Optiminal Specs Arma2

[Billy Bones 0]

Optimal Specs:

CPU: Intel Core 2.8GHz/ AMD Athlon 64×2 4400+ or faster

RAM: 2GB

Video card Nivdia 8800GT/ ATI Radeon 4850 with shader model 3 with 512MB VRAM

Somehow I think the whole 8800GT thing might be of a goof.

..................................

This is what I get when I search the web for Optimal Specs for Arma2, not being tech minded, my take is if I have these Optimal Specs I should be able to run Arma2 with all settings on "higest" and not see graphics glitches, like it getting really bright when I look at the ground or at village or town signs. I should be able I think , to see the names on these signs clearly at more than 15 to 20 yards. And when my player or the rest of my crew get out of a APC there heads are not blank white and then fill in seconds later.

If the Optimal Spec that are given for the game are as above, then I have them ...

Core2 2.8Ghz .. 4Gb DDR3 .. ATI HD5770 1Gb card .. XP 32bit.

My settings for the game : All on Highest and at a rest of 1600x1200.

My PC I take it should be able to handle these settings , frame rate I think is smooth enough, its just these what I think are graphic glitches that if I have these Optimal Specs I should not be seeing ?

Q? is , do I have as BI says Optimal specs and if so, my settings should not be a problem or should I have different settings and the specs that BI say I need for Optimal gameplay are wrong ?

Thanks ...

Edited December 14, 2009 by Billy Bones

[jasonnoguchi 11]

Read the threads and you will find that the "optimal spec" is more like the "minimum spec". Even Core i7s are having problems and core i5s like me are still getting those kinds of problems that you mentioned.

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

I have nearly EXACTLY what they say is optimal specs, and it's smooth. I'm overclocked on both CPU/GPU and I'm happy and running 1980x1024 (i'm nearly blind without that big LCD)

[Satarix 10]

Luhgnut;1514612']I have nearly EXACTLY what they say is optimal specs' date=' and it's smooth. I'm overclocked on both CPU/GPU and I'm happy and running 1980x1024 (i'm nearly blind without that big LCD)[/quote']

Can you advise what graphics settings you use and minimum FPS you get ingame? Do you have RAID or SSD setup?

Did you run it smooth from the start or did some tweaking?

@Billy Bones

The recommended "Optimal" is probably for 1280 res imo. And they do not mention the disk drives needed ))

Edited December 14, 2009 by Atar

[cm. 10]

Optimal Specs:

CPU: Intel Core 2.8GHz/ AMD Athlon 64×2 4400+ or faster

RAM: 2GB

Video card Nivdia 8800GT/ ATI Radeon 4850 with shader model 3 with 512MB VRAM

Somehow I think the whole 8800GT thing might be of a goof.

..................................

This is what I get when I search the web for Optimal Specs for Arma2, not being tech minded, my take is if I have these Optimal Specs I should be able to run Arma2 with all settings on "higest" and not see graphics glitches, like it getting really bright when I look at the ground or at village or town signs. I should be able I think , to see the names on these signs clearly at more than 15 to 20 yards. And when my player or the rest of my crew get out of a APC there heads are not blank white and then fill in seconds later.

If the Optimal Spec that are given for the game are as above, then I have them ...

Core2 2.8Ghz .. 4Gb DDR3 .. ATI HD5770 1Gb card .. XP 32bit.

My settings for the game : All on Highest and at a rest of 1600x1200.

My PC I take it should be able to handle these settings , frame rate I think is smooth enough, its just these what I think are graphic glitches that if I have these Optimal Specs I should not be seeing ?

Q? is , do I have as BI says Optimal specs and if so, my settings should not be a problem or should I have different settings and the specs that BI say I need for Optimal gameplay are wrong ?

Thanks ...

Lol honestly.....do you SERIOUSLY think that "optimal" spec means "run everything at highest"?

The only game I can think of where "optimum" or "recommended" spec runs a game fully is OFP: DR.

I think the "blank cheque" PC is the only one that will run Arma 2 smoothly at the absolute maximum.

[Joseph Archer 10]

touch some of the visual effects to medium, worth a try!

[jw custom 56]

Even Core i7s are having problems and core i5s like me are still getting those kinds of problems that you mentioned.

I got a Core i7 920 and i run the game in 1680*1050 with PP off, VD currently on 3500m and everything else on high and it runs perfectly.

For some reason people are having performance problems with the campaign but i wouldn't know as i've never tried it, but i can set up huge battles and run them fine even with fraps recording in the background!

[kklownboy 43]

Lol honestly.....do you SERIOUSLY think that "optimal" spec means "run everything at highest"?

The only game I can think of where "optimum" or "recommended" spec runs a game fully is OFP: DR.

