Will my PC Run this? What CPU/GPU to get? What settings? System Specifications. [Archive]

Placebo

Mar 19 2009, 08:55

Ok so obviously we're getting more any more "What CPU?" "Best PC?" etc. etc. so we shall try for now putting everything in the one thread and seeing how that goes, I will endeavour to update the first post with the most pertinent official information.

Hi all, I had noticed all the spam in the forum relating to this topic and I think it's at least a little because people are put off by the ~500 page thread, so they just go back and post a message. Well I suggested to placebo that the first post should at least be a FAQ that is generally useful to n00bs and he agreed--but kicked it back to me to come up with the text!

So let's debate a little what it should say and then we'll get post #1 fixed up with something that will hopefully help people.

Below is my stab at it, please comment/suggest and then we'll get post #1 fixed with what we all agree is best.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Minimal PC Requirements

CPU: Dual Core Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz / Intel Core 2.0 GHz / AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster
RAM: 1 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM or faster
OS: Windows XP

Recommended PC Requirements
CPU: Intel Core 2.8 GHz / AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster
RAM: 2 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT / ATI Radeon 4850 with Shader Model 3 and 512 MB VRAM or faster
OS: Windows XP or Vista

But does MY computer meet the requirement?

This website can help you analyze your hardware, select ArmA 2 from the drop down list and see how your rig measures up!

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri

Still... what's it REALLY going to be like with my rig?

Try the demo! It's free and you'll know EXACTLY what it'll be like:

http://www.arma2.com/demo/

There are free demo's available there for both Arma II and for Operation Arrowhead.

How can I see how well my rig stacks up against others?

If you have OA you can run the two "benchmark" scenarios that you will find in single user mode. They play a scene and then report your overall performance.

If you have Arma 2, or you're not satisfied with the OA bencharmk, then you can set up your own test/scenario and use the program fraps to test your frame rate:

http://www.fraps.com

Looks like I only get 20 FPS on my rig, guess I can't play...

WRONG! Anything over about 15 FPS is acceptable and anything over 30 FPS is considered really good. This may surprise you, if you come from another FPS game where everybody sulks if they don't get 100 FPS or more.

ArmA is not your average FPS, it is a military simulator. As such it's calculating the trajectory of every bullet, calculating precisely what's happening kilometers away off screen, and just generally modelling things realistically and accurately in ways that other games do not. This combined with the long view distances mean you will NOT see the same level of FPS in ArmA that you would see in a lighter weight game.

The game IS calculating all that stuff accurately at your FPS, your numbers are likely similar to what many others you play with are getting, and just so long as the user experience seems fluid it's going to be fine.

Would the game run better if I had a faster CPU?

Yes.

Would the game run better if I had a faster video card?

Maybe. If you adjust the video settings like anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, shadows, resolution, and texture quality does it make a big difference? The bigger the difference that makes, the more likely a better video card will help you. If it doesn't make much difference what you set those things to you are likely limited by your CPU.

I can't afford better hardware, what else can I do?

There are a lot of things that you can try to optimize if you feel that performance isn't quit up to what you need it to be. There are a couple of sticky threads for that over in the troubleshooting section, try some of these suggestions out:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=101124

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73947

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=85124

Bakimaster91

Apr 11 2009, 09:04

Hi folks!

I am new to the forums so please be tolerant :) However I have a serious dilemma...
For some time I`ve been wondering: what type of CPU would be best for ArmA2? Of course I`ve heard that the multi-core CPU would be required. The question is whether this would be the 2 Core or 4 Core one?

At this moment I own the Core 2 Duo E6700 2,6 gHz, 4GB of Patriot 800 mHz DDr2 ram and the HD4870 512mb, so as you can see my CPU is pretty dated :P I thought of changing it to the C2D E8400... However, maybe it would be better to change for a 4Core huh? Also will my 550W Chieftec handle the CPU change?
What do you guys think?

Max255[PL]

Apr 11 2009, 09:16

Quad Core will be better, beacause same effect as buying E8400 will be OCing your current CPU. On good MoBo E6700 can run at 3,6GHz (maybe more) and 8400 at 4GHz but there will be no difference at all. Best choice is to buy Q6600 and OC it to 3.4 maybe 3.6GHz... Or some newer model, like Q9 series. But i'm no expert at this, wait for more replies... ;)

BTW: What MoBo do u have?

And little OT: Siema Bartek! ;)

mr.g-c

Apr 11 2009, 09:17

Quadcore these days, nothing else! :yay:

De_little_Bubi

Apr 11 2009, 09:36

Wait for release and check experience from other player/newspages etc.

Bakimaster91

Apr 11 2009, 09:44

Cool cool guys :D Another question is whether mine Power supply will handle the change of CPU to Quadcore... This can also be the problem ;/

Kernriver

Apr 11 2009, 10:02

Cool cool guys :D Another question is whether mine Power supply will handle the change of CPU to Quadcore... This can also be the problem ;/

I think You should ask that question in PC discussion thread:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=47904&page=270

There are some guys there that know all kinds of stuff about computers...;)

Welcome to the forums.

echo1

Apr 11 2009, 11:35

ArmA is meant to be multicore optimized. If that's true, it means that a Quad Core will be of much more use than a Dual Core, even if the latter is faster than the former. 550w should be more than enough for your configuration, assuming the PSU is of good quality (How old is the PSU?)

The big question here is what motherboard you have. Certain older chipsets may not be compatible with Quad Cores. Although the chances are that your motherboard will accept a quad core no problem.

Bakimaster91

Apr 11 2009, 12:02

Well I have the ASUS P5B Deluxe but with the up-to-date BIOS it is Quad Core compatible :) So not a problem here. I `ve got the Chieftec 550W power supply and I`ve bought a month ago for the new card :)

echo1

Apr 11 2009, 12:14

Cool, looks like you're good to go. CPU-wise, if you want to save money and are prepared to overclock, I'd recommend a Q6600. If you just want good performance out of the box, I'd spend the bit extra and grab a Q9650, whose performance is almost comparable with the Core i7 920 (running at standard speed)

Spetz

Apr 11 2009, 18:17

get a I7 if you got the money, you wont need to upgrade for like 3 years, just maybe more ram,

Suma

Apr 11 2009, 19:02

mr.g-c

Apr 11 2009, 19:25

Suma, can you maybe give any informations about if the dedicated server will use multiple cores?
So finally we can have even larger battles than with 120 People playing live. (like at IC-Arma for instance).
Would be nice to hear that AI also gets their own core like in single player so there could be bigger coops and warefare with better server performance as well.

Thanks!:D

echo1

Apr 11 2009, 20:06

get a I7 if you got the money, you wont need to upgrade for like 3 years, just maybe more ram,

Well, in all fairness, a Q9650 isnt that much slower than a i7 920 (Assuming you don't bother overclocking). Better off waiting for something spectacular in future than spending hundreds to replace your motherboard and RAM.

ScorpionGuard

Apr 11 2009, 22:23

If supported properly. Do you think that 500 + person can play at once? And what would be needed?

Steakslim

Apr 11 2009, 23:09

I don't think it'd be that extreme. I guess one could wish that we could actually get a server with more than 64 players with proper hardware support.

ScorpionGuard

Apr 11 2009, 23:18

Is 64 players the cap on ArmA 2? If so. Why the drop in the number of person that can play in MP. In ArmA 1. You could play 250 + person with the right hardware.

Alex72

Apr 12 2009, 02:38

Like in ArmA1 they didnt say you could play 250. Never seen that many but i saw more than what was stated. Maybe the 50+ is a mark set where you wont need special hardware for good flow etc. I think its possible to go beyond it tbh.

ArmA motto: "You can do ANYTHING in ArmA". :) Hope that is true for ArmA2 as well. Should be.

SWAT_BigBear

Apr 12 2009, 05:42

The estimation I have made some time before in http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1213104&postcount=1 still seems to be valid.

If you are aiming for the best experience and do not care for money, buy the fastest quad you can get and you should get the best experience. However, if you have a moderate budget, for the same price you will most likely get significantly higher frequency Dual core than a Quad core would be, and in most missions this will result in better performance.
I'm wondering what are your setups during your testing with multiplay.
i.e.=
Deicated servers?
In game server?
or like I'm doing, a dedi and gaming on the same pc?
ArmA does very well for me on this 2 cpu/4 core pc @<hidden>

4 IN 1

Apr 12 2009, 05:53

would my good old E6600 be able to run the game?

Max255[PL]

Apr 12 2009, 08:24

Yeah. But i recommend OCing it... What's your MoBo, RAM and PSU? Then i can tell u how much u can OC it. ;)

Steakslim

Apr 12 2009, 08:35

Is 64 players the cap on ArmA 2? If so. Why the drop in the number of person that can play in MP. In ArmA 1. You could play 250 + person with the right hardware.

No I didn't say it was a cap, but most servers groan and ache with horrid lag and crash often when you starting going higher, save for those few who can take the beating.

Spetz

Apr 12 2009, 22:28

Well, in all fairness, a Q9650 isnt that much slower than a i7 920 (Assuming you don't bother overclocking). Better off waiting for something spectacular in future than spending hundreds to replace your motherboard and RAM.

the DDR-3 might make it more worth to upgrade, personally I would go for the Q9650, but say if I won a lottery, or I got a "real" job compared to my minimum wage job right now I would hit the i7.

binkster

Apr 12 2009, 22:40

Lol I like how you say if you win the lottery. One thing I did was I bought a q6600 and an aftermarket fan. With a 780i I was able to overclock with low temps to 3.2ghz. So 3.2ghz at 1600mhz ram hopefully will do its thing rather then spending the extra cash on a more expensive cpu.

I wonder how much of a difference the L2 Cache 12MB on a Q9650 would be rather than the L2 Cache: 2 x 4MB on a q6600

echo1

Apr 12 2009, 22:45

the DDR-3 might make it more worth to upgrade, personally I would go for the Q9650

You do realize that the difference between a DDR2 equipped system and the same one using DDR3 is very small?

@<hidden>: Cache makes some, but not very much difference. The Q6600 will, when overclocked, outdo just about every one of the newer quadcores except for the Q9650. Same holds true if you overclock them as well. And 3.2 is relatively tame for what you can do with a Q6600. With a decent enough fan, motherboard and set of RAM you can hit up into the 4Ghz mark.

Dwarden

Apr 12 2009, 23:12

i would suggest to choose one of the new quadcores (if you mean just change CPU)

anyway i'm sure sixcore Opterons as server gunna kick ass :)

SgtH3nry3

Apr 13 2009, 09:19

anyway i'm sure sixcore Opterons as server gunna kick ass :)Haha, what about the new dual Nehalem-based Intel Xeon W5580? :D
2 physical CPUs, with each 4 cores, each handling 2 simultaneous threads and some serious overclocking potential due to the D0 stepping.

echo1

Apr 13 2009, 10:01

That's nothing. Just wait till their Octo-core "Beckton" CPUs come out later this year.

Riot69

Apr 13 2009, 10:30

I hope it will works to me:-D I have new pc...one year old
Intel core 2 quad 3.0Ghz
Ram 4gb
Ati radeon 3870x2 1gb
I hope it will be enough for it and for massive MP battles:)

SgtH3nry3

Apr 13 2009, 11:22

That's nothing. Just wait till their Octo-core "Beckton" CPUs come out later this year.HOLY SH*T! :eek:
Octo-core and 4xQPI... That means the possibility of a quadruple Beckton system with 32 logical processors (cores)!

The Jasper Forest tech looks promising aswell, with integrated PCI Express connections (on-die controller?).
Maybe they could do something similar for discrete graphics hardware to directly connect to the CPU instead of going through an I/O hub.
This could multiply bandwidth and decrease latencies by a tenfold!

Anyway, I reckon my stock Q9650 should be more than enough for Armed Assault 2.
But I'm still considering to upgrade to i7 tech, since those X58 boards also have SAS controllers.
Atm. I'm using Ultra320 SCSI instead of SATA, which is faster and offload the processor/Northbridge, but SAS disks and SSDs are becoming more and more affordable these days and it already kills SATA/300 at the same speed not to mention the better efficiency you get with striping.

echo1

Apr 13 2009, 12:12

SgtH3nry3

Apr 13 2009, 21:08

The advantages of SAS over SATA is only noticable if you are making a large array. If that was the case, you'd be better off getting yourself a seperate RAID card, as motherboard controllers tend to waste your RAM and CPU power.Well, it depends on the storage medium you are using.

I haven't seen any SATA disks which can anywhere near the iops or (random) burst transfer of SAS disks, this is not due to the speed of the harddisk but rather about the interface.
If you use an entry class 10k RPM, 8 Mb low-level cache SAS disk. It won't be (noticeably) faster than similar SATA disks even though the seek times are much lower of SCSI hardware.
However, the burst transfer (and most of the times sustained transfer aswell) are much higher on SCSI hardware.
Even my old Ultra 160 disks outperform most SATA/300 10k disks, except for sustained transfer which is the only advantage of SATA/300 other than parallel connections.
They even kick Intel SSD's ass on various points.

