Just got a new PC - still cannot play this game!

[JasonDD 10]

I had problems with my old PC, which was:

Intel P4 3Ghz (single core)

1.5GB DDR2

GeForce 8600GT 512MB

I have now built a new PC with the following:

Intel Core i5-750 @ 2.66GB (A quad core processor)

4GB dual Channel DDR3

I'm using the same Graphic card as before, for now, until I can afford a new one, and ok, the memory could be better, but again, it was all my budget allowed at present. But...

...the performance is utterly terrible! It is no better than on my old system. I'm getting between 5 and 8 fps in multiplayer, and between 8-15 in single player, with the following settings:

Resolution (both screen and render) = 1600 x 1024 x 32

FSAA = off

3D_Performance / Scene complexity = 160000

I didn't expect a miracle with this hardware, but I did expect to be able to at least play this game, even if I could not experience the wonderfully immersive graphics. But even with this older video card, it should be higher than 5fps. 5fps is just totally unplayable. Is this normal?

Very disappointing!

Edited June 5, 2010 by JasonDD

[[frl]myke 14]

Could you please post more detailed your video settings as shown in the video options screen?

[NeMeSiS 11]

What videocard do you have?

EDIT: Sorry, didnt read. Yeah, that videocard is crap.

Edited June 5, 2010 by NeMeSiS

[JasonDD 10]

Could you please post more detailed your video settings as shown in the video options screen?

Sure.

Visability 1600

Brightness 1

Gamma 1

Quality Performance = High

Interface Res = 1600 x 1024 x 32

3D Res = 1600 x 1024 x 32

I can't set the quality performance to "normal". It jumps to either high, or low.

[TimRiceSE 10]

id probably guess that your graphics card is bottlenecking your system. 8600 is very weak.

the rest of your system is the same specs as mine, i have a HD5850 gpu, and well... it flies.

[JasonDD 10]

If I choose "low" for performance quality, visability drops to 1200, and I get 11fps in single player. That's in a simple environment with no buildings, just walking.

[[frl]myke 14]

@JasonDD

thats not all settings....check bottom left, there should be a button which reveals more settings...those are of interest.

But i guess it turns out that TimRiceSE will be right. However, with the advanced video options we may squeeze out a few more frames to have it at least playable. But don't expect it to look good.

Sorry to say that but thats just the truth.

[TimRiceSE 10]

also ,check out kju's vegetation tweak addons. sorry, dont have the energy to look for it :)

[[frl]myke 14]

also ,check out kju's vegetation tweak addons. sorry, dont have the energy to look for it :)

http://www.armaholic.com/list.php?c=a2_miscα=P

there you go. All the "PROPER" addons might help to get a better peformance.

[mosh 0]

I have used an 8600 in a friend's build (against my adivce). The rest of his CPU was similar to yours and it ran like shit too. It's the video card.

[JasonDD 10]

Thanks.

I didn't realise there were other video settings.

The only things is if I buy a new graphics card it will be only for this game, and I don't want waste money on that if it will provide only a slight performance increase.

---------- Post added at 02:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------

WeIt does indeed seem to be the video card...so far this box has cost me nearly $1000...but at least it's upgradable now. It will take an i7 and 16GB dual channel, and probably be good for graphics cards that come out over the next year. So it's just to wait and save up. Seem to be have been doing that for months, though...

[TimRiceSE 10]

well, i think it was smart you chose something that has a good upgrade path :)

[[frl]myke 14]

Please post your video settings. Depending on it, goin for a i7 would be needless. Also 16GB Ram doesn't help (compared to 8GB) unless you plan to run a Ramdisk (use search forum, there is a thread about it).

There are several settings that are CPU dependant, other only rely on GPU. Together we might be able to determine finer what could be needed and what not. Also depends on your expectations of course.

[wiggum2 31]

You will need a (much) better video card to play ArmA2.

Your CPU and RAM is good, just buy a "GeForce GTS 250, 1024MB GDDR3" and ArmA2 will run fine !

This video card cost under 100$ (€) and with this card i run ArmA2 at 30-40 FPS !

http://geizhals.at/eu/?cat=gra16_512&asuch=gts250&sort=p&xf=138_1000~132_1024~140_700

[JasonDD 10]

Thanks. Right now the only video settings that seem to give me acceptable frame rates is everything minimised. Minimums. This gets me 20 -24 fps.

Perhaps you can tell me which are the CPU dependant features and I can slide them up a bit?

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

You will need a (much) better video card to play ArmA2.

