Could I max out pr with these specs??

[=ESF=Mercy300]

Hi, I've been playing PR for a pretty long time now(two years) in low setting with fps in the low 15-20. I'm going to upgrade my system soon and I want to do my research before upgrading my computer.

Will I be able to max out Pr 0.973 and play arma 2 in medium setting with decent FPS 30-40+?:

RAM-4gb ddr2 800 (PC2 6400), gpu- his radeon 4670 1gb ddr3 or a PowerColor 5570 128bit dd3 1024, hdd-150 gb, cpu- amd 6200+ dual core 2.1ghz, psu- 480 watt

[Q2M100]

Not to spoil your hopes, but my best guess would be a very partial yes.

BF2 shouldn't be a problem for you (possibly all maxed out, but you most likely will have to leave shadows, lighting, dynamic shadows, and/or dynamic lighting on low/medium).

As for ArmA 2, I would not expect anything more than decent performance (30-40 fps) on fairly low settings. You don't, by a long shot, meet the recommended GPU specs.

BTW, the 4670 destroys the 5570 performance wise.

Good luck!

[BloodBane611]

Here are my video settings:



Running a sapphire HD 5770 (this one for about 10 months now), game looks like sex. I typically run on a bit higher settings (terrain, textures, object details up on high/very high), because I'm happy averaging ~27 FPS, bumped them down to normal today to see what it's like in the ~37 FPS range (also nice, no hugely noticeable differences in attractiveness)

If you look at Tom's Hardware's benchmarks, the 5770 is low on the list, but the 4670 isn't even ON the list (2011 list - http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2011 ... ,2674.html ). That review Q2M100 posted above looks like BS, for a few reasons:
1) It doesn't list specific cards on which those benchmarks were tested - apparently they represent all versions of the 5770 and 4670 (more likely they're made up)
2) The two cards are clearly in vastly different price brackets. If they actually performed at similar levels they would cost similar amounts - ATI isn't stupid, they're in the game for the money, and they're not going to underbid themselves.
3) Tom's hardware doesn't even have a review comparing the 2 (at least not one that can be found in 10 minutes of searching). That's because the 2 cards are leagues apart - the 4670 is a budget card, while the 5770 is a low-end enthusiast card.
4) Here's a nice example where HWcompare quotes Tom's Hardware on the speed of the 5770 vs the 4670:


(This is the bench for my 5770)


(This is the claimed bench numbers - you can see the sapphire 5770 actually produces about 84% more FPS than the 4670)


In short, if you want a cheap graphics card buy the 4670. If you want to play arma 2, buy a 5770. The 4670 is garbage, as its price range would indicate.

[=ESF=Mercy300]

Thanks for the fast reply What do you think about a xfx radeon hd 5670 1gb ddr5?

[BloodBane611]

Thanks for the fast reply What do you think about a xfx radeon hd 5670 1gb ddr5?

A 5670 isn't much better than a 4670, the key numerals are 670 - once again, budget level card for budget level results. You will be able to run ArmA 2 (and much better than a 4670) at medium settings, but you will experience low FPS at times where the GPU is being worked very hard (especially large scale multiplayer - though PR is actually a bit better than most ArmA mods for this in my experience).

If you really can't afford to pay ~$100 for a new GPU, the 5670 is a reasonable choice. XFX is as respectable as any other GPU manufacturer, it's a decent card that just isn't very future-proof - but it is cheap!

[=ESF=Mercy300]

And what if I run this graphic card xfx 6670 ddr5 in pcie x16 standerd speeds?

[Q2M100]

[quote=""'[R-MOD"]BloodBane611;1673944']
If you look at Tom's Hardware's benchmarks, the 5770 is low on the list, but the 4670 isn't even ON the list (2011 list - Charts, benchmarks 2011 Gaming Graphics Charts, Enthusiast Index ). That review Q2M100 posted above looks like BS, for a few reasons:
1) It doesn't list specific cards on which those benchmarks were tested - apparently they represent all versions of the 5770 and 4670 (more likely they're made up)
It is assumed that the tested card is a reference card.
2) The two cards are clearly in vastly different price brackets. If they actually performed at similar levels they would cost similar amounts - ATI isn't stupid, they're in the game for the money, and they're not going to underbid themselves.
My point was to inform him of the performance difference. I apparently was wrong about the 4670 vs 5570. Tom's Hardware results show the 4670 as a step below the 5570 in real world performance on certain games, though this just means the results differ by game (probably due to a new architecture).
3) Tom's hardware doesn't even have a review comparing the 2 (at least not one that can be found in 10 minutes of searching). That's because the 2 cards are leagues apart - the 4670 is a budget card, while the 5770 is a low-end enthusiast card.
They do have a lot of comparisons:
Radeon HD 5570 Architecture : ATI Radeon HD 5570: Reasonable Gaming Performance For $80?
Benchmark Results: 3DMark Vantage And Far Cry 2 : ATI Radeon HD 5570: Reasonable Gaming Performance For $80?
Benchmark Results: Crysis And Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 : ATI Radeon HD 5570: Reasonable Gaming Performance For $80?
Benchmark Results: Resident Evil 5 And World In Conflict : ATI Radeon HD 5570: Reasonable Gaming Performance For $80?
Benchmark Results: Fallout 3 And Left 4 Dead : ATI Radeon HD 5570: Reasonable Gaming Performance For $80?
Benchmark Results: H.A.W.X. And DiRT 2 : ATI Radeon HD 5570: Reasonable Gaming Performance For $80?
Benchmark Results: Anti-Aliasing And Anisotropic Filtering : ATI Radeon HD 5570: Reasonable Gaming Performance For $80?
Power And Temperature Benchmarks : ATI Radeon HD 5570: Reasonable Gaming Performance For $80?


