Whats the lowest dual core & Graphics Card to run Arma 2?

[itsme 10]

I said that i'm able to play, not that it run shiny and smoothly :)

EDIT: just checked if i said something misleading, i didn't

before assuming that other people are liars ( and that pisses me off big time :) ) try read more carefully will you? :p

Okay I believe you, because I tried to play it with my Pentium 4, 1.5gb memory and a 7600GT, and it worked on lower settings (I tried to play on Normal but It was slow), but keeps crashing when I try the campaign, single missions crash sometimes too, its not worth it for me to be honest

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

I was playing the game with an amd athlon 3200+, 2gb ram and 7800 gtx, everything in low and at 800x600 :P

the campaign too?

[reconteam 19]

I run Arma2 on High, viewdistance of +-4500m with a Core2Duo E6700 2.66Ghz, 4GB of RAM and a Geforce8800GTX (Windows Vista x64). It lags for a few seconds when starting a mission but after that, it runs smoothly.

Regarding your question about which one is faster, the correct answer is: depends. If a game creates just 2 threads (let's say a main thread and 1 for AI), the Dual Core will be faster because of higher clock. If there are more than 2 threads created, the QuadCore wins because the OS will be able to allocate the new thread to an "unused" core, which means less CPU time competition between threads (just imagine a supermarket to understand it - CPUs as clerks and threads/processes as customers). But remember that more threads you create, more complex your code gets.

I bet a quadcore will be better for OA, but who knows? Sorry for my english, it's not my first language.

How are you doing that? I have an I7 920 overclocked slightly, a GTX 260 (216 model), and 4 GB of DDR3 and my game runs pretty lousy. In single-player it is okay, but MP it stutters a lot.

I am noting that my system is using 1.3+ GB memory with Steam, Firefox, and Nod32 running, would finding a way to get that down help my poor ArmA2 performance?

Oh I forgot mine is running at 1920x1200 however, what is your resolution.

[liquidpinky 11]

How are you doing that? I have an I7 920 overclocked slightly, a GTX 260 (216 model), and 4 GB of DDR3 and my game runs pretty lousy. In single-player it is okay, but MP it stutters a lot.

I am noting that my system is using 1.3+ GB memory with Steam, Firefox, and Nod32 running, would finding a way to get that down help my poor ArmA2 performance?

Oh I forgot mine is running at 1920x1200 however, what is your resolution.

Get more RAM and use a RamDisk, works great for MP. ;)

[rundll.exe 12]

Im still playing on a c2d E4300 1.8Ghz (oc to 2Ghz) and a X1950Pro 512mb and 2GB DDR, and the game runs quite fluid at high settings. Only PP and AA are disabled.

Sorry but I dont believe this, people with much better spec still struggle to play with normal settings let alone high!!

Plus your spec is like the minimum, so how could you play with high settings? dont make sense mate

Well I guess you define what is fluid. I have about 25 fps on average, and down to 15 in forests, but its still playable.

And it doesnt really matter what graph settings I use, it will not go up or down. Only PP and AA (or 3D res) will get FPS down too much. Playing @ 1600x1200 btw.

[banenwn 10]

I use an e8400 and just upgraded from a gtx 260 216 core to a radeon 5850 and now i never drop below 25 fps and my frames are way more steady now.The gtx 260 would drop to 15-18 fps so staying above 25 is a nice improvement for me

[itsme 10]

I use an e8400 and just upgraded from a gtx 260 216 core to a radeon 5850 and now i never drop below 25 fps and my frames are way more steady now.The gtx 260 would drop to 15-18 fps so staying above 25 is a nice improvement for me

Why are you guys sooo bothered with this fps? you willing to spend extra money just to get an increase in fps? bloody hell man, grow up people and get real life

[TimRiceSE 10]

Why are you guys sooo bothered with this fps? you willing to spend extra money just to get an increase in fps? bloody hell man, grow up people and get real life

...says the guy who started this thread to ask for advice on how to spend his money to get a good fps?

[itsme 10]

...says the guy who started this thread to ask for advice on how to spend his money to get a good fps?

Where did I mention fps in my thread? I asked for the lowest spec to run the game, because mine is too old to run it and it keeps crashing, so really I am trying to spend the lowest amount of money to run it, where else some people are willing to spend extra money just to get an extra 10 fps, how sad that is

[Andymc4610 0]

Well, if someone has a better rig and is getting worse frame rate, it's not bad to find out how they are doing it. No more sad than buying the cheapest CPU and or graphics card that this game will play at 20 fps at 800x600.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Andymc4610

[itsme 10]

Well, if someone has a better rig and is getting worse frame rate, it's not bad to find out how they are doing it. No more sad than buying the cheapest CPU and or graphics card that this game will play at 20 fps at 800x600.

