Upgrade my PC to play this game!

[Peldan 1]

Hello everyone!

I need some help with improving my framerates in Arma 2 : OA (or more specifically DayZ mod.

EDIT: BEFORE READING, I just want to inform you that the FPS is about the same in the Editor in the Chernarus map, as it is on Multiplayer servers.

My computer specs right now sucks, but here they are:

Sapphire ATI HD Radeon 4670 512mb gddr3 GPU

Corsair 2gb 1333Mhz RAM

AMD Athlon x2 240 2.95Ghz (overclocked by 150Mhz.. lol) CPU

Corsair 650W PSU

Since I am so young, only 15 years old, I don't really have that much money. I solely rely on my allowance, which is around 70 bucks a month.

Therefore, I am thinking of buying these parts:

Nvidia Geforce 550Ti 1gb GDDR5

Corsair 2gb (add 2gb to my ram, so it's 4gb)

And then, about 2 months later, when I have like 140 bucks for a CPU, I will buy the:

AMD Quad-Core x4 965BE 3.4GHz

Now, here's my questions:

1. Will the parts that I am planning to buy suffice for Normal settings on 1280x1024?

2. Should I buy GPU and RAM first, and then buy a CPU 2 months later, or buy CPU and RAM, and then GPU 2 months later?

Thanks in advance, I would appreciate any feedback at all on the parts I am planning to buy. Cheers! :angel:

Oh, and also, I currently play on Low at 800x600, with terrible FPS. :'D Postprocessing is off, and so is AA. Lol.

[Lady Kyrah 1109]

I don't knwow what i can tell you, i'm runnging the game on this:

120Gb SSD drive

8Gb Ram

AMD Phenom II X4 955

Geforce gtx560ti

Your biggest culprits in my opinion are (in this order) GPU, CPU, RAM.

Hint for you, playing under your native resolution isn't necessarly a good thing, modern cards are generally not optimised for the smaller resolutions which are more there for compatibility than performances.

Arma is one of these games that takes everything to run, you need a fast hard disk to stream the map data to the ram in realtime (to reduce the texture/model pop out effect), you need a fast multi core CPU to run all the different threads and a beefy graphic card to get it all to display at a good framerate, add to that a lot of ram to store all those assets and make it easier on the hard disk.

The graphic card sounds like a good upgrade but you will be severely CPU and RAM bound after so don't expect to get the maximum out of your new card.

[Peldan 1]

I don't knwow what i can tell you' date=' i'm runnging the game on this:

120Gb SSD drive

8Gb Ram

AMD Phenom II X4 955

Geforce gtx560ti

Your biggest culprits in my opinion are (in this order) GPU, CPU, RAM.

Hint for you, playing under your native resolution isn't necessarly a good thing, modern cards are generally not optimised for the smaller resolutions which are more there for compatibility than performances.

Arma is one of these games that takes everything to run, you need a fast hard disk to stream the map data to the ram in realtime (to reduce the texture/model pop out effect), you need a fast multi core CPU to run all the different threads and a beefy graphic card to get it all to display at a good framerate, add to that a lot of ram to store all those assets and make it easier on the hard disk.

The graphic card sounds like a good upgrade but you will be severely CPU and RAM bound after so don't expect to get the maximum out of your new card.

[/quote']

So, GPU and RAM first, and then CPU?

I know it won't make a huge difference, but won't it at least be playable on Low? I mean, it lags just as much on my native resolution..

Honestly, I suspect the GPU to be the problem for quite a lot.

First of all, the 512mb vram is not good. It has to draw out a lot of textures on the screen, such as foliage. I don't think 512mb vram suffices for that.

Second, an example. When I zoom in with something like binoculars, it lags like hellz. It's even worse when I zoom in with right mouse button. That could only mean one thing right? Graphics card. I don't see any other explanation. Also, when I am playing the game and running around, the Task Manager tells me this:

1.5gbs of RAM used

65% of CPU used, both cores are used.

Thanks.

