ArmA 3 System Requirements

[liquidpinky 11]

I hope arma 3 installation folder will fit into ramdisk , don't really see how ssd could help

Because it deos and that 7200rpm 500GB drive is currently the weakest link for running ARMA.

Try and get a GFX card with more memory too if you can.

[call_911 10]

Any thoughts on this I know my GFX is probably weak but it does ArmA1/OA ok, boggs down a lil(expecially on Chenarus) fairs way better on Takistan. Just curious on what i might need to do(if anything) b4 June Alpha.

AMD Phenom IIx4 955 Processor 3.20GHZ

4.0GB RAM

Win7 64 Bit System

NVidia GTS 450 1gb

SB Audigy

Edited March 12, 2012 by Call_911

[gonk 0]

I heard this is what you will need... http://www.dwavesys.com/en/products-services.html

[onlyrazor 11]

I heard this is what you will need... http://www.dwavesys.com/en/products-services.html

Plucked from TVTropes:

J: A quantum computer compared to an ordinary computer is like the sun compared to a charcoal drawing of the sun

S: Supposedly the answer will come before you even put the question in.

A: But will it run Crysis Arma 3?

S: No

J: No

[gonk 0]

umm.. I forgot the TIC... Pointless thread as Requirements are too subjective to the end user....

[excess3 11]

I heard this is what you will need... http://www.dwavesys.com/en/products-services.html

[Cyper 18]

I am going to buy a new computer as soon as I get the money. Is this something worth buying? What can I expect if I buy it for arma 3? The computer itself is not that expensive btw.

System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

Processor model: Intel Core i7-2600

Processor speed: 3,4Ghz (max turbo 3,8GHz)

Graphic card: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 560 Ti

Dedicated graphic memory: 1GB DDR5

Core: 4

Chipset: Intel H67

Harddrive type: SATA 7200 RPM

[papanowel 120]

Take an I5 2500K instead, you will save some money ;)

[CTCCoco 1]

Epic video XD

[PuFu 4600]

I am going to buy a new computer as soon as I get the money. Is this something worth buying? What can I expect if I buy it for arma 3? The computer itself is not that expensive btw.

System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

Processor model: Intel Core i7-2600

Processor speed: 3,4Ghz (max turbo 3,8GHz)

Graphic card: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 560 Ti

Dedicated graphic memory: 1GB DDR5

Core: 4

Chipset: Intel H67

Harddrive type: SATA 7200 RPM

1. get a Z68 MB or at least a P67

2. get a 2Gb version of that 560 gfx car

3. get at least 6 (8 gb is recommended since the MB is dual-channel not tri-channel)

4. see if you can get a SSD...

[CTCCoco 1]

1. get a Z68 MB or at least a P67

2. get a 2Gb version of that 560 gfx car

3. get at least 6 (8 gb is recommended since the MB is dual-channel not tri-channel)

4. see if you can get a SSD...

SSD can improve performance during the game? O.o

[Steakslim 1]

In a way. The game constantly streams from your harddrive. SSD improves that (helps with objects and textures popping up). From those on this forum and those I've talked to in game they say the steaming is MUCH smoother with an SSD. All this said thought like on Pufu's list, it's the last thing on a list of things you'd get to help performance in this game.

[PuFu 4600]

SSD can improve performance during the game? O.o

Not improve but make it a lot more stable since the A2 (and i would assume A3 just as well), streams a LOT of content of your HDD...i still didn't get the chance to get me a SSD, but i have tried ramdisk instead on my 24gb PC, with vanilla content. The difference is...huge to say the least

edit: ninja'd

[farwy 10]

SSD can improve performance during the game? O.o

Yes. All textures load much faster without freez screen when you use zoom. I have 2 SSD in RAID0 900mb\sec and now i can set 10.000 km and still have a good fps.

[excess3 11]

Yes. All textures load much faster without freez screen when you use zoom. I have 2 SSD in RAID0 900mb\sec and now i can set 10.000 km and still have a good fps.

Ramdisk (for those who have 32 or 24 gb) will be much cheaper and faster solution then ssd since RAM>SSD (typical DRAM has a transfer rate of approximately 2-20GB/s, whereas typical SSDs have a transfer rate of 50MB-200MB/s)

[CTCCoco 1]

Ramdisk (for those who have 32 or 24 gb) will be much cheaper and faster solution then ssd since RAM>SSD (typical DRAM has a transfer rate of approximately 2-20GB/s, whereas typical SSDs have a transfer rate of 50MB-200MB/s)

So, do you guys mean that It's prefferible to buy more DDR3 RAM (for example 16 or 32 gb ddr3 1600 ram) to an SSD hard drive?

Another thing is that I have read that SSD duration is too low, just few years or something like that. What do you think about that?

[PuFu 4600]

Ramdisk (for those who have 32 or 24 gb) will be much cheaper and faster solution then ssd since RAM>SSD (typical DRAM has a transfer rate of approximately 2-20GB/s, whereas typical SSDs have a transfer rate of 50MB-200MB/s)

It is not that simple of a math than you think. For ramdisks the I/O is higher, but the CPU is usage is higher as well. You are comparing apples with cookies here.

So, do you guys mean that It's prefferible to buy more DDR3 RAM (for example 16 or 32 gb ddr3 1600 ram) to an SSD hard drive?

Another thing is that I have read that SSD duration is too low, just few years or something like that. What do you think about that?

It depends, but i will always go for a decent (the newest affordable technology) SSD available.

I for once have 24gbs/16gbs because i am actually NEEDING that amount of ram for work. So i cannot really use for a ramdisk as a permanent solution, hence i will most likely follow my own (brilliant :P) advice and get myself one of those "decent" SSDs in the near future.

The technology has improved quite a lot, the average life of one of those has been increased and the prices have droped around affordable for a medium-sized drive (120gb -256gb). You can always raid those...;)

I for one would recommend the SSD since you can have the OS on it. I really find RamDisks just a temporary solution (ram based hdds have already been anounced for end of 2012 beginning of 2013 - most likely at a premium price)

[Tonci87 163]

@Pufu, what is the difference between a p67 and a Z68 MB? I have an ASUS P8P67 Pro Rev 3.1, what would be the benefits of upgrading to a Z68 MB?

[PuFu 4600]

For you it would be pretty much pointless to change your current P67 board for a Z68 one. BUT For one who want's to build a new rig and needs to buy a new MB, it would be pointless to grab a p67 board instead of a z68.

Why?

Because Z68 is a board that grabs the best out of H67 and P67.

The main feature of this board is SSD caching

[Tonci87 163]

Thanks for the explanation.

[batto 17]

The main feature of this board is SSD caching

Not so interesting. OS will do it if you put swap on SSD.

Make sure to pick the best of Z68s:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.asp?Model=Z68%20Extreme