Starfire 10 Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) Hi guys, my current system is: Core 2 Duo e6600 running at stock speed (2.4GHz) Abit AB9 motherboard 8800GTS 320Mb 2gig RAM Widows Vista 32-bit From what I've read (on these forums and elsewhere), my CPU should be able to handle Arma 2 if I overclock it (say, up to 3.0GHz?). Is anyone else running Arma 2 on my cpu and experiencing substantial bottlenecking even when overclocked? My 8800GTS is definitely a limiting factor. I see a number of other forum-members here use an 8800GTS, but typically the 512Mb version. I'm assuming I'll have to upgrade to something a little better if I want to run Arma 2 on high settings. Would a GTX260 be a good idea if I decide not to upgrade my CPU (and simply overclock it), or would the cpu bottleneck negate any benefit I get from the video card upgrade? Since RAM is so cheap nowadays, I'm definitely gonna drop another 2g RAM in my rig and hopefully, that helps with performance as well! If anyone has any advice or comments, they would be most most appreciated! Thanks! Edited June 27, 2009 by Starfire Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Basil Brush 10 Posted June 27, 2009 Upgrade the GPU if your on a budget, otherwise go quad core. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rowdied 44 Posted June 27, 2009 Ditch that crappy card and get a better one. You can overclock your cpu to at least 3.0 and that will help with the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ste4lth004 10 Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) Hi guys, my current system is:Core 2 Duo e6600 running at stock speed (2.4GHz) Abit AB9 motherboard 8800GTS 320Mb 2gig RAM Widows Vista 32-bit From what I've read (on these forums and elsewhere), my CPU should be able to handle Arma 2 if I overclock it (say, up to 3.0GHz?). Is anyone else running Arma 2 on my cpu and experiencing substantial bottlenecking even when overclocked? My 8800GTS is definitely a limiting factor. I see a number of other forum-members here use an 8800GTS, but typically the 512Mb version. I'm assuming I'll have to upgrade to something a little better if I want to run Arma 2 on high settings. Would a GTX260 be a good idea if I decide not to upgrade my CPU (and simply overclock it), or would the cpu bottleneck negate any benefit I get from the video card upgrade? Since RAM is so cheap nowadays, I'm definitely gonna drop another 2g RAM in my rig and hopefully, that helps with performance as well! If anyone has any advice or comments, they would be most most appreciated! Thanks! Upgrade the gpu, get a gtx260, it will go well with a e6600 oc 3ghz, but if you are going to to upgrade the cpu in the next year then get a gtx285 or 4890, my brother has a e6600 3ghz/gtx285 and gets 4200 on ArmaIImark bench test, and i get 5500 score with i7920/gtx285, so a e6600 is huge bottleneck with gtx285, but should be good with gtx260 my friend. Try this, its good money and you get free far cry 2 :) http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/896MB-XFX-GTX260-PCI-E-20(x16)-2000MHz-GDDR3-GPU-576MHz-216-Cores-2x-DL-DVI-I-HDTV-plus-FarCry-2 Edited June 27, 2009 by ste4lth004 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
armafreak 10 Posted June 27, 2009 ste4lth004, what settings are you running the game at? My rig is arriving next week, (rampage2extreme, i7920, asus 285 TOP x 2, and watercooled to flex the i7-920. Just wondering what to expect..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ste4lth004 10 Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) Ahh m8 you will be amazed at the graphics and smoothness with that setup, i normally have very high texture, but i like to change it to normal for multyplayer and huge wars, on multyplayer i get about 45-60fps only time it lags is at startup when its loading in all textures and crap, so what i do is spin around at start to load it all in then its is smooth all the way, below is my settings i used on arma2mark bench, in single player/editor i use alot higher settings, yep that gtx285 is a winner. :) Interface Res = 1920x1080 3d Res = 1920x1080 Texture Detail = Normal Video Memory = Video High Anisotropic Filt = Normal Antialiaising = Disabled Terrain Detail = Low Objects Detail = Low Shadows = Normal Postproc Effects = Disabled Aspec Ratio = 16:9 Widescreen ---------------- 1st Run = 4752 2nd Run = 5526 ---------------- Edited June 27, 2009 by ste4lth004 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
