What's wrong with my setup

[Onemeanls1z28 10]

Amd atholon 64x2 dual core processor 4800+ 2.5 ghz. 3.0gb ram 32 bit operating system Nvidia geforce 6150 se nforce 430

I am not able to play even with the lowest settings. The game is cloudy and stutters real bad.

[tankkiller01 0]

It looks as if your hardware is a bit out of date, slow, may i suggest an upgrade..

____________________

Intel core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.1Ghz

BFG Tech GTX 285 OC to core 674MHz. shader 1535MHz. mem 1247MHz

Asus P5N-D 750i

4 GB Corsair DDR2 XMS 800

EZ COOL 700W psu

Maxtor HDD

Windows Vista 64bit

[no use for a name 0]

Nvidia geforce 6150 se nforce 430<--this...it's an integrated GPU and doesn't have enough VRAM, and is slower then the minimum required GPU

that vid card is not going to run this game.

[EDcase 87]

The processor should handle small missions but the graphics card needs updating for sure.

[Onemeanls1z28 10]

Any suggestions would be helpful I want to run the game high setting.

[Bulldogs 10]

You're definitely going to need a new Graphics Card, but if you want really good performance then you're likely to need a new CPU/Motherboard too.

[BeerHunter 0]

Amd atholon 64x2 dual core processor 4800+ 2.5 ghz. 3.0gb ram 32 bit operating system Nvidia geforce 6150 se nforce 430

I am not able to play even with the lowest settings. The game is cloudy and stutters real bad.

Basically the same as mine ('cept mine is Amd Atholon 64x2 4200) but I pre bought a 4870 1G card (for a new system I wanna slap together this fall) and it runs just fine. Sluggish in some areas (15-20 FPS) and great in others (35+ FPS) so I would definitely concur with the others that your biggest problem is the video card.

Considering the ATI 4870 1G was just a bit over $200 CDN , a new card for sure if your not in the position to do a total upgrade right now. Even there I'd hang off a bit until some of the game is better optimized. May not even need a new CPU , MB , memory etc. etc. then.

[nyran125 10]

At the moment DONT go and buy a nividia 200 series of cards, expensive and already obsolete, they are not really capabable of running this game properly on very high or even high with high fps. You are better off running game on medium with a cheaper option the 9800 series of Nividia cards or even the 8800 ultraseries because the 295gtx2 is a waste of money and a very expensive option and is already obsolete, its not the upgrade that will run this game on high without issues. Only the cards coming out next year or the year after will be capable of running this game properly, its been future proofed to hell. So get a 8800 Ultra, they are cheap as by now and you will run this game on medium and save yourself a SHT load of money. Then in a year's time or 2 years time go get the latest graphic cards and processors and bs(save up for 2 years to get it) and you will run Arma 2 gloriously on very high without issues. Same BS as Crysis or Oblivian, when that came out. The cards at the time of release ran the game like sht then the 8800 series came out and everyone ran the game well, same ol' pc gaming crap. Lets face it even the guys with nividia 295's arent running this game without fps drops. BIG fps drops. Unless they are using editor, thats different, but then even the 8800 ultra series of graphic cards run editor on 50- 80 fps. Its just single player and multiplayer on high graphic settings everyone is having probs with.

It also depends on how much you are willing to spend. My specs run this game on medium, fine without that many issues, my specs are out of date yet a cheap option. (wasnt cheap 3 years ago though ,lol) :):). Or you can go spend THOUSANDS of dollars on latest processor, latest motherboard, latest everything. BUt you WILL be dissapointed if you get a 200 series card if you want to run this arma 2 on maximum graphic settings in single player and multiplayer as far as Frame per seconds are concerned. Id get a cheaper high end card, i meen and 8800 ultra card or the highest 9800 card, but upgrade all your other specs, ram, processor, etc. And wait to get a better graphic card in a year or 2 when they bring them out.

I run a 8800 GTS 512mb

Intel core 2 duo clocked to 3.0ghz

3 gb ram (this game only uses 2 anyway)

windows xp 32bit

Get a good mother board too, something thats tried , tested and can handle everything you put on it without issues.