I can't say anything about motherboard controllers as I usually use Adaptec or LSI Logic controllers, but I don't think it will be any worse than SATA of which the command sets are completely CPU dependant.
RAID configurations (esp. striping) are only interesting for large data transfers and all I want are low seek times and fast random transfers.

werutsky

Apr 14 2009, 17:47

SgtH3nry3

Apr 14 2009, 18:05

I just want to remember everybody that once the developers said that this computer would run ARMA 2 smoothly

Alza Ruby:
#GIGABYTE MA790GP-DS4H
#AMD Phenom 9650 X4 Quad-Core, 2.3GHz
#4GB (KIT 2x2GB) DDR2 1066MHz PC8500 CL5-5-5-18 OCZ Platinum Edition XTC
#SAPPHIRE HD 4850 Toxic, 512MB DDR3
#SEAGATE Barracuda 7200.11 500GB

so ... it's a quad core with just 2.3 Ghz ...
based on that I recently bought a Q8200 with a SAPPHIRE HD 4850 ...
I strongly believe that I will be able to run the game ...

anyone disagree ?
so .. to answer the thread question, my sugestion is a quad core ....If I were you and I did that upgrade specifically for ArmA II, I'd postpone that upgrade until after the release of the game.
By then the HD 4890 would have been cheaper and the Core i7 aswell.

But I think you'll run the game just fine if the developers are right.

echo1

Apr 14 2009, 18:09

The original Phenoms weren't particularly good. That said, there's nothing good enough around to justify you upgrading your system. You should be good to go for now.

werutsky

Apr 14 2009, 18:18

The original Phenoms weren't particularly good. .

yeah ... that's what make me believe that the game IS OPTIMIZED for quad cores
finally !! a game well coded

Batstat

Apr 14 2009, 23:23

POTS

Apr 15 2009, 00:52

I agree with SgtH3nry3, newer buy HW before you need it. The price/performace score moving up in your favour, one tick or tack for each day.
In 2019 you could have 500GHz in each of your core. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene

And if BIS still are making Arma, they will launch Arma VI 29. may 2019 :D

Nah, the day speed is realized is the day we move from electronic computers to spintronic-electronic computers.

EDIT: lol, there is a link to spintronics in teh article. Read up to see the potential for "instant" computing and bootup.

remoteplayer1

Apr 15 2009, 05:56

if anyone has been keeping up on current computer and hardware sales, its not economical to buy the latest and greatest computer as all that processing is not necessary unless you are doing something that requires it-- photoshop, maya, autocad , games etc. which the average person only uses their computer for the internet. that being said if you also noticed the extreme decline in computer game sales to many factors, piracy, consoles etc. If this game requires something the equivalent of run crysis at 30fps then its not going to be a very successful game, as that game suffered sales because of that fact. This game has to be optimized for dual and quad core computers that are only mid range- of course with the expandability of the future but i hope it doesn't scale like crap like the first one did. i couldn't buy the original till now being my dual core would chug- and it still does in some areas but in all other games that have came out recently it runs like a dream at 1920x1080 besides crysis which seemed like it was made for a computer that was 4 years ahead of being affordable and would be scaled down to 8 year old graphics to run beyond 30fps.
my setup is a e6600 dual core, 8800gts, 2gb ram

telejunky

Apr 15 2009, 06:20

Yeah the most player got mid range cpu/hw. But BIS even said that ArmA will look very good on mid settings. So i hope they did it right and we don't have to wait a year until the recommended hardware is affordable for humans :D

Andersson[SWEC]

Apr 15 2009, 07:52

AMD Phenom 9500 QUAD 2.2Ghz
3GB Ram
Geforece 8800GT 512mb

A bit worried here...

blackforest_rumbler

Apr 15 2009, 08:52

;1270315']AMD Phenom 9500 QUAD 2.2Ghz
3GB Ram
Geforece 8800GT 512mb

A bit worried here...

Intel E6850 Core2Duo @<hidden> 3,2 Ghz
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 PCI-E 1G GDDR5
4 GB RAM

a bit worried here as well :confused:

Maddmatt

Apr 15 2009, 08:56

Sickboy

Apr 15 2009, 10:21

I've usually upgraded months before game releases, on both Server and Game PC end.
It has cut me in my fingers a few times pretty badly and by now finally decided to actually wait until the game/software is out, then play some on the current machine, wait for some updates of both GPU and game, and THEN decide if and WHAT to upgrade.

I'm on Q6600 @<hidden> 3.33 with 8GB DDR2-1066, on a X38, with GTX 280 and 750 watt PC Power & Cool.
After the game is released I hope to upgrade to a Core i7 with 12 GB DDR3-1600 on a X58. (Before anyone asks; I use the memory for Hyper-V virtualization).

Biggest reason for me is currently unexplained instability of the system during games operations. Besides, im pretty excited by Core i7's features, esp for Virtualization.
I wish I could wait for 32nm Core i7 since it will have some interesting improvements, probably induces price drops and possibly delivers the next generation Intel Chipset (X68???), but due to the instability of the system, I don't think I have that choice :)

I would recommend anyone to just wait until the game has been released and you've got some feedback...

Pirate.

Apr 15 2009, 10:25

Intel E6850 Core2Duo @<hidden> 3,2 Ghz
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 PCI-E 1G GDDR5
4 GB RAM

a bit worried here as well :confused:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800
Geforce 7800GT 256MB
2GB DDR400 RAM

What the hell are you worried about? :p
Of course, I'll probably replace it when ArmA 2 is released. No point upgrading before I need to :)

Good thinking Matt, I think blackforest is one of those people who's worried that he can't beat the latest 3DMark records...

Tip to everyone with a budget: wait for the ArmA2 benchmark results to come out after the game is released. Only then decide what hardware to get.
All these speculations are a waist of forum space.

And so is my post if you think of it...

SgtH3nry3

Apr 15 2009, 10:48

Biggest reason for me is currently unexplained instability of the system during games operations. Besides, im pretty excited by Core i7's features, esp for Virtualization.
I wish I could wait for 32nm Core i7 since it will have some interesting improvements, probably induces price drops and possibly delivers the next generation Intel Chipset (X68???), but due to the instability of the system, I don't think I have that choice :)Yes, there is a huge shift in CPU technology.
The new Sandy Bridge architecture (which might use that next generation chipset) has a new instruction set for handling very wide vectors.
Which finally solves the floating-point disadvantage of the x86 architecture, but it will still only be a tad faster than the Cell Broadband engine flops-wise.

But for your virtualization needs the new Westmere cores are interesting aswell, they have much lower virtualization latencies and a second generation integrated memory controller. The Westmeres with the LGA 1366 socket also work on the current X58 (Core i7) boards if I'm not mistaken.

I would recommend anyone to just wait until the game has been released and you've got some feedback...Yes, that always is the wisest decision IMHO.

Baff1

Apr 15 2009, 11:38

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800
Geforce 7800GT 256MB
2GB DDR400 RAM

What the hell are you worried about? :p
Of course, I'll probably replace it when ArmA 2 is released. No point upgrading before I need to :)

Don't chuck that chip Matt, that is a lot of power for a single core, it might make a far superior dedicated server than most dual cores for a lot of softwares.

echo1

Apr 15 2009, 11:59

Yes, there is a huge shift in CPU technology.
The new Sandy Bridge architecture (which might use that next generation chipset) has a new instruction set for handling very wide vectors.
Which finally solves the floating-point disadvantage of the x86 architecture, but it will still only be a tad faster than the Cell Broadband engine flops-wise..

I don't think that's going to be much of an advantage for gamers. Video editors and folders maybe. Alot of Intel's latest processor tech is designed for enterprise use, not for us mere mortals.

@<hidden>: Isn't the X2 3800 a dual core?

Baff1

Apr 15 2009, 12:48

Nevermind then, that kind of removes my intrest in it.

SgtH3nry3

Apr 15 2009, 16:30

I don't think that's going to be much of an advantage for gamers. Video editors and folders maybe. Alot of Intel's latest processor tech is designed for enterprise use, not for us mere mortals.Actually, it's specifically designed for games. In fact the new Core i5 (Celeron replacement) will have an integrated graphics processor on the CPU-die next to the integrated memory controller.
The later Haswell architecture will have the addition of an FMA instruction set, this is often used in graphics processors because it can double the raw floating point operations. It might also have scatter and gather instructions, which is also a typical GPU feature.
And raw FLOPS make a fast graphics processor.
@<hidden>: Isn't the X2 3800 a dual core?Yes it is. :D

Scruffy

Apr 15 2009, 19:07

Actually, it's specifically designed for games. In fact the new Core i5 (Celeron replacement) will have an integrated graphics processor on the CPU-die next to the integrated memory controller.
The later Haswell architecture will have the addition of an FMA instruction set, this is often used in graphics processors because it can double the raw floating point operations. It might also have scatter and gather instructions, which is also a typical GPU feature.
And raw FLOPS make a fast graphics processor.

I think the i5 will only get the cpu-gpu interface integrated at first, not a whole gpu. Maybe that was the later architecture you mentioned. Comparing it to a Celeron might be bit far fetched too. I think the main difference is the dual channel interface in comparison to triple channel with the i7. For ArmA that might even be interesting but not for games in general. The i5 might be the more interesting platform as it should be cheaper all together and maybe the integrated gpu interface matters in speed to compensate for lower memory bandwith?

echo1

Apr 15 2009, 20:05

I've read some early previews of the Core i5 which claim its performance is not far off that of the Core i7. You see, memory bandwidth isn't a huge contributing factor for all applications - most games will only gain a tiny performance increase from using three channels as opposed to two. The integrated GPU will be on the lower end dual core models which will be used on non-gaming machines and laptops. Performance of these GPUs will probably equal that of Intel's current "Extreme Graphics" chipset, at least with the first release. And they are not a replacement for the Celeron - they're more a replacement for the lower end Core 2 Quads, and the Core 2 Duo. Intel has yet to announce what they're going to come out with to replace the Celeron and Pentium Dual Core, but I'd say it will be something Nehalem-based with the brand maintained.

And yeah, I agree. The Core i5 will probably be the mainstream "weapon of choice" whenever it comes out. Till then...

SgtH3nry3

Apr 15 2009, 20:11

I think the i5 will only get the cpu-gpu interface integrated at first, not a whole gpu. Maybe that was the later architecture you mentioned. Comparing it to a Celeron might be bit far fetched too. I think the main difference is the dual channel interface in comparison to triple channel with the i7. For ArmA that might even be interesting but not for games in general. The i5 might be the more interesting platform as it should be cheaper all together and maybe the integrated gpu interface matters in speed to compensate for lower memory bandwith?Well, I read somewhere that the Clarkdale will get the very same IGP hardware as used in the GN40 chipset. Which is based on Intel's X4500 HD graphics processor.
However the first Core i5's (Lynnfield) will get an on-die PCI Express controller for decreased latencies, higher bandwidth and better direct memory access capabilities. So no integrated graphics processor in the Lynnfield.
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/1650/ibexpeak.jpg (http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/07/16/Ibex-peak.jpg)
Havendale (45nm) is scrapped and replaced by Clarkdale (32nm).
So:
The Lynnfield is the first Core i5 to release, which is a mid-end 45nm quadcore without integrated graphics processor.
The Clarkdale is the second Core i5 to release, which is a low-end 32nm dualcore with integrated graphics processor.

What I think you mean is either the Flexible Display Interface (which connects the IGP through the MCH to an HDMI/DVI/VGA port on your motherboard) or the Direct Media Interface (which connects the CPU-GPU to the MCH).

echo1

Apr 15 2009, 20:40

Nevermind, problem has been resolved :)

Scruffy

Apr 15 2009, 22:32

...
Ah, thank you for clarification, also to ch_123. :)

Nowyoudie

Apr 16 2009, 03:47

Intel E6850 Core2Duo @<hidden> 3,2 Ghz
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 PCI-E 1G GDDR5
4 GB RAM

a bit worried here as well :confused:

You shouldn't be worried.

Q6700 @<hidden> 3.4GHz, 4GB Corsair XMS2, GTX 275 here - not worried at all. ArmA already runs fine for me.

ziiip

Apr 16 2009, 04:26

You shouldn't be worried.

Q6700 @<hidden> 3.4GHz, 4GB Corsair XMS2, GTX 275 here - not worried at all. ArmA already runs fine for me.

What does "fine" mean to you?:)

ScorpionGuard

Apr 16 2009, 04:49

I was just reading about Butterfly Grid. And I'm wondering if ArmA II would be able to be installed on these type of eServers and Butterfly Software Supported? An if the infomation is correct. Whom ever run ArmA II on this type of server should be able to have up to 5000 players per 50 blades at one time. Question 1) Could 5000 players be on one map? 2) And how would this effect the community as a hold?

blackforest_rumbler

Apr 16 2009, 06:40

Good thinking Matt, I think blackforest is one of those people who's worried that he can't beat the latest 3DMark records...

Tip to everyone with a budget: wait for the ArmA2 benchmark results to come out after the game is released. Only then decide what hardware to get.
All these speculations are a waist of forum space.

And so is my post if you think of it...

Just to make it clear: I give a shi..... on 3DMark records. Just wanted to know if my Dual Core is good enough or if i may need to upgrade to quadcore. ;)

Steakslim

Apr 16 2009, 08:19

Just to make it clear: I give a shi..... on 3DMark records. Just wanted to know if my Dual Core is good enough or if i may need to upgrade to quadcore. ;)

do you do much else with your pc other than gaming that would have the need for a quad? If not then no you probably won't "need" a quad, but if you really want a quadcore anyways, anything from the q6600 to the new i7's will do nicely depending on how much money you have to spend.

Binary

Apr 17 2009, 09:16

Hello everyone

So far we have gotten a great deal of information regarding estimated minimum/recomended hardware requirements for running ArmA 2...

But after searching the forums a bit - it seems like we haven't got any info on requirements for the dedicated servers?