[duddbudda 33]

OP, at that low a resolution your 4670 should be able to run high settings in ARMA II

however I'm not surprised that your CPU cannot handle ARMA II, which depends not on a high number of cores (I am almost certain it is no more than dual-threaded and should run acceptably on a single core) but on high clock-for-clock performance; in that department, the xii 240 is lame

what's your budget and what country are you in?

if money is tight you can put an air-cooler on you CPU and overclock - I expect that reaching 3.5GHz would boost frame rates by 25%

512MB VRAM is more than enough for your resolution, if you want to double check, download MSI Afterburner and add VRAM monitoring to the OSD - you'll be able to see in real time what the VRAM usage is

[hexik 1]

Im running the game with a

Phenom 2 955

6950 1gb

4gb corsair ram

And it runs 20-45 fps on normal. The game kind of lags no matter what specs you have.

Buy CPU & ram first, the game is way more cpu intensive .

[Keurk 4]

i run the game with a Gforce 560ock cpu I7 920 8gb ram . I have not a single fps drop, not a single freeze . I though arma II was shitty optimized the first times i tryed it on my last machine, but with my actual rigs the game run just perfectly. So i disagree on the last post.

And i don't even have a ssdd

[lockie1976 39]

Your biggest culprits in my opinion are (in this order) GPU' date=' CPU, RAM.

[/quote']

Wrong.

CPU is far more important than GPU, the amount of calculations that are processed in AmrA2 are huge and requires a fast CPU, GPU has little to do with most of them.

A good GPU is very important but a good CPU is critical.

Also a 8 core CPU running at 2.8GHz won't be as good as 4 cores running at 4GHz.

ArmA loves GHz, of course this will change in ArmA 3 as it will be a 64bit process.

[Peldan 1]

Okay, so would the AMD Phenom II Quad-Core(x4..) 965BE on 3.4GHz suffice on Normal?

I cannot overclock because my mothercard is a budget one.

(Cannot overclock more than like 200MHz due to locked core voltages.)

Sandy State Phantom, I estimate my budget to be around this:

GPU: 140USD (550Ti)

CPU: 140USD (965BE Quad-Core 3.4GHz)

RAM: It's like 20 bucks for 2gbs of ram lol

I am living in Sweden.

[duddbudda 33]

the game kind of lags no matter what specs you have

4.5GHz 2500k and two 950MHz 6950s shader unlocked

runs ARMA II @ 60fps with every setting as high as it goes

[Peldan 1]

the game kind of lags no matter what specs you have

4.5GHz 2500k and two 950MHz 6950s shader unlocked

runs ARMA II @ 60fps with every setting as high as it goes

Asking again :p

Do you think Quad Core 965BE on 3.4GHz will suffice on Normal? And will I have to upgrade GPU then? Thanks in advance. If you can't answer, that's ok lol.

EDIT: I just want to inform you that the FPS is about the same in the Editor in the Chernarus map, as it is on Multiplayer servers.

[duddbudda 33]

for $150 you can get a 6870, which is a markedly better card (closer to a 560ti in performance)

CPU is solid for the price though a 960T will sort you out for lower power and heat

[Peldan 1]

for $150 you can get a 6870' date=' which is a markedly better card (closer to a 560ti in performance)

CPU is solid for the price though a 960T will sort you out for lower power and heat

[/quote']

960T has a lower clock speed than 965BE.

[Sakke1994 0]

I'd pick an AMD 6870 as GPU, which is a lot better then a GTX550ti and comes close to GTX560ti performance (even beats it in some games).

[Peldan 1]

Alright you guys, I upgraded my ram today to 4gb (only 3gb used right now though, 32bit system). And I actually noticed a slight increase in FPS! That's good news.

Other than that, not much to say. Buying a CPU as soon as I can, and then GPU later.

Sakke1994, that's very true. I checked some benchmarks and you might just have convinced me. That's nice performance for such a low priced card. Will look into it. Thanks!

[Sakke1994 0]

Alright you guys' date=' I upgraded my ram today to 4gb (only 3gb used right now though, 32bit system). And I actually noticed a slight increase in FPS! That's good news.

Other than that, not much to say. Buying a CPU as soon as I can, and then GPU later.