I think the "blank cheque" PC is the only one that will run Arma 2 smoothly at the absolute maximum.

+1 and 10000VD isnt optimal, 5000VD is way more than enough for the ground game. And is really too much, since there isnt many 5000m views anyways.2500/3500 is optimal. And it takes a lot of comp to use AA. Too many players think they need 10kVD but dont use AA or no grass:confused:..".Max" settings is 4AA or 200% fill and max everything else but that lame Blur PP stuff,( why you would want to get max IQ up then blur your view?) Its kinda funny when i see post about settings such as 10kVD and VH PP..? wat? Just dont believe the box specs, I bet the specs are for 1280/1024 displays and 2GB of RAM on a XP32 system... The Devs just didnt see the fast pace change that has happened in the H/W world, with under 200$ 1900/1200 LCDs and 8GB of ram upgrades with ALOT of x64 OS users, and many more x64 OS usesr everyday!but the game runs great on High end H/W.

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

Can you advise what graphics settings you use and minimum FPS you get ingame? Do you have RAID or SSD setup?

Did you run it smooth from the start or did some tweaking?

@Billy Bones

The recommended "Optimal" is probably for 1280 res imo. And they do not mention the disk drives needed ))

Ok, this is only for reference, your mileage my vary......

XP runs Arma2 best on older machines (non-quad core) with Windows 32. The Quad guys say Windows 7 runs it faster. So depending on Quad or Duel Core it would be Windows 7 or XP 32 respectively. If running Vista, well it's going to suck no matter what. So stop there if it's vista. Nothing you do will make it ever run smooth sad to say.

You need to be around 2.68Ghz Processor speed (that seems to be the magic number). I overclocked to reach it.

Graphics card is 9800GTX+ also overclocked to the point that if I go above 812Mhz on the GPU or 1800Mhz memory, it locks. So that's where it stands.

I run the arma2 pbo's from thumbdrives (big debate over if this helps, but for me it helps.) - seperate whole section on that. (won't go into it here)

Graphics card with 512Meg should be on High Settings.

Shadow Quality makes mine run faster on Very High.

AA Off. and I like low post processing. View Distance between 2500 and no more than 3000.

Finally DEFRAG, DEFRAG, DEFRAG. Can't stress how important this is. With A2 constantly streaming graphics, having it bounce all over the drive to find the data.... will show up. Get a good defragger. I run PerfectDisk and set it so all the files (no matter what drive they are on) to be on the outter tracks. (Takes less revolutions to load the data).

My frames stay in the 30fps range. Rarely dips down below 30.

Another thing. and this sounds odd. Stop looking at a FPS meter. Because no matter what, you'll think the game is running crappy the whole time you're looking at it. Once you get rid of looking at one, you'll enjoy the game more. I wouldn't sweat it seeing a LOD glitch or a small stutter. It could be someone is just joining the server and lagged it and it will pass.

Edited December 14, 2009 by [RIP] Luhgnut

[johncage 30]

game companies are notorious for posting fake specs to get people to buy their games. if the requirements are intel i7, 295gtx, no one's going to give the game a second look.

i hate it when ubisoft does this cause their games look like crud generally. but arma 2 has somewhat advanced graphics. it's just a shame they lie about the recommended specs.

[maddogx 13]

... it's just a shame they lie about the recommended specs.

That "lie" is imaginary. This goes for any game, not just Arma2: "recommended specs" is not a synonym for "max everything out", never was and never will be. Just take a look at the recommended specs for Crysis, or any other high-end game, then compare them with what is needed to actually max out the settings. There is almost always a huge difference.

Minimum specs are simply the "minimum hardware needed to run the game at all". So the recommended specs could be interpreted as "the minimum hardware needed to run the game adequately". In the case of Arma2 I've got to say the minimum and recommended specs are pretty much spot on. The game runs fine on a mixture of low and medium settings on my HTPC (2,5GHz Dual Core, 2GB RAM, 9600GT) -in fact, the game even worked on minimal settings with the 8400GS I had in there before, and that 25€ card is barely even acceptable for gaming purposes.

A friend of mine has a PC that meets the recommended requirements pretty well (Athlon 4600+ X2, 3GB RAM, HD4850) and can play the game mostly on medium settings with some on high. Seems okay to me.

[GLeek 10]

Luhgnut;1515169']

You need to be around 2.68Ghz Processor speed (that seems to be the magic number). I overclocked to reach it.

thanks for the lolage

Shadow Quality makes mine run faster on Very High.

Lawl ' date=' one more time please :D

My frames stay in the 30fps range. Rarely dips down below 30.

you don't squate chernogorosk too much, do you ? :D :D :D

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

thanks for the lolage

Lawl , one more time please :D

you don't squate chernogorosk too much, do you ? :D :D :D

What's so damn funny?

