Can I run it at an enjoyable level?

[a_typical_noob 651]

So I am strongly considering purchasing ARMA II/Dayz this weekend and I really just want to know if my set-up will be able to run dayz on, at the very least, the normal-high graphical settings.

My current system:

Intel i5 2.4GHz quad core

4 gigs RAM

ATI Radeon 5650 with 1GB dedicated

Roughly 300GB if space left on my HDD

I ran the test on systemrequirementslab.com and came up about half way between minimum and recommended. I have already downloaded and pkayed ARMA 2 free, and that runs just fine. I really just want to hear the opinion of someone who A) has more tech knowledge than I; or B) runs this game on a similar set-up.

I apologize if this has been posted in the wrong section or if it has already been answered a million times. No need to flame, just refer to my username. Thanks!

[mio.rogvall@gmail.com 107]

You will struggle.

[a_typical_noob 651]

You will struggle.

Not trying to be a jerk butttt...do you think I can get a little more elaboration than this?

[Leadon77 94]

The game mostly runs on PCU not GPU (processor not graphics) but you should be ok. The speed of your processor matters more than RAM and Graphics card. Your I5 should perform decently for the dayz mod...no ultra high settings but you will be fine playing...the worst case scenario you run (based on ping) at about 45 FPS.

[Leadon77 94]

You will struggle.

Not sure how you figure that?

[a_typical_noob 651]

The game mostly runs on PCU not GPU (processor not graphics) but you should be ok. The speed of your processor matters more than RAM and Graphics card. Your I5 should perform decently for the dayz mod...no ultra high settings but you will be fine playing...the worst case scenario you run (based on ping) at about 45 FPS.

Cool, thanks a lot Leadon! You just made my day!

[a_typical_noob 651]

So, knowing that I won't be able to run this at the "Ultra" setting, would it even be worth it for me to purchase PMC and BAF for the high resolution upgrade?

[rayk 33]

You should be able to run the game on default settings (high) with ease if you have a good internet connection.

[a_typical_noob 651]

You should be able to run the game on default settings (high) with ease if you have a good internet connection.

Awesome. Thanks a lot, I'm really looking forward to this!

[Leadon77 94]

The only thing I could say about the expansions is that they are fun and I get better frame rate playing single player since everything is on my HDD and not on a server somewhere. So you should be fine with the expansions since they should run faster than DAYZ mod runs since it's on your local drive.

[kungfu (DayZ) 3]

I run the game on low with less hardware than you and still find it enjoyable. Not that I dont look forward to an upgrade, but its still enjoyable.

[blacktric 3]

Not sure how you figure that?

He is using a laptop that has an i5 processor running at 2.4 ghz stock with no way to overclock without causing massive rise in thermals. Add the downgraded amount of cache sizes and how horrible his graphics card is into account and reaching to that conclusion isn't hard. You will definitely struggle and switching certain options to high to let the graphics card handle certain calculations won't help you due to having a below entry level graphics card with 1 gig dedicated system memory (which is extremely slow in comparison to VRAMs. You will be able to play the game but don't expect too much.

You should be able to run the game on default settings (high) with ease if you have a good internet connection.

Way to give someone false hope.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Blacktric

[a_typical_noob 651]

Well that's very disappointing. Seems like I should be able to run it. I'm running ARMA 2 free on "High" and that's running pretty smoothly. I understand that it's graphically watered down compared to the actual game, I'm just not sure to what extent.

Bottom line, I just don't want to spend the $30 on it if I'm going to be frustrated as hell, playing at 10 fps.

[moriak 35]

you can try running ArmA2 free.. it probably has lower system requirements than full ArmA2 or DayZ but at least you will get some results

[a_typical_noob 651]

you can try running ArmA2 free.. it probably has lower system requirements than full ArmA2 or DayZ but at least you will get some results

Yeah, I am able to run that on "High" without issue, so I don't know. Like I said, I just don't know how graphically watered down the free version is in comparison to the actual game.

[chris_uk 16]

I run

i7 920 @ 3.6ghz @ 60c

Sli 460 cyclone oberclocked to 900mhz @ 70c

All medium to high settings

25/35 fps in cities

50/100fps in trees and small cities

150/200fps in i look at the sky

Take that info as you will.

P.s overclocking the cpu from stock to 3.6 saw no fps increase, overclocking the gpu saw 10fps in cities and 20/30 everywhere else.