I am currently hosting a ArmA 1 server on a "decent" workstation..
3GHz Pentium D
2GB DDR-2 RAM
74GB 10.000 RPM Raptor HDD
MS Server 2008.

ArmA 1 runs fine.

Of course, the golden word that we are all creaming in our pants about - is multithreading. We know that this is suported client-side, but BIS, can we please have some info about whether/how this will be supported server-side?

I really like this quote from Suma:

Currently I can provide only an estimation, for final words you still have to wait for later:

Our intention is to scale at least to some extent to quad cores (this means with quad cores you should have either better performance in some scenes than in dual cores). Therefore the game should run better on Quad Core compared to Dual Core assuming they both run at the same frequency.

That said, you can get higher frequency Dual Core for the same money as you could get Quad Core. My prediction is 3.3 GHz Dual Core will most likely run the game better than 2.5 GHz Quad Core, while both will cost you approximately the same.

One thing to note: different scenarios / workloads may show different performance patterns - e.g. it is possible missions with huge numbers of units will runner better on 2.5 GHz Quad Core than 3.3 GHz Dual Core.

Disclaimer: this is only a prediction and things can still change before the game is released.

But can we use this prediction directly for servers as well?
Or would servers gain an enourmous increase from quad-cores as suposed to dual-cores ?

Rekrul

Apr 17 2009, 12:00

Another question, have they confirmed a Linux DS version?

Dwarden

Apr 17 2009, 12:03

well if the game is able to use more than two cores then 4x2.5 > 2x3.3 in terms of IPS ... also quads usually have bigger l2/l3 than duals etc ...
this ofcourse apply only if the cores are on same FSB freq and same freq of memory ...

ofcourse overclocked dualcore 4+GHz match/beat stock quadcore 2.5GHz

TrueSlawter

Apr 17 2009, 23:13

Hmm Question for myself which has to do with the topic, I recently got a AMD X3 720 along with 4GB ram and a 4890, do you think this would be able to play on the highest settings used with a Asus ATI 4890? I know the GPU can handle it but the CPU is about 2-3 months old etc so do you all think as a rough guess it should be fine handling highest settings?

Playing ArmA the original it runs all high (obviously) and then stable framerates of around 100 at some times.

echo1

Apr 17 2009, 23:29

TrueSlawter

Apr 17 2009, 23:34

With the Highest i got it as best as i could.. & nah not yet only got it last week so wont be looking to OC for a while.

echo1

Apr 17 2009, 23:42

I read a review of that CPU recently where the reviewer was able to overclock it by about 1GHz with air cooling. There's a lot of power to be unlocked from those chips.

TrueSlawter

Apr 17 2009, 23:45

Yeah was the main reason I decided to go AMD over intel, along with the fact the past 3 PC's ive owned were AMD. before i start Overclocking im looking at aftermarket CPU coolers just to be sure :) but glad it should be able to play ArmA2 on very high :)

Horus

Apr 18 2009, 13:28

Maybe u lucky guy but u don't no yet because if u have motherboard with SB750 u can try to unlock 4th core ;)
LINK (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.benchmark.rs%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D191272&sl=sr&tl=en&history_state0=)
LINK (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.benchmark.rs%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D191847&sl=sr&tl=en&swap=1&swap=1)
LINK (http://vr-zone.com/articles/board-makers-confirmed-phenom-ii-x3-unlocking/6629.html?doc=6629)
LINK (http://my.ocworkbench.com/2009/amd/AMD-PhenomII-X3-710-X3-720-hacked-as-quadcore/enabling-the-4th-core-on-X3-710-and-X3-720.htm)

TrueSlawter

Apr 18 2009, 16:38

Yeah i know about that but ive got a Asus M3A78 Pro (SB700) doesnt matter to be honest :) the 4th core could be dead..

Ben

Apr 18 2009, 17:48

It will certainly run at very high settings, AFAIK no computer could run either OFP or ArmA on "highest settings". Let's hope they've optimized it more this time...

CPUs don't go out of date in 2-3 months :wink_o: Have you overclocked it?

This is not true. I am running Everything on Very High, and those with settings that go up to High I am running it on that. My Viewing Distance is 10,000 and my FPS is still over 50.

Q9650 Core 2 Quad
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 x2 GB
DDR3 1600 MHZ 4GB.
Intel X48 Mobo.

It is very posssible, and a very beautiful game with these settings.

Tigerkiddy

Apr 18 2009, 19:09

Hello, Do you guys think this is a good gaming laptop? and do you think i can handle ArmA 2? I prefer laptops because i can take them wherever i go.
If not i will just buy it for my 360. Here is the pic of my system.
I was using www.canyourunit.com to see if i could handle ArmA.

PS: I am new to this forums and didnt exactly know where to post this.
Please move it its in the wrong section.

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu245/FPSDUDE/CYRISystemAnalyze.jpg

echo1

Apr 18 2009, 19:20

Nice Firefox theme :p

It will run the game, but I can't imagine it would do it particularly well - the 3450 isn't a very fast graphics unit. Expect to have to turn the quality settings way down to make it run smooth.

Tigerkiddy

Apr 18 2009, 19:31

Lol yeah, i love my theme to, thanks alot man. I might just as well get it on my 360, but i will try it on my pc just to give it a shot, and see if it works. :) PM me if you want help with the theme :D

Apr 19 2009, 04:21

No... that definately won't run it.

ziiip

Apr 19 2009, 07:04

That stuff is as obsolete as my grandma. No offence though. ;)

Potatomasher

Apr 19 2009, 07:21

I wonder how much more CPU dependant is Arma2 compared to Arma ?
I can run arma on normal and some settings high with stable 30 fps even though i have very old CPU with only one core.

ohara

Apr 19 2009, 08:17

Arma2 depend more on CPU then armed assault, AI use that much more intensive

rundll.exe

Apr 19 2009, 08:23

Knowing that, will ArmA II run more smooth on the same dual core CPU as arma? Or is the game that much heavier.

Arma doesnt run too good on my E45000 (1.8ghz c2d) but its indepentent of graphics settings, so it seems my gfx is fast enough.

Potatomasher

Apr 19 2009, 08:27

Arma2 depend more on CPU then armed assault, AI use that much more intensive

Thanks a lot for quick response. Now i know that i need to update my CPU to year 2009 before Arma2 sees light of the day.

ohara

Apr 19 2009, 08:36

Im playing arma2 on dual core and ATI 4870 and its work well, we tested X2 cards and work fine without problems. I dont have same hw as i had when develop AA, so cant compare directly.

rundll.exe

Apr 19 2009, 08:41

Ok thx for the fast answer. I should upgrade my CPU anyway I guess, but better do that when its out and can gather some user experiences.

ohara

Apr 19 2009, 08:42

For better performance you can use some small fast SSD disk, it really help for game loading and lods and texture streaming.

niQ®

Apr 19 2009, 08:43

a duel core E8500 and GTX260 may suffice?:j:

Cross

Apr 19 2009, 09:24

the worst dilemma is for the upgraders.... :(

If you need to upgrade your system and stay up to date, it is wiser to upgrade to new socket system Corei7 motherboard.
But an i7 compatible CPU (i7 940) with the same specs as Q9650 is 2 times more expensive.

So if you are tight on budget, you may want to go for a low-speed-new-technology solution at the start with the hope of upgrading in a year to a faster CPU which will probably run ArmA2 better.

If you are really really tight on budget, and have a very old system, you may upgrade to an old system with 775 socket motherboard and Q9650 quad-core cpu which will easily handle everything for at least another 2 years with some overclocking. I think this setup should run ArmA quite good if coupled with a decent Gfx card and a small fast SSD as stated by Ohara

william1

Apr 19 2009, 09:43

Arma II'd better run on a shitty 3.20 Gz Pentium D because other way it won't run at all. :depressed:

SaBrE_UK

Apr 19 2009, 10:35

For better performance you can use some small fast SSD disk, it really help for game loading and lods and texture streaming.
How would we go about doing this? Anyone? Like, install it on a USB drive and run it from there?

echo1

Apr 19 2009, 10:40

But an i7 compatible CPU (i7 940) with the same specs as Q9650 is 2 times more expensive.

Heh, no. The Core i7s are about 20% more efficient than the Core 2 Quads clock for clock. Therefore, the Core i7 940 at stock speeds is about the same as a Q9650 overclocked as far as it can go. If you overclock the 940 it would go much much faster... Either way, I wouldn't bother with the 940 and get the 920 instead, much better value for money.

How would we go about doing this? Anyone? Like, install it on a USB drive and run it from there?

No, you'd want to buy an internal SATA one. A good choice would be the OCZ Vertex 60GB. Dabs.co.uk has them.

echo1

Apr 19 2009, 10:42

That's weird, my reply to another thread seemed to end up here...

SgtH3nry3

Apr 19 2009, 10:47

For better performance you can use some small fast SSD disk, it really help for game loading and lods and texture streaming.That is a very nice hint. I'm waiting for X58 boards to get cheaper and SAS SSDs to be available, then I'll switch from U320 to SAS.

SCSI has very smart TRIM commands which can improve SSD bandwidth after being written on multiple times.

SaBrE_UK

Apr 19 2009, 11:01

No, you'd want to buy an internal SATA one. A good choice would be the OCZ Vertex 60GB. Dabs.co.uk has them.

Thanks for the info. I suppose I'd have to purchase a motherboard that supported multiple SATA hard drives, too :/

sidhellfire

Apr 19 2009, 11:08

After that crazy video of Samsung's 32 SSD discs on Raid I've got nightmares.

echo1

Apr 19 2009, 11:10

Thanks for the info. I suppose I'd have to purchase a motherboard that supported multiple SATA hard drives, too :/

As far as I know, most motherboards come with at least two SATA ports.

Celery

Apr 19 2009, 14:31

Is my PC good for gaming and will it run ArmA II? It scored around 1700 in 3DMark06 after a bit of tweaking.

SgtH3nry3

Apr 19 2009, 14:34

Is my PC good for gaming and will it run ArmA II? It scored around 1700 in 3DMark06 after a bit of tweaking.It might just run ArmA 2. You'll have to see when a demo or sth is released.

Bush

Apr 19 2009, 14:40

Is my PC good for gaming and will it run ArmA II? It scored around 1700 in 3DMark06 after a bit of tweaking.

No, it’s too slow. You will need a dual core for ArmA2 and the graphics card is just too old and slow, I would not even try ArmA1 with that computer.

Apr 19 2009, 16:34

SgtH3nry3

Apr 19 2009, 17:12

Steakslim

Apr 19 2009, 21:08

I'd wait until after ArmA 2 is released, then you can upgrade when you really need it.
By than current-gen hardware will be cheaper and next-gen hardware will be out.
The instant gratification "needs" of people often leaves them with nothing.

ArmA 2 is expected on 26th of June, around that time AMD-ATI's RV800 series will be released.

Do what H3nry says. Wait till ArmA 2 is out, and save up your cash till then. We truly do not know what the performance will be till there are benchmarks and reviews released.

ahmedjbh

Apr 19 2009, 22:06

Hi,

Im sure there are others like me who are really excited about arma2.

Now my current pc is too old, and im not even going to pretend it will be good enough. So I am getting a whole new pc, mainly just for arma.

With that in mind, I would really appreciate someone who is involved in the making of Arma2 to suggest what brands seem to work well with arma2.

It is well known some games are more cpu dependant, and some are more ram dependant etc etc, some seem to be better with Amd / ati components etc. Can we have a little info about arma 2 performance?

I know Suma wrote that a fast dual core is probably better than a slower quad, but have they been able to do any benchmarking, and has Suma got any further advice for us in this regard?

many thanks.

echo1

Apr 19 2009, 23:01

I'm afraid nobody really knows anything until the game has been released. It has been said a few times that ArmA 2 will probably be CPU intensive as opposed to GPU intensive. I think the best idea would be to wait until it comes out (or until the demo shows up) before you make your mind. That said, a decent upper-midrange spec (Phenom II X4, HD4870, 4GB RAM) should cover all eventualities.

Incidentally, there are several quite clearly marked computer specs open near the top of the page. No need to start yet another one. :p

Alex72

Apr 19 2009, 23:10

Well from the latest info we got (Tiscali) unless they are morons we see that to play ARMA2 with the same beauty as in the screenshots from BIS you need a powerful machine. Tiscali tested with a C2D 3Ghz, 4GB RAM, NVIDIA GTX 260 800+ VRAM (dont remember exact VRAM on that one). And ARMA2 was set to high on the quick option for quality wich changes all options in a certain way. We all know that is not the best way to get best performance. Best way is to set all options individually. In ARMA1 anyway.

But at HIGH with that hardware they said it ran at 20FPS and that it was poor gameplay (laggy i guess). When they turned down some details and VD it got a bit better.

What i remember from some video however was that BIS showed ARMA2 and it looked awesome and chop-free, and when someone asked what kind of hardware it was they said "nothing special, just a normal computer of today standards like 3ghz dual core, 2GB ram and a fairly new video card (maybe 8800GTX or 9800GTX). But it ran very good and looked awesome. Maybe there were very little AI around - i dont know, but that gave me hope. Tiscali crapped on that hope a bit for me. Hoping they are what i said first though.

But yeah, if you got the money then go for some latest intel quad with GTX280 video card plus 4GB high performance ram. If you cant spend the top dollar there are another choice. Go for the Intel C2D E8600 wich can be overclocked a lot. And 2-4GB RAM together with maybe a GTX260 or ATI HD4870 1GB wich is cheaper but packs a lot of power. Even cheaper is AMD Athlon 6000+/6400+ dual cores running at 3.1ghz. Bit faster for the 6400+. And couple it with 2-4GB RAM plus the ATI HD4870 1GB.

