CPU Vs GPU

[ZiggyJinx 0]

What is ArmA 2 more dependant on cpu or gpu, reason i ask is because im going to upgrade my 7800 gtx's for a single hd4850/4870 1gb.

At the moment i have a amd 4800+x2 and noticed that when the going turns in to mass carnage on sceen my cpu is running flat out at 100% so i get system lag.

So will me upgrading my cards take the strain off the cpu or just enhance the mass carnage on screen and still lag.

amd 4800+

2gb xms corsair ram

2 7800gtx's in sli

win xp sp3

[private plowjoy 0]

What is ArmA 2 more dependant on cpu or gpu, reason i ask is because im going to upgrade my 7800 gtx's for a single hd4850/4870 1gb.

At the moment i have a amd 4800+x2 and noticed that when the going turns in to mass carnage on sceen my cpu is running flat out at 100% so i get system lag.

So will me upgrading my cards take the strain off the cpu or just enhance the mass carnage on screen and still lag.

amd 4800+

2gb xms corsair ram

2 7800gtx's in sli

win xp sp3

Sorry mate but it's a mixture. GPU will give you more/nicer eye-candy but the CPU will handle more intensive AI situations better which of course there's a lot of in Single Player.

[osmo 0]

Your CPU will definitely be a bottleneck and you won't get the max performance out of that HD 4870 with that CPU.

I just had AMD Athlon X2 7750 CPU and it was bottleneck with my 4870, now I replaced it with Phenom II X2 550 and get much better perfromance.

To get better performance with your current CPU, I suggest you lower the terrain detail, object detail and shadow detail to normal or low. View distance is another thing that seems to be heavy on CPU, don't put it higher than 2500. All other settings you can put pretty much to the maximum if you have 4870. You can use Ati Tray Tool's onscreen display to check how much your GPU is utilized, and if your GPU is utilized only around 50% and still get low FPS, the problem is most likely CPU.

Also, in my experience forests seem to be heavy on GPU and towns heavy on CPU, so make sure you try it out in different parts of the map.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Osmo

[ZiggyJinx 0]

Cheers for quick reply.

So does anyone know like a rough break down like....

RAM 20%

CPU 50%

GPU 30%

If you get me drift. that way i know what to spend me money on or split my cash and go for a 50/50 on a low end card and cpu.

Also what part does ram have to play in A2

[private plowjoy 0]

Cheers for quick reply.

So does anyone know like a rough break down like....

RAM 20%

CPU 50%

GPU 30%

If you get me drift. that way i know what to spend me money on or split my cash and go for a 50/50 on a low end card and cpu.

Also what part does ram have to play in A2

As said above, there's an inherent system-bottleneck if the video card and CPU get too far apart. The system bus needs to be running at parallel levels, or you'll just end up throttling an expensive GPU down to 2/3 of its potential (for example) and that's a waste of money.

[Physikz 10]

I've been wondering about this myself.. I'm looking to buy a new Gpu soon,but i don't want to spend too much on one,just for it to bottleneck at my Cpu.

I've got an Intel Pentium D 2.8ghz..i would oc it to 3 or more but my bios is locked on the mobo ( damn you packard Bell ).I'm currently using a 9500gt with it.

So can anyone recommend a card that will run well with my processor? or should i upgrade my Cpu first?

[private plowjoy 0]

I've been wondering about this myself.. I'm looking to buy a new Gpu soon,but i don't want to spend too much on one,just for it to bottleneck at my Cpu.

I've got an Intel Pentium D 2.8ghz..i would oc it to 3 or more but my bios is locked on the mobo ( damn you packard Bell ).I'm currently using a 9500gt with it.

So can anyone recommend a card that will run well with my processor? or should i upgrade my Cpu first?

IMO, definitely upgrade the CPU first. Unfortunately, it's likely you'll need a new motherboard and memory to go with. Again, it's all about keeping the hardware as parallel as possible and sometimes you won't even have a choice, such as the new motherboard using a different DIMM configuration to your current set of DIMMs.

[Physikz 10]

IMO, definitely upgrade the CPU first. Unfortunately, it's likely you'll need a new motherboard and memory to go with. Again, it's all about keeping the hardware as parallel as possible and sometimes you won't even have a choice, such as the new motherboard using a different DIMM configuration to your current set of DIMMs.

Thanks for the reply... so a new Cpu and Mobo would be the best thing to upgrade first,the trouble is i cant really afford too much at the moment..if i just got a new mobo for the time being,my processor is a presley which i've heard is "quite good" for overclocking?

failing that,what would be a good card to complement my current Cpu?

:ok:

[Yapab 10]

In my opinion the game is more CPU limited, for sure.

Here is my logic (although not 100% perfect!). If your in the editor and running around without any AI/battles/scripts/waypoints the FPS is very fast... 50+.

However when in multiplayer with many AI running around or towns... the fps drops A LOT.

Now if the GPU was the problem it would also be the problem in the editor... I have monitored my CPU usage and its always at 95% to 100%.

My system is 8800GTX + Core2Duo @ 3.5ghz which is a fast dual core cpu.

Also my GPU is usually relaxing when the CPU is maxed out (28 to 32fps) and I can tell this by the temp, usually 72deg compared to 78 or 80deg when in EDITOR.

Overall I say this game needs a fast CPU over a fast GPU, because my 8800GTX is an old card and still pulls 40+ fps maxed out (no aa) in the editor. My CPU is fast and still struggles.

I would suggest you upgrade to a newer system, the video upgrade will give you a boost but it wont be enough in the Towns and with lots of AI.

Yapa

[ArmedAnarkie 0]

I tested CPU or GPU dependency today; it looks like more GPU power needed in a narrow area with many units and more CPU in any battle situation. I killed all AIs and their bodies are all over place and FPS went up 50+ at max+1080p setting. And it dropped around 25 FPS when I restart the battle in the same place. But in a narrow area, like on the small road in some small village, 20 units dragged my FPS down to 28 FPS. In this case, I paused game and changed object detail to low, it jumped up 40+ FPS.

My rig is xp 32bit SP3, ATI 4890 with 1.0+ GHz clock, 3.5 GB ram, E6750@3.2 GHz

I wish to upgrade my cpu to quad Yorkfield soon.

[ZiggyJinx 0]

does resolution affect CPU or is that a gain only for fps from GPU

[kylebisme 10]

Resolution is all GPU. If you can run the game well at a low resolution, then a faster GPU will get it running well at a higher ones.

[cross 1]

I can say CPU.

I have 25-35 frames

@ 1680x1050

3D resolution at 100% sometimes even up to 125%

Settings;

All @high

Anti-aliasing @disabled

Some @very high

Post processing @low

i7-950 @ standard (3.2 ghz on turbo mode)

Win7

8800GTS 512k G92

My point -> have a good & fast quadcore/i7 and you don't need to go & spend so much $s for the best Gfx card out there.

Have a capable Gfx card and spend the rest on getting a faster CPU or maybe on overclocking equipment like bigger heatsinks/fans etc.

Suggestion-> Upgrade your CPU to a faster clock quadcore and use your 7800GTX-sli setup and see how that helps. You can always upgrade Gfx card at a later point. You don't need 150 fps to play Arma2 properly. Anything constantly over 25 should be OK.

You may want to wait a little longer before you upgrade, to see the new i5 CPUs intel is going to release. They are to replace Intel Quad-Cores.

FYI.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Cross

[ZiggyJinx 0]

Game booster gave me a 1% increase in ram what might be of some use to others.

Here............ http://www.iobit.com/gamebooster.html

I think by looking at a ram monitor that arma 2 uses about a gig and half.