Forum Jump :

Author Message

vikk  



Posts: 317
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location: The American Suburbia, South Carolina
Occupation: vikk
Age:
In-game name:

 
#46 Posted at 2009-06-04 01:45        
     
im over the recomended



Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40 GHz 2.39 GHz

4.00 GB of RAM

NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT

Windows Vista 64bit

Former Armaholic Team Member
Vikk[TG-Regular]
Killing bad guys one bullet at a time

Author Message

laggy  



Posts: 52
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: se
Location: Right behind you
Occupation: Rembrandt/Spielberg wannabe
Age: 44
In-game name: laggy

 
#47 Posted at 2009-06-04 08:42        
     
Hi all,

I'm new in this forum, but a long timer on OFPEC. Don't have ArmA2 yet :(
Thanks ArmaHolic team for keeping your good site alive.

Following all this performance panic frenzy: "I really have to be able to play ArmA2 on highest settings otherwise I'll diiiieeee!!!", I'm starting to doubt my own rig which is actually just above recommended specs on all fronts.

Dell XPS 420
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.00 GHz and 2.99 GHz) - recommended is dual core 2.8 GHz
3 GB RAM - recommended is 2 GB
8800GTX - recommended is 8800GT

These specs allow me to play ArmA1 with extremely good FPS and

- absolutely everything on highest settings
- having a 3000+ viewdistance
- massive battles with tons of units and choppers, even in Corazol

In a lot of posts it seems that my "old rig" is ready for the junkyard.
How is it possible that a system like mine runs ArmA1 like a god and all of a sudden would surrender under ArmA2 ?
It doesn't make sense. Can the system requirements really be THAT different for ArmA2 ?

- Looks just slightly better (not even close to the graphics change between OFP and ArmA1, more like OFP to OFPR)
- More detail yes, but also improved engine
- Demanding AI yes, but also the use of multi cores

Why would the recommended specs by BIS not stand?
How come preview people said that a rig like mine runs ArmA2 well?

Something is wrong with this picture :dontgetit

NOTE FOR PANICKING PLAYERS: On this forum (or BIS) I saw some comparison pics of ArmA2. Low settings with high fillrate didnt look that much different from high settings. High settings actually looked worse than low if the fillrate was compromised and set lower. What you don't want is very low settings which removes the grass/clutter and that loss really makes the game look bad. At least that is my opinion.

Has anyone tried ArmA2 on a rig identical/similar to mine and got a bad report?
Can anyone predict how my rig will perform?
Is all this performance chaos complete BS or just a patch issue?

Cheers,

Laggy

This post was edited by laggy (2009-06-04 09:49, ago)

And I looked and behold a pale horse and his name that sat on him was Death and Hell followed with him.

Advertisement


Author Message


Posts: 1057
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: en
Location: 15 Bajo Valor Road, Everon, Sahrani.
Occupation: Air Training Corps, Airsoft + College.
Age: 24
In-game name: grimfist

 
#48 Posted at 2009-06-04 21:29        
     
i would like to know this too. i can run arma 1 on very high everything with 4000 viewdistance buy according to what people have been saying with similar rigs i will be low / normal on arma 2. wth?!


Author Message


Posts: 20253
Rank:


Level: Super Admin

Country: nl
Location: The Netherlands
Occupation:
Age: 41
In-game name: Foxhound

 
#49 Posted at 2009-06-04 22:22        
     
I don't think comparing your HW which runs Arma 1 just fine with Arma 2 expecting it to be the same makes sense if you ask me. But thats my personal opinion.
I bought my HW like 3 years ago and I run Arma 1 on high/veryhigh with 4500+ VD, but I really dont think I will hit more than 20 - 25 FPS with Arma 2 with graphics settings I consider a bit enjoyable.
I do however think that with some patches to optimise some things I will be able to get 30 - 35 FPS on a steady basis. But, I just upgrade. Get a more powerfull CPU as Arma 2 is more depending on a good CPU than a kickass GPU with a lower CPU (as far as I understood from all the posts).

At the moment I have:
    C2D 6600 2.4
    2 gig ram
    8800GTX

I am thinking of upgrading to a Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 or maybe an Intel Core 2 Quad as well as maybe buying an additional GTX to run in SLI as I understood in SLI Arma 2 runs pretty well with high/very high settings.

Also the CPU I have can be overclocked pretty good (I have bought very good Corsair RAM for that in the past to make sure with overclocking it keeps running stable), so maybe I can manage to squeeze the max out of this CPU by overclocking it allowing me to buy only a GPU and saving me some money.