Edited September 20, 2012 by ChrisR

[evil.piggeh 44]

Well that's very disappointing. Seems like I should be able to run it. I'm running ARMA 2 free on "High" and that's running pretty smoothly. I understand that it's graphically watered down compared to the actual game, I'm just not sure to what extent.

Bottom line, I just don't want to spend the $30 on it if I'm going to be frustrated as hell, playing at 10 fps.

im running a quad core 3.0ghz with a gtx 550 ti gpu 8gb ram.. im not gonna lie sometimes i do get a bit frustrated with frame drops, but the game is still enjoyable. I can enjoy 60 fps depending which servers i log onto (when its been restarted/how many players have been on the server and died since the server had a fresh start)

But if i be picky for a little while i can play at decent frames, 30-40 mostly with quite a few people on though.. i've altered my graphics settings alot, and i refuse to play on low.

to elaborate a bit i disable post-processing and anti aliasing and anisotropics. - Doesn't look the best but still fun to play.

I really think you should try it out though i think your pc might be able to handle it and although i dont get the best frames i still enjoy the game.

But yeah i'm really looking forward to a processor upgrade as some posters said already its very processor heavy.

And as the above poster said it really depends on your location aswell..

Cities:[alot of buildings + tall ones]: 18-40fps

Wilderness [not much around]: 40-60+fps

Towns [includes small buildings]: 30-60fps

Good luck man.

Edited September 20, 2012 by evil.piggeh

[evil.piggeh 44]

I run

i7 920 @ 3.6ghz @ 60c

Sli 460 cyclone oberclocked to 900mhz @ 70c

All medium to high settings

25/35 fps in cities

50/100fps in trees and small cities

150/200fps in i look at the sky

Take that info as you will.

P.s overclocking the cpu from stock to 3.6 saw no fps increase, overclocking the gpu saw 10fps in cities and 20/30 everywhere else.

man with that setup id expect u to run ultra (or v high) settings np.. :S

Edited September 20, 2012 by evil.piggeh

[chris_uk 16]

Yea, arma is just poorly optimized.

I dont run any asf or fsaa, post prossessing, shadows, hdr are on the lowest or off.

For the op

I downloaded arma2 free to see how it ran, ran perfectly fine and saw the same kinda frames between the two.

If you can run the free version well on high in cities then you will be able to play the full thing without probs on med, but going off your specs id also say you would struggle.

[a_typical_noob 651]

Well, since I can run ARMA 2 Free on high, I guess I'm just going to get dayz and hope I can run it on at least normal. Wish me luck!

If I am having issues, do you think I could just upgrade my graphics card? Or is my processor just too limited?

[rayk 33]

Well, since I can run ARMA 2 Free on high, I guess I'm just going to get dayz and hope I can run it on at least normal. Wish me luck!

If I am having issues, do you think I could just upgrade my graphics card? Or is my processor just too limited?

The problem you'll have with upgrading your gpu is that you will just bottleneck the cpu if you go with a higher end video card and won't get your money's worth out of it. You could go with a fairly cheap one and won't have much of a problem with it. I think you can get a slight upgrade for around 50 bucks (us) if you drop the card in yourself.

[icetal0n 4]

I know I have FAR from even a "good" computer but I have

AMD Athlod II 640 processor

4GB of RAM

and a EVGA GTS 450 card with a 600w power supply. And I easily run the game on the very highest res and settings. (or can, I tend to play on lower for personal reasons)

[{MILKMAN}Razor 38]

I tested mine on systemrequirementslab and it was like an eighth of the way to minimum, i bought it and thought 'if i can't run it i'll just use it on my Dad's PC'

When i got into the game, i turned down some of the graphics options and turned off post processing etc. It works fine. That website isn't very accurate.

[a_typical_noob 651]

Okay cool, thanks for restoring my hope guys. When I ran the test on systemrequirementslab I was about half way between minimum and recommended. Hopefully I'll be alright. This game just looks too amazing to pass up. Even if I have to run it on low.

[icetal0n 4]

Okay cool, thanks for restoring my hope guys. When I ran the test on systemrequirementslab I was about half way between minimum and recommended. Hopefully I'll be alright. This game just looks too amazing to pass up. Even if I have to run it on low.

It is the best zombie game/mod i have ever played. I think you will be able to run it. Honestly even though I can run on highest I run on low because it cuts down on the amount of grass in your view, so on high it might look pretty but your not gonna see a sniper in ghillie as easily laying a few meters from you as you might on low.