Research at TOM's hardware or Anandtech before thinking about upgrading is my advice. Get Frames per second reports on certain high end games on the type of computer you are about to buy so you KNOW what your getting. And you wont be dissapointed in the performance if youve researched it first. Theres no point in going to get nividia 295gtx card if all the reports are saying that the fps is only5-20 FPS difference to the card you already have on the same resolution.

with my specs Arma runs flawlessly, to reasonably good on normal vid memory, everything medium EVERYTHING, Anti aliasing OFF, with high textures distance set to 3200.

25-40 fps single player consistent, no massive fps drops.

40-60 fps in editor depending on how many troops i place in it, starts running slow at about 5-10 fps after 320 units on screen at once shooting each other. The editor also runs BETTER at night time interestingly enough, than day time.

So yeah my specs 3 years old and im not upgrading until next year or year after ,AFTER or until the 200 series of nividia cards are completely dead because they havent been that impressive at all. All my games including Crysis run awesome on medium to high, Arma 2 is the ONLY game thats testing my hardware.

Edited August 17, 2009 by nyran125

[joethe33 10]

Amd atholon 64x2 dual core processor 4800+ 2.5 ghz. 3.0gb ram 32 bit operating system Nvidia geforce 6150 se nforce 430

I am not able to play even with the lowest settings. The game is cloudy and stutters real bad.

You need a new computer. You're running a x2 4800. That's a very slow processor. Essentially it's a Athlon 64 times two. Low L2 cache etc. Which is two generations old. I can also assume because of this you use a motherboard that, if you even had a PCI express slot its 1.0 and not the latest, 2.0. Which most of the latest cards can handle because of backwards compatibility, thought what would be the point of buying a 200 dollar video card if you cannot even run it optimally? Not only is motherboard an issue, the PSU would be as well. You essentially need a new computer.

I could go on about what I "think" you should do, so if you're willing to talk to me via PMs I could possible help you pick out a very affordable system with a few tricks up my sleeve.

[bangtail 0]

At the moment DONT go and buy a nividia 200 series of cards, expensive and already obsolete, they are not really capabable of running this game properly on very high or even high with high fps. You are better off running game on medium with a cheaper option the 9800 series of Nividia cards or even the 8800 ultraseries because the 295gtx2 is a waste of money and a very expensive option and is already obsolete, its not the upgrade that will run this game on high without issues. Only the cards coming out next year or the year after will be capable of running this game properly, its been future proofed to hell. So get a 8800 Ultra, they are cheap as by now and you will run this game on medium and save yourself a SHT load of money. Then in a year's time or 2 years time go get the latest graphic cards and processors and bs(save up for 2 years to get it) and you will run Arma 2 gloriously on very high without issues. Same BS as Crysis or Oblivian, when that came out. The cards at the time of release ran the game like sht then the 8800 series came out and everyone ran the game well, same ol' pc gaming crap. Lets face it even the guys with nividia 295's arent running this game without fps drops. BIG fps drops. Unless they are using editor, thats different, but then even the 8800 ultra series of graphic cards run editor on 50- 80 fps. Its just single player and multiplayer on high graphic settings everyone is having probs with.

It also depends on how much you are willing to spend. My specs run this game on medium, fine without that many issues, my specs are out of date yet a cheap option. (wasnt cheap 3 years ago though ,lol) :):). Or you can go spend THOUSANDS of dollars on latest processor, latest motherboard, latest everything. BUt you WILL be dissapointed if you get a 200 series card if you want to run this arma 2 on maximum graphic settings in single player and multiplayer as far as Frame per seconds are concerned. Id get a cheaper high end card, i meen and 8800 ultra card or the highest 9800 card, but upgrade all your other specs, ram, processor, etc. And wait to get a better graphic card in a year or 2 when they bring them out.

I run a 8800 GTS 512mb

Intel core 2 duo clocked to 3.0ghz

3 gb ram (this game only uses 2 anyway)

windows xp 32bit

Get a good mother board too, something thats tried , tested and can handle everything you put on it without issues.

