NVIDIA video card(s) owners read here!

[Tex Zero 10]

I just bought ARMA 2 and tried playing it. The graphics are horrible. I have a geforce 6100. what is my best options to make this game work??

A 6100 is never going to play this on anything but the lowest settings, and even then I'd guess it would be struggling.

Time for an upgrade. Whhats the rest of your rig consist of?

[jdawson08 10]

vista, amd athlon 64 processor, gefore 6100, 250gb hard drive

[Poppis 10]

vista, amd athlon 64 processor, gefore 6100, 250gb hard drive

That doesnt tell much yet. Go to Start - Control Panel - System and maintenance - system and check Processor, memory(RAM) and system type.

[Dave White 0]

I just bought ARMA 2 and tried playing it. The graphics are horrible. I have a geforce 6100. what is my best options to make this game work??

Pray to which ever god you believe in.

My framerate has now dropped from 24 to 11 after a win7 rc install.

[merlin851526 10]

vista, amd athlon 64 processor, gefore 6100, 250gb hard drive

I'm afraid it's your card that seems to be the major culprit.When the 6100 was released back in 2005 it was below par even then.My advice upgrade your Graphic card to something a little more recent.

[rocko 16]

I think I may have an issue with my Asus GTX 295..

and no, the issue isn't that I have a 295...

This isn't strictly an ArmA 2 thing, although i think it may be affecting the performance I'm getting out of ArmA 2..

When I play GTA IV, it tells me that my graphics memory is 896mb, which would mean that only one GPU of the two is being used, surely?

I have my nVidia control panel set to Single Display Performance mode..

I'm currently running 182.08 drivers, and the rest of my specs are below:

Thermal Take 750W PSU

Asus P5N-D

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550

Corsair 2x 2Gb DDR2 800Mhz

Asus GTX 295

Windows Vista Home Premium 64 bit

Any ideas from anyone, or is it only showing the data from one core, meaning I have nothing to fear?

Edited August 16, 2009 by Rocko

[wooly-back-jack 10]

Pray to which ever god you believe in.

My framerate has now dropped from 24 to 11 after a win7 rc install.

I have an ageing PC and I have gone from win xp pro 32 bit to windows 7 64bit and it is much better.

Obviosly Arma 2 will run poo if you have all the win 7 features on.. I switch to classic view windows and turn off resource hogging aero and such. (win 7 actually tells you that it is hogging gfx resources when you select to run in performance mode)

I only turn all the features on if im just browsing web/using music programs and not planning on gaming that day.

(actually an app to configure and save 2 windows 7 profiles would be nice so switching between the 2 would be easier, I believe AMD have one but it's for newer hardware than mine :( )

[ottolexius 10]

well people i have 2x gtx295 asus also and when i play arma 2 in sli it looks so slow but when i play with 1 gtx295 its quite great and everything is ok with fps so what should i do about this i tried everything what is writing by the way system specs are: Asus p6t deluxe v2 mainboard

Core i7 920 @ 2.66 ghz

Chieftec 1200w psu

10gb ram 1333 (and my pc sees 8gb only if anybody knows why please tell me but i am not having 8gb issue)

2x Asus GTX295

Windows Vista Ultimate 64 SP1

2 tb hdd

so what should i have to do for sli performance (and ram also) ?

And about your problem Rocko i will try GTA IV with one card also and i ll write u here

with my respects Ottolexius :)

[Arabes 10]

Hi there,

This is my rig:GeForce 8800GTS (640mb), AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.0 Ghz, 4GB 6400C4 DDR2 800mhz RAM, Windows 32bit.

I seem to have the same issue as a lot of ppl here. If I play "An eye for an eye" scenario then I get 9-12 FPS, maxing at about 16 if I don't move.

All graphics settings are set to low, Interface res is 16:80x1050, 3D res is 1344x840 (lowering this gives me a tiny boost).

In the nVidia control panel setting vsync or physx to on or off makes no difference.

"Multi-display/mixed gpu" is set to single display.

"Max prerendered frames" is set to 8.

I am using the latest nVidia drivers pack.

My local virtual memory in the arma2.cfg file is correct.

I have included -winxp and -maxmem=2047 in the start parameters.

I am using Deadfast's fps counter.

If I set all the settings to max then i get a drop of about 2-3 fps on average.

The game has great potential but its unplayable for me once any action kicks off. I can play around in the armoury and get 20-30 fps but any actual scenario or mission and I'm down around 10-15 tops. And its not as if this is a pretty game so it really should be up in the high 20's for me at least. I hope something gets sorted for this cause I think this'll have more substance than Flashpoint 2, but if I can't play it its not much good to me.

