Will this laptop be able tu run ArmA2... ?

[Joghurt]

...on medium settings so I play coop MP ?

I'm gonna join the laptop crowd because I need one for study/work. Since the MS is gonna milk 360 for another 4-5 years I think it's not such a bad idea. Pretty much the only game that requires a good PC I wanna play right now (and I guess for another few years) is ArmA2 I wanna know your thoughts about this laptop (or if you can suggest any other alternatives in this price range).

Toshiba Satellite A660-14T

Intel® Core™ Processor i5-430M, 2.26 GHz
16" TFT WXGA HD LED 1366 x 768
3 MB; 1066 MHz FSB
Intel® HM55 Express Chipset
4 GB RAM DDR3-1066
500 GB (5400 rpm)
Blu-Ray Rewriteable
nVIDIA® GeForce® GT 330M 1 GB DDR3

[/list]

 

[MetalCraze]

ArmA2 is very demanding because of its sheer scale and not laptop friendly so...

The videocard is all too weak. You need to be looking for something equal (or better) to at least desktop 4670.

GTS360M with GDDR5 looks like a much better candidate. AFAIK it's a somewhat downclocked GT240.
Most servers still play with viewdistance set below 2km so you should be fine with this one at 1360x768. If you'll go for this one make sure it has GDDR5 as there is also a GDDR3 version.

CPU should be OK (although a more powerful one is welcome, but if it's possible for you to OC this one you should be fine) as long as you don't try to play Warfare and stick to coop instead (my old Athlon X2 5000+ handled even AA2 1.01 pretty ok and your CPU is way better). As long as coop doesn't involve large scale combined operations - which are rare (but most awesome).

HDD may be your biggest problem here. ArmA2 really loves to push large amounts of data around with all its 200 sq. km maps. So HDD speed may be a main bottleneck.

 

[Konjad]

on this laptop:
Processor: Intel® Core™2 Duo processor T6500 2.10 GHz 2MB Cache
RAM: 4GB DDR2 800MHz
Display: 15.6' 1366x768
Graphic Card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 1GB VRAM DDR3
Windows 7

I play on medium-high settings (textures max, shadows high, terrain high, bloom/hdr/blur/etc off [not because they require better graphic card, they just look like shit], AF 16x, AA off, 1366x768 100%), it doesn't lag, my FPS are about 20-30 when I'm in fight.

So your computer is enough if you're okay with low or low-medium graphic settings, if you want better then you need a better graphic card.

 

[Raapys]

Well, for Operation Arrowhead my own computer with a qx9650@3.8ghz and a Radeon5870 is getting about...20fps? on medium'ish settings.

 

[MetalCraze]

I have ~25-30 fps on Takistan with 10km viewdistance, high textures, very high video memory, high shadows, very high aniso, grass+ground on normal (although HDD thrashing makes it impossible to play with 10 km :< ) - and that's with Phenom II X4 "B50" and GTX260 OC'ed to 280 level (it's still below 5830) so some thing is seriously fuck up man on your side (probably have lots of FSAA)

 

[Konjad]

lol

Operation Arrowhead works pretty much as original ArmA2 for me... I just have turned off AA (it's VERY demanding) and bloom in both... and it works pretty good on my 4650 in laptop. I don't know what's wrong with your computer, especially when I have probably higher settings than you.

 

[Konjad]

btw i have view distance just 2 km

 

[MetalCraze]

Ah yeah he may have post processing set too high. At normal it already turns on SSAO and DOF which are VERY demanding because they apply to everything on the screen. But I don't think it should be a problem with 5870. In fact I saw people churning out 50 FPS at everything maxed out but 3.2 kms on Chernarus which is way heavier than the desert.

 

[Raapys]

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5030 ... ttings.jpg

This is when running the Very Low setting.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2877/a ... ttings.jpg

This is when using the Very High setting. 1920*1200 res. Performance in this game is silly. Maybe the fps will get a bit better once I play further in, that's just from the start of the first mission. Thing is though, settings don't really appear to do that much for my fps in this particular scenario, as evident by only getting 50 fps when using the Very Low setting.

 

[MetalCraze]

It's CPU. Try pushing ESC key to go into the menu and see your FPS instagrow 2 times or more due to lots of calculations pausing.
The mission has lots of stuff going on around - if you go N you'll notice delta force guys battling it out on the hills
Then there are tanks riding around, insurgents running around in the nearest two towns (which you later take), choppers ferrying in reinforcements etc.
ArmA2 doesn't spawn stuff like corridor shooters or console "sandboxes" - it calculates it all the time everywhere which may give you a different experience every time you play the mission.

So it's gotta be CPU.

Have you tried the latest betas? They should improve this as they include CPU optimizations from 1.07 patch for AA2. Also make sure you have HT turned off.

 

[commie]

I have ~25-30 fps on Takistan with 10km viewdistance, high textures, very high video memory, high shadows, very high aniso, grass+ground on normal (although HDD thrashing makes it impossible to play with 10 km :< ) - and that's with Phenom II X4 "B50" and GTX260 OC'ed to 280 level (it's still below 5830) so some thing is seriously fuck up man on your side (probably have lots of FSAA)

What other settings do you have? DO you have all the blur/DOF and all the other shitty effects on? I've a lot crappier machine, but'd like to compare.

