Problem with graphics

[Reticulum 10]

I installed the full game of ARMA 2 last night.

I noticed that the game is a bit choppy on the graphics. The edges of objects are jagged & the frame rate isn't that great.

I tried the graphics settings in High & very high, & down to medium. My current hardware should be able to deal with everything on very high. I didn't spend £300 on a graphics card for nothing.

I have also noticed that while the game is loading there are flashing light coloured lines at the very top of the screen & one of the left. It's goes right across the top & left of the monitor. It's 1 pixel thick.

I have had no problems with other games, such as Crysis (which runs on everything very high).

My specs are in my signature.

I'm on XP at the moment, the Win7 upgrade is being done on Aug 6th

Thanks.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Reticulum

[Razorman 10]

This game cares not what graphics card you're running (to a point), it does however heavily depend on what cpu you are using, sorry to say your cpu is weaksauce for this game, do some research on these forums & you'll see.

W7 will do nothing to improve your situation, upgrading your cpu will.

I wish others on these forums would remember, this is NOT your average game, it's a Milsim that uses/requires HUGE amounts of cpu power to get the best from it, luckily i have those resources & the results are simply stunning.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Razorman

[Reticulum 10]

This game cares not what graphics card you're running (to a point), it does however heavily depend on what cpu you are using, sorry to say your cpu is weaksauce for this game, do some research on these forums & you'll see.

W7 will do nothing to improve your situation, upgrading your cpu will.

I wish others on these forums would remember, this is NOT your average game, it's a Milsim that uses/requires HUGE amounts of cpu power to get the best from it, luckily i have those resources & the results are simply stunning.

Ok I see. Time for a CPU upgrade then.

Would you recommend a high end dual core or a mid range quad core?

If I got with dual core, what's the min I'd need to run the game well?

Perhaps I should try over clocking my existing one first. A friend of mine got his 2.4ghz up to 3.2 haha.

How about a CORE 2 DUO E8500 3.16GHz?

http://www.tech365.co.uk/processors/intel/intel-core-2-duo-lga-775/intel_core_2_duo_e8500_lga775_316ghz_6mb_cache_45nm_1333fsb_retail_boxed/

Thanks.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Reticulum

[Razorman 10]

Go Quad if poss, not a requirement for this game as the single cpu speed is all important, but will help to future proof your rig even more, cpu in my sig is a superb overclocker even on air cooling,performs very well in Arma 2, price around £200 from www.ebuyer.co.uk

That cpu you linked to is a superb overclocker, with the right mobo & ram it will go to 3.6ghz. I would get the quad if it were me but i waste too much money anyhow ;)

Edited July 30, 2009 by Razorman

[phunkmaz 3]

You could try to overclock your cpu. I'm sure the C2D 2,4Ghz can easily handle 3GHz and more.

[Reticulum 10]

Yours is £174 now.

So it's either a Quad 2.83ghz or a dual core 3.16ghz.

Does Arma 2 utilize a quad core CPU?

The Dual core is £30 cheaper than the quad, but each core is more powerful than the quad.

[Razorman 10]

Arma does utilize quad core all be it poorly atm, future patching will ensure better usage, go quad & overclock it gently, with your rig 8.5 x 400mhz is easily achievable giving you 3.4GHZ stable.

Make sure you get the EO stepping version of the chip for better overclocking, that one is still a little over £200.

[Reticulum 10]

You could try to overclock your cpu. I'm sure the C2D 2,4Ghz can easily handle 3GHz and more.

Think 3.0ghz will do the job for the game?

It'll be much cheaper, all I'll need is a better heat sink.

---------- Post added at 10:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 AM ----------

I'm going to OC my CPU with a nice juicy heatsink. See how that goes as it'll be much cheaper. If that doesn't work I can always buy a new CPU & use the new heatsink for it :)

[Razorman 10]

Think 3.0ghz will do the job for the game?

It'll be much cheaper, all I'll need is a better heat sink.

---------- Post added at 10:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 AM ----------

I'm going to OC my CPU with a nice juicy heatsink. See how that goes as it'll be much cheaper. If that doesn't work I can always buy a new CPU & use the new heatsink for it :)

Good luck, keep this thread updated, will be interested to see how you progress & what your improvements do for Arma 2.

[Reticulum 10]

I will do. Thanks for your advice dude.

[Reticulum 10]

May I also add that the demo version works (graphics wise) fine with everything on the highest settings.

[Ruckus 0]

How about a CORE 2 DUO E8500 3.16GHz?

http://www.tech365.co.uk/processors/intel/intel-core-2-duo-lga-775/intel_core_2_duo_e8500_lga775_316ghz_6mb_cache_45nm_1333fsb_retail_boxed/

Thanks.

I have a E8500 and unclocked the performance with this game really isn't that good. I've overclocked it to 4ghz and then things began to run better but I didn't want to leave it clocked that high.

I think a quad is really the only way to go with this. I'll be going to a quad in the future myself.

[whopper_with_cheese 0]

i had c2Duo E8600, and at stock (3.33GHz), ARMA2 ran ok w/ 2x GTX9800+.

Running the E8600 at 4GHz improved the situation somewhat, i.e. better framerates but still a little stuttering as it loaded new textures in the cities.

Swapped the graphics cards for single EVGA 295 COOP, and whilst framerates didnt seem to change - it was silky smooth (no stutters, no mouse lag).

Changed the processor yesterday to i7 920, and the game runs utterly rubbish now, no doubt due to 'downgrading' to a 2.66GHz stock speed.

Tried in Vista64 and Windows7 x64

Looking forward to overclocking that i7 bad boy when cooler arrives tomorrow, tweaking my memory etc, but dont expect ARMA2 performance to exceed what the E8600 dual core had.

[Reticulum 10]

It seems like a badly designed game. What the hell kind of game needs that much CPU power FFS? To get such a CPU with such a high stock core clock speed you'd have to spend like £300+

[Bulldogs 10]

I get smooth performance with an E7300 @ 3.5Ghz, on low video settings I get about 45fps average in the campaign, at high/very high (1280x1024) I get about 25-28 but that's on the old 9800GT.

[Reticulum 10]

This is terrible. I didn't spend so much on my beast to have a game running on low settings in a low resolution. Absolutely terrible.

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 PM ----------

Someone got the Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz up to 3.53ghz & it was stable.

Think that's the CPU for me. Alright at £145.

[whopper_with_cheese 0]

It seems like a badly designed game. What the hell kind of game needs that much CPU power FFS? To get such a CPU with such a high stock core clock speed you'd have to spend like £300+

£215 for E8600 on amazon, sure thats not the cheapest place to buy from either.

i'd offer to sell u mine cheep, but i might need to go back to it if i cant get the i7 to behave :)

[Reticulum 10]

£215 for E8600 on amazon, sure thats not the cheapest place to buy from either.

i'd offer to sell u mine cheep, but i might need to go back to it if i cant get the i7 to behave :)

If you don't need it let me know & give me a price and I'll think about it.

If not I'm gonna go with the Q9400 & OC it.

[no use for a name 0]

I'm running @ 3.2GHz fine...I get some FPS dips but it's usually in towns during heavy battles, but it's still playable

[Hud Dorph 22]

Dont be disapointet if u get a quad cpu and performance still sux. See my specs in my sig, i play the domination missions and when the fighting gets to the bigger coastal towns i have to turn all down to normal and max viewdistance of 1500m for it to be playable, if

i dont turn it down it will be choppy and just a matter of time before Arma2 crashes.