Research at TOM's hardware or Anandtech before thinking about upgrading is my advice. Get Frames per second reports on certain high end games on the type of computer you are about to buy so you KNOW what your getting. And you wont be dissapointed in the performance if youve researched it first. Theres no point in going to get nividia 295gtx card if all the reports are saying that the fps is only5-20 FPS difference to the card you already have on the same resolution.

with my specs Arma runs flawlessly, to reasonably good on normal vid memory, everything medium EVERYTHING, Anti aliasing OFF, with high textures distance set to 3200.

25-40 fps single player consistent, no massive fps drops.

40-60 fps in editor depending on how many troops i place in it, starts running slow at about 5-10 fps after 320 units on screen at once shooting each other. The editor also runs BETTER at night time interestingly enough, than day time.

So yeah my specs 3 years old and im not upgrading until next year or year after ,AFTER or until the 200 series of nividia cards are completely dead because they havent been that impressive at all. All my games including Crysis run awesome on medium to high, Arma 2 is the ONLY game thats testing my hardware.

I play A2 across 3 rigs (2 of which are not as powerful as the one in my sig) @ maximum settings/high resolutions.

Nyran wouldn't know anything about this because he doesn't own any of the hardware he laments so religiously.

Your "advice" is not helpful. Stop misleading people.

The 280/285 are over twice as fast as an 8800 (in some cases)! What ISN'T impressive about that? The 295 can be 3 x as fast (in some cases). They bring technical advances as well, such as higher memory bandwidth, larger memory bus, more shader power etc.

An 8800 will NOT run Crysis at a reasonable resolution @ high settings well.

You may enjoy running on slow, dated and inferior technology but the majority do not. That isn't to suggest that you need a $4000.00 rig to play games but your suggestions make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You've obviously never owned a 280/285/295. If you had, you'd know that they kick the crap out of an 8800 in every single direction (so does any 200 series card to a lesser degree). I'm not sure why you have this irrational hatred towards new tech (in fact, I do, but I'm not going to go down that road as it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion).

One more thing, the new cards from ATI and Nvidia aren't coming in 2 years. By all accounts, they'll be here before the end of 2009. That will put you fully 3 generations behind and no doubt you'll still be telling everyone that gaming is fine on 4 year old kit (laughable).

No doubt you'll be sticking with your amazing 8800 :rolleyes:

Eth

@ OP : You need a better PC (video card at a minimum) to play A2 (and most other current games) at a reasonable level. It may not be what you want to hear but it's the most accurate advice anyone has given you. You aren't going to be running @ high with those specs.

Edited August 17, 2009 by BangTail

[Onemeanls1z28 10]

EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI Motherboard CPU Bundle - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 Processor 2.66GHz OEM, Socket 775, ATX Motherboard

XFX Radeon HD 4870 Video Card - 1024MB GDDR5, PCI Express 2.0 x16, CrossFireX Ready, (Dual Link) Dual DVI, HDTV

is this a good start at what I might need let me know what else I could do or even give examples of some hardware that I good use instead of these

Edited August 17, 2009 by Onemeanls1z28

[ICE-Raver 10]

An 8800 will NOT run Crysis at a reasonable resolution @ high settings well.

That's for damn sure. That's what made me get rid of my old 8800 gts OC for my first GTX280 to begin with.

BTW- I bought my second GTX 280 a couple of weeks ago and I picked it up for just a little over 200 bucks on newegg. That's a steal for a card that literally smokes the 8800's.

But, the 300 series are coming soon if you want to wait and have the cash for one.

---------- Post added at 12:04 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:57 PM ----------

EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI Motherboard CPU Bundle - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 Processor 2.66GHz OEM, Socket 775, ATX Motherboard

XFX Radeon HD 4870 Video Card - 1024MB GDDR5, PCI Express 2.0 x16, CrossFireX Ready, (Dual Link) Dual DVI, HDTV

is this a good start at what I might need let me know what else I could do or even give examples of some hardware that I good use instead of these

The real question is...........What is your budget? Can you build yourself or do you need a pre-built system?