That's my setup. It runs fine for me. And Chern is smooth.

The guy asked for my setup and I gave it to him honestly.

You're rig must suck or you don't know how to optimize (probably the latter).

Before you start bashing other peoples rigs without offering any helpful information, why don't you read what other people are playing on and having no problems at all.

LOL back at you.

Edited December 15, 2009 by [RIP] Luhgnut

[Master gamawa 0]

I wish I could remember my exact specs but there you go.

I have 2 dual processors around 3.1 or something, a GTX285, 4 gigs of ram and the game runs FINE at 3000vd, 1680res wide format, all graphics settings on normal except AA that's set on low and PP that's off because I don't like the effects.

I really don't need more. The game runs perfectly even with JDT fire and smoke addon going apeshit.

[GLeek 10]

Luhgnut;1515717']What's so damn funny?

That's my setup. It runs fine for me. And Chern is smooth.

The guy asked for my setup and I gave it to him honestly.

You're rig must suck or you don't know how to optimize (probably the latter).

Before you start bashing other peoples rigs without offering any helpful information' date=' why don't you read what other people are playing on and having no problems at all.

LOL back at you.[/quote']

2.68ghz is not enough anyway for arma2. i sometime reach 75% cpu peak , so i presume dual core is not enough ...

i recommend 4GHZ ++ quad for arma2. (8GHz if pentium4 is in story :P )

[RN Escobar 0]

i recommend 4GHZ ++ quad for arma2. (8GHz if pentium4 is in story :P )

and you have?

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

2.68ghz is not enough anyway for arma2. i sometime reach 75% cpu peak , so i presume dual core is not enough ...

i recommend 4GHZ ++ quad for arma2. (8GHz if pentium4 is in story :P )

odd...I'm sitting here with exactly 2.68Ghz with 1920x1080 resolution and running smooth as silk, until a crapload of AI are on the map.

Hmmm, let me check... yeah, all settings on high/very high.

man, why is this game running so smooth?

let's check my video card.. little single core 9800GTX+ with a bunch of overclock. darn. that's not the problem. Let's check my defrag. Darn that's all nice and defragged too. What could it possibly be?

maybe I don't have enough background processes running. AH THAT'S IT! I don't have anything running in the background! I need to turn on more garbage stuff, because the game is running fine and GLeek says it shouldn't.

So you're recommendation of a 4Ghz Quad is the ONLY way Arma2 can even remotely run smooth.

So all these poor S.O.B's that are running and enjoying Arma2 perfectly fine with less than your educated 4Ghz machine should just uninstall/ragequit.

So let's see......

1) Athlon 4400 x2+ overclocked.

2) Defragged HD's.

3) decent ram.

4) no background processes.

5) current drivers.

6) Current Arma2 Beta Patches.

7) Overclocked 9800GTX+

I can't for the life of me figure out why this game is just running fine as can be. I give up. I'm going to uninstall. This is beyond reason. I'll wait to upgrade so I can play to GLeek's "Recommendation".

what a load of crap.

BTW.... GLeek. Do you understand the differences between quad core and dual core optimization? What's your specs that forces you to 75% utilization? Do you realize that with people with dual cores, also get 75% utilization?

By your standards, both my cores should be totally pegged. Bigger question for you. If I get 75% utilization, and you get 75% utilization on your unnamed quad. What's the bottleneck that's holding your system back?

8Ghz recommended. I think I blew beer out my nose on that. or what do you kids say..... oh... lawl.

Edited December 16, 2009 by [RIP] Luhgnut

[Satarix 10]

Luhgnut;1515169']Ok' date=' this is only for reference, your mileage my vary......[/quote']

Thanks a lot for detailed answer. Sounds very promising. I do not want to spend a fortune on a new rig.

Did you run ArmA Test1 and 2 by chance after 1.05?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=92237

[BlaZ1n.IVXX 10]

I can max out everything with the system in my sig and don't have any problems with the game. Thats at a res of 1900x1280

[Guest]

I can max out everything with the system in my sig and don't have any problems with the game. Thats at a res of 1900x1280

:notworthy::notworthy::pray::notworthy::notworthy:

[Placebo 29]

my take is if I have these Optimal Specs I should be able to run Arma2 with all settings on "higest"

Not that's not correct at all, it means more like it's the recommended spec to run the game in a manner befitting an optimal experience, but certainly not the specs which would max everything out, such a spec is impossible to define, for some the optimal experience is 10km view distance, for others it's highest possible texture quality or whatever, it's down to the end user to choose the visual settings that are optimal to their preference as to how they experience the game.