zaira

Yes, with decent 200+$/€ videocard, and reasnoble vd and 3d res. I have q6600 @3.6GHz, and i didnt finish campaign in arma2 and AO. Personaly im waitng for sandy bridge ex, and maybe zambezi (both will come out probably in the end of next summer). I just dont want to spend alot of money today, to get 50% increse in fps (like from 2x in harvest red to 3x). But multy outside of big towns is playable. You can check hordocp review of gtx 460 on OA, done with i7 @3.6 http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/07/12/nvidia_geforce_gtx_460_review/3

Harvest red mission is cpu killer, becouse of huge amount of ai, and cities have alot of tectures so it is hard on gpu 2, and combined harvest red in big cities kills fps to 2x on anything stock. And to be honest, hig end last gen (4870), isnt much slower than mid gpu, like 460 anyway.

Well, i get better fps (2 on average), benchmark 1, running CO, than running 1.07 i use launcher anyway....my clans server is ARMA2 + ace, and mostly i play arma2 (just arma 2 + ace). I get less stuttering with CO or arrowhead, played with core settings an exthreads2, and for me CO runs better.

Im waiting......:)

Well, i play arma2 sp in CO, and generaly i have better performance (slightly, like 5 %) with AO. So to me 1.54 AO is better than 1.07

How much do you get at arma2 benchmark 2;) :D

Generaly anyone is limited with cpu. You can play multi or with editor with few AI and everything works great. But, alot of ai missions and campaign, kill any system to sub 30 fps without i7 @ 4+ GHz. If you want to see what will game realy look like in heavy fights with alot of ai, use arma 2 benchmark 2. If you are interested in average fps, use edian of arma2 benchmark 1 and benchmark 2. Operation arrowhead benchmark E8 is practicaly similar with arma 2 benchmark 1. E8, and Bench 1 just dont replicate real FPS you will have, not to mention fps drops. I have about 50 fps in bench 1 and E8, and in real mission, like conteratack sp mission or campagin im stuck at 25. P.S having high hopes in zambezi and sandy bridge, if they will clock to 5+, i think you can play at everything maxed, till then im fine with my q6600 @3.6

I think there is error with Artillery computer and MRLS regarding range. Range is 2 small. http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/8442/arma2oa2010082709534518.jpg I run this modes, http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2787/arma2oa2010082709542844.jpg So there is some kind of conflict, that reduces range....im going to run them one by one to see what is making error Runing just vanilla Combined ops, everything is fine

AC has poor range on MLRS:eek:

3rd mission in campagin (convoy), after loading autosave (first auto), every AI just stands and rotates clockwise. I can get out of abrams, but i cant move. This is when airplane gets hit autosave. And savegame was created with this patch... Other than this everything is fine, maybe even better fps. I was running with ace beta, and balistic calculator, and some other minor mods (warFX, Mando).

Since a2 demo, i use ati 4850 (512MB) without problems, at the begining i seen lod switch, but when i upgreaded my cpu it is gone. I play CO now, and still no issues. Video setings are high, except vram (def), AA (normal), PP (off, cos it looks ugly) 1680*1050 @ 100%. Arma2 bench 1 40, OA 42, VD 1600M As i seen in some posts people have broken texture, to me it looks that you have gpu callculation errors (possible due to overclocking and/or overheating), so try tu underclock sligtly, or clean the videocard of dust...

http://www.carriercommand.com/

Well, in last few years cpu clock and performance per Mhz didnt improve alot. Q6600 is clocked 2.4, new quads are clocked at 3, only improvement in cpu arhitecture is done just by adding more cores. That is the case, and that will be in future. They need to find a way to split the process to more threads, especialy AI, as it is the AI thread that kills performance. Im shure they know this, and good for them that they are going to console market where everything is about multithreading.

I wish BIS finds a way to split AI to different threads. Example Blufor to one thread, OPFOR to one, AMBIENT wildlife, to one, INDEPENDANT to one.... AI kills the fps, like in sp, or hosting warfare, you must do this. It is not accaptable that you can bottleneck decent 4GHZ quad with AI.

Only thing that will help u m8 is to overclock your cpu, buy decent cooler like noctua http://www.noctua.at/main.php?show=productview&products_id=34&lng=en and try to clock your cpu as far as it gets stable.

My only comment is that mods should put this on the first page.

I think with that system u will realy enjoy the game:) Just use reasnoble 3d resolution (if u use it, you dont nead antialiasing), and dont use more than 3k VD (even less, is enoughm exept when you are flying). Have fun, i wait next gen cpus and gpus :cool:

E8500 Difference 2 vs 4 core are 15%, by my testing with q6600 (same clockspead).

Dear friend, you are telling about maxed + 8msaa, and giving me link to crysis warhead setup at "gamer" and 2x AA, cmon. Arma2 is demaniding game, but there are other games out there that cant be run on current hardware, and ofer much much less than arma 2, or OA. You need to learn critical thinking, and analyze data that is avalable, like for example that chart. On that chart you can see 1GB runing at 36fps, an 768 MB running at 33fps, on that game diference is 36/33, or 9.09%. But this is offtopic. IMHO GTX460 with 768 or 1GB aer both fine videocards for arma2, if you have quad core cpu at 3+GHz. Have a nice day.