Sakke1994, that's very true. I checked some benchmarks and you might just have convinced me. That's nice performance for such a low priced card. Will look into it. Thanks!

[/quote']

Might be able to OC that CPU also, could improve the perfomance also, think about getting a Scythe Mugen II (Not the III, which is worse then the II).

[Peldan 1]

Okay, around 220-380mb of vram was used. What does that mean? CPU? o_o

I got this answer on another forum:

"Actually, it depends mostly on how you want to play the game. ArmA2 is known to be overly heavy on the CPU mainly the expenditure of AI and scripting. If you are playing it online on the dedicated servers, the calculations are not made from your computer, instead it is the server you are connected to, that calculates. However, what is calculated locally on your computer, all the graphics, which are more dependent on your graphics card than your CPU. Even when one plays pure pvp missions with no AI modules, it is a very low CPU load.

However, if you are thinking to play single player, play in the editor, or host coop missions to play with your buddies, you'll be much more dependent on a fast CPU because your computer must handle all the calculations for AI and any heavy script itself. Even heavier popular mods such as ACE2, WarFX and various alternative AI-modules pulls down the performance a lot. Before Dayz appeared, that was how most people played, and so it has always been high priority on just the CPU in terms of ArmA. This notion is spread obviously forward even now in dayz-strands, as many think "that's ArmA."

So, since you mentioned that you intend to upgrade just to play Dayz, which is run by dedicated coop servers and does not allow any other mods, I do not think that you are particularly dependent on all that extra CPU power as the more seasoned ArmA players are. As I said, I base it also on my previous experience with dual-core processor in ArmA2 when it has performed ok on medium settings in the default design, provided that you could have a video card that withstands.

The big drawback with your graphics card is not speed, but the low amount of VRAM. ArmA2/OA uses unusually large sets of textures and high resolutions for all objects are rendered, compared to most other games. This related to the large open environments, the amount of zombies / characters, and view distance, makes the 512MB of VRAM is the absolute minimum. According to me anyway, this is the biggest bottleneck in your case, which will further limit your graphics settings pretty hard even if you buy a new processor. It not only offers you low fps, but also frustrating pop-up effects for both the textures and models as you move in the environment.

But, whatever you decide to buy, you will anyway get a noticeable boost in the game. The question is just what area you want to improve."

It was translated by Google Translate from Swedish to English, so it might be some flaws or something. (I corrected the errors I noticed.)

[Thecakeboy1326 0]

I easily run the game on..

Geforce GTX 560M 2GB

Quad-core i7

8gb ram

(forgot the other specs)

And its on a laptop

[Peldan 1]

I easily run the game on..

Geforce GTX 560M 2GB

Quad-core i7

8gb ram

(forgot the other specs)

And its on a laptop

Yeah. Don't see how that contributes to my thread that much, but thanks for replying, I guess.

Your computer is still way better than mine :p

[Ray Mears 0]

A quad core AMD CPU should be fairly cheap these days, and for just a couple of bucks more get a half decent cooler to OC it +/- 1Ghz (your PSU should be good for it).

Don't mix and match RAM, buy a 4gb or 8gb matching set and sell/give away your old RAM, its dirt cheap anyway at the minute.

I'd invest a couple of extra bucks for a 560ti 448 core if you can afford it.

I've run LAN centres for a few years so I've learned that mixing RAM is a bad idea the hard way.

[blockhead (DayZ) 4]

A quad core AMD CPU should be fairly cheap these days' date=' and for just a couple of bucks more get a half decent cooler to OC it +/- 1Ghz (your PSU should be good for it).

Don't mix and match RAM, buy a 4gb or 8gb matching set and sell/give away your old RAM, its dirt cheap anyway at the minute.

I'd invest a couple of extra bucks for a 560ti 448 core if you can afford it.

I've run LAN centres for a few years so I've learned that mixing RAM is a bad idea the hard way.

[/quote']

although u saw a slight increase in performance... running more than 3gb ram on a 32bit system is futile.

32 bit systems cant utilise more than 3gb period. So unless you're going to upgrade to a 64bit system then anymore ram is a waste of money