Keep an eye on the ArmaII-Mark topic. There you can just easily see what components have a certain score with Arma 2. Together with some HW reviews you can than easily make up your mind what to upgrade.

Visit my family webshop desteigerhoutshop.nl.

Author Message

laggy  



Posts: 52
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: se
Location: Right behind you
Occupation: Rembrandt/Spielberg wannabe
Age: 44
In-game name: laggy

 
#50 Posted at 2009-06-05 17:31        
     
Foxhound : I don't think comparing your HW which runs Arma 1 just fine with Arma 2 expecting it to be the same makes sense if you ask me. But thats my personal opinion.

I see your point, but... If the new micro AI uses multicores and the improved engine handles the new extensive details (like clutter and higher object density), why should the performance demands be that much different when the overall "look" is pretty much similar?

That I don't understand.

P.S Guess this rant doesn't really matter, since when I eventually get ArmA2 I'll get the definite answer, just curious and anxious to get this bloody game that will most likely ruin my summer. But if it will run like crap I would like an explanation, since my rig is still not below average D.S

Cheers

This post was edited by laggy (2009-06-05 17:44, ago)

And I looked and behold a pale horse and his name that sat on him was Death and Hell followed with him.

Author Message


Posts: 17
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: uk
Location:
Occupation: Unprofessional scripter;(
Age:
In-game name:

 
#51 Posted at 2009-06-05 23:53        
     
Q9300 quad @ 2.5
4GHz DDR2 @ 1066
9800GTX
1680x1050 @ 60Hz

So a bit better on paper than laggy's machine, but probably about the same in A1, or maybe even a bit worse (Since my processor is 2.5GHz vs his 3GHz).

I am definitely still running with less FPS at a given quality setting in A2 than I could in A1, but, most importantly, even at the marginally "lower" settings I am forced to use now, the world seems more beautiful, the AI are more intelligent and the game is a lot more immersive then Arma 1! In A1 I played everything maxed except textures at normal; in A2, I have textures at normal, 2000m view instead of 3000m and also the equivalent of AA turned off, since I now find I have to play at 100% fill-rate. I think in A1 my major bottleneck was my relatively slow processor speed (since A1 just used one core), but since now I'm playing a multi-core game, this should no longer be an issue and I've seen A1 use a lot more of my cores (60% CPU usage seen in an unrealistic load test). Thus, I'd worry a lot about switching if I had a single-core machine, but not much with a quad or a decent dual core.

The times I see FPS falling massively are when looking at particular objects that are presumably broken. Not too many of those though, so you can just avoid using them (think some of the farm animals were doing me in at one point). Hopefully these will get fixed...

I expect that patching will make a difference to this as well, since after all we are comparing A1 1.16 vs A2 1.01 (the latter, we must all admit, being closer to a beta than anything else; I wouldn't take A2's performance seriously at least until it has worldwide release)! I'm sure we all saw massive improvements in A1 performance over its lifetime and there is no reason not to expect the same from A2 (I remember FPS falling through the floor in forests in early Arma versions, but then they suddenly got playable in a patch!).

On another note, someone was telling me today that they were playing a port of an A1 coop mission that actually ran more smoothly with 50 players in A2 than it did with 32 players in A1 (though CTD at intervals, but they will be ironed out over time)! He's even confident to try with more players and AI in the future...

So my advice would be, if you have mid-high range A1 performance and multi-core, take a leap of faith. You might have to crank down your graphics settings a bit, but you will probably still see a prettier game and actually gain a great deal overall. I think the adversion to running A2 on medium when you are used to high in A1 (or low when used to medium) is a bit like preferring a pound of lead over a 1/2 pound of gold ;)

This post was edited by Foxhound (2009-06-06 07:56, ago)


Author Message


Posts: 745
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location: Somewhere Out There
Occupation:
Age:
In-game name: NoQuarter

 
#52 Posted at 2009-06-06 00:40        
     
Considering the amount of optimising improvements A1 gained throughout the patches, those still waiting for the game and doubting their current systems capabilities should sit tight awhile, and wait to see what BIS has in store for A2...instead of jumping the gun and shelling out for a new rig.
For those already running the app it should be just a matter of tweaking your individual settings to find a happy medium, until the revisions are released. (Fingers crossed.)


Author Message

laggy  



Posts: 52
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: se
Location: Right behind you
Occupation: Rembrandt/Spielberg wannabe
Age: 44
In-game name: laggy

 
#53 Posted at 2009-06-06 09:06        
     
Spooner : I think the adversion to running A2 on medium when you are used to high in A1 (or low when used to medium) is a bit like preferring a pound of lead over a 1/2 pound of gold

Haha!!! Well put and overall explained. Thanks.

