Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

10 Good

About joethe33

  • Rank
    Lance Corporal
  1. joethe33

    Where/how/when to buy ARMA2:OA?

    My Best Buy that I work at has both combined operators and arrowhead by itself. I know the website doesn't even have it but we do carry it. I work in inventory so it's kind of my job to know. As for gamestop, as far as I know they only carry combined arms. I am in Texas if anyone cares.
  2. joethe33


    I have both. I've been playing both. First and foremost. The game runs seamlessly. Is extremely non-run and gun and offers a lot towards both casual and hardcore players. So far DR has blown me away. I'm about half way through with the campaign. Me and a couple other friends have been blasting away at it all day. Those few reviews came from CZ magazines. Maybe one from somewhere else. I've forgotten. Every other review has been fairly high. the UK pcgamer + some others etc. Really though, it depends on your preference in games. While DR still has a Sim feel and core, it maintains the excitement and immersion that a great title should. I'm having a blast. The sound is amazing in every aspect. The graphics aren't the best, but they are also not nearly the worst. In fact, they're pretty up to date of what you'd expect. Some bad notes are the dedicated servers. Also some bugs, i.e sometimes bodies dissappearing. To leave on a note, this game is definately worth the money and time. It's quite an experience.
  3. joethe33

    Arma 2 low fps, good enough rig?

    Are you running PCI Express 2.0 or 1.0? (Because of your processor.) Also, you're using an old generation CPU. It's essentially a Athlon 64 times 2. Very insufficient architecture. There could be other issues but you should focus on the bigger things for now. A new CPU/Motherboard/RAM etc.
  4. I agree. I don't really see any sort of advantage to not having an option that actually allows you to switch between languages. We paid for the full game, shouldn't we be on the same level as everyone else?
  5. Your processor is slow. Games run on the first core and offload on the second. Using very little of the third and fourth cores. Games are most effected by clock speed, not additional cores. When playing games a quad core doesn't use all 4 cores in unison.
  6. joethe33

    You're Fav one-liner

    You are fav one-liner? I don't think so.
  7. I pointed out price as in that case because he needed new hardware. So it's mostly for a builder. ARMA 2 is coded poorly. It runs poorly regardless. You should always keep that in mind. My main point is that games are benefited the most from clock speed, NOT additional cores. ARMA 2 included. When it comes to a builder, your budget matters. If you want the more expensive Quad. Go for it, though I'll say it again. Unless you do heavy video editing, you do NOT need it. edit: One thing you might have missed in my point was that, if you had to choose between a Dual Core or a Quad Core at the same price range, the Dual would be more suitable for gaming. Generally they sell a Quad Core with the same arch as the Dual, but it's generally more expensive.
  8. My dual on 3.9 Ghz Air cooled runs it perfectly. =] Now... 41 FPS while shits ''going down'' may not be technically perfect, but considering it's a shitty port and the coding is likely fucked to hell. It's playable. =p
  9. I think you're a bit confused on how quad cores work. Refer to here. I don't feel like re-explaining it. post #13 http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=84028&page=2
  10. joethe33

    What's wrong with my setup

    At least you had the patience to explain it. When I read the post about the 200 series being nothing spectacular, I almost flipped my shit. Is a 260 216 core OCed to a 285's core frequency not spectacular? It should be. The only shameful card is the 250. I.e the repackaged 9800 gtx.
  11. joethe33

    What's wrong with my setup

    Hey man. Maybe he's playing on a 15' monitor :3.
  12. joethe33

    What's wrong with my setup

    Crysis remains one of the most hardware demanding games on the market. It's a great measure. It's actually unfortunate that ARMA 2 is even close to it. ARMA 2 is just coded poorly somewhere. /thread
  13. It's the 192, which is the original 260. It's a good card, regardless. There's a bug I was reading about awhile back. Try turning your textures to normal and video memory to either very high or default. I forget which one. See if that does anything. Run your res at your monitors native resolution and your ideal settings.
  14. joethe33

    What's wrong with my setup

    I disagree with the Quad Core. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3591372&CatId=2758 Here's the item you suggested. Now bare with me for a second. Everyone has a misconception I believe on how a Quad Core works. Not that I'm accusing you, but just to everyone in general. I'll get back to that point in a second. Here's the deal. Let's use this for an example... We have this processor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037 It's a Core 2 Duo. Nearly identical architecture to the Quad "equiv." Technically it's not equivalent entirely, but that's irrelevant right now. Basically when we're dealing with buying a computer in a budget, price becomes a huge factor. If we can reduce something that isn't necessary, we gain something in another portion of our purchase. For example... If we were to cut down on a less expensive processor. Even if its say.. by as little as 10-20 dollars. That could be spent in another capacity. Regardless of how you want to look at it. People have a misconception about Quads and Dual Cores. Basically it's the assumption that a Quad core is ultimately ''better'' for gaming. This is anything but true. If we're dealing with just gaming, your Dual Core is much better. Mostly in price. Let's talk about that a bit more. If we're dealing with above processors, we notice that the Dual is less expensive. Not by much, but it is. Not the most ideal comparison but we'll manage so I can get my point across. Let's pretend we have X processor (Dual Core) that's 100 dollars. Then we have XX processor (Quad Core). X Processor and XX have the same arch, i.e same cache type/level/socket FSB etc etc. but the only difference is the Quad version is 150 dollars more expensive. So XX is now 250 dollars. They also have the same GHZ or (core frequency). So it's the ideal comparison between a Quad and a Dual. When we're talking about GAMING you have to understand that a Quad core isn't a magical processor that uses all 4 cores in unison. The easiest way to explain it is to say this: You have Cores 1,2,3,4. You have ARMA 2 running. Even the latest, greatest and most hardware challenging games only need 2 cores to run it optimally. Call me crazy? Lets go back to our 4 cores. Here's whats happening while your game is running. You have core 1 : Core one is handling ~70ish% of the load. Core 2: 30ish% of the Load, Core 3/4 are running it at less than 5%. Keep in mind that during this example, we can say that the Quad and the Dual come stock at 3.0. The customer can overclock them to 4.0 on air. You now have a very fast Dual Core and Quad Core. What's the difference? Money, and the fact that clock speed is > more cores. Keep in mind while I'm explaining this, I'm trying to put it on a level anyone can understand. Regardless, the same principal applies and dual cores will be sufficient. In this same argument, a quad core should never be brought over a dual core in the same price range. The Dual is superior for gaming. Remember, the cores don't work in unison. Understanding how video games run is the best way to interpret the differences.Now, if this were video editing that's an entirely different ball game. A quad core would be superior. The cores can be loaded with different frames to render thus making the overall process faster. tl;dr: Games like clock speed more then extra cores. The latest games are off-loading functions to the other cores if available but it's very minimal.
  15. joethe33

    What's wrong with my setup

    You need a new computer. You're running a x2 4800. That's a very slow processor. Essentially it's a Athlon 64 times two. Low L2 cache etc. Which is two generations old. I can also assume because of this you use a motherboard that, if you even had a PCI express slot its 1.0 and not the latest, 2.0. Which most of the latest cards can handle because of backwards compatibility, thought what would be the point of buying a 200 dollar video card if you cannot even run it optimally? Not only is motherboard an issue, the PSU would be as well. You essentially need a new computer. I could go on about what I "think" you should do, so if you're willing to talk to me via PMs I could possible help you pick out a very affordable system with a few tricks up my sleeve.