sittinGood 10 Posted July 18, 2009 My Specs: Asus P5Q-E Intel 2 Duo E8400@3,0 GHz ATI Radeon 4850 512MB VRam 4GB DDR2 RAM Windows Vista/7 64Bit Im going to order a Quad Q9950 2,83GHz to upgrade my rig. What do u think? Is it worth it, or should i get a newer gfx card, or should i stay at where i am atm? thx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Titan127 10 Posted July 18, 2009 The game seems quite cpu intensive so I would be more inclined to the quad core but am not very sure about ATI cards but I believe the one you have is quite good so if that is the case then yes get a quad core. Remember to make sure your Mobo is compatible etc. Am hopefully getting a quad core after the summer to replace my well frankly crap dual core which I struggled with so I could play ARMA2 with decent FPS... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SimonSIx 0 Posted July 18, 2009 sittinGood, you have gret CPU for Gaming. No need to upgrade anything IMO. What monitor/resolution do you use anyway? Titan127, your CPU is weak and the video card is ok depand on the resolution again Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sittinGood 10 Posted July 18, 2009 i'm playing at 1650x1080 at medium to high settings. aa high, af low. postprocessing low. in editor on utes with a few npc i get about 30-40 fps. on campaign manhatten i can't get over 25, feels sluggish too. so i think a cpu upgrade could raise the fps a bit on missions with many npc? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Titan127 10 Posted July 18, 2009 Well if you do upgrade I would get a quad core but then again you could spend the money on something else. It should raise the FPS a bit with missions with many npc's but I don't know if it would be worth the money. I play with texture and vid memory on high, shadowns, terrain and object detail on medium with AA off and AF at low. Post processing is at low and with a res of 1440x900, I get around 20FPS in campaign missions, 30FPS in missions I made in the editor (well except the ones with mass npc amounts) and on Utes with few npc's it is about 30-40FPS as well. Here btw have a look at this http://www.iobit.com/gamebooster.html Me and a friend use it and it improved ARMA2 a bit for me and he told me that it made a massive improvement in playing Crysis with video settings at max, he thinks it is because it frees up memory etc that Vista is wasting. Its free and simple to use so you may want to try it and see if it does a lot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sittinGood 10 Posted July 18, 2009 just upgraded! really NO difference! this is a f****** joke. there must be something really wrong with the engine. cu Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-s!Gm4- 10 Posted July 18, 2009 What did you expect? Its a known fact that - until now - arma does not utilize the four cores to a degree where a big difference (or: even any difference) could be noticed. Since you "upgraded" from 3.0 GHz to 2.83 GHz I'd call it quite a small difference. Lower clock, same results. Personally, I'd be going for OC'ing that quad. Then you should see a difference most likely. But its up to you if you take the risks of OCing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sittinGood 10 Posted July 18, 2009 yes, i will try some oc'ing. on the other side, now i haven't to upgrade my cpu soon...:rolleyes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
no use for a name 0 Posted July 18, 2009 I don't think a quad will help; I've got a slower processor than yours but I have it OC'd to a little faster than your stock speed, and I can get more FPS in the campaigns. Something else must be bottlenecking I would try OC that processor; you should be able to get close to 4 GHz (depending on your mobo and other hardware) pretty easy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