In short, if you want a cheap graphics card buy the 4670. If you want to play arma 2, buy a 5770. The 4670 is garbage, as its price range would indicate.
I agree. The 4670 is indeed garbage in comparison to many newer cards. However, it is still slightly better than the Powercooler 5570 which was mentioned.[/quote]

You may have misread 5570 in my post for 5770.

[quote="=ESF=Mercy300""]And what if I run this graphic card xfx 6670 ddr5 in pcie x16 standerd speeds?[/quote]
If I were you I would try and save enough money for a GTX 460 as they have one of the best price to performance ratios and will take care of most of your gaming needs.

[BloodBane611]

You may have misread 5570 in my post for 5770.

Yup, my mistake.

And what if I run this graphic card xfx 6670 ddr5 in pcie x16 standerd speeds?

The 6670 should be good bang for your buck.

[=ESF=Mercy300]

Ya I'm just getting my stytem upgradid gotta wait for a new one then ill probably get a gtx 460. And yep the 6670 is a bang for the buck

[Q2M100]

Ya I'm just getting my stytem upgradid gotta wait for a new one then ill probably get a gtx 460. And yep the 6670 is a bang for the buck

This site can help with finding the best card in your price range. The GTX 460 at the stated $180 is considered great bang for buck.
Best Graphics Cards For The Money: September 2011 : Best Graphics Cards For The Money, September Update

On Newegg you can get a GTX 460 for as little as $130.
Newegg.com - Computer Hardware, Video Cards & Video Devices,gtx 460

This is the best GTX 460 out there at the moment. It is only $10 more than the cheapest one, but is factory OCed and has significant performance and cooling boosts.
Newegg.com - MSI N460GTX Hawk GeForce GTX 460 (Fermi) 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

[=ESF=Mercy300]

I know but I forgot to state that my budget is 120-150 doller and im not just buying a graphic card, I need ram and a psu. The xfx 6670 can run crysis 2 in 720 hd and with the exact same specs as my computer Crysis 2 Ati Radeon HD 6670 - AD_SnaKe - YouTube. It can also run other games in high setting or meduim for example like GTA4, Black ops, Dirt 3, and arma 2 on high setting (its 5670 same as 6670)ArmA 2 Operation Arrowhead on Radeon HD 5670 - YouTube. And if I was going to buy those mid end graphic cards I wouldnt ask for help I want this topic to keep going so I could so you the capabilties of the XFX hd 6670

[=ESF=Mercy300]

I'm also thinking of getting a XFX 6770 1gb gddr5 for 95 dollars after rebate, thats a bang for the buck. Would I be able to play arma2 on high with decent fraps and how much fps will I get on pr 0.973 with all max?

[BloodBane611]

You will not be able to play regular ArmA 2 on all high with a 6770 as far as I can tell, it will perform in approximately the same range as the 5770 (PR:A2 runs much better, probably be able to hit higher FPS at higher settings). You'll be able to run regular ArmA 2 in 1920x1080 somewhere around normal settings (mileage may vary since you don't have an SSD) with ~30 fps, but you will most likely not be able to fraps at a playable framerate.

However, it should be noted that playability varies widely across maps and mods - most PR maps are fairly fps friendly, but if you want to play with ACE/other heavy mods, especially on object-heavy maps, you're going to take a heavy hit. A 6770 is a very reasonable card to use IMO, ArmA 2 will look pretty and be playable.

[Q2M100]

You will not be able to play regular ArmA 2 on all high with a 6770 as far as I can tell, it will perform in approximately the same range as the 5770 (PR:A2 runs much better, probably be able to hit higher FPS at higher settings). You'll be able to run regular ArmA 2 in 1920x1080 somewhere around normal settings (mileage may vary since you don't have an SSD) with ~30 fps, but you will most likely not be able to fraps at a playable framerate.

However, it should be noted that playability varies widely across maps and mods - most PR maps are fairly fps friendly, but if you want to play with ACE/other heavy mods, especially on object-heavy maps, you're going to take a heavy hit. A 6770 is a very reasonable card to use IMO, ArmA 2 will look pretty and be playable.

Agreed. You will not get anything more than decent performance on normal settings. If you are looking to play on a heavily modified ArmA 2, expect low to mid-low graphics settings.

[=ESF=Mercy300]

Why is pr a2 less denmanding then regular? And do you think i will be able to play arma 3 in low mid- low?

[Q2M100]

And do you think i will be able to play arma 3 in low mid- low?

You just BARELY meet the minimum GPU requirements of "ATI Radeon 5770 or faster (with Shader Model 3 and 896 MB VRAM)". Don't expect anything more than lower performance on the lowest graphics settings.

[BloodBane611]

Why is pr a2 less denmanding then regular? And do you think i will be able to play arma 3 in low mid- low?

The only guess I would make is that PR:A2 is a bit better optimized in terms of models etc, but honestly I have no idea. It certainly is less resource heavy than, say, a full install of ace (few hundred MB versus a few GB).

I couldn't even guess on ArmA 3, no way of knowing until it's released really. I wouldn't bank on great performance, if you want future proof you'll have to spend more money.