3.0

Nvidia 8800 GTS 512 slightly overclocked

4gb of ram

Monitor LCD 1680x1050 resolution

Windows Vista 32bit

I want the max eye candy possible while keeping around 30~40fps

Thank you!

You won't get that with your card im afraid..

[The Omega Man 10]

You won't get that with your card im afraid..

Hi Russianguy192 thanks for your reply, I know that I won't be able to max out the game, what I mean is if I would be able to put some settings on high, others at medium and still make the game looks good and get a decent frame rate! Man I hope.. :(

Edited June 23, 2009 by The Omega Man

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Hi Russianguy192 thanks for your reply, I know that I won't be able to max out the game, what I mean is if I would be able to put some setiings in high others at medium and still make the game look good and get a decent frame rate! Man I hope.. :(

Maybe Medium, i know someone ran a 8800GTS 796mb and he had it on medium/high with 25-30 fps. But i am not so sure. It also matters on your processor etc

[Soulfly 10]

So what's going with the i7 920? I'm running it at 3.4ghz

I read on early post that they had problems with them.

I running arma with everything max out at 60fps.

I'm running a 24" samsung at 1900x1200

also two 275gtx SLI

so far I gather that this game runs better on ati cards. I was very bummed.

Oh well. That is what I bougth so I'm sticking with it even at 30fps.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Soulfly

[nettrucker 142]

Hi everybody

I have a NVidia 6150SE integrated grahic card which is not been projected for playing games. In fact today I found out that without a decent video card I can't play ArmA II. :mad: Can't see no shit ingame . . . everythings white and foggy.

Since I'm eager to play I need to find a solution very quickly.:681:

What would be the best choice concerning a new video card.

thanks in advance for any advice.

Regards

nettrucker:depressed:

[Skodz 10]

This is the best choice: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=72181

According to this thread, the ATI radeon HD4890 1go would be the best choice right now for Arma 2 but it also depends on your system... Not every system can handle the HD4890.

[mosh 0]

I would say 8800 GT at the very least. Some people have problems with the GTX 2xx series, but I myself have been thinking about buying a GTX 285.

Obviously I prefer Nvidia, but I'm sure you'll get some answers for good ATI cards.

[Wifout Teef 10]

9800gtx+ at the least.

You can edit your NVIDIA control panel as well to get higher FPS. You change the multi-display/blah blah blah option to single display performance mode. It's very cool.

[osmo 0]

My specification, settings and comments on how the game runs. I've the game patched to version 1.02.

System:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 (Kuma) 7750 2.7GHz overclocked @ 3GHz

Motherboard: MSI K9A2 CF AM2+ (AMD 790X Chipset)

Memory: 4GB Kingston Hyper X DDR2 800 MHz 5-5-5-15 (2x2GB)

Graphics Card: Palit Radeon HD 4870 1GB GDDR5 Sonic Dual Edition

Operating System: Windows XP Pro 32bit

Settings:

Visibility: 3050

Interface resolution: 1680x1050

3D resolution: 1680x1050

Texture detail: High

Video memory: High

Anisotropic filtering: Very high

Antialiasing: Disabled

Terrain detail: High

Objects detail: Normal

Shadow detail: Normal

Postprocess effects: Very high

Performance:

Game generally runs very well (generally 25-40 FPS). Initially when I set everything on highest possible, I noticed that I'm getting very bad performance, especially in towns (sometimes down to 10 FPS). My graphics card was only utilized around 40% max, thus I knew that CPU is my bottleneck. I played around with the settings and noticed that shadows, objects detail and visibility (view distance) are the settings that depend most on the CPU. Once I turned them down and kept all else on high/very high, the performance has been great and GPU gets utilized up to 80% in the forests (still leaves some unused potential for the upcoming antialiasing function).

[Minkey 10]

Hi Russianguy192 thanks for your reply, I know that I won't be able to max out the game, what I mean is if I would be able to put some settings on high, others at medium and still make the game looks good and get a decent frame rate! Man I hope.. :(

Think you will be fine tbh, cranked up some of the settings to high on my 8800GTs 320mb and looks luvley at 1280x1024, and has been totaly playable in the senarios ive chosen so far, although ive not seen masses of AI yet.

I do have a real problem with my motherboard over heating at the moment while playing, 50c is just to high and i have no idea what the problem could be.