[avager 10]

My PC:

CPU: Intel® Core2 CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz (OC on 3,466)

MOTHERBOARD: Foxconn P35AP-S

RAM: Black Dragon DDR2 800 mhz 2gb (2x1gb) (actually works better than ddr2 4gb 800 mhz Good Ram)

GPU: Gainward NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260

Average FPS are 20 .... Don't get it.

It doesn't matter what settings I put (except Anti-Aliasing and View Distance), it's still 20 fps.

Overclocked my CPU from 3,0 to 3,46 ... no improvement in performance.

I have even removed 1 of my RAMs ... no FPS drop, but it loads longer...

Tried to use 182.50 drivers and the newest one, no difference.

Oh... btw.

I can use any view distance in range of 500-3000 in no bigger fps change, even on 500, I still get same 20 fps as on 3000 ...

Tried to run it on Windows XP and Windows 7, both are stuck mostly on 20 fps.

[joethe33 10]

My PC:

CPU: Intel® Core2 CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz (OC on 3,466)

MOTHERBOARD: Foxconn P35AP-S

RAM: Black Dragon DDR2 800 mhz 2gb (2x1gb) (actually works better than ddr2 4gb 800 mhz Good Ram)

GPU: Gainward NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260

Average FPS are 20 .... Don't get it.

It doesn't matter what settings I put (except Anti-Aliasing and View Distance), it's still 20 fps.

Overclocked my CPU from 3,0 to 3,46 ... no improvement in performance.

I have even removed 1 of my RAMs ... no FPS drop, but it loads longer...

Tried to use 182.50 drivers and the newest one, no difference.

Oh... btw.

I can use any view distance in range of 500-3000 in no bigger fps change, even on 500, I still get same 20 fps as on 3000 ...

Tried to run it on Windows XP and Windows 7, both are stuck mostly on 20 fps.

Which 260 is it? The 216 core or the original? What resolution are you running at? Did you try forcing Vertical Sync off in the Nvidia Control Panel? Screen shot your average settings.

[avager 10]

Which 260 is it? The 216 core or the original? What resolution are you running at? Did you try forcing Vertical Sync off in the Nvidia Control Panel? Screen shot your average settings.

Dunno which one this 260 is...

this is only info I can give about it: nVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (p651)

If you know how to check correctly, tell me and I will give you info asap.

Yep, I've got as default vsync forced off in nvidia panel.

Settings screenshot:

http://img39.imageshack.us/i/arma22009081700313713.jpg/

Textures: very high

video memory: very high

AF - Off

AA - Off

Terrain Details - Medium

Object Details - Medium

Shadows - very high

PostFX - Off

EDIT:

I've made this little demonstration...

#1 Everything on lowest + 1024x768

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7931/arma22009081700452094.jpg

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6622/arma22009081700452748.jpg

#2 Most of the important things on highest + 1440x900

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6708/arma22009081700475393.jpg

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3669/arma22009081700480077.jpg

Lowest settings - 24 fps

"Highest" settings - 22 fps

2 fps difference... ONLY !

Edited August 16, 2009 by avager

[joethe33 10]

It's the 192, which is the original 260. It's a good card, regardless. There's a bug I was reading about awhile back. Try turning your textures to normal and video memory to either very high or default. I forget which one. See if that does anything. Run your res at your monitors native resolution and your ideal settings.

[avager 10]

It's the 192, which is the original 260. It's a good card, regardless. There's a bug I was reading about awhile back. Try turning your textures to normal and video memory to either very high or default. I forget which one. See if that does anything. Run your res at your monitors native resolution and your ideal settings.

1440x900 is my native, so I'm running only it.

Changed textures from v.high to medium ... still same thing.

Though, it's not that smooth as in other games, but still pretty playable (normally, games with less than 30 FPS for me are unplayable, especially FPS, but arma 2 is an exception).

I will just have to live with that, praying to god for some fix for that thing.

It's good time to learn some scripting in editor, at least FPS aren't that important there ^^ .

[MadCatChiken 10]

I just bought ARMA 2 and tried playing it. The graphics are horrible. I have a geforce 6100. what is my best options to make this game work??

The minimum requirements for the game is atleast a Geforce 7800. It would have been a better idea to download the demo first before buying the game, so it looks like you're going to have to do some upgrading.

[mr reality 0]

The minimum requirements for the game is atleast a Geforce 7800. It would have been a better idea to download the demo first before buying the game, so it looks like you're going to have to do some upgrading.

