Yeah but that is not really AMD related, when ArmA2 was just released there were also tonnes of complaints about crappy running P4's.
Originally Posted by azz_er
In any case, Intel still is mostly associated with performance, while AMD is more budget orientated which is currently correct, so the problems with unreasonable expectations are less than before, although they will probably never disappear. (OMAGAWD ONLY LIEK 25FPS BUT COD HAS 400!!!11!)
Previously i'm using window xp for playing Arma CO and it seems fine to me. But lately my XP crashed and i cant find my mobo drivers CD so i use win7 and copy my arma folder to the new location and did a re-install.
Is it just my imagination or did Arma runs slower in win7 32bit compared to win XP?
I'm beginning to notice lag when zooming out and see building beginning to spawn again not to mention the underbrush making spotting enemy more than 50m hard as hell in single player. MP is much smoother but in chernarus it's just a bit better than SP.
I have tweaked the settings to try multiple resolutions and the results is the same. Is it my hdd or is it the window7? I downloaded a western digital hdd diagnostic software n run a few test and the result is fine.
My rig :-
AMD Phenom X4 2.2G
Nvidia EN9600GT 512mb
If anyone can verify this i'll ditch win7 and will try as hell to find my winXP mobo drivers again.
PS: Omg my pc OS is determined by which one will run arma the smoothest, now i understand what armaholic means XD
Last edited by gunso; Jun 29 2011 at 02:54.
Originally Posted by gunso
I can't say one way or the other for definite but, ArmA was written for XP. If your running 32bit then yea I would think that there is a strong argument for XP. For us with lots of RAM and some more exotic hardware like SSD's and the like then Windows 7 if the way to go. This is speculation on my part when it comes to the OS but don't forget hard drive speed is way important with this game.
As for your PS, my entire rig was built for ArmA. The other games I play are child's play compared to ArmA. I'm currently planing my next purchase, a pair of SATA III SSD so I can RAID them and get rid of mechanical drives all together... Then maybe water cooling? not sure the AMD buldozer is out in a few months and I will need a new MoBo, So yea I know what Armaholic means too
Snap OFP,ARMA is the only games I spent money on new parts for just to get the best gaming experience.
Its mad because its still the only game I will upgrade for.
No doubt ARMA3 will make me do the same.
BIS should have a deal with Nvidia,ATI,ASUS etc etc as tbh BIS makes them money from this game alone
If you have 4GB ram it's best to have the 64 bit version of windows 7, as windows 7 is kind of ram hungry and 32 bit only uses 3.3 max.
Originally Posted by gunso
XP isn't as ram hungry so 32bit is the best choice there. XP also has less fancyness so you might get better performance there, especially on such a relatively weak machine.
you can download the XP drivers from the motherboard manufacturers site. gpu drivers directly from nvidia site and you should be good to go.
Last edited by Leon86; Jun 29 2011 at 16:43.
i've been weighing whether i should make a new gaming rig now or wait for arma3 release where 160GB ssd price hopefully have gone a bit lower and just try to push my current rig till then.
Originally Posted by Leon86
There's also the issue that 4 core cpu seems to perform better than 6 core for current games unless i've been misinformed.
I also found a 4gb GPU (but the price... ) and thinking is there any difference with 2GB GPU put on SLI?
hmmm maybe i should just wait another 6 month for the upgrade n just get a 400bucks fully modded ps3 then to kill the time XD
@gunso : get a decent gaming rig now because A3 won't be released for at least 12, possibly 18 months. Plus, if previous experience is anything to go by, it'll prolly take another 6-12 months of patching before it reaches a stable and optimised state. So basically you'll be stuck on your PS3 for 1-2 years!!
So I'd recommend investing in a i5-2500k and GTX 560 Ti, with 4GB DDR3 RAM (I'm afraid that yours is prolly DDR2). Obviously you're going to need a new mobo too. That upgrade costs $550-600.
Don't waste money on after-market cooling, powerful PSUs or anything marked "Gamer/l33t". I'm not saying they're useless but with a tight budget, money is better spent elsewhere.
In the same vein, only consider a SSD once you've upgraded your CPU and GPU as they're the main bottlenecks in your system right now.
Last edited by domokun; Jun 30 2011 at 09:46.
I'm having a curious performance problem since I upgraded to CO. Until recently I've been running regular ArmA2 (not sure which version - the default that comes with the 505 box). The game has been running fine with settings on high @ 1280x1024 (native resolution). Today I got OA in the mail and happily installed it, effectively giving me Combined Operations. During the installation of AO, ArmA2 was updated to 1.06, and I got a nice CO icon on the desktop.
The thing is, when I now run either CO or regular ArmA2, the game is incredibly slow (about 1-2 fps and everything is in slow motion) and the sound stutters. Reducing the video memory setting from normal to low, makes the sound issues disappear and the fps rise to a normal level, but the game still runs in slow motion. I'm not talking about the fps, which seem ok (I'd guesstimate about 40-60), but every step I take is a giant step, like I'm walking on the moon (I hope that was clear ). Is this a problem familiar to anyone? Any ideas for a solutions? Installing the 1.59 patch doesn't help, by the way. Also, I'd really like to be able to play with better visuals - old ArmA2 looked and played great on high. With everything on low it's more of a meh experience.
My specs are:
CPU: Intel Core2Quad Q9550 @ 3.6 Ghz
GPU: nVidia 8800GT (512MB) - latest non-beta drivers, vsync forced off
RAM: 2GB DDR2 - Crucial Ballistix
OS : Few days old install of Windows XP SP3 (fully updated) 32 bit
Storage: 7200RPM HDD
Did you try to defrag ?
Originally Posted by love
I didn't, actually - and it turns out my filesystem was quite heavily fragmented. I've defragged now, but it didn't have any bearing on the performance of ArmA2 unfortunately. My HDD thanks you anyway, I'm sure it's much happier now! Any other suggestions?
Originally Posted by ProfTournesol
Tags for this Thread