ArmA II (PC)

Cunny-Funt

runs better in win7 over winxp????:eek:

Sierra Oscar

Spear wrote: »

If for some bizarre reason you bought this on Steam, you're in for a 4.3 gig download to patch it, as Steam can't correctly patch the .pbo data files. Everyone else gets a 135 meg patch.

Yeah, it sucks to be frank - and it seems we are stuck with it for this patch at least . . . although I do believe in the future download requirements will not be as ridiculous.

PogMoThoin

Server is running 1.03 now

ScumLord

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

runs better in win7 over winxp????:eek:

And XP had 4gb of ram, Win7 only has 2gb.

Cunny-Funt

Wow seriously? Only reason I'm sticking to XP is my assumption that games run worse on win7 and vista, I never heard of games actually running BETTER? Thats pretty amazing to me. :eek:

32bit or 64?

PogMoThoin

Cpu wise games will run better on 7 but graphically they won't, the drivers aren't optimised yet. I tested this myself with my 4870 a fresh install of 7, Crysis gave 10fps more in Vista than 7 with the same driver

CutzEr

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Cpu wise games will run better on 7 but graphically they won't, the drivers aren't optimised yet. I tested this myself with my 4870 a fresh install of 7, Crysis gave 10fps more in Vista than 7 with the same driver

That's why im not upgrading to 7 until it's out 100% and confirmed to be better.. Alot of the games I play are based nearly 100% on graphics.. And would be bad on 7.

indough

graphics arent bad on win 7 at all

PogMoThoin

indough wrote: »

graphics arent bad on win 7 at all

Not saying they are, its that the graphics drivers aren't optimised to perform as well as they do on Vista. Vista's had 3 yrs of graphics driver updates and optimisations

indough

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Not saying they are, its that the graphics drivers aren't optimised to perform as well as they do on Vista. Vista's had 3 yrs of graphics driver updates and optimisations

oh i know i was referring to the post directly above my own really

CutzEr

I was referring to Pog aswell, some games wont work aswell.

Sephiroth_dude

Im going online now to give this a go .

ScumLord

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Wow seriously? Only reason I'm sticking to XP is my assumption that games run worse on win7 and vista, I never heard of games actually running BETTER? Thats pretty amazing to me. :eek:

32bit or 64?

64.

PogMoThoin

See Arma2 is pretty cpu bound and will run better on 7 or this reason. It eats the shít outa my 4 cores (uses all 4) and having a hefty gpu makes little difference, its a bitch to run.

Its probably worth upgrading to 7 if this game and console ports like GTA4 are the only games You play. Me, I'm waiting a while as I play loads of gpu intensive games.

CutzEr

PogMoThoin wrote: »

See Arma2 is pretty cpu bound and will run better on 7 or this reason. It eats the shít outa my 4 cores (uses all 4) and having a hefty gpu makes little difference, its a bitch to run.

Its probably worth upgrading to 7 if this game and console ports like GTA4 are the only games You play. Me, I'm waiting a while as I play loads of gpu intensive games.

Exactly :P

Team Fortress 2 = GPU eater. That's why im waiting. Don't even know why im posting in the arma 2 thread anyways.. Internet is not good enough to play it

ScumLord

PogMoThoin wrote: »

See Arma2 is pretty cpu bound and will run better on 7 or this reason. It eats the shít outa my 4 cores (uses all 4) and having a hefty gpu makes little difference, its a bitch to run.

Its probably worth upgrading to 7 if this game and console ports like GTA4 are the only games You play. Me, I'm waiting a while as I play loads of gpu intensive games.

I haven't tried out many other games on win7 (the thought of going through the crap just to play GTA4 is turning me off) but I downloaded a win7 specific driver for win7 and if I'm getting better results on a beta driver than I am on a well ironed out XP driver then that's got to be a good sign.

I'd assume that the win7 drivers would build on the best on the XP driver. Although that said as long as I can play the thing reasonably I'm not that interested in the details and getting the last once of performance out of the computer.

Seifer

ScumLord wrote: »

I haven't tried out many other games on win7 (the thought of going through the crap just to play GTA4 is turning me off) but I downloaded a win7 specific driver for win7 and if I'm getting better results on a beta driver than I am on a well ironed out XP driver then that's got to be a good sign.

I'd assume that the win7 drivers would build on the best on the XP driver. Although that said as long as I can play the thing reasonably I'm not that interested in the details and getting the last once of performance out of the computer.

Not sure what you mean about going through crap to play GTA IV. I have it installed on Windows 7 and it runs fine.

Also the win 7 drivers would be much more similar to the Vista drivers and not the XP ones. And the drivers aren't beta drivers, it's the OS that is in beta.

PogMoThoin

The Windows 7 drivers are the Vista drivers, they're identical in every way. Its the OS thats changed, slightly different from Vista, the drivers need to mature to suit it

indough

is that certain though? i actually have to select windows 7 64 when downloading drivers for my card, i suppose it doesnt matter too much to me anyway it looks good enough on my machine atm

Maximilian

I think the recent ATI drivers are the same for both Vista and Win 7.

I'm running Win 7 and found a slight performance gain. More importantly though, the game was more stable for some reason and crashes are much more rare. This was the case even before the arma2 patch.

Kinetic^

I'm on W7 64 bit as well and 0 issues.

dreamers75

Xp 32bit and not issues, well none from the OS

rordeb

What's the cheapest priced computer I could get away with to play this to an acceptable standard?

ScumLord

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=5471

http://www.komplett.ie

It's a pretty broad question.

rordeb

Thanks bought the game - now need the machine - just looking for ideas for cheap solutions.

Currently have a core duo 1.6 with a good GFX card - but looks like she aint up to the task.

CutzEr

rordeb wrote: »

Thanks bought the game - now need the machine - just looking for ideas for cheap solutions.

Currently have a core duo 1.6 with a good GFX card - but looks like she aint up to the task.

I'd recommend going to the Building & Upgrading forum, gaming forum ain't the best.

kenon

rordeb wrote: »

Thanks bought the game - now need the machine - just looking for ideas for cheap solutions.

Currently have a core duo 1.6 with a good GFX card - but looks like she aint up to the task.

Is it completely unplayable? I would of thought you would of been able to get it running with that, with the settings toned down a bit.

ScumLord

rordeb wrote: »

Thanks bought the game - now need the machine - just looking for ideas for cheap solutions.

Currently have a core duo 1.6 with a good GFX card - but looks like she aint up to the task.

From what I've read ARMA2 is a cpu intensive game and a quad core cpu is preferable. I plan to get a quad core soon enough. I currently have a dual core and it runs ok no serious slowdown.

Kinetic^

ScumLord wrote: »

From what I've read ARMA2 is a cpu intensive game and a quad core cpu is preferable. I plan to get a quad core soon enough. I currently have a dual core and it runs ok no serious slowdown.

Same, am on a 3.0ghz dual core and no real issues.

Maximilian

I have a dual core and it runs just fine. That's with an ati 4870 and 4gb of ram.

I'd still go for a quad core though if I were you.