There are some choices.

walker

Apr 19 2009, 23:20

Hi all

As Suma has pointed out processor is the biggest bottle neck in ArmA.

BIS Official SPECS recommendation
A Fast dual core or medium Quad core you can see the recommended and minimum specs
here.

Projected Minimal PC System Requirements
Dual Core CPU
512 MB RAM
GPU with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB RAM
Windows XP or Windows Vista

Projected Optimal PC System Requirements
Quad Core CPU
1 GB RAM
Fast GPU (8800GT level) with Shader Model 3 and 512 or more MB RAM
Windows XP or Windows Vista

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA_2

Read some of what Suma said here
http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1213104&postcount=1

And here
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=71983&page=2

Kind Regards walker

sparks50

Apr 19 2009, 23:23

I hope my C2D E6850 3.0ghz wont be too much of a bottle neck with the 275GTX GFX card.

echo1

Apr 19 2009, 23:23

72;1272285'] Even cheaper is AMD Athlon 6000+/6400+ dual cores running at 3.1ghz. Bit faster for the 6400+.

Wouldn't bother with those CPUs. They're damn slow and don't really overclock all that well. Bottom end choice would be a dual core like the E7300. Up from that is the Phenom II x3 720 or E8400. Then an X4 955. Then probably the Core i7 920.

@<hidden>: What sort of dual core have you got?

sparks50

Apr 19 2009, 23:28

Intel Core 2 Duo

MehMan

Apr 19 2009, 23:32

Amiga.

stanko

Apr 19 2009, 23:39

In the next week, I'll probably buy E8400, HD4870 1GB, 4 gigabytes OCZ 1066 Mhz, EP45 DS3 motherboard. I hope that I'll be able to play ArmA 2 (and GTA4) on high details :)

CarlGustaffa

Apr 20 2009, 03:04

Something quad core:
1. One core for ArmA basics
2. One core for ArmA AI
3. One core for the operating system
4. And one core for the stuff the operating system does that you did not tell it to do.

remoteplayer1

Apr 20 2009, 06:52

a perfect computer is one you don't have to upgrade

Steakslim

Apr 20 2009, 07:04

a perfect computer is one you don't have to upgrade

Where's the fun in that?

SgtH3nry3

Apr 20 2009, 07:50

In the next week, I'll probably buy E8400, HD4870 1GB, 4 gigabytes OCZ 1066 Mhz, EP45 DS3 motherboard. I hope that I'll be able to play ArmA 2 (and GTA4) on high details :)I can only give you this advice: Postpone upgrading plans until after ArmA 2 is released. ;)
GTA IV won't run that good on that computer. My Q9650 @<hidden> 3 GHz, HD4870 1GB, 4 GB DDR3-1600 CL6 doesn't even run GTA IV properly.

Somewhere in August I should have enough dough for the new RV870 2GB (40nm, DX11), a Westmere-shrunk i7 (or perhaps i5) and 12GB XMP DDR3.

echo1

Apr 20 2009, 08:50

I can only give you this advice: Postpone upgrading plans until after ArmA 2 is released. ;)
GTA IV won't run that good on that computer. My Q9650 @<hidden> 3 GHz, HD4870 1GB, 4 GB DDR3-1600 CL6 doesn't even run GTA IV properly.

My computer is about half as powerful as yours, and it runs GTA4 at good visual quality at 1600x1200 with little to no hiccups. Sure you have it patched up properly?

boomar.

Apr 20 2009, 08:56

I guess OFP:DR and Arma2 will have similar requirements. May be worth noting the community dude at codies said he has an 8800GTX nvidia card and said it ran the game fine. Although he noted you wouldnt be able to have all the eye candy turned up (obivously).

stanko

Apr 20 2009, 10:02

I can only give you this advice: Postpone upgrading plans until after ArmA 2 is released. ;)
GTA IV won't run that good on that computer. My Q9650 @<hidden> 3 GHz, HD4870 1GB, 4 GB DDR3-1600 CL6 doesn't even run GTA IV properly.

Somewhere in August I should have enough dough for the new RV870 2GB (40nm, DX11), a Westmere-shrunk i7 (or perhaps i5) and 12GB XMP DDR3.

Thanks for advice, but my budget is limited to mentioned configuration, I can't afford i7. Now I have this ancient PC (1.7 ghz, 512 SDRAM 100Mhz) - LOL, I can't even play Far Cry 1 properly, so I desperately need a new one. Also, I saw on youtube people playing GTA4 and other new games on high settings on E8400 and HD4870.

SgtH3nry3

Apr 20 2009, 10:24

Thanks for advice, but my budget is limited to mentioned configuration, I can't afford i7. Now I have this ancient PC (1.7 ghz, 512 SDRAM 100Mhz) - LOL, I can't even play Far Cry 1 properly, so I desperately need a new one. Also, I saw on youtube people playing GTA4 and other new games on high settings on E8400 and HD4870.That's the difference between now and then.
I can't afford Core i7 atm either, not because my salary isn't deposited but because it's only 6 months on the market.

Core i7 is only in it's first stage, it's more a showcasing of Nehalem architecture for early adaptors.
Once it's in the range of the first tick iteration, it will go down in price. Probably lower than Core 2 Duo atm and we're only talking about 2-3 months.
The problem you will be facing with buying a C2D/C2Q or Phenom II now, is that it gets outdated very quickly.
My computer is about half as powerful as yours, and it runs GTA4 at good visual quality at 1600x1200 with little to no hiccups. Sure you have it patched up properly?Dunno, it performs the same on my Windows XP (Catalyst 9.4) boot as it does on my Windows 7 (Catalyst 9.4) boot.

stanko

Apr 20 2009, 11:57

That's the difference between now and then.
I can't afford Core i7 atm either, not because my salary isn't deposited but because it's only 6 months on the market.

Core i7 is only in it's first stage, it's more a showcasing of Nehalem architecture for early adaptors.
Once it's in the range of the first tick iteration, it will go down in price. Probably lower than Core 2 Duo atm and we're only talking about 2-3 months.
The problem you will be facing with buying a C2D/C2Q or Phenom II now, is that it gets outdated very quickly.Dunno, it performs the same on my Windows XP (Catalyst 9.4) boot as it does on my Windows 7 (Catalyst 9.4) boot.

This is google translation from that german preview (http://armed-assault.de/artikel/arma-2-ersteindruck.html

"The used test system relied on a 3GHz dual core Intel CPU, 4GB Ram and a Geforce GTX 280 graphics card. The graphics settings were high to very high and in full HD resolution. The visibility was mostly 4000m, the maximum is still at 10 kilometers.
Jan assured us that on his home computer with "only" a Geforce 8800GT graphics settings were playable. Also on AMD and ATI hardware, the game should work better this time, a presentation last year was only on AMD hardware have been carried out."

This is almost the same configuration as I mentioned (E8400 3.0 Ghz, 4 GB Ram, HD4870 1 Gb) - graphics accelerator is the only difference, and they also say that it works even better on ATI - settings high to very high, visibility 4 km. I like this a lot :D

Placebo

Apr 20 2009, 13:38

Baff1

Apr 20 2009, 13:43

It will certainly run at very high settings, AFAIK no computer could run either OFP or ArmA on "highest settings". Let's hope they've optimized it more this time...

CPUs don't go out of date in 2-3 months :wink_o: Have you overclocked it?
I hope they continue offering the very hopeful options.

It's sort of like Crysis etc.

I actually enjoy going back to these kinds of titles and seeing what difference my new hardware makes to them.

SWAT_BigBear

Apr 20 2009, 13:43

I know my pc will handle ArmA II,
what I do not know (and is pertinent to me),
will it be able to host a dedicated private server, while playing, since ArmA II will use all 4 cores?

PuFu

Apr 20 2009, 14:17

Placebo

Apr 20 2009, 14:38

Not sure if Dslyecxi posted his system specs anywhere with his recent pics, but I'll see about knocking up some screenshots as well along with the ingame settings used, my system specs are:

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/2662/specs01.jpg
+ Ati 4870 with 512mb

I haven't installed a recent Win7 build for a while but eventually I'll get around to that and may do some comparisons between XP64 and Win7 64 if time and inclination permits :)

sparks50

Apr 20 2009, 15:20

would be good to know what were the specs of PCs used in GC BIS presentations. Is that information available, allowed to be forwarded?

I for once will be waiting for the game to be released before i go changing my CPU (from my aging e6600 @<hidden>) to a newer one, or adding another 260 on top of the existing one.

This is the rig they used to showcase Arma 2 to journalists in Arma2 boot camp:

#GIGABYTE MA790GP-DS4H
#AMD Phenom 9650 X4 Quad-Core, 2.3GHz
#4GB (KIT 2x2GB) DDR2 1066MHz PC8500 CL5-5-5-18 OCZ Platinum Edition XTC
#SAPPHIRE HD 4850 Toxic, 512MB DDR3
#SEAGATE Barracuda 7200.11 500GB

Not a very impressive computer, only a quadcore 2.3ghz. I would say its average gaming PC. Since they used it show off Arma 2, It must have been able to handle high graphics with a consistently high frame rate.

The Info is from interview translated by Deadfast.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=71759

Apr 20 2009, 17:54

Hm, Dslyecxi, what are your computer specifications?

Barely-injured

Apr 21 2009, 03:58

Not sure if Dslyecxi posted his system specs anywhere with his recent pics, but I'll see about knocking up some screenshots as well along with the ingame settings used, my system specs are:

I haven't installed a recent Win7 build for a while but eventually I'll get around to that and may do some comparisons between XP64 and Win7 64 if time and inclination permits :)

That would be much appreciated Placebo :icon_w00t:

Just so that we know, what build of ArmA II are you using, Is it the same preview versions that was sent to those websites (February ?). Also how does it run on your system ?

sorry I am getting too excited. :pet11:

Jinn

Apr 21 2009, 13:59

echo1

Apr 21 2009, 14:01

Can you get your hands on the GTX275 or the HD4890?

noamles

Apr 21 2009, 14:02

i bought a gtx 260 216sp about a month ago, main reason was lower temps from the 4870 temps, it gets really hot here in the summer and i dont want a card that reached 90c.

performance wise they are pretty matched up.

Jinn

Apr 21 2009, 14:09

Can you get your hands on the GTX275 or the HD4890?
Most likely - no

i bought a gtx 260 216sp about a month ago, main reason was lower temps from the 4870 temps, it gets really hot here in the summer and i dont want a card that reached 90c.

performance wise they are pretty matched up.
in games - much better?

echo1

Apr 21 2009, 14:11

They're pretty much even, although IIRC, the GTX260 uses less power and doesnt get as hot, which is a pretty firm bonus.

stanko

Apr 21 2009, 14:50

Tell me please, what video card would be better for arma 2:

ATI Radeon HD4870 1Gb (for example - Palit Radeon HD 4870 1GB Sonic Dual Edition Sonic; Memory / Core Clock: 3800MHz (950 x 4) / 750 MHz [http://www.palit.biz/main/vgapro.php?id=969] <-link, if it is allowed here on the site...)
Or
GF GTX 260 896MB (more precisely - Palit GeForce GTX260-216SP Sonic; Sonic Memory / Core Clock: 2200MHz / 625 MHz [http://www.palit.biz/main/vgapro.php?id=1070])

?

If you can, with reasons ...

(herewith CPU: Core 2 Duo E6600 3Hhz)

I'll go for 4870, here's why:
Between HD4870 1GB and GTX 260 896 MB, TOMSHARDWARE says that it's tie. But it depends mostly on the game you'll play and I read on that german preview ( http://armed-assault.de/artikel/arma-2-ersteindruck.html ) that ArmA2 will probably work better on ATI.
Buy what you like the most, both cards are great and differences are minimum.

echo1

Apr 21 2009, 15:43

Buy what you like the most, both cards are great and differences are minimum.

Other than the fact that the GTX260 uses less power and doesn't generate as much heat.. Which is quite the advantage for the GTX.

SgtH3nry3

Apr 21 2009, 16:49

Other than the fact that the GTX260 uses less power and doesn't generate as much heat.. Which is quite the advantage for the GTX.That's only interesting if you have a really bad PSU or if you want an ULP device like a notebook or a nettop.

Either way, I'll stick to my trusty philosophy: Only but hardware, when you really need it.
I still recommend waiting until after the demo/game is released AND played.
Only then you know what hardware is best. Patience is a virtue.

WhoCares

Apr 21 2009, 17:46

... and I read on that german preview ( http://armed-assault.de/artikel/arma-2-ersteindruck.html ) that ArmA2 will probably work better on ATI.
...
I guess you reference to this

Jan versicherte uns, dass auf seinem heimischen Rechner mit "nur" einer Geforce 8800GT hohe Grafikeinstellungen spielbar seien. Auch auf AMD und ATI Hardware sollte das Spiel diesmal besser funktionieren, eine Präsentation im vergangenen Jahr war ausschließlich auf AMD Hardware durchgeführt worden.

However, what he says is that ArmA2 should run better now on AMD & ATI hardware, and I'd say with that he references to problems that ArmA had in the past with ATI cards. The important word here is "diesmal" = "this time".