I dont think anyone has mentioned buying the cheapest CPU or graphics!!!:confused:

[Rista 0]

Where did I mention fps in my thread? I asked for the lowest spec to run the game, because mine is too old to run it and it keeps crashing, so really I am trying to spend the lowest amount of money to run it, where else some people are willing to spend extra money just to get an extra 10 fps, how sad that is

What exactly is sad about it? It's not like anyone is talking about increasing the FPS from 60 to 70 or something. 15fps vs 25fps is a huge difference and if someone thinks it's worth the extra money, then, for them, it is.

[jw custom 56]

How are you doing that? I have an I7 920 overclocked slightly, a GTX 260 (216 model), and 4 GB of DDR3 and my game runs pretty lousy. In single-player it is okay, but MP it stutters a lot.

I am noting that my system is using 1.3+ GB memory with Steam, Firefox, and Nod32 running, would finding a way to get that down help my poor ArmA2 performance?

Oh I forgot mine is running at 1920x1200 however, what is your resolution.

If you your talking about character skipping then it has nothing to do with your system but net code being poor and or server bandwidth being poor.

I got:

i7 920

GTX 285

8GB DDR3 (WinXP 32bit so far from all mem used)

My ingame resolution is 1680x1050 and currently with all settings on high. Viewdistance is on 3500. It runs perfectly for me!

Try lower your settings maybe that will help.

[Andymc4610 0]

I dont think anyone has mentioned buying the cheapest CPU or graphics!!!:confused:

"Whats the lowest dual core & Graphics Card to run Arma 2 on Normal to High settings."

I interpret this as "what is the cheapest cpu and card can I buy and play Arma2."

If this is not the case buy a quad core and a new Nvidia GTX 295 card

[itsme 10]

"Whats the lowest dual core & Graphics Card to run Arma 2 on Normal to High settings."

I interpret this as "what is the cheapest cpu and card can I buy and play Arma2." " on Normal to High settings"

If this is not the case buy a quad core and a new Nvidia GTX 295 card

Well...why didnt you finish the sentence? "to play arma 2 on Normal to high settings" so I am not looking for something that will run arma on 20fps 800*600 am I???? for god sake man

[Wupjak 0]

All,

Edit: crap, I posted this in the wrong thread. Apologies.

Running 1.04 (steam) with 59875 beta on a Phenom X3 8400 at 2.1ghz, 3gb ram, GTX 260 card in XP32.

Resolution is set to 1680x1050, 100% fill, textures normal, objects normal, HDR/AA/AF disabled, view distance 1000m, vsync off in drivers. I've tried max prerendered frames between 0 and 8 with no appreciable difference.

I use the PROPER low setting texture packs for buildings and plants. These are excellent for low/mid-spec machines.

Using CAA1 and having downloaded the SP Arma missions, I have had a blast playing missions from the first Arma that used to chug along when I played them the first go round when the game was new.

To my point (finally).

Arma2 campaign missions are painfully choppy, particularly Chernogorsk. FPS ranges from 14-25 fps. The beta release smoothed out the streaming of building textures to a large extent. In the scenario missions such as Village Sweep, I get mid-high twenties, upwards of 40.

I'm well aware of the limitations of my CPU, but is it the AI that are chugging the game, or is it Chernorus, or both? Loading Sahrani and playing the single player campaign missions I get over 45 fps constantly. Seems as if it's Chernorus that's the killer, perhaps?

I just picked up arma2 when it was on sale for 24.99 on Steam after having played OFP:DR for a couple of days and thinking it was NOT what I wanted. This IS what I want to play, but funds are limited and if I have to play on Sahrani for the time being, that's the way it is.

Time for a CPU upgrade? Higher clock = less chugging with AI-intensive missions? Thanks in advance for your anticipated insights.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Wupjak

[Andymc4610 0]

All,

Resolution is set to 1680x1050, 100% fill, textures normal, objects normal, HDR/AA/AF disabled, view distance 1000m, vsync off in drivers. I've tried max prerendered frames between 0 and 8 with no appreciable difference.

for me i would lower my res and maybe 3d, i like a smoother frame rate.

[Wupjak 0]

Lowering fill/render setting doesn't do anything for me, though. Same fps, just crummier visuals. The more I read, the more I see and am convinced that it's the CPU holding things up.