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

[Dead3yez 0]

Try defragging if you haven't already. That sometimes works for few.

In the meantime:

http://armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=6713

[JasonDD 10]

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.

Wow...good to know. Thanks. What nVidia card should I be looking at then? Best performance per dollar...preferably under $200

---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------

Try defragging if you haven't already. That sometimes works for few.

In the meantime:

http://armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=6713

Cheers Dead3yez, I've been looking at your stuff earlier.

What puzzles me is that I get the same performance from my old computer!

[TimRiceSE 10]

bottleneck.

[[frl]myke 14]

What nVidia card should I be looking at then? Best performance per dollar...preferably under $200

Without being a ATI fanboy but actually the ATI cards have better price/performance rating than actual nVidia cards, altough i have to admit that the actual fastest single-GPU card is from nVidia.

I suggest to go for a HD58XX cards or a HD57XX card. The higher the XX number, the better.

[rstratton 0]

i wouldnt go any lower than a gtx 260 like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130433

[JasonDD 10]

Thanks. Next month may be. When I get paid.

One thing that is really odd is that I get better performance on my older computer, that has a single core processor with a higher clock speed. Seriously. I've but the 8600 back in my old computer and fps is at 10-12 fps with everything on. Post process effects are high, higher resolution, AA and Anisotropic on low, shadows on high, post-process effects high. On the new system, with the same graphic card, fps was around 5 to 8 with those settings.

It can't just be the graphic card. It must be another issue with the new hardware. Mind boggling.

Anyway, turning the sliders down a bit on my old PC, I can get 15fps which is playable...and still have reasonable graphics. Turning everything off, I'm up to 24 - 28 fps!!!!!

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ----------

No I'm not, it's the same performance. I had 3D resolution at 50%...sorry!

[[frl]myke 14]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161333

My recommendation

[JasonDD 10]

thanks...appreciated!

[Steakslim 1]

Thanks. Next month may be. When I get paid.

One thing that is really odd is that I get better performance on my older computer, that has a single core processor with a higher clock speed. Seriously. I've but the 8600 back in my old computer and fps is at 10-12 fps with everything on. Post process effects are high, higher resolution, AA and Anisotropic on low, shadows on high, post-process effects high. On the new system, with the same graphic card, fps was around 5 to 8 with those settings.

It can't just be the graphic card. It must be another issue with the new hardware. Mind boggling.

Anyway, turning the sliders down a bit on my old PC, I can get 15fps which is playable...and still have reasonable graphics. Turning everything off, I'm up to 24 - 28 fps!!!!!

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ----------

No I'm not, it's the same performance. I had 3D resolution at 50%...sorry!

Bottlenecks can cause various complications even on better hardware. Your video card is struggling to process all the information that it is being sent by the cpu. Believe me the 8600gt has no place in a gaming rig. Your old machine didn't suffer such a handicap as much as it was just a slow machine, but it could run what operations it could smoothley. Currently you are trying to push an adult elephant through a 7x3 foot door way. You need a bigger door.

[Rayers12 19]

You cannot be seriously expecting good performance from an 8600 GT. I have an I7-920 and a GTX-260 and the game still runs like tits. You have to be prepared to throw horrendous amounts of money at your system fro modern games.

[Steakslim 1]

You cannot be seriously expecting good performance from an 8600 GT. I have an I7-920 and a GTX-260 and the game still runs like tits. You have to be prepared to throw horrendous amounts of money at your system fro modern games.

I have a q6600 and a gtx260 and it doesn't run like 'tits', it runs quite well, not ideal, but still I can run around in Chernarus well enough without too many slowdown except in the usual places (high desity orange tree areas and the larger industrial towns). It's getting better though, especially with some of the improvements with the recent beta patches, though not without some instability issues that come with them being beta.

[wolf[173rd] 10]

You can get video card's pretty cheap these days. I bought mine; ATi 4670 and it's alright (even though I will never buy ATi again) it's a decent card and will run a lot of your settings. However, that's if you're on a small budget, like myself.

[therev709 10]

I have an AMD x4 955 and 4GB of ram and my comp handles arma 2 no prob. But I do have a good video card (AMD 4890 ftw!), so my advice is upgrade your card. IMO the best cards for the money are AMD/ATI, but as long as you get a current gen (Nvidia 4xx or ATI 58xx) you'll be happy :)

[rowdied 44]

Since no one has mentioned it yet, turn your in game resolution down it is WAY TOO HIGH for your card to handle.

[Panthro 10]

I also have a 955 + 4gig ram (G.skill) I only have a 5770 and the game runs in 1920*1080*32 everything maxed out view distance 1.6k, I think the difference in speed is also big between ver1.1 ver1.5:D

*edit* just set view distance to max still seems smooth although initial caching of textures when teleporting its about 3seconds longer

Edited June 6, 2010 by Panthro

[SeaVee 10]

As everyone (almost) else has said, the GPU is the problem.

When you are ready for that upgrade, take a look at Tomshardware's "Best Graphics Card For The Money" segment - it is updated monthly.

Tomshardware is NOT a direct vendor and is one of THE most reputable PC hardware review sites in existence. Here is the BGCFTM for June 2010:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-geforce-radeon,2646.html

[therev709 10]

As everyone (almost) else has said, the GPU is the problem.

When you are ready for that upgrade, take a look at Tomshardware's "Best Graphics Card For The Money" segment - it is updated monthly.

Tomshardware is NOT a direct vendor and is one of THE most reputable PC hardware review sites in existence. Here is the BGCFTM for June 2010:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-geforce-radeon,2646.html

Everytime I build a rig, either for myself or a friend, I'll be reading into every article tomshardware has for that month, and everytime I always manage to get the best for the money I have.

[JasonDD 10]

As everyone (almost) else has said, the GPU is the problem.

I understand that, but it still puzzles me as to why the performance is slightly worse on my new PC. The card is from my old PC. Perhaps Windows 7 causes it to run a little slower also.

[EDcase 87]

Hi Jason,

Yes, Windows 7 is not as efficient as WinXP so it runs slighlty worse (from my own experience using XP32 and Windows7-64) Of course if you have more than 4Gb it gets better.

I assume you have loaded the latest graphics driver.

Here is a good place to get them.

The general rule with this game is that all visuals are handled by the graphics card and all AI movement (soldiers, vehicles, etc) is handled by the CPU. If course in real world terms the CPU has to communicate with the GPU to sync everything so having a slow GPU will slow down a fast CPU.