Your CPU and RAM is good, just buy a "GeForce GTS 250, 1024MB GDDR3" and ArmA2 will run fine !

This video card cost under 100$ (€) and with this card i run ArmA2 at 30-40 FPS !

http://geizhals.at/eu/?cat=gra16_512&asuch=gts250&sort=p&xf=138_1000~132_1024~140_700

Thanks!

[wiggum2 31]

Thanks. Right now the only video settings that seem to give me acceptable frame rates is everything minimised. Minimums. This gets me 20 -24 fps.

Perhaps you can tell me which are the CPU dependant features and I can slide them up a bit?

Dont waste your time...

With this video card ArmA2 will never run fine at good looking settings.

Maybe you can turn every setting to (very) low and it will run but you said you already spent 1000$...so go to a shop and buy a good video card for ~100$ and you can turn all setting to high and still will have 30-40 FPS !

My CPU is on the same level like your i5 and i also have 4GB DDR3 RAM.

Believe me, all you need is a good video card (GTS250, ATI 4870) with 1024MB VRAM and you will no longer have problems with this game.

[Erratic 10]

Your graphics card is bad I'm afraid, also the amount of memory on your card isn't the most important thing. For example having a high GPU clock and Memory clock alongside a good amount of memory is what you need. Although there are plenty of other specs on a graphics card that make the difference.

I'm afraid you can't really blame it on the game, because you've got everything else needed to have a good game on it, it's just that your graphics card completely bottlenecks it. It's the same performance as your old PC because your graphics card is the source of the problem.

When you can upgrade your card, you will see how much better it works with your new PC for the game.

- In Regards to what Wiggum is saying about what graphics cards you need, I think you should go a step higher if you can than those he is recommending. That's if you can afford it ofcourse, food for thought.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Erratic

[[frl]myke 14]

Aye, here we go.

CPU dependant are:

Terrain Details

Object Details

Viewdistance

Special case: Shadow details. From very low to normal, shadows are rendered using the CPU, above they're rendered on the GPU.

Doesn't matter for you, i guess, since here i would suggest to turn them off completely.

Myself, i usually put myself on Chernarus, in Chernogorsk. In the Northeast there is a building under construction. I place myself up there and then fiddle around with video options unless i've found a setting that fits.

Personally, i would recommend a ATI HD5XXX series, the best you can afford. Myself running a HD5870 and i have all GPU related settings maxed out, even 200% 3D rendering. A friend has a HD5770 and he is quite happy with. I'm sure some other will also post their recomendations pretty soon. ;)

[JasonDD 10]

Thanks...I'll see if I can live with the low settings until I finally get that video card!

[l mandrake 9]

If you really can't afford a new card you could pickup an 8800GT from Ebay for £50 - although quite old now they are WAY faster than the 8600, I was able to play Arma2 pretty well with mine, (keep view distance below 2500m, lower a few graphics settings).

8800gt is the best bang-for-buck in the history of PC gaming IMO - get one while you still can.

[JasonDD 10]

The costs have to be spread out over time, but the problem with a computer is that everything has to be put together at once, and everything dates so quickly.

[ziiip 1]

ATI Radeon 5850 HD will make your PC look :cool:

Edit: dont buy any 8800GT or GTS 250 etc. I have a 4850 which is about as powerful as a 8800 GT and i am not really impressed with the performance.

Edited June 5, 2010 by ziiip

[JasonDD 10]

ATI Radeon 5850 HD will make your PC look :cool:

Edit: dont buy any 8800GT or GTS 250 etc. I have a 4850 which is about as powerful as a 8800 GT and i am not really impressed with the performance.

What's wrong with the GTS 250?

[l mandrake 9]

ATI Radeon 5850 HD will make your PC look :cool:

Edit: dont buy any 8800GT or GTS 250 etc. I have a 4850 which is about as powerful as a 8800 GT and i am not really impressed with the performance.

This post makes no sense. If the OP has no money to spend right now, then he needs an ultra-cheap emergency card (cheapest card which is better than a 8600, so 8800 or similar for £50) while he saves up for a decent one. If the OP has the money, then he surely should be getting a top-range card (5870, 480, 5970) which will last a few years.

@OP: Mid-range cards like 5850/470 are the 8600s of their day and will be outdated in 12 months, if you can only afford these then I would focus on saving some more cash as you will save in the long run.

[[frl]myke 14]

As the GTS250 GPU is the same (G92b) like on the 8800GT (nVidia just relabeled them), the performance might not be as you may expect it. Probably settings close to "normal" or maybe one notch below.