Or the game's coding..

Yup must be the game not a 5yr old + processor.

Yes the game has it problems but if you have Arma or Arma2 then you should know what to expect.

Did you read my previous post?

Performance for me is basically the same as ArmA 2 in Chernarus, if not a bit better. This is also using the exact same configuration settings between the two games.

Many other games run great, I would accept that my processor is the problem if it was even being utilized 100%... There are people with latest gen hardware having the same issue, 24fps(ish) no matter the settings.

Just a WAG. Could there be a difference in performance between the Steam and non-Steam versions?

Its possible, especially if we are comparing the non-steam 1.01a beta version to the Steam version that is stuck at 1.01 until an official patch is released. I haven't heard of performance differences on ArmA 2 though regarding Steam.

Nobodies using the beta patch on their non-steam version though are they?

It fixed up a whole bunch CTDs, the game used to hang on me before I applied the beta patch and now it hasn't crashed once during a number of tank battles I played today that had 15 tanks in it. I'll be doubling that number tomorrow for fun.

That said its a lil fiddly to install as its not an executable, apparently another official patch will be released soon with alot more fixes so everybody will be on the same page then.

Might be worth trying it with the Steam community overlay off - that's a graphical difference per version. In your Steam library you can right-click / properties to see the options.

The CPU rarely plays a significant part in games unless we're talking about simulations with a rather large number of units present.

This is such a simulation, but in my experience (bought them all) it has issues regardless of the number of units, just like all of the games from the series (for which I'd blame the underlying engine).