Laggy

And I looked and behold a pale horse and his name that sat on him was Death and Hell followed with him.

Author Message


Posts: 431
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: pt
Location:
Occupation:
Age: 38
In-game name:

 
#54 Posted at 2009-06-06 20:15        
     
Foxhound : I don't think comparing your HW which runs Arma 1 just fine with Arma 2 expecting it to be the same makes sense if you ask me. But thats my personal opinion.
I bought my HW like 3 years ago and I run Arma 1 on high/veryhigh with 4500+ VD, but I really dont think I will hit more than 20 - 25 FPS with Arma 2 with graphics settings I consider a bit enjoyable.
I do however think that with some patches to optimise some things I will be able to get 30 - 35 FPS on a steady basis. But, I just upgrade. Get a more powerfull CPU as Arma 2 is more depending on a good CPU than a kickass GPU with a lower CPU (as far as I understood from all the posts).

At the moment I have:
    C2D 6600 2.4
    2 gig ram
    8800GTX

I am thinking of upgrading to a Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 or maybe an Intel Core 2 Quad as well as maybe buying an additional GTX to run in SLI as I understood in SLI Arma 2 runs pretty well with high/very high settings.

Also the CPU I have can be overclocked pretty good (I have bought very good Corsair RAM for that in the past to make sure with overclocking it keeps running stable), so maybe I can manage to squeeze the max out of this CPU by overclocking it allowing me to buy only a GPU and saving me some money.

Hey there old fox.
Arma 2 still doesnt support SLI or crossfire, and even if it did i'd wish you good luck finding a 8800 gtx these days (unless i give you mine but i wont :p). CPU upgrade would be the best bet but based on what i've read so far Arma II doesnt sound playable on anything other than the top HW out there.. overclocked :eek .


Author Message


Posts: 150
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: be
Location:
Occupation: dasquade
Age: 38
In-game name:

 
#55 Posted at 2009-06-06 20:42        
     
I'm in the same boat as Fox, doh...we bought it around the same time after checking with each other :satisfied.
Back then it was a pretty good system, but time and software has got us...

Imho i think it is mainly our CPU and lack of decent amount of RAM that kills our performence.
If i run taskmanager i notice CPU and RAM is hitting nearly 100%. Not sure about the GPU (would need to find some sort of test meter for that).

Fact is i'm running still on Windows XP pro (servicepack 3) as that has never failed me down.
I do believe i have to consider upgrading to Windows 7 (64bit?) so i can at least add more RAM. I know in the past (OFP,Arma,VBS1&2) extra RAM helped a lot.

The never ending problem...
Currently i have an Asus extreme witch support up to 1333mhz cores. Back then i was hoping i would be able to keep it and would be able to do a core upgrade (as it supports 1333mhz). After a quick check i suppose it isn't compatible with the new i7 cores (if not mistaken those mobo's only supports DDR3 aswell, as i have DDR2).

I'm affraid again that a simple upgrade won't do wonders and a full upgrade will be the only option.


Author Message


Posts: 20253
Rank:


Level: Super Admin

Country: nl
Location: The Netherlands
Occupation:
Age: 41
In-game name: Foxhound

 
#56 Posted at 2009-06-06 21:00        
     
Heatseeker : Arma 2 still doesnt support SLI or crossfire, and even if it did i'd wish you good luck finding a 8800 gtx these days (unless i give you mine but i wont :p). CPU upgrade would be the best bet but based on what i've read so far Arma II doesnt sound playable on anything other than the top HW out there.. overclocked :eek .

Hehe, nice to hear form you again. :)

Before replying I checked and I can still get a GTX if needed )no, I wont reveal my source, I want it first :p). And.......Arma 2 with SLI works very well. People posted by renaming the exe to crysis.exe it runs in sli, with 60 frames all over where before the frames were a lot less.

I think you dont need top hardware........really I dont. The game just needs more time to grow thanks to greedy publishers wanting to release way to soon.
We played the 505 version in London, check the review for the specs. And it ran excellent, everything on high/very high.


DaSquade : Imho i think it is mainly our CPU and lack of decent amount of RAM that kills our performence.
If i run taskmanager i notice CPU and RAM is hitting nearly 100%. Not sure about the GPU (would need to find some sort of test meter for that).

Can't confirm that, need the game first.
But I recon at least 4 gig RAM would be very good. And yours as well as my MOBO supports that without problem.
As you point out later we will just have to change OS. I skip Visata (use it on the laptop and thats as far as it will go). Windows 7 seems to be a good system so thats what I am looking at.