Edit: Regarding the original question, I'd probably favour the ATI due to more and faster VRAM - with the vast environment of ArmA2 it can't hurt to load as many textures as fast as possible. But I guess its a marginal advantage...

echo1

Apr 21 2009, 18:15

That's only interesting if you have a really bad PSU or if you want an ULP device like a notebook or a nettop.

You think low heat output is irrelevant? :crazy:

And if my graphics card uses less power, I can use that power elsewhere. I would think that is pretty obvious. I mean, if you have two cards that are almost identical functionality wise, why go for the less efficient one?

SgtH3nry3

Apr 21 2009, 18:26

You think low heat output is irrelevant? And if my graphics card uses less power, I can use that power elsewhere. I would think that is pretty obvious.Low heat output is irrelevant if you aren't in to overclocking or using a crap case with really bad airflow.
These days you can overclock natively hot cards as fine if not better (HD 4890 iirc) than most lower temperature cards.
With the double slot coolers on modern high-end discrete graphics hardware even airflow shouldn't be that of a problem.

The only relevant negative disadvantage I can think of, if said person doesn't have a crap case or diehard overclocker, is the noise emitted by the hardware's cooling system.
My HD4870 1GB can get noisy, but that's mainly due to the manual fan speed override I precautiously set up due to my overclocking practices.

Efficiency is also a relative term in computer hardware, the raw floating point power of the TeraScale architecture by AMD can be of great use with OpenCL (since it's an IEEE-754r derivative) in near future software/games. That said, currently nVidia's CUDA architecture is more interesting.
I don't really know much about semi-conductors and computer hardware even as a tweaker, but I study thermodynamics, exothermics and aerodynamics as automotive engineer so airflow is my thing.
Also due to those studies I use alot of GPGPU hardware for computation fluid dynamics and thermodynamics simulations, and my noisy outdated HD4870 1GB still beats the Tesla C1060 we use at school.
Thermal efficiency is only interesting if the thermal dissipation is bad.

echo1

Apr 21 2009, 18:38

Low heat output is irrelevant if you aren't in to overclocking or using a crap case with really bad airflow.
These days you can overclock natively hot cards as fine if not better (HD 4890 iirc) than most lower temperature cards.
With the double slot coolers on modern high-end discrete graphics hardware even airflow shouldn't be that of a problem..

You're still ignoring the fact that if two cards are at the same, or near the same performance level, that the one that requires less fancy cooling and a smaller PSU is probably going to be the better choice. I mean, who wants excess heat in their case just for the sake of it?

The dual-slot cooler argument is a cop-out because with a really hot card the fans flare up alot, forcing you to either replace the fan with an expensive 3rd party model, or having to put up with a computer that sounds like a vacuum cleaner under load. Again, that's fine if the card is really fast. But if there's something that does the same job without the same heat and power strain, all the better.

Placebo

Apr 21 2009, 18:40

Debating about GFX card a versus GFX card b belongs in the pinned PC thread in OT, if this thread isn't able to stay on topic it'll be closed.

POTS

Apr 21 2009, 21:46

I guess you reference to this

However, what he says is that ArmA2 should run better now on AMD & ATI hardware, and I'd say with that he references to problems that ArmA had in the past with ATI cards. The important word here is "diesmal" = "this time".

Edit: Regarding the original question, I'd probably favour the ATI due to more and faster VRAM - with the vast environment of ArmA2 it can't hurt to load as many textures as fast as possible. But I guess its a marginal advantage...

Well the problem with arma was it doesn't correctly (or the drivers which ever) didn't correctly take advantage of the ddr5. I didn't notice much difference in ddr5.

POTS

Apr 21 2009, 21:48

You're still ignoring the fact that if two cards are at the same, or near the same performance level, that the one that requires less fancy cooling and a smaller PSU is probably going to be the better choice. I mean, who wants excess heat in their case just for the sake of it?

The dual-slot cooler argument is a cop-out because with a really hot card the fans flare up alot, forcing you to either replace the fan with an expensive 3rd party model, or having to put up with a computer that sounds like a vacuum cleaner under load. Again, that's fine if the card is really fast. But if there's something that does the same job without the same heat and power strain, all the better.

I have no problem with heat on my hd4870. It was originaly a driver problem when it failed to compensate for increased heat. So now you can just set it manualy in the settings and stays cool all the time, no fan stress what so ever.

armydude

Apr 21 2009, 23:53

L.T

Apr 22 2009, 06:04

Placebo

Apr 22 2009, 07:02

quicKsanD

Apr 22 2009, 07:20

Any one can comment about this computer that I think I'm buying?I can't build a computer because I don't know how(new to computer gaming) and this is at the top of my budget.http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4138011&CatId=114

I would absolutely stay away from this system.700$ and only 2 gb of ram,a core 2 duo and a 9800gt.And a flashy ready to play Crysis sticker.

While with 700$ you could do wonders if you would build your own system here's what 1 minute of searching pulled through:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229086

Core 2 Quad Q9550(2.83GHz) 4GB DDR2 500GB NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT Windows Vista Home Premium 64-Bit - Retail,which basicly means better everything+mouse+keyboard for just 50$ more.
You should spend your time searching for a product that has a bit more feedback but you shouldn't accept anything less then a Core 2 Quad or Phenom X4,X3 and 4 gb of RAM,it's not fair for your money.

Placebo

Apr 22 2009, 07:35

Ok then, so all discussions about what PC to buy can continue here (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=47904)

I tried :(

Placebo

May 6 2009, 11:41

Let's try again.

Remember, all discussions about what PC/Hardware to buy belong here (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=47904).

Alex72

May 6 2009, 12:40

I really hope BIS can optimize this game to it's true potential, that will allow current technology to run it smoothly. I don't want another Crysis, or ArmA 1 (in terms of optimization) for that matter. A great game that we all pray will run on our rigs....smoothly. :pray:

It isnt another Crysis. Just read the forum and thao shall be enlightened. Click the things with text on them (links). Especially ones wich have a title that looks like it has something to do with what your looking for. That is a super tips. You dont have to worry my friend unless you sit with old gear and very little RAM etc. If you (as stated several times all over) have at least a somewhat of todays standard normal rig with at least dual core youll be alright. Maybe not maxed out settings with full view distance plus clogged map with AI and a full scale war "alright", but youll be able to enjoy ARMA2.

;)

PS. There was a bit of sarcasm in there and im sorry for that. Just couldnt stop myself.

Alex

Crazyfox

May 6 2009, 15:12

lapa

May 6 2009, 15:52

Can I ask if anyone, the betatesters or the developers have noticed any diffrence when using ATI cards and Nvidia?
Like does Arma2 run best at a high resolution on a HD4890, a HD4850 x2, or a GTX 285?
There is usually a diffrence between games, so just wondering.

There's also a difference within the game. So while card X might have a better maximum FPS than card Y, card Y might have a better average FPS.

I think that you can't go wrong with any of the current high-end GPUs.

Yapab

May 6 2009, 16:22

With the game release getting closer and closer can any beta testers or developers comment on the best GPU to max out the game settings at 1680x1050?

Would help everyone prepare for the game, especially if their upgrading the GPU and choosing between GTX285 and GTX295.

In an IGN preview in April they said that the game ren on maximum settings on a 8800GTX, this is quite interesting as this is now a medium performance card, can anyone shed anymore light on this?

Yapa

W0lle

May 6 2009, 19:38

The beta testers have signed NDAs, they can't even come here and say that they are betatesters :p
And the devs might be too busy to post their specs here.

I suppose a good 8800(GT/GTX) with 512+ MB is still a good card for A2, the GTX285/295 is for sure.

Stimpak_Addict

May 6 2009, 19:44

So that means no beta tester videos will be posted on the official Arma II website for the next "weekly information" thing. :(

Yoma

May 6 2009, 21:01

Which is a good thing as a beta is exactly that: a beta and made to get better.

Stimpak_Addict

May 6 2009, 22:19

Jorge.PT

May 7 2009, 11:20

Placebo

May 7 2009, 11:37

I don't understand why there is no accurate info about the recommended specs, when we are so close to the release date. It's the first time I'm following a game in it's pre-release state, so is this a standard procedure?

Well the wiki page has a fairly good assessment of the anticipated minimal/optimal specs: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA_2 even though it's the community site you do have BIS people correcting things here and there, in fact if you look at the history you see Maruk made the last update to the page April 22nd ;)

The game is still being optimised and such, at this point it's not good for PR to either set a minimal too high and then scare people off, or set it too low and disappoint people by 1. them not being able to run it or 2. suddenly changing the minimal on one of the boxes.

I think most devs don't care quite so much about accuracy with minimal/optimal specs so you see them written down earlier.

cjph

May 7 2009, 12:33

I saw that change on the 22 April - I think it changed from Dual or Quad core to Quad core for the optimal specs. Just an observation from a nervous fast-ish and cheap dual user (E5200 at 3.7GHz).

To be honest, there will always be those complaining that 100+ FPS on their rig is not attainable at the highest settings, but I am hoping that shifting the AI and other discrete loads to other processor(s) will significantly increase the performance of existing multi-core setups. But then, I'm not technical.

cjph

XS09

May 7 2009, 13:28

What about this wiki page?It seems to be different and more detailed.Look on the right side of the page for system requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmA_2

Placebo

May 7 2009, 13:38

What about this wiki page?It seems to be different and more detailed.Look on the right side of the page for system requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmA_2

Difference being that community.bistudio.com is the official BIS wiki page, wikipedia.org anyone can and does edit to say anything they want to say, whether it be correct or not.

Jorge.PT

May 7 2009, 13:52

The problem placebo is that a pentium 4 is not a dual core and there is no such thing as Intel Core 2.0 GHz:

• Dual Core CPU (Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz, Intel Core 2.0 GHz, AMD Athlon 3200 + or faster) • 1 GB of RAM • GPU (Nvidia Geforce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM • Windows XP • DVD (Dual Layer compatible) • 10 GB free HDD space

This kind of information is completely inaccurate and ambiguous, that's why I was asking for some official input.

EDIT: I just saw your latest post now, forget what I wrote above. I believed that the 2 wiki pages were form the same source.

bravo 6

May 7 2009, 14:01

I don't understand why there is no accurate info about the recommended specs, when we are so close to the release date. It's the first time I'm following a game in it's pre-release state, so is this a standard procedure?
I believe every day BIS find a way to improve something.
As you know ArmA is running much but much better then 1st version.

So they might be able to improve even more what was made so far.
If they mentioned a official specs, these could be easily outdated.

See why now?

mr.g-c

May 7 2009, 14:02

But I would enjoy seeing some solid gameplay, without the skipping from one scene to the next thing that's been in interviews. And from BIS, there would be a guarantee of great video quality.
I think we will not see any ingame gameplay vids exclusive before the release...
I think, considering that release is in 2-3 weeks and gold must be reached a bit earlier, that they are currently extremely busy in making everything ready.

I know it sounds disappointing and i also would love to see some nice in-game first-person footages, with a nice Fight vs. AI, but i think we will have to wait for a final review by the most gaming magazines to judge or get a impression from it.
The most time they will make footages, trailers as well (like we could see did for instance Gamestar from a preview-version).

Placebo

May 7 2009, 14:05

I would like to create some HD "shakeycam" as I have a very nice new Sony Cybershot T500 digital camera that also records HD video footage, sample here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5tenRidWF0&fmt=22

If I get permission then I shall hopefully make some :)

Zipper5

May 7 2009, 14:40

"Show me your happy face." :D
That was pretty awesome, Placebo. :p

Yapab

May 7 2009, 15:01

Thanks for the replies, I'm still on a 8800GTX but looking to upgrade the GPU (cpu, mem are still fine).

Would be nice if the 8800GTX could max the game out at 22" resolution but I have doubts... its really an old card now.

I kind of skipped ARMA1 (was into cars and didnt play much games) but I recently downloaded the demo of it to try it out after hearing about ARMA2.

Have to say I was quite disappointed in the performance, I maxed the settings out and it was running at some 18 to 25 fps which is unplayable for FPS.
I turned the settings down and got only about 35 to 40 fps... but the game looked very ugly!

Honestly some new games which look 10x better (FC2, Cry..., Stalker) run faster than ARMA1. After reading some more info I heard that ARMA1 was very badly optimised.

I'm just holding my fingers crossed that ARMA2 is not the same!

Yapa

Placebo

May 7 2009, 15:02

Yep the ArmA1 demo build is a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery old one and doesn't in any way give a good representation of ArmA 1.16 :)

Stimpak_Addict

May 7 2009, 15:05

Very nice camera, Placebo. How much did it cost? And what's it called?

On-topic: We're getting a bit off-topic, but it doesn't matter since there's a chance of getting some new info/footage/pictures of Arma 2 from this. :D

Edit: Just buy the game. You can find it for $10 easily. It's also on Steam, which is supposed to automatically patch up games to the latest version. If not, just go here. Read the changelogs, too. Especially for 1.14. And the 1.16 patch messed up the steering on bikes(or so I've heard), but Deadfast released a patch that fixes that.

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

Double Edit: So are you guys going to release a more updated version of the Arma demo anytime soon? A lot of people worried if the game will run well or not have tried out the demo, and were disappointed by it. Maybe if you released an updated version of the demo(The latest patch that doesn't break anything is 1.15, but 1.16 fixes the problems with ATI cards, so maybe you should wait until the next patch. Maybe.), you would get a few more sales on Arma. And as a result of that, you'll most likely get a few more sales on Arma II. Good plan, eh? :)

Yapab

May 7 2009, 15:15

Yep the ArmA1 demo build is a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery old one and doesn't in any way give a good representation of ArmA 1.16 :)

I had a pretty newish demo which is 1.06 I think, this one:
http://games.on.net/file/16580/Armed_Assault_US_Demo_Version_1.06

So the 1.16 is better optimised? :yay:

Is 1.16 a mod version of official version but they just haven't released a newer demo?