When I built my i7 system myself, I almost went with core 2 quad. But after I priced everything out, (cpu, ram, mobo, etc) the i7 build was only 50 bucks higher than the quad 2. $850 vs $900 (I already had the GPU)

[joethe33 10]

EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI Motherboard CPU Bundle - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 Processor 2.66GHz OEM, Socket 775, ATX Motherboard

XFX Radeon HD 4870 Video Card - 1024MB GDDR5, PCI Express 2.0 x16, CrossFireX Ready, (Dual Link) Dual DVI, HDTV

is this a good start at what I might need let me know what else I could do or even give examples of some hardware that I good use instead of these

I disagree with the Quad Core. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3591372&CatId=2758 Here's the item you suggested. Now bare with me for a second. Everyone has a misconception I believe on how a Quad Core works. Not that I'm accusing you, but just to everyone in general. I'll get back to that point in a second. Here's the deal. Let's use this for an example... We have this processor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037 It's a Core 2 Duo. Nearly identical architecture to the Quad "equiv." Technically it's not equivalent entirely, but that's irrelevant right now. Basically when we're dealing with buying a computer in a budget, price becomes a huge factor. If we can reduce something that isn't necessary, we gain something in another portion of our purchase. For example... If we were to cut down on a less expensive processor. Even if its say.. by as little as 10-20 dollars. That could be spent in another capacity. Regardless of how you want to look at it. People have a misconception about Quads and Dual Cores. Basically it's the assumption that a Quad core is ultimately ''better'' for gaming. This is anything but true. If we're dealing with just gaming, your Dual Core is much better. Mostly in price. Let's talk about that a bit more. If we're dealing with above processors, we notice that the Dual is less expensive. Not by much, but it is. Not the most ideal comparison but we'll manage so I can get my point across. Let's pretend we have X processor (Dual Core) that's 100 dollars. Then we have XX processor (Quad Core). X Processor and XX have the same arch, i.e same cache type/level/socket FSB etc etc. but the only difference is the Quad version is 150 dollars more expensive. So XX is now 250 dollars. They also have the same GHZ or (core frequency). So it's the ideal comparison between a Quad and a Dual. When we're talking about GAMING you have to understand that a Quad core isn't a magical processor that uses all 4 cores in unison. The easiest way to explain it is to say this: You have Cores 1,2,3,4. You have ARMA 2 running. Even the latest, greatest and most hardware challenging games only need 2 cores to run it optimally. Call me crazy? Lets go back to our 4 cores. Here's whats happening while your game is running. You have core 1 : Core one is handling ~70ish% of the load. Core 2: 30ish% of the Load, Core 3/4 are running it at less than 5%. Keep in mind that during this example, we can say that the Quad and the Dual come stock at 3.0. The customer can overclock them to 4.0 on air. You now have a very fast Dual Core and Quad Core. What's the difference? Money, and the fact that clock speed is > more cores. Keep in mind while I'm explaining this, I'm trying to put it on a level anyone can understand. Regardless, the same principal applies and dual cores will be sufficient. In this same argument, a quad core should never be brought over a dual core in the same price range. The Dual is superior for gaming. Remember, the cores don't work in unison. Understanding how video games run is the best way to interpret the differences.

Now, if this were video editing that's an entirely different ball game. A quad core would be superior. The cores can be loaded with different frames to render thus making the overall process faster.

tl;dr: Games like clock speed more then extra cores. The latest games are off-loading functions to the other cores if available but it's very minimal.

Edited August 17, 2009 by joethe33

[tankkiller01 0]

ETHNE

An 8800 will NOT run Crysis at a reasonable resolution @ high settings well.

why do people keep talking about Crysis in these posts, i know the 88000 will not run it at a reasonable res but THIS IS ARMA2 much more demarnding than Crysis in my eyes!