I have quad sli 7950 gtxs and the game runs crap on the low settings. The minimum reqs are a joke. At least in my case.

Also, i could run armed assault with high to very high settings after the third patch with smooth gameplay, and that game wasnt duel or quad core optimized. I was expecting to run arma2 on medium settings atleast on my rig, but i cant run it on low.

[Magnus72 10]

I have a GTX 260 factory overclocked, now overclocked to 712/1488/1080 and a Core2Duo 3.2 GHz, here is how Arma 2 runs on my GTX 260.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEkBWP8oUDg

I would recommend trying other drivers, I reverted back to older drivers the XtremeG 180.84 drivers and runs the game in Win XP SP3, runs good as can be seen and this with Very High settings too and max res of 1440x900.

[Steakslim 1]

I have quad sli 7950 gtxs and the game runs crap on the low settings. The minimum reqs are a joke. At least in my case.

Also, i could run armed assault with high to very high settings after the third patch with smooth gameplay, and that game wasnt duel or quad core optimized. I was expecting to run arma2 on medium settings atleast on my rig, but i cant run it on low.

The 7950 GX2 even in SLI leaves much to be desired being it's driver support and multi-gpu optimization were not all that good, and was a disappointing gpu overall when it was released, which I doubt it ever improved given the reception the 9800gx2 received when it was announced (many remembering how badly the 7950 gx2 did). At bottom, however, it was still a powerful card for it's time, but it has been since overshadowed and is 3 generations old and in 2008 was being outpeformed by 8 series midrange cards. I doubt you'd be able to pull anything playable from in ArmA2 without turning your resolution down and keeping the other settings as you've had them, at low.

As for the minimum requirements, they are there to simply show that those are the requirements needed for to run the game. It gives no hint to example of the performance you will recieve at those requirements.

[avager 10]

I have a GTX 260 factory overclocked, now overclocked to 712/1488/1080 and a Core2Duo 3.2 GHz, here is how Arma 2 runs on my GTX 260.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEkBWP8oUDg

I would recommend trying other drivers, I reverted back to older drivers the XtremeG 180.84 drivers and runs the game in Win XP SP3, runs good as can be seen and this with Very High settings too and max res of 1440x900.

Guess, It's time to OC my gtx 260 too ....

I'm just a bit afraid of doing something wrong. My old PC has (Yea I still got it) damaged Radeon x1950 pro, overheating in 3 minutes creating tons of artifacts.

Because I don't leave in America (super cheat hardware & software) nor in euro zone (not yet), I don't really want to waste another 1 month of work for new GPU ^^ , but just by looking at how smooth it was on your video... I have to try something with my GPU .

Hope it will work.

Thanks for info.

[m1c4d0 0]

Hi there folks,

I have GTX 280 and it runs better using latest 19x.xxx drivers instead of 18x.xxx.

[atledreier 10]

Too bad nVidia stuffed us TH2G users.. we're pretty much stuck with 182.50... :(

[Drasta 10]

My ArmA2 still looks like this with last Nvidia drivers. Only thing that helps is to roll back to old drivers but my FPS still sux even with my new Geeforce 295. Iam really disapointed with this because its only game with problems like this....

I tried reinstall almost everything but the problem is still there. I tried to tweak nvidia settings and gamesettings but nothing nothing helped.

-----------

C2D 8500 @3,9Ghz, 8GB ram, GeForce GTX 295

Win Vista x64 SP2

[ottolexius 10]

My ArmA2 still looks like this with last Nvidia drivers. Only thing that helps is to roll back to old drivers but my FPS still sux even with my new Geeforce 295. Iam really disapointed with this because its only game with problems like this....

I tried reinstall almost everything but the problem is still there. I tried to tweak nvidia settings and gamesettings but nothing nothing helped.

-----------

C2D 8500 @3,9Ghz, 8GB ram, GeForce GTX 295

Win Vista x64 SP2

well I had the same problem also and i named my arma 2 exe to crysis.exe and added -winxp parameters it worked for me by the way my drivers are latest one try may it helps for u too :)

[Drasta 10]

well I had the same problem also and i named my arma 2 exe to crysis.exe and added -winxp parameters it worked for me by the way my drivers are latest one try may it helps for u too :)

That really helped! Even with FPS! Thanks alot!

[ottolexius 10]

your welcome cuz you were living a 8 gb ram problem. have a nice play :) by the way dont forget to close physicx from nvidia control panel it will be more better

Edited August 18, 2009 by Ottolexius