Yapa

Yapab

May 7 2009, 15:20

Double Edit: So are you guys going to release a more updated version of the Arma demo anytime soon? A lot of people worried if the game will run well or not have tried out the demo, and were disappointed by it. Maybe if you released an updated version of the demo(The latest patch that doesn't break anything is 1.15, but 1.16 fixes the problems with ATI cards, so maybe you should wait until the next patch. Maybe.), you would get a few more sales on Arma. And as a result of that, you'll most likely get a few more sales on Arma II. Good plan, eh? :)

That would be a good idea... honestly as a new gamer to the ARMA world I did not know there were newer patches which fix performance.

The demo imo is giving ARMA1 (and possibly 2) a negative look... I played it for a bit and the performance was just too much to handle!

EDIT: cant buy the game on Steam here in Australia... f... Atari dont allow their games to be purchased by us because they want to reap maximum retail profit.... this is what steam says when I try to access ARMA1 page:
Sorry!

An error was encountered while processing your request:

This item is currently unavailable in your region

Yapa

Stimpak_Addict

May 7 2009, 15:24

Truthfully, I actually almost didn't get the game because of the demo. Since I have 6 Gb of RAM, there was that "messed up main menu" thing that I could never navigate through. But after a bit of searching, I saw that it was fixed in patch 1.14, so I did get the game.

SWAT_BigBear

May 7 2009, 15:24

Thanks for the replies, I'm still on a 8800GTX but looking to upgrade the GPU (cpu, mem are still fine).

Would be nice if the 8800GTX could max the game out at 22" resolution but I have doubts... its really an old card now.

The demo is a horrible comparison to ArmA patched 1.12 to 1.16.
I'm able to run ArmA @<hidden>, very high & high settings with a 8800gtx
8000 vd seems to be my sweet spot. I see 40-70fps, and ArmA doesn't use my SLI.
I'm hoping ArmA II will give me around the same gameplay.

Placebo

May 7 2009, 15:27

Very nice camera, Placebo. How much did it cost? And what's it called?

Sony Cybershot T500 - £195 (220 Euros)

So the 1.16 is better optimised? :yay:

Is 1.16 a mod version of official version but they just haven't released a newer demo?

Yapa

Massively better optimised.

It's official, see here (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=72282). You can probably buy it from Sprocket (http://www.sprocketidea.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=6&zenid=62b5940f029443fa20e40e26159ea13e)in Australia.

Stimpak_Addict

May 7 2009, 15:38

Topic creator of that topic(Rocco) was banned. Excellent. But he's most likely going to make another account. Do you have a system to prevent that, or do you just have to keep a watchful eye?

And you got what you payed for with that camera. It's amazing!

On-topic: How does Arma II handle 1 GB of VRAM? How about 2 GB? I'm stuck on which card to get for Arma II. How much VRAM does Arma II utilize, and is 2 GB too much? Video cards:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102826

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161276

Edit: I love the edit button. Anyways, I forgot that SAPPHIRE uses its own drivers, and that they aren't as good as the official ones. So it's going to be the 4890 1 GB for me.

Yapab

May 7 2009, 15:39

Thank u to both of you! That just made my night :)

The demo was overshadowing my enthusiasm for ARMA2, but not greatly as I was still going to buy and play the game... that TRACKIR 5 video by some user really won me over! and my mate too who is also getting the game (coop sp should be fun).

I read through the patch notes, and in patch 1.14 they say up to 100% performance improvement! I should have no problem running ARMA1 then if your running at that resolution, Im only on 22".

I'll have a look around for the original, however I might just skip it simply because I'm leaving for a 6 week holiday and coming back 3 days before ARMA2 release, perfect!

Thanks again :D

Dev's, please release a newer demo because the old one doesnt do the game justice :)

Yapa

Placebo

May 7 2009, 15:41

Dev's, please release a newer demo because the old one doesnt do the game justice :)

Not going to happen sorry, hopefully ArmA2 demo one day soon ;)

Yapab

May 7 2009, 15:41

I'm able to run ArmA @<hidden>, very high & high settings with a 8800gtx
8000 vd seems to be my sweet spot. I see 40-70fps, and ArmA doesn't use my SLI.
I'm hoping ArmA II will give me around the same gameplay.

Awesome performance at 30" res :D

How come SLI doesnt work? Just the game being older and not supported? I havent seen any SLI/CF topics on ARMA2, does anyone know if these technologies will now be supported?

If SLI is not supported I doubt you would get the same perf as ARMA1, it looks to be a vast improvement graphically. However if SLI does work then two 8800GTX's are still quite a powerful setup.

Yapa

Stimpak_Addict

May 7 2009, 15:46

Yapab, I see that you were just on the verge of double-posting. Just as a fore-warning, please use the edit button instead of double-posting. ;)

Yapab

May 7 2009, 16:18

Sorry, just got excited ;)

Jorge.PT

May 7 2009, 18:25

Not going to happen sorry, hopefully ArmA2 demo one day soon ;)

Now I'm Horny, I'm Stoned. (The Doors)

echo1

May 7 2009, 18:37

Awesome performance at 30" res :D

How come SLI doesnt work? Just the game being older and not supported? I havent seen any SLI/CF topics on ARMA2, does anyone know if these technologies will now be supported?

If SLI is not supported I doubt you would get the same perf as ARMA1, it looks to be a vast improvement graphically. However if SLI does work then two 8800GTX's are still quite a powerful setup.

Yapa

SLI/Crossfire requires the developers to program support for it into the game. Now, if the BIS devs have the time for that, then of course they should implement it. That said, I'd rather they spent that time making sure that the 98% of us that don't have SLI got as much performance out of our single card as we can.

Medic 036

May 7 2009, 21:14

sparks50

May 7 2009, 21:22

Thats a low level budget GFX card. It will run, but you probably wont be doing very high graphics.

MadDogX

May 7 2009, 21:23

I have this computer but since im not at all computer smart, do you guys know if Arma 2 will run on it. Appreciated the help.

http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0926INGFS10122272&catid=20217&logon=&langid=EN

Except for the graphics card it looks pretty solid. That Radeon 3200 won't be doing your framerate any good. Might want to upgrade that to something more recent.

lapa

May 7 2009, 21:25

I agree. That graphics card is useless. I'd go for either HD 4870 X2 or GTX 285.

De_little_Bubi

May 7 2009, 21:26

I have this computer but since im not at all computer smart, do you guys know if Arma 2 will run on it. Appreciated the help.

http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0926INGFS10122272&catid=20217&logon=&langid=EN

well gamestar.de latest published specifications (05.05.2009):

Für Arma 2 brauchen Sie mindestens:

Eine Dual Core CPU (Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz, Intel Core 2.0 GHz, AMD Athlon 3200+ oderschneller)
1 GB RAM
Eine Grafikkarte (Nvidia Geforce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 oder schneller) mit Shader Model 3 und 256 MB VRAM
10 GB freier HDD-Speicherplatz

Empfohlen wird:

Eine Quad Core CPU oder Dual Core CPU (Intel Core 2.8 GHz, AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ oder schneller)
2 GB RAM
Eine Grafikkarte (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT / ATI Radeon 4850 oder schneller) mit Shader Model 3 und 512 MB VRAM
10 GB freier HDD-Speicherplatz

(sry german but i think the model numbers are the same as in every country^^)

so your system:
AMD Phenom X4 9650 Quad-Core - fits in recommended (amd athlon 64 x2 4400+ or faster)
8GB PC2-6400 DDR2 - fits in recommended (2gb)
750GB 7200RPM - fits in recommended (10gb free space)
ATI Radeon HD 3200 - fits in minimal (ATI Radeon 1800 or faster)

NeMeSiS

May 7 2009, 21:29

well gamestar.de latest published specifications (05.05.2009):

(sry german but i think the model numbers are the same as in every country^^)

so your system:
AMD Phenom X4 9650 Quad-Core - fits in recommended (amd athlon 64 x2 4400+ or faster)
8GB PC2-6400 DDR2 - fits in recommended (2gb)
750GB 7200RPM - fits in recommended (10gb free space)
ATI Radeon HD 3200 - fits in minimal (ATI Radeon 1800 or faster)

They should stop posting those ridiculous specs, as said countless times before, the P4 is single core, there is no such thing as a Intel Core 2.0 GHz and the AMD x2's start at 3600+ or 3800+. Also, its an Ati 'x'1800 and a 'HD' 4850.

Placebo

May 7 2009, 21:31

Well the wiki page has a fairly good assessment of the anticipated minimal/optimal specs: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA_2 even though it's the community site you do have BIS people correcting things here and there, in fact if you look at the history you see Maruk made the last update to the page April 22nd ;)

Specs ;)

[FRL]Myke

May 7 2009, 21:43

Since ArmA 2 isn't out yet, nobody can't answer this question except BIS itself. But i doubt they will give any infos out yet.

So anything below is speculation and i try to explain my conclusions as good as possible.

CPU: AMD Phenom X4 9650 Quad-Core 2.3GHz

Don't get those already outdated CPU's, stick to the new Phenom II series. The 920 or the 940 are good to get. At least i would recommend a clock frequency of 2.8GHz or above (also if you would switch to Intel).
Noone knows how good or bad ArmA 2 will scale on Multicore CPU. But ArmA (1) does scale pretty well with higher clock rate. So i guess to be on safe side rather stick to higher clocks.

RAM: 8GB PC2-6400 DDR2

Do you really need 8GB RAM? Unless you're doin a lot of video processing or picture manipulations (Photoshop) excessively, 8GB is a waste. 2GB at least, i recommend 4 GB which will last for a good time.

GPU: ATI Radeon HD 3200

Naw, absolutely no-go. Seeing that close to every actual game already suffers on High-end GPU's to be played on high quality settings, sticking to a onboard graphic solution is IMHO no option at all. Unless you're happy with everything set to VERY LOW and a viewdistance of max 500m. And we're not even talking about that there is no dedicated video memory but it makes use on the (much slower, compared to dedicated VRAM) onboard RAM.

About the rest of the System...well, standard components which should work fine.

So, to be honest, if it is for gaming, not limited to ArmA 2 but every actual game, i wouldn't recommend this system at all.

To get you a rough guide about single components, without sticking to one or another facturer, take this as a very rough guideline:

A decent CPU for gaming cost nowadays 200€ or above
A decent Graphic card cost nowadays also 200€or above
Ram needed depends on Motherboard, 4GB should fit for a good time.

Sorry, can't say in $ but i guess you'll get it converted yourself.

:EDITH:
@<hidden>
They probably mean the Pentium D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_D) which is based on the Pentium 4. They should really adjust it as i already hear the boys whining that ArmA 2 doesn't run on highest settings on theyr P4. ;)

lapa

May 7 2009, 21:49

Three new videos http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=5567 EDIT: wrong topic :D

echo1

May 7 2009, 21:50

ATI Radeon HD 3200 - fits in minimal (ATI Radeon 1800 or faster)

Those two are most definitely not in the same league. The HD3200 is some cheap-ass integrated chip, the X1800 was a high end card about 4 years ago, and would still serve you well in older games that would be too much for the HD3200.

@<hidden>: Why are you posting vids in a computer specs thread? :crazy:

De_little_Bubi

May 7 2009, 22:45

lol sorry didn't get this name stuff :/ thought higher number = better card... damn is there still any concept for their naming?

edit: maybe lapa whanted to post in "latest press..." the thread which is normaly always #1 in this subforum^^

sparks50

May 7 2009, 22:51

wombateer

May 8 2009, 06:59

I use Wikipedia to navigate in GFX cards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R600

System requirements in general is a real mess, and the Hardware industry can partly blame them self for people switching to consoles.

...and the people themselves for letting PC upgrades rule their lives!

:yay: Hail my new ATI 4890... a balisitc missle of a graphics card. :D

echo1

May 8 2009, 09:08

lol sorry didn't get this name stuff :/ thought higher number = better card... damn is there still any concept for their naming?

It works like this -

First number - Generation of the card. (The GeForce 6 series was the 6th generation of nVidia GPU, although both ATI and nVidia have reset their numbers, in 2004 and 2008 respectively, which is why ATI is currently on 4 and nVidia on 2)

Second number - Relative performance of the card - 1-2 being integrated (ones that use system memory as opposed to their own RAM) 3-4 being low end, 5-7 being mid end, 8-9 being high end. This is the one number that tells you the most about how fast the card will be.

Third Number - On nVidia cards and older ATI cards, it usually refered to an updated version of an older card (eg. GeForce GTS 260, or X1950XT) however, ATI's new naming scheme uses them instead of suffixes (like GT/GTS etc) - so the 4870 and 4850 are both high end 4-series cards, but the -70 is faster than the -50.

Fourth number - Never used, which is why nVidia decided to drop it with it's latest cards.

Suffixes - Fortunately the two manufacturers have got rid of the endless arrays of suffixes (GT/GTX/XTX etc) after their cards, which were generally made up on the spot and rarely followed any pattern. ATI uses a numerical replacement as mentioned above (although it still uses X2 for a dual GPU card). Nvidia now uses a simple prefix system. A card beginning with GTX (eg. GTX295) is a high end card, GTS (eg. GTS250) is a mid-range card, and GT (eg. GT120) is a low end card. Hopefully they'll keep it that way and won't mess it up.