____________________

Intel core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.1Ghz

BFG Tech GTX 285 OC to core 674MHz. shader 1535MHz. mem 1247MHz

Asus P5N-D 750i

4 GB Corsair DDR2 XMS 800

EZ COOL 700W psu

Maxtor HDD

Windows Vista 64bit

[bangtail 0]

ETHNE

An 8800 will NOT run Crysis at a reasonable resolution @ high settings well.

why do people keep talking about Crysis in these posts, i know the 88000 will not run it at a reasonable res but THIS IS ARMA2 much more demarnding than Crysis in my eyes!

____________________

Intel core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.1Ghz

BFG Tech GTX 285 OC to core 674MHz. shader 1535MHz. mem 1247MHz

Asus P5N-D 750i

4 GB Corsair DDR2 XMS 800

EZ COOL 700W psu

Maxtor HDD

Windows Vista 64bit

Amen!

I don't like to talk about Crysis! People insist on comparing it to A2 so I have to refute their claims.

Edited August 17, 2009 by BangTail

[BeerHunter 0]

ETHNE

why do people keep talking about Crysis in these posts

I think the reason is that at the time , Crysis was one of the most visually demanding games and few could run it at highest levels.

Sometimes it's dredged up because the game sold based on it's visual impact at the time , not on it's game play.

[joethe33 10]

I think the reason is that at the time , Crysis was one of the most visually demanding games and few could run it at highest levels.

Sometimes it's dredged up because the game sold based on it's visual impact at the time , not on it's game play.

Crysis remains one of the most hardware demanding games on the market. It's a great measure. It's actually unfortunate that ARMA 2 is even close to it. ARMA 2 is just coded poorly somewhere. /thread

[afp 1]

ETHNE

An 8800 will NOT run Crysis at a reasonable resolution @ high settings well.

Are you kidding? I have been able to play Crysis on high settings with an overclocked C2D E6600 and NVidia 7950 GTX, which is inferior to an 8800 GT. It very much depends on other factors too, I have a configuration close to nyran's and I can confirm that he is right.

ArmA 2 is mostly based on processor speed (not even core numbers as some claim), a decent video card today is enough to play it if you have a good CPU. Untill optimized and really faster processors than today ones on the market, an upgrade to play this game is not really justified. Investing in the latest videocard only for this game its the most usseless thing it can be done....

[bangtail 0]

Are you kidding? I have been able to play Crysis on high settings with an overclocked C2D E6600 and NVidia 7950 GTX, which is inferior to an 8800 GT. It very much depends on other factors too, I have a configuration close to nyran's and I can confirm that he is right.

ArmA 2 is mostly based on processor speed (not even core numbers as some claim), a decent video card today is enough to play it if you have a good CPU. Untill optimized and really faster processors than today ones on the market, an upgrade to play this game is not really justified. Investing in the latest videocard only for this game its the most usseless thing it can be done....

No, he's not.

Playing on old hardware is your choice but don't start making stuff up to justify your position. Nyran is uninformed and his argument has no merit or basis in fact.

You CANNOT play Crysis @ 1680 x 1050 (or above) with AA on at high settings on an 8800 (Well, of course you can if that's your deal).

Go load up the Aircraft Carrier level at 1680 x 1050 (all high) AA 4x and let me know about playable frame rates on your rig.

Fast video cards are like anything else. You pay a premium for the best ones and they give you the best performance at high resolutions with all the eye candy on. DX11 ATI cards are coming on Sept 10th (with Nvidia a month or 2 behind) and the flagship ATI card is rumoured to be twice as fast as a 4870 (basically a 4870 x2's performance but using one GPU).

Enthusiasts want all the eye candy on at high resolutions with playable frame rates. A single 8800 does not allow you to do that in games like Crysis. It's just a fact. Expecting anything more than mediocre performance on 3 year old hardware is an exercise in futility. Sure, there will be some titles that run ok, but sooner or later, you are going to run into a game that proves to be too much for older tech.

Cheers,

Eth

PS : In your defense, "playable" is highly subjective. I'm not going to speak for anyone else but what you consider playable probably isn't what I would consider playable. If you are enjoying the game on your rig, then who cares what I think ;)

PPS : I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your rig. It's your choice how you spend your money, but you shouldn't be misleading others. I adamantly disagree with yourself and Nyran as you seem to advocate an upgrade path that is not realistic in the realms of PC gaming. It would probably be ok if you were only using office. The fact is that the newer video cards bring a lot of things to the table (not the least of which being greatly enhanced performance) and this just can't be overlooked I'm afraid.

