Mongrolian

I've actually considered running it off only 3 cores as it seems my friends and people with lower-end rigs are able to run it just fine with no lag at all. I'll give it a try in a few days when I'm back at my desktop and post my results in this thread. It seems the fellow that posted below me is having the same issues with a similar rig but using the Phenom X6 @ 3.2GHZ. I appreciate the help and input.

X6 is the 6 core processor right? I'm having the same issue with my FX-6200 6 core. If I find out what's causing it I'll let you know.

You're wrong. It performs better than I expected in every single other application. The processor you cited was the 8 core FX. The processor I have just came out about a month and a half ago and has very little to no information out there for it. The numbers say it all and so does personal experience with all the big name titles out on the market today. It outperforms all of the other models (including the 6 core phenom you also cited) but for some reason ARMA 2 doesnt mesh well with it. Next time do a little bit of research before you try and "help" people. (Which you've been of no help at all aside from cookie-cutter responses from other threads) Now. Anyone have relative experience with a similar rig that could help out with some pointers?

I looked at that and in some tests the 8 core Bulldozer processor outperformed its predecessors. Its all about which product you're testing it with as it comes down to the programs support for multiple cores. In theory, my cheaper 6 core processor should outperform the 8 core processor because it has a higher per-core clock speed. After all, programs use processors in parallel and not serial so you're never getting the full speed out of your processor unless the program you're running is optimized to utilize each core equally. (Example: An 8 core processor clocked at 2.8GHZ per core will be outperformed by a 6 core processor clocked at 3.8GHZ per core because the individual clock speed is higher and allows the processor more "breathing room") According to this benchmark comparison of all current market processors the 6200 outperforms every single other processor that AMD has out on the market at this time with 6250 marks. (Source: Futuremark, developers of 3Dmark benchmarking software) http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu/AMD+FX-6200/review I'm not sure where you're getting that my individual core speed is pretty low at 3.8GHZ per core.

To clarify; each core is supposed to run at 3.8GHZ. Not the sum of all the cores running together. In my experience 3.8GHZ is much higher than my previous Phenom X4 running at 2.8GHZ per core and is astronomically higher than any of the other products I've seen on the market to date which is why I bought it. Although 6 cores running in parallel does not equate to 22.8GHZ of power because the way processes are handled this should be more than enough to play this game on max settings. After all, I play BF3 on ultra settings at 1900x1080 with 50 fps at its lowest. I'll try the tweaks you mentioned and get back to you with the results.

I should preface this by saying I'm playing the mod "DayZ" I'm having terrible performance issues in large cities like Cherno and Elektro. (Like sub 20 frames a second) The thing is; my computer can handle all current games with the highest graphics settings but for some reason ARMA eats it alive and I have to reduce everything to fairly low. Benchmark one comes back as 59 FPS. My specs are as follows: AMD FX 6200 (6 cores at 3.8ghz) Gigabyte Radeon 7870 2GB 8 GB GSKILL Ripjaws ram x2 7200RPM Samsung spinpoint hard drives at 500GB I've tried most of the tweaks people have suggested with little to no noticable difference including adding the CPU number to the startup and making my video ram set to "Default" which actually lowers my performance drastically from "Very High". Any suggestions?