The never ending problem...
Currently i have an Asus extreme witch support up to 1333mhz cores. Back then i was hoping i would be able to keep it and would be able to do a core upgrade (as it supports 1333mhz). After a quick check i suppose it isn't compatible with the new i7 cores (if not mistaken those mobo's only supports DDR3 aswell, as i have DDR2).

I'm affraid again that a simple upgrade won't do wonders and a full upgrade will be the only option.

I do not agree.........mainly cause this time I don't have the money to do a full upgrade ( I bought a Harley :) ) so we (or at least I) will have to settle for a bit less.
You can run Arma 2, when its getting patched with a Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 @ 3.3 very well I am sure of that, not to mention yours and mine MOBO also still supports quad 2 core which could be nice as well (check Arma II-mark). Prices arent bad neither compared to some i7 cores I think.


However........I still want to overclock this E6600 I have, I should be able to get it up to 4.xx.
By default my case is just cold, so I have lots of room for overclocking, my RAM is made for overclocking and my mobo seems to do that job very well. Lets see how that works out.


But, all will become clear when I finally recieve my Arma 2 copy and I can start testing things.

Visit my family webshop desteigerhoutshop.nl.

Author Message


Posts: 150
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: be
Location:
Occupation: dasquade
Age: 38
In-game name:

 
#57 Posted at 2009-06-06 21:53        
     
I agree we should be able to get more out of our old E6600 (one of the reasons why we thought that core was 'good' as it had good overclocking performence). But since i once fried my ram doing that, i never wanted to try it again. Still think a good quad core (that supports our mobo) would be a good deal as i read some good results between dual and quad cores.
Not sure about the sli cpu's. I'm still a bit sceptic about that part (would need to check on this if i can find decent results). Fact is, where could one still find an EVGA 8800GTX CO like i have. Not sure if one can mix current with an other brench 8800GTX.

Atm my arma2 runs pretty crappy and had to lower everything to normal/low to enjoy it. Not sure if i'm still up to do a mayor upgrade/replacement at all. In the end, it isn't like in the good old days i play 5-6h non stop coops :blush.

PS: I read about the Harley Fox. Congrats on that (any pics availible somewhere?). As you know, bought myself some new wheels aswell, so one starts to cut back on other stuff (still haven't won that jackpot).

You make a point that some patches are turning wood in gold once BIS makes some breakthroughs. Lets hope in the near future it happens again (although it took awhile for ArmA1 before it run smooth-er).


Author Message


Posts: 431
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: pt
Location:
Occupation:
Age: 38
In-game name:

 
#58 Posted at 2009-06-06 21:57        
     
I have a similar system to the two of you, built at the same time (E6600, 8800 GTX, etc), a bios upgrade and i can get a quad x running, system served me well and it still does, i7 means new mobo and new mobo = whole new PC.
I also remember a preview that showed the game running well on high settings using a C2D and 8800 GTX so i dont know what went wrong there.

@Foxhound:
Wich model did you get? I used to like harleys when i was a kid, if you can show us a pic or two ;) .

@DS:
So you have Arma II already.. you.. fanboy :p , where are your first impressions? I'd like to read your opinions.
Im sure the early german release isnt fully optimised, think we might get away with a small upgrade.

This post was edited by Heatseeker (2009-06-06 22:06, ago)


Author Message


Posts: 20253
Rank:


Level: Super Admin

Country: nl
Location: The Netherlands
Occupation:
Age: 41
In-game name: Foxhound

 
#59 Posted at 2009-06-06 22:13        
     
Those sytem specs were from the 505 London Press Event preview Armaholic did. Thats why I was so happy at that time as my system was not that much lower.
Reading the things about the German version changed that perception a bit, but I just wait for the 505 release and more test/reading before making my choice.

As for the bike, the first 3 show the model, the last one is the model with the color only I ordered a different exhaust and he needs to clean his bike :)

4-img_0846.jpg 4-img_0848.jpg 4-img_0850.jpg

4-denim_blue.jpg

Visit my family webshop desteigerhoutshop.nl.

Author Message


Posts: 431
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: pt
Location:
Occupation:
Age: 38
In-game name:

 
#60 Posted at 2009-06-06 22:30        
     
Oh thats a Dyna i think, very nice i prefer the softail frame though.
Obviously you will need a hape hanger otherwise you wont fit :tease .

Nice bike foxhound and i like that colour too, congratz and ride safe you hear?