Well, cant run this games at 60fps fluid.... Arma2, AO, Crysis, Crysis warhead, Metro 2033, Flight simulator X...., and many, many others

I guess, if u used phase coolingl on i7 980, and get 6GHz, and watercool pair of 480gtx it could maxed it up. Well, supercomputers couldnt run the arma2 maxed, cos they work on higly optimized parralel threads, and that is where VR is weak, parallelism. Gulftowns and x6 phenoms have enough cpu power for everything arma 2 has to offer, but it just isnt coded to use all cores efficiently. I think BIS should try to go to console market (not with arma), just to learn how to properly code for multicore cpus, and use better the video cards.... I love every game they made, but i hate the fact that when i have pc to run it, like after 2-3 years, game visuals look obsolete.:mad:

Shure i did seen tests, and graphs, and dead3eys tread. I did my own tests, and cpu is bottleneck in that test. You can check it for yourself, easly. Just eliminate possibility that GPU is bottlenck, lower everything in video options, and test it. And play with clock and cores to see fps change. Like i get 18fps wih 4x3.2 core 2 quad on 3.2GHz, and i get 20 with same at 3.6GHz 12.5% clock speed up gives me same percentage of fps boost. What realy is disipointing is that if i run the game with only 2 cores, and force affinity on 2 cores, i only get 15% less, so implication is that game realy isnt optimised for quads on that test. Arma 2 likes high clock, more than cores, shure there is benefit with 4vs2 cores but not that much that you would call the game 4 core optimised. I think that AI thread/s kill the performance, as rendering thread needs to wait for AI thread/s to finish. Arma 2 uses 15 threads, (resource manager). That 0% is rubbish, u cant realy measure gpu, and cpu usage just that simple, as u think, but low usage realy points to my hypotessis. Well, the sadest part is that i spend more time to analyzing games performance than actualy playing it, and i play it alot and in a active clan:eek: You are totaly right about 980, not even that cpu cant play game without fps sometimes droping tu sub 30 (and i mean 4+GHz overclock). Maybe with zambezi and sandy bridge overclock we could play the game without fps drops. So with any BIS game, u just need to wait 2 years to play it with eye candy ON....sad but true

Well, just download the "backup" from some torrent site, i had simmilar problem, my DVDRW died. DVDRW are dirt cheap, but i just dont want it, becouse i think it is pointless to have one, just as floppy (everything you can do with floppy and dvd drives in modern pcs u can do with USB drive). If u have original cd key (I do), just maunt image with deamon tools and isnstall the game (and instalation is allot faster with USB drive).

...2 or 3 fps on 15 is 20 % difference benchmark 2 is cpu benchmark (hard on gpu 2). If u want to properly see that the game engine is cpu bond in that benchmark u obviously test at low resolution and details (like lowest 640, and 3d res 50%). On my q6600 game scales lineary with cpu clock on that test, implication is cpu bottlenecks. As i seen for my 1+ years on arma 2 playing, game is on places cpu bottlenecked (like in warfare), gpu bottlenecked (forrests, town), cpu+gpu bottlenecked (manhatan, elektrozazavodsk mission). If u want to play arma2 like u are probably used to, buy most expensive cpu+gpu combo, and overclock it, even then your fps can drop to sub 30. But honestly in multi the game is playable with modern cpus and gpus (like i5, i7 and FTX 460+, ati 5850+) at decent visuals.

About zambezi (bulldozer). Pls, dont write rubbish, there is no confirmed details about anything abaut bulldozer, rather than some slides about arhitecture. For best info right now check Anands site (anandtech), he is one of few people in the willdness of internet that knows something about computer science, and hardware, as he is engineer (master of science in cs). THERE IS NO OTHER INFO ABOUT BULLDOZER THAN ON HIS SITE, ONLY AMDs old roadmap slide, where one can see AM3+, but THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WILL BE OR IT WONT BE COMPATIBLE WITH AM3 sockets, and CHIPSETS we have today (like with bios update). Stop acting smart, becouse there IS NO OFFICIAL INFO YET!!!! But amd will reveal zambezi detail in August 24th. http://www.dvhardware.net/article44409.html I would personaly wait for hotchips, and if i see if it would be compatible. IF copatible with AMDs latest chipsets avalable today, i would buy 1090T and when zambezi comes out, if its good raplece it. Personaly i would go with asus formula 4 motherboard. Acording to our member bangtail, he confirmed no benefit to 6 core, as he owns gulftown, and he owned quad i7 before, so i dont see that AMDs 6 core cpus would be any better than 4 cores. But personaly i would go to 6 core, not becouse i think in next few years we would see any benefit in that, rather becouse you can run any game at 4 cores, like arma 2, and use 2 extra cores with fraps to capture videos at some nice fps without noticable fps drop. And with video editing 2 extra cores will matter. There is only one game as i know that uses all 6 cores with some benefit is microsofts FSX, and i realy dont see there will be 6 core avare games in next 5 years. Have a nice day.