armafreak 10 Posted June 27, 2009 Thanks, looking forward to next week.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4600 Posted June 27, 2009 Hi guys, my current system is:Core 2 Duo e6600 running at stock speed (2.4GHz) Abit AB9 motherboard 8800GTS 320Mb 2gig RAM Widows Vista 32-bit ..... Hmmm, check my results. I got a e6600 OCed at 3Ghz (no performance between stocked 2.4Ghz, 2.7Ghz etc, as i tried going down with it for testing), and a GTX 260 216. you can read my whole impression on ArmA2 with my rig here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1331861&postcount=225 Conclusion - i wouldn't be expecting dramatic improvements really if upgrading your rig as you stated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starfire 10 Posted June 28, 2009 Hi guys. Thanks for all the replies. Much appreciated! Whether I upgrade this system more comprehensively will depend if I can find a full-time job within the next couple of months. (Just about to graduate from university. Bad timing eh..) My motherboard limits what I can upgrade my cpu to, and I really don't want to spend the cash to upgrade both my cpu and motherboard right now, so I guess I'm stuck with the e6600/AB9 combo. Pufu's testing results are somewhat worrying, though. If that is true, I would get no improvement whatsoever from upgrading my videocard? That sounds... incredible. I wonder if this would be due to cpu-bottlenecking, or something in the coding that would be eventually fixed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bulldogs 10 Posted June 28, 2009 The CPU will only make a difference in high intensive areas (large scale battles), well, there'll be a difference but we're talking 5fps. Just get 2gb more ram and if you really want, go the new graphics card. I'm running on a e7300 (stock), 4gb ram, 9800gt OC, Vista 32bit, and the game runs fine for me at 1280x1024. Your card should handle slightly better, but if you're going higher resolution then it'd be a good idea to upgrade the card. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starfire 10 Posted June 28, 2009 Thanks, Bulldogs. My monitor's native resolution is 1440x900, so I will be trying to run it at that resolution. I think I shall do as you suggest (add 2gig ram + buy new video card) and hope it turns out well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bulldogs 10 Posted June 28, 2009 No probs, good luck, now if I can just find a get rich quick scheme I can get my new 32 inch monitor and a new 4870x2 to go along with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted June 28, 2009 if you NVIDIA card owner read (performance tips) and post your experience here : http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=76908 and http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=907283 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bulldogs 10 Posted June 28, 2009 Oh I bet you say that to all the threads . . . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted June 28, 2009 Oh I bet you say that to all the threads . . . only to these with NVIDIA cards ofcourse (thats because many people just monitor theirs threads and fail to read stickies or use search :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starfire 10 Posted June 28, 2009 I just read in another thread that Vista 32-bit (which is what I'm using) doesn't recognise RAM memory limits above 3 gigabyte. So if I upgraded to 4gigs of ram, I'd be stuck with only 3gig (or slightly more than 3gig) due to the OS requiring the rest for memory addressing. Does this mean that I should just get 3gig of ram instead of 4gig? I'm also confused if that means that out of my current 2gig of RAM, Windows is using 1gig of that for memory addressing? P.S. Dwarden, thank you for the link to the stickied thread (though I already read it before I read this one). Really appreciate how you guys are actively reading the forums! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bulldogs 10 Posted June 28, 2009 4gb is a better option than 3gb. Basically Windows will use 1gb for addressing if it has it. The issue with Win32 being that it can't actively address 4gb at the same time. That means it still does use the extra Ram but unless you are running 3 or more intensive memory apps (or games) at the same time then windows is unlikely to address it. That said, it can still be used in situations and it's good to be ready for a 64bit upgrade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