In the case of the X1800 vs the HD3200, you have an earlier generation high end card and a low end newer generation card. While high end cards become middle range cards quickly enough, it takes years before the sort of power available in an old high end card makes its way down to a low end or integrated chipset. So the X1800 is faster in this case.

It's just that simple!

thaFunkster

May 8 2009, 10:42

...and the people themselves for letting PC upgrades rule their lives!

:yay: Hail my new ATI 4890... a balisitc missle of a graphics card. :D

Heh heh. Lucky you. I always buy games like 2- 4 years after they are released, cause only then can I play them at decent frame rates. Why? Because I also only buy the hardware when its 2-3 years out of date and cheap as dirt. I can only dream of owning the latest and greatest. *sigh*.

Rebel@heart

May 8 2009, 10:56

...and the people themselves for letting PC upgrades rule their lives!

:yay: Hail my new ATI 4890... a balisitc missle of a graphics card. :D

not really, the opposite is true, if people wouldnt upgrade their systems, the pc hardware industry wouldnt be able to invent new stuff, i just wish more people would be interested in technical stuff, instead of hitting the power button and play on crappy consoles.

Consoles will never be better than newest PCs.

Rebel@heart

May 8 2009, 10:56

Heh heh. Lucky you. I always buy games like 2- 4 years after they are released, cause only then can I play them at decent frame rates. Why? Because I also only buy the hardware when its 2-3 years out of date and cheap as dirt. I can only dream of owning the latest and greatest. *sigh*.

what do you do in the ARMA2 forums then? :P

mant3z

May 8 2009, 11:31

what do you do in the ARMA2 forums then? :P

Hahahahaha, good point. BIS Forum is for rich people. OMG I should delete my account too :butbut:

craig3000

May 8 2009, 15:34

I have this computer but since im not at all computer smart, do you guys know if Arma 2 will run on it. Appreciated the help.

http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0926INGFS10122272&catid=20217&logon=&langid=EN

Pull your finger out and make a PC yourself

Its really not hard and you can get a better PC than that for the same price!

Crystal

May 8 2009, 15:48

I think this systemconfig. is perfect for arma2 and should be cheap/low power consumption:

- Phenom II X4 905e @<hidden>,5 GHz 2 + 6 MB Cache 65 W TDP AM3 june 2009 €?
- Gigabyte GA-MA790XT-UD4P, 790X (dual PC3-10667U DDR3) (http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a398001.html) 110€
- HD 4770 (http://geizhals.at/eu/a426946.html) 80€
- Western Digital Caviar Green 1000GB, 32MB Cache, SATA II (http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a366846.html) 75€
- Enermax PRO82+ 525W ATX 2.3 (http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a312982.html) 70€
- any case.. 50-100€
- other..

My next system i think.

mach1ne

May 8 2009, 20:21

how good will this run on my system

amd phenom x3 720 overclocked to 3.2 ghz
GA-MA770-US3
gtx260+ (216sp)
4gb ram
22 benq e2200hd

Steakslim

May 8 2009, 22:38

while i'm not familiar with AMD's chip performance per model, I imagine you should be fine, especially with that gtx260. There's been reporrts of people running the game quite well on old 8800gtx's. Granted without benchmarks you can't really see how "well".

echo1

May 8 2009, 22:46

I assume that's the Phenom II x3? Should be more than powerful enough to run the game :)

Supernova

May 8 2009, 22:58

@<hidden> I can run Arma on maximum settings and still have smooth and fluid gameplay with no noticeable slowdowns or lag. OFP doesn't take advantage of my new hardware but I can still set it to maximum.

echo1

May 9 2009, 00:34

I'm not entirely sure that how that is relevant here. Another petty round of "Look at me, I have a fast computer"? And I'd be slightly worried if I had a PC like that and it couldn't max out ArmA...

Btw, looking at your specs... did you go out and replace your Core i7 that you supposedly got 6 months ago with a new D0 stepping one that's only been availabe for the past month or so?

thaFunkster

May 9 2009, 06:24

In that French preview article they said it was a system hog and had trouble getting above 25 FPS. Didnt say what system, but I think it was at BIS studios.

what do you do in the ARMA2 forums then? :P

Wishful thinking mate. And if I do upgrade, then I will definitely be playing.

Yapab

May 9 2009, 14:23

In that French preview article they said it was a system hog and had trouble getting above 25 FPS. Didnt say what system, but I think it was at BIS studios.
.

Hmmm I guess most of us will have to run at low quality settings if the dev's pc cant break 25fps.. hopefully this is not the case!

Yapa

MadDogX

May 9 2009, 16:30

As long as the framerate is smooth and stable, 25fps is fine. In an ideal world, that is (which it's not, sadly). Of course it would be nicer to have stable 50fps. ;)

On the other hand, it's not unusual for early alpha/beta state games to be unoptimized in the performance department. I was an early beta tester for ET:QW and wow, that was a horrible experience. Everything on extreme low with 640x480 resolution and it still ran like crap on my card (7800GT back then I think). They optimized it later of course, and I expect BIS will do the same for Arma2.

Supernova

May 9 2009, 16:35

Btw, looking at your specs... did you go out and replace your Core i7 that you supposedly got 6 months ago with a new D0 stepping one that's only been availabe for the past month or so?

Yes I did. I had a hard time finding the D0 920 as the suppliers mostly had C0's. I was able to find a guaranteed D0 stepping chip and let me say it over clocks much better than my previous 965 C0. I need little voltages to reach my 24/7 4.0ghz and I find that there is a small temperature difference. It's still quite a power hog but this new stepping is really for overclockers as it overclocks better.

sidhellfire

May 9 2009, 16:48

And penis groooooooooooooooooows.

echo1

May 9 2009, 18:15

Yes I did. I had a hard time finding the D0 920 as the suppliers mostly had C0's. I was able to find a guaranteed D0 stepping chip and let me say it over clocks much better than my previous 965 C0. I need little voltages to reach my 24/7 4.0ghz and I find that there is a small temperature difference. It's still quite a power hog but this new stepping is really for overclockers as it overclocks better.

You replaced a €1,000 CPU with a €250 model because it might be able to overclock slightly better? Woah, this makes the infamous "Bundeswehr officer" thing look believable by comparison...

Seriously, back on topic. If you don't have anything to add to this thread than don't bother posting. We don't need the thread getting locked again.

Yokhanan

May 10 2009, 01:15

Hey guys, hoping you can bring a wee bit of sanity back into my world. I'm in the process of buying parts and building my 2nd pc ever. Here's what I have/am looking at:

Intel Core i7 920
SILVERSTONE OP1000-E 1000W PSU
OCZ OCZ3P1333LV3GK DDR3 PC3-10666 1333 MHz (3GB)
ASRock X58 Supercomputer

I'm stuck on the video card. I am not going with watercooling, so I don't want something that will run so hot that my computer just goes up in flames here--hehe. I've read where some cards were actually blowing some of the hot air into the case as well, which is a bit disappointing obviously and something I'd wish to avoid. I was looking at the HIS Hightech H485QS1GP Radeon HD 4850 IceQ4 (1GB).

I was wondering (and hoping) that this card would be able to handle ArmA 2 pretty well (as well as ArmA 1) without having to put everything on low.

I would give Nvidia a chance too, but I never had one before and seeing some cards in the $300 bracket also tends to have me sticking with ATI. :oops:

Any help you guys could offer would be great help. Thanks in advance! :)

Yapab

May 10 2009, 02:33

Betsalel, its hard to know what the game will run like... but the official recommended specs are an 8800GT or above.

Now an 8800GT is slightly slower than a HD4850, that means you will just be in on the recommended specs. Also remember that those recommended specs are usually much under what you really need to turn on all the settings.

I would not go with anyone lower than a HD4870. With games (and ARMA2 in no exception) you really need to invest most of your $ into the GPU/Video card.

Buy the most expensive video card you can afford to play ARMA2 at its best settings.

Yapa

echo1

May 10 2009, 12:00

Hey guys, hoping you can bring a wee bit of sanity back into my world. I'm in the process of buying parts and building my 2nd pc ever. Here's what I have/am looking at:

Intel Core i7 920
SILVERSTONE OP1000-E 1000W PSU
OCZ OCZ3P1333LV3GK DDR3 PC3-10666 1333 MHz (3GB)
ASRock X58 Supercomputer

I'm stuck on the video card. I am not going with watercooling, so I don't want something that will run so hot that my computer just goes up in flames here--hehe. I've read where some cards were actually blowing some of the hot air into the case as well, which is a bit disappointing obviously and something I'd wish to avoid. I was looking at the HIS Hightech H485QS1GP Radeon HD 4850 IceQ4 (1GB).

You definitely don't need a 1000W PSU unless you are planning on building an SLI/Crossfire system (which is a pretty bad idea to begin with). I'd go for a 600W or so unit (personal recommendation is the Corsair HX620) and use the money you save to get a faster card. If you're an ATI man, the choices are either a HD4870 or HD4890. I'd really try and go for the latter, especially if you are going with a CPU that powerful.

Era

May 10 2009, 13:47

Im looking forward for arma 2 release, and im just wondering will my pc be able to run it smoothly?
Currently im running with:

intel core2 6600 2,4ghz
2gb ram
Nvidia 8800 gts 640mb
Asus p5b motherboard

I know that the system req. havent been published yet, but if you might have any suggestion on if ishould just change some components or just buy a new computer. Any suggestion on new components?

And sorry for this silly guestion, im kind of noob with computers.

echo1

May 10 2009, 14:00

Looks fine. Some of the components are "old" by today's standards, but any worthwhile upgrades probably wouldn't justify the cost. If you have performance upgrades when the game comes out and you play it, you might want to consider stuff. Till then, I'd stick with what you've got :)

Yokhanan

May 10 2009, 16:05

Hey guys, thanks for the responses. Yeah it's always hard trying to figure out how systems will run on games that aren't even released--and since none of us here are psychic (if there are any here, let me know, I'd like to find out the winning lotto numbers :p), it's difficult to pin down a definite. However, with that said I appreciate the advice either way.

As far as the PSU is concerned, I already purchased it months ago since I was undecided on whether or not I would run two cards (I'm not really building for ArmA 2 alone anyway) or not. I also wanted something that I could keep for a nice long time without having to re-purchase the same damn thing every time I wish to rebuild--if that makes any sense. I realize right now it's probably quite a bit overkill, but unless we start running on nuclear power in the next few years--hopefully I can reuse this big boy for quite some time in the future. I just pray when I start the new computer it doesn't cause half the county to have a blackout LOL. :eek:

Yeah I was originally looking at the 4870's and the 4890's, but the problems of a sh*t-load of heat and blow dryer or worse fan sounds make me a bit nervous. I have the Thermaltake Armour+ full tower case which is no tiny case by far and it has hmm, let me check....

<goes and checks the website>

1 140mm in the front and rear, plus I thiiiiiiink I can put one on the side panel (not sure, it's been awhile since I had a peek at it). I know I can put 2 140mm fans at the bottom of the case as well, but with the carpet and being on the floor that's not a very good idea...

Plus there's the cpu cooler going and I guess if I had to I could get the ram cooler from OCZ to cool the sticks. So I'm wondering if heat from the 70 or 90 series would still cause me grief--especially since I have no plans of let alone proper knowledge to OC anything. I mean let's face it, money doesn't grow on trees and I don't wish to lower the lifespan of my parts right from the getgo and risk doing damage.

G-D I'm so frikken confused, hehe. :down:

echo1

May 10 2009, 16:10

I have a similar case (The non + Armor) and the cooling is quite good in it. If heat is really a problem, you could always get a third-party cooler for it, which are easy enough to install. In fact, there was someone posting on the PC thread in Offtopic who had a similar issue. Not sure which model he decided to go with.

Deadfast

May 10 2009, 16:18

I never had any heat problems with my 4870.

It has the single-fan stock reference cooler on it which I keep at fixed 40% (good balance between noise and power).
Other than 2 120mm fans on the front and rear of my case I have no addition cooling.

Yokhanan

May 10 2009, 16:21

Heya CH,

Thanks for all your help. I might give the 4890 a go and if the heat gets to be an issue, I'll take your advice and look into a 3rd party cooler. Thanks again, much appreciated. :)

[edit]

Soon as I posted this response I just noticed Dead's response. Oops!

Hmm, I was looking at the HIS HD 4870 IceQ 4+ Turbo (1GB)....might compare that and one from the 4890 series and compare a bit and see which one appeals to me. Like CH said--if things still get a bit iffy on the heat side I can just look into a 3rd party cooler if things got that bad. So long as the thing doesn't sound like a Mack Truck, a jet airplane and a buzz saw having a threesome in my case, then I will be happy.

Raphier

May 10 2009, 17:38

throught looking this thread, I've decided to build a new computer, but I am so afraid of how much sound it'll cause totally. My gf I live with is hyper/sensitive to noise of electornic devices, and she'll spot my PC from two thick walls, running. Especialyl at night :/

Gonna be a helluva work....

mr.g-c

May 10 2009, 18:05

I might give the 4890 a go and if the heat gets to be an issue,....
....Hmm, I was looking at the HIS HD 4870 IceQ 4+ Turbo (1GB)....might compare that and one from the 4890 series and compare a bit and see which one appeals to me.....

