Need help with hardware upgrade

[Lepssa 10]

Hello and sorry for starting a new topic on this but any help is welcomed. So there is my current rig whitch give about 22-30fps in large multiplayer missions:

Amd Athlon 64 x2 BE 6400+ (3200Mhz)

Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0

2x 1 GB DDR2 800Mhz A-Data (5-5-5-18)

MSI 8800GTX 768MB

my ingame settings:

1680:1050 no AA/AF

terrain : Low

objects : Normal

shadows : High/disabled

postprocces : disabled

I have already ordered more ram so ill have 3x2GB DDR2 1066 Mhz but i dont know what upgrade next to make Arma2 perform better. I have only about 200 Eur left for upgrade so what should i buy quad core procesor or graphic card? I really like new ATI 5850 Gpu do you guys think that my current procesor dont be a bottleneck for this GPU?

[celery 8]

Upgrade your gpu, it will make the biggest difference.

[Elric de Melnibone 10]

Sorry Celery, but that's just wrong.

Upgrade your Processor, -that- will have the biggest effect on your performance.

ArmA II is highly CPU-dependant, and upgrading to a QuadCore will make the biggest difference.

[[frl]myke 14]

@Celery & Elric

you're both wrong....and right. :D

ArmA 2 is depending heavy on CPU power but also on GPU power...depends what is important for you. Mainly you can split Graphic settings into CPU-depending and GPU-depending settings.

Viewdistance, Terraindetail and Object detail are depending on CPU.

The rest depends on GPU.

One bordercase: shadow quality. When set to normal or lower, it is calculated by the CPU, on high and very on the GPU.

This means, if you have a "weak" CPU but a strong GPU, raising shadow quality above normal might give you a fairly noticeable a FPS boost.

I remember i did a quick and dirty CPU Core test when ArmA 2 was released, to see how it scales with more cores. Editor Chernarus, no AI, just player unit. Not very representative but good enough for a quick glance.

(Don't ask about the settings, can't remember) So i've started with singlecore which resulted in a FPS below playable. Adding a second core, frames got high enough to consider it "playable". Even enabling a third core gave a good boost in FPS. Only when activating the fourth core, the FPS just went up about 1 FPS.

Sure thing, if money doesn't matter, go for a Quadcore. Else, a closer look to AMD's triplecore could be worth a try.

GPU-wise, actually i wouldn't go with nVidia but for a AMD HD5770 or above. Not because nVidia is bad. Actually, AMD/ATI has the only DX11 capable GPU. NVidias Fermi achitecture is delayed, release is expected second Q 2010. Actual High-end card (GTX260 or above) a near as sold-out (same as HD5870 cards to be honest). So only advice i would give: go with ATI's HD5000 series, at least 5770, preferably the 5800 series. Not because "ATI is better than nVidia" but because they are actually the only ones available which are "future-proof".

[Elric de Melnibone 10]

I know some things need a good GPU as well, but judging by his setup, his graphics card is already quite decent, enough to run ArmA II without any issues.

His processor on the other hand is.. sadly not powerful enough.

Even if it's a badass DualCore, I fear a QuadCore will simply outperform it.

But those are expensive.

[Yapab 10]

I would strongly recommend a CPU upgrade, the game is CPU and GPU heavy but imo the game is MORE CPU demanding than GPU.

I just upgraded to another GTX275, running the same settings I only got 1fps increase compared to running a single GTX275, quite disappointing.

My CPU is not that slow, its a Core2Duo @ 3.5ghz and is enough for 9/10 games, actually ARMA2 is the only game I get below 30fps.

Based on this I will probably be looking at a Quad Core which can do about 3.2Ghz or above, as Mhz and amount of cores helps. However as someone above pointed out, ARMA2 only really uses 3 cores.

Upgrade your CPU to a fast Quad core, the 8800GTX is enough to play ARMA2 (I had one not long ago and going to the GTX275 helped but not greatly... again showing how dependent on the CPU ARMA2 is)

Yapa

[Lepssa 10]

Ok i have decided for a new procesor so i bought AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE.

Its really easy to overclock them as they have unlocked multiplier. With this setup i have around +20 FPS so game run really good from now as i brough new cooling for my GPU and overclock that too. Pitty that campaign is still caped at 22-25 :(

Edited January 7, 2010 by Lepssa

[nuggetz 0]

With your current rig, there should no reason why you couldn't enable at least 4x AF with no degradation. At least thats the way it is for me. I would upgrade my CPU and GPU. I have the same card in SLI and with the latest patch, I feel that I need to upgrade both. When your game bogs down, decrease the resolution and graphics. If it runs ok, then go with the videocard upgrade. If nothing happens, then its CPU. Arma is definitely a CPU hog

[celery 8]

One bordercase: shadow quality. When set to normal or lower, it is calculated by the CPU, on high and very on the GPU.

This means, if you have a "weak" CPU but a strong GPU, raising shadow quality above normal might give you a fairly noticeable a FPS boost.

I have a contradictory experience. I'm temporarily using a GTX 260 BE on my old computer with A64 3000+, and raising shadow quality from normal to high or very high drops my fps by 3 or 4.

So only advice i would give: go with ATI's HD5000 series, at least 5770, preferably the 5800 series. Not because "ATI is better than nVidia" but because they are actually the only ones available which are "future-proof".

I'd hold the order for DX11 cards until there actually are DX11 games out. When the first dozen DX11 games are released, ATI's 5000 series is budget stuff.