 

[Raapys]

It's only using 50% of my CPU capacity though, all four cores are running at 40-60% each. Strangely, game seems to run more smoothly when I tried it just now using the V.High setting, usually going at around 30-45 fps sometimes dipping into the 20's. Maybe it's the graphics driver update. I'll try updating the game too though, I only got the zero-day patch I think.

Neat, managed to force vsync off, and now the game's actually perfectly playable at V.High. Guess I'll give it a spin finally.

 

[MetalCraze]

It's only using 50% of my CPU capacity though, all four cores are running at 40-60% each.

Yeah it's an issue with pre 1.07 versions of AA2 (1.52 for OA is equal to one of 1.06 betas). BIS says quad-core optimizations are their primary target now - maybe with new betas it will be better for you, although expect some broken stuff as obviously they are betas (I still wait when they will fix the damn IR-marker they broke 2 betas ago - doesn't affect the campaign though)

Strangely, game seems to run more smoothly when I tried it just now using the V.High setting, usually going at around 30-45 fps sometimes dipping into the 20's. Maybe it's the graphics driver update. I'll try updating the game too though, I only got the zero-day patch I think.

Does that include video memory (not textures) setting too? BIS stated that for all 1GB+ videocards setting video memory to very high is a must to improve performance (so stuff will load there in large chunks at once instead of smaller ones)

BTW the performance in that mission will improve pretty fast when more people will get killed. Also another "thing" of AA2 is that bodies and equipment never disappear (unless intended so by mission maker)

What other settings do you have? DO you have all the blur/DOF and all the other shitty effects on? I've a lot crappier machine, but'd like to compare.

Post processing - low (on Chernarus to get nice glow effects) very low (on Takistan to not get glow effects because the sand fucking shines like a sun). To get nice refractions in optics and some noise in NVGs. I really dislike how on Normal everything gets more colourless and blurred because of DOF.

 

[Raapys]

Does that include video memory (not textures) setting too? BIS stated that for all 1GB+ videocards setting video memory to very high is a must to improve performance (so stuff will load there in large chunks at once instead of smaller ones)

I just set it to global V.High, which apparently meant 'Normal' on the video memory setting. Gonna take it up to V.High then. Anyway, looks like I'll be lowering the Post processing to Low or very Low, whichever doesn't have the motion blur thingy. Never been a big fan of blur.

 

[commie]

What other settings do you have? DO you have all the blur/DOF and all the other shitty effects on? I've a lot crappier machine, but'd like to compare.

Post processing - low (on Chernarus to get nice glow effects) very low (on Takistan to not get glow effects because the sand fucking shines like a sun). To get nice refractions in optics and some noise in NVGs. I really dislike how on Normal everything gets more colourless and blurred because of DOF.

Thanks.

The only game that I've played that did a good DOF was the first Call of Juarez. It would do a very smooth effect on both visible things behind and in front of where you were looking without going crazy.

Blur in modern games is also ridiculous. Apart from when you're pissed or doped up who actually sees things so blurry everytime they turn their head or round a corner in a car? How the hell would they send you out to fight/drive if every turn of the head/wheel the world is blurred as fuck? You'd be a menace to your own side/other drivers!

 

[MetalCraze]

I've never seen motion blur done well. ArmA2 is no exception. There is a mod for vanilla that removes motion blur while keeping every other effect intact, but it's only for vanilla. And it also gives additional 4-7 FPS. There is no mod for OA like that which makes me a sad panda.

 

[1eyedking]

Fuck ARMA II. Play BF2.

 

[Joghurt]

Ok I'll try to find a laptop with a better processor, video card or faster HDD.

I actually found one, but it's fucking Sony VAIO and those fuckers are overpriced as shit. It's 200$ more and it has a better processor (Intel® Core™ Processor i5-520M 2.4 GHz) and faster HDD (500 GB (7200 rpm) SATA), but the video card is the same. There are 2 things I don't like - It's Sony so it's overpriced and it is 16.4" so it's pretty huge. I would like with 15.4".

 

[Volrath]

Fuck ARMA II. Play Project Reality.

Fixed

 

[MetalCraze]

Project Reality is for children.

 

[Twinkle]

The only game that I've played that did a good DOF was the first Call of Juarez.

Also, SC2 in cinematic mode. In b4 butthurt.

I've never seen motion blur done well

That's actually true. The thing is motion blur is really needed only if you've already hit close to 60fps and have no other settings to max out. This way it can add additional smoothness. But if your framerate fluctuates at 20-30 fps your only result will be unrealistic effect that makes everything blurry.

 

[Joghurt]

Motion blur was pretty cool in NFS:Shift with all that cockpit view thingy they were promoting the whole time. The rest of the game was shit though. Haven't seen motion implemented well in FPS - it just doesn't fit in in this genre.