Edited August 18, 2009 by BangTail

[joethe33 10]

No, he's not.

Playing on old hardware is your choice but don't start making stuff up to justify your position. Nyran is uninformed and his argument has no merit or basis in fact.

You CANNOT play Crysis @ 1680 x 1050 (or above) with AA on at high settings on an 8800 (Well, of course you can if that's your deal).

Go load up the Aircraft Carrier level at 1680 x 1050 (all high) AA 4x and let me know about playable frame rates on your rig.

Fast video cards are like anything else. You pay a premium for the best ones and they give you the best performance at high resolutions with all the eye candy on. DX11 ATI cards are coming on Sept 10th (with Nvidia a month or 2 behind) and the flagship ATI card is rumoured to be twice as fast as a 4870 (basically a 4870 x2's performance but using one GPU).

Enthusiasts want all the eye candy on at high resolutions with playable frame rates. A single 8800 does not allow you to do that in games like Crysis. It's just a fact. Expecting anything more than mediocre performance on 3 year old hardware is an exercise in futility. Sure, there will be some titles that run ok, but sooner or later, you are going to run into a game that proves to be too much for older tech.

Cheers,

Eth

PS : In your defense, "playable" is highly subjective. I'm not going to speak for anyone else but what you consider playable probably isn't what I would consider playable. If you are enjoying the game on your rig, then who cares what I think ;)

PPS : I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your rig. It's your choice how you spend your money, but you shouldn't be misleading others. I adamantly disagree with yourself and Nyran as you seem to advocate an upgrade path that is not realistic in the realms of PC gaming. It would probably be ok if you were only using office. The fact is that the newer video cards bring a lot of things to the table (not the least of which being greatly enhanced performance) and this just can't be overlooked I'm afraid.

Hey man. Maybe he's playing on a 15' monitor :3.

[bangtail 0]

Hey man. Maybe he's playing on a 15' monitor :3.

LoL ;)

[joethe33 10]

At least you had the patience to explain it. When I read the post about the 200 series being nothing spectacular, I almost flipped my shit. Is a 260 216 core OCed to a 285's core frequency not spectacular? It should be. The only shameful card is the 250. I.e the repackaged 9800 gtx.

[bangtail 0]

At least you had the patience to explain it. When I read the post about the 200 series being nothing spectacular, I almost flipped my shit. Is a 260 216 core OCed to a 285's core frequency not spectacular? It should be. The only shameful card is the 250. I.e the repackaged 9800 gtx.

The flagship single GPU card of the last 2 gens has been twice as fast as the last with the next looking to be no exception :)

Add the technical advancements, faster memory etc and all I can say is SIGN ME THE F**K UP :D

Eth

[kklownboy 43]

LoL ;)

well most posters who post like that are not using AA, its from starting there gaming on a PS2( omg the jaggies..yuk) and only having a PackerdBell PC to play CS1.6.

Crysis is a good comparison to this game. The Light engine, the foliage are taking the same requirements to run well. Then mom gets a 1900/1200 24in LCD for under 200$, and now any game is teh slow... there are so many posters with 24in LCDs and 9600gt's " this game sucks, it lags....." well duh.

[bangtail 0]

well most posters who post like that are not using AA, its from starting there gaming on a PS2( omg the jaggies..yuk) and only having a PackerdBell PC to play CS1.6.

Crysis is a good comparison to this game. The Light engine, the foliage are taking the same requirements to run well. Then mom gets a 1900/1200 24in LCD for under 200$, and now any game is teh slow... there are so many posters with 24in LCDs and 9600gt's " this game sucks, it lags....." well duh.

Agreed.

It's the misinformation that screws alot of people up. Personally, I can't live without my AA and 4x AA+ butchers your FPS at low resolutions (and still causes a significant loss of FPS at high resolutions).

Cheers,

Eth