Hi, given the fact that the GF GTX 275 outperforms the ATI 4890, only costs 5-10% more, uses way less energy in non gaming mode (which i simply assume is the majority of the most computer-time you use :p), is much cooler, and has way less (almost non-hearbale) noise, it would clearly get my go.
Especially here in germany were energy prices basically doubled the last 5 years, i tend to look more into saving energy with the PC - and ~40Watts less is indeed a difference, when i think that i have this PC running almost 24/7. Dunno how its all at your end, but just some sort of advice based on germany environment.

echo1

May 10 2009, 18:54

Well, he seemed pretty insistent that he wanted an ATI card, but I would agree - the GTX275 is a better choice.

Yokhanan

May 10 2009, 19:50

Well I've not purchased anything yet so I can check it out. I wouldn't say I'm like a ATI only kinda guy, I just tend to go with ATI because I've had it in two past computers (this one I built and one back when I had an overhyped-overpriced Alienware system).

Yeah here at least where I live in NJ, electric bills are getting a bit stressful. So something that is a bit energy-friendly is always a welcomed thing--otherwise my folks will have to raise my rent....aaaahhh!!! <runs in circles screaming at the thought>

BTW on the ATI side I'm currently looking at the SAPPHIRE Vapor-X Radeon HD 4870 (2GB). But now I'll check out the GTX 275. Thanks guys for all the advice...I'm not much on the technical side so you all are helping me out a lot.

echo1

May 10 2009, 19:56

Well, I've been all nVidia since about 2002, and I've yet to have problems. Also, if you look at the ArmA troubleshooting section, there seems to be less problems with nVidia compared with ATI. That said, BIS is supposedly testing ArmA II with HD4870s, so we can only assume this issue is fixed.

Supernova

May 10 2009, 20:43

Hi, given the fact that the GF GTX 275 outperforms the ATI 4890, only costs 5-10% more, uses way less energy in non gaming mode (which i simply assume is the majority of the most computer-time you use :p), is much cooler, and has way less (almost non-hearbale) noise, it would clearly get my go.
Especially here in germany were energy prices basically doubled the last 5 years, i tend to look more into saving energy with the PC - and ~40Watts less is indeed a difference, when i think that i have this PC running almost 24/7. Dunno how its all at your end, but just some sort of advice based on germany environment.

Claiming that the GTX 275 outperforms the 4890 is incorrect.

Intel Core i7 920
SILVERSTONE OP1000-E 1000W PSU
OCZ OCZ3P1333LV3GK DDR3 PC3-10666 1333 MHz (3GB)
ASRock X58 Supercomputer

Poor choice for motherboard and memory. Not to mention you don't need a 1000W power supply unless you are running an overclocked system with quad-sli or tri-sli.

Yeah I was originally looking at the 4870's and the 4890's, but the problems of a sh*t-load of heat and blow dryer or worse fan sounds make me a bit nervous. I have the Thermaltake Armour+ full tower case which is no tiny case by far and it has hmm, let me check....

My pair of 4850 X2's weren't that loud as you claim it to be. It's just nvidia fanboys trying to scare you off when Nvidia themselves had made video cards that sound like true leaf blowers and let me tell you my pair of GTX 295's aren't quiet either. Thermaltake makes among the worst cases ever they are too cheap looking and the build quality is utter crap. You want a good case go for the cases made by Cooler Master, Antec or Lian Li.

echo1

May 10 2009, 21:04

What an Nvidia fanboy. Claiming that the GTX 275 outperforms the 4890.

Source 1. (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/04/03/radeon-hd-4890-vs-geforce-gtx-275/1) Source 2. (http://www.legitreviews.com/article/944/15/) I also point at a review I read in someone's copy of PC Format that I read the other day... The most critical thing I've seen said of the GTX275 is that it's almost the same as the HD4890. I've never seen anything say that the HD4890 is much faster. What's your source?

Not to mention you don't need a 1000W power supply unless you are running an overclocked system with quad-sli or tri-sli.

As far as the PSU is concerned, I already purchased it months ago since I was undecided on whether or not I would run two cards (I'm not really building for ArmA 2 alone anyway) or not.

Again, read before you spam.

Thermaltake makes among the worst cases ever they are too cheap looking and the build quality is utter crap.

I've seen very few cases that are sturdier or better looking than my Armor (admittedly once you remove those ridiculous 'flaps' on the front). I admit the Lian Li cases are the best, but they're much more expensive. At any rate, he already has one. What do you expect him to do? Throw it out the window?

Placebo

May 10 2009, 21:33

Bickering about which GPU is better than another is off topic and ends now please, this is for discussing ArmA 2: System Specifications only. There's a pinned PC thread in OT if you want to stand in the urinal comparing GPU sizes........

Uniform 419

May 10 2009, 22:41

Hey guys new to the forums and also to the OFP/Arma Franchise in general
and really loving what I'm seeing, but I'm worried about If I'll be able to run
the game on my current PC. I just wanted to ask if a PC with these specs
would be able to run Arma 2 as it stand right now and if not what hardware
upgrades it would need to do so.

CPU: Pentium Dualcore E5200 @<hidden> 2.50 GHz
GPU: EVGA GeForce 9400 GT Video Card - 1GB DDR2, PCI Express 2.0
RAM: 3 GB

echo1

May 10 2009, 23:22

:welcome:

I'm afraid you're probably going to have to do some upgrading. Your CPU just about meets the minimum spec (although it might hold you back a bit), but your graphics card is way underpowered.

There's a bit of a problem here in that nobody really knows just how demanding the game is going to be until it comes out. If you want to spend as little as possible, there's an argument to be made for waiting till the game comes out. Then people will know what's the least amount you have to spend to get the game running well.

That said, if you have the money, and you want something that will cover all bases, I'd upgrade both the CPU and graphics card - I'd get a Core 2 Duo E8600 and a GeForce GTX275, which will pretty much guarantee that the game will run great at highish settings (and indeed just about any other game out these days). Btw - is this a PC you've built yourself, or one you bought in a shop?

pclipse

May 10 2009, 23:26

Hey guys, how do you think I will run ArmA2?

AMD Athlon X2 6400+ at 3.2GHz
8800GT 512MB
4GB DDR2 800MHz (5-5-5-18)

I hope better than low settings. I run pretty good in Crysis :P

Steakslim

May 10 2009, 23:27

Unifore:
Well I can be honest and say it's unlikely you'll be running with any high settings on that pc of yours. Any 9 series Nvidia card that is not the 9600gt or higher is going to be rather bad to play any game on. I cannot comment on your Pentium as I am unaware of the performance in games they might have compared to the newer Core Duo's, but I imagine they are quite behind.

echo1

May 10 2009, 23:31

Hey guys, how do you think I will run ArmA2?

AMD Athlon X2 6400+ at 3.2GHz
8800GT 512MB
4GB DDR2 800MHz (5-5-5-18)

I hope better than low settings. I run pretty good in Crysis :P

Well, you have the "recommended" card, a decent enough CPU and a load of RAM. Should be good to go :)

pclipse

May 10 2009, 23:41

Well, you have the "recommended" card, a decent enough CPU and a load of RAM. Should be good to go :)

Awesome, so nice graphics?

Also, I'm planning to upgrade CPU to AMD Phenom II X4 940, so that should help too.

But with current specs, should I get nice graphics? Like the preview :butbut:

echo1

May 10 2009, 23:53

That depends. From what I've gathered, the previews are being done on (mainly) HD4870s, which are a good deal faster than an 8800GT. But you won't be stuck on low settings. You should be able to have it run smoothly with a good bit of detail (doubt they'd advertise the 8800GT as being the recommended card otherwise).

If you are upgrading to the Phenom II btw, make sure your motherboard can support it (and if you are replacing your old one, make sure it supports it too). Some motherboards have problems with the newer chips.

pclipse

May 11 2009, 00:00

I have the ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe Wi-Fi Edition Mobo, which is AM2 mobo.

However after researching, apparently it supports AM2+ chips as well. And if it's not too much of a deal, can you confirm that for me please?

echo1

May 11 2009, 00:59

If you look up your model on ASUS' website, it should provide you a CPU compatibility list. Often you have to make sure that your BIOS is upgraded to the latest version before you replace the CPU with the newer model.

pclipse

May 11 2009, 02:24

Okay, well if you go here:

http://support.asus.com/download/download.aspx?SLanguage=en-us&model=M2N32-SLI%20Deluxe

Look at the Third BIOS update (Version 1903) Says that it supports AM2+

So I guess this mobo will support it?

Yapab

May 11 2009, 09:31

Im looking forward for arma 2 release, and im just wondering will my pc be able to run it smoothly?
Currently im running with:

intel core2 6600 2,4ghz
2gb ram
Nvidia 8800 gts 640mb
Asus p5b motherboard.

Your CPU is good, you can easily overclock that CPU to over 3.2ghz and it will be fast enough for a GTX285 which would be perfect for ARMA2 at high settings.

I have the same motherboard as you and the lower end E6420 CPU, its currently at 3.44ghz without any problems on air (with aftermarket cooler, cheap tho).

I say wait to see how the game runs, it should run "ok" on medium settings, however I think that you will have trouble running "high" settings with any AA as the 8800GTS 640mb is quite a bit slower than an 8800GT which is officially recommended.

Upgrade GPU to GTX275, GTX285 or an ATI4870/4890.

Yapa

ShadowOps

May 11 2009, 10:10

I'l probably be getting a new PC at some point this year, most likely nearer to xmas, as my current pc won 't have a hope in hells chance of running this game.

I'l probably get something along the lines of this pc from CCL Online, which has an AMD Phenom X4 9950 Quad Core Processor (2.6ghz) and a Geforce 9800GT 1Gb.

http://www.cclonline.com/product-info.asp?product_id=31354&category_id=683&manufacturer_id=0&tid=

Anyone have any thoughts on whether this pc will be suitable for ArmA 2?

Pauld

May 11 2009, 10:59

hi, i am really looking forward to the release of arma2 but im rather concerned my system will not cope, i was wondering if someone could put my mind at ease.

q6600 quadcore 2.4ghz, 8800 GTS 512, 4 gigddr2.

my OS is vista ultimate 64bit

mr.g-c

May 11 2009, 11:09

I'd say it will (speculated of course). If not, raise the clock of your Q6600 a little bit more to like 3GHZ...

boomar.

May 11 2009, 11:11

Pauld

May 11 2009, 11:13

thanks Mr.g-c ill look into overclocking so if i need too then atleast i know what im doing.

echo1

May 11 2009, 11:35

I wish i knew how to raise the clock thing of my Q6600. But i managed to destroy my computer by just cleaning dust out of the inside of my computer. The whole thing had to be replaced, thank god DELL have good customer service and replaced the entire computer tower and everything in it.

You can't overclock Dell computers. They lock down the BIOS options to prevent people messing around with their computers.

@<hidden>: With a good fan and a reasonably good motherboard + RAM you should be able to hit well over 3GHz. Some people get as high as 3.6-3.8 on air cooling.

someBoy

May 11 2009, 13:32

Hi,

Has anything official been said regarding performance on 3 core processors? I was thinking of geting an AMD X3 720. I read the developers claimed that a quad core should provide better performance than a dual core on some specific situations, but I was wondering whether there would be any gain from 3 to 4 cores.

Regards.

echo1

May 11 2009, 13:38

Probably not that much, and those triple-core Phenom IIs are really good value for money. I'd say go for it.

Yokhanan

May 11 2009, 18:57

Poor choice for motherboard and memory. Not to mention you don't need a 1000W power supply unless you are running an overclocked system with quad-sli or tri-sli.

...My pair of 4850 X2's weren't that loud as you claim it to be.

...Thermaltake makes among the worst cases ever they are too cheap looking and the build quality is utter crap. You want a good case go for the cases made by Cooler Master, Antec or Lian Li.

Well as I've already said I have those parts--so complaining they're supposedly all crap (yet the reviews on the mobo seemed pretty well from when I looked around) is pretty much useless since I don't have another 2 grand sitting around so I can just toss everything out of the window and start all over. Unless you wouldn't mind lending me some money? lol

Concerning the video card and loudness--I wasn't "claiming" anything but stating what I kept reading on sites such as newegg and well as a few forums and review sites. But if it sounds like over-exaggeration, well then I'm quite relieved to hear otherwise obviously. Thanks for letting me know.

Once again, I said I purchased the 1000w because I was undecided what I was going to do (oc, crossfire, or not), besides instead of having to always buy a new psu I wanted something I could use for quite awhile so I can in turn use that money towards things like cpu and video cards. Please take the time to read my posts a little bit, so I don't have to constantly repeat myself.

As far as the case, maybe you had a bad experience. I pulled this thing out of the box the day it arrived and was impressed. Might take off those two little doors though since they always get in my way. I'm quite happy with it. But thanks for your opinion on all my horrible choices for everything I already purchased months ago and will live to regret.....I think. <ponders a bit> roflol j/k

Anyways @<hidden> rest:

Thanks for all the great feedback and help. I spent all of mother's day yesterday on the computer checking out reviews on cards and I think I might actually go Nvidia this time, if anything to try something new since I've only used ATI in the past up till now. But something is telling me the best bet first is to try and hold out until Arma 2 is released and the feedback starts coming in. However knowing me, I might not make it till then. <starts to fidget like a little boy in a toy store>

I do have another question though. Since I got the 3 GB of ram, should I get another 3 for arma 2 or would the 3 still be ok? I wish I would have asked this before I purchased the sticks a few weeks ago, argghhh.

Anyways, I just wanted to thank you guys for helping me out. At least now I'm not tossing and turning thinking about what to do as much now. :D