[Goregrind 10]

E6550 @ 2.33 GHZ

6600 GTS

2 gig of ram

Can i play medium ? :butbut:

At least low with no lag ?:o

[SpecOp9 0]

Has anybody played this yet w/ Windows 7 RC1? I heard it works better than on Vista with some machines. Which isn't surprising since Vista can really be a hog.

[Porter_ 10]

i'm installing Windows 7 as i type this to see if it gives better performance than vista 64. i'll report back, but i'm doubtful.

[Sniper_Bait 10]

I am getting ArmA 2 next week, and I am worried about my performance.

I have:

Nvidia GeForce 8800GT

Windows Vista 32

4GB of RAM (from what I hear, 32 bit doesn't register more than 3...)

and Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 @ 2.66 GHz.

How should my performance be? (I can play most games at high or highest settings, but ArmA 2 looks like a beast...)

Thanks

[GenghisKhan 10]

Hi everybody

I have a NVidia 6150SE integrated grahic card which is not been projected for playing games. In fact today I found out that without a decent video card I can't play ArmA II. :mad: Can't see no shit ingame . . . everythings white and foggy.

Since I'm eager to play I need to find a solution very quickly.:681:

What would be the best choice concerning a new video card.

thanks in advance for any advice.

Regards

nettrucker:depressed:

Lol im sorry but you thought you were going to play arma 2 with integrated graphics?

[Porter_ 10]

i'm installing Windows 7 as i type this to see if it gives better performance than vista 64. i'll report back, but i'm doubtful.

i've literally only tested for 10 minutes, but so far just upgrading to Windows 7 has increased my framerate from 27 to 37 in one particular spot (single mission, fairly intensive scene). i haven't patched to 1.02 yet, but that's next on my list. i'll keep testing it out, but as of right now it looks like Windows 7 64 gives much better performance over Vista 64.

[SpecOp9 0]

That's good news. I really don't like Vista at all, but Windows 7 surprised me.

I guess that's one thing to add to the list, if you want to improve performance, get W7

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

My specification, settings and comments on how the game runs. I've the game patched to version 1.02.

System:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 (Kuma) 7750 2.7GHz overclocked @ 3GHz

Motherboard: MSI K9A2 CF AM2+ (AMD 790X Chipset)

Memory: 4GB Kingston Hyper X DDR2 800 MHz 5-5-5-15 (2x2GB)

Graphics Card: Palit Radeon HD 4870 1GB GDDR5 Sonic Dual Edition

Operating System: Windows XP Pro 32bit

Settings:

Visibility: 3050

Interface resolution: 1680x1050

3D resolution: 1680x1050

Texture detail: High

Video memory: High

Anisotropic filtering: Very high

Antialiasing: Disabled

Terrain detail: High

Objects detail: Normal

Shadow detail: Normal

Postprocess effects: Very high

Performance:

Game generally runs very well (generally 25-40 FPS). Initially when I set everything on highest possible, I noticed that I'm getting very bad performance, especially in towns (sometimes down to 10 FPS). My graphics card was only utilized around 40% max, thus I knew that CPU is my bottleneck. I played around with the settings and noticed that shadows, objects detail and visibility (view distance) are the settings that depend most on the CPU. Once I turned them down and kept all else on high/very high, the performance has been great and GPU gets utilized up to 80% in the forests (still leaves some unused potential for the upcoming antialiasing function).

I hope at least i get a similar result when i get the game. I also hear windows 7 64bit has better performance than windows xp 32bit. So hopefully i should get similar results!

[Goregrind 10]

E6550 @ 2.33 GHZ

6600 GTS

2 gig of ram

So ?

I feel a little bit sad about my post being ignored. Haha.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

E6550 @ 2.33 GHZ

6600 GTS

2 gig of ram

So ?

I feel a little bit sad about my post being ignored. Haha.

Overclock your processor if you can to around 2.6-3ghz and upgrade your graphics card, its way outdated..

[Goregrind 10]

I know but i have no money to update my PC right now. Can i play at least low/medium or ?

I'm waiting for the demo but...fact from people are a little bit more fast, heh.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

I know but i have no money to update my PC right now. Can i play at least low/medium or ?

I'm waiting for the demo but...fact from people are a little bit more fast, heh.

might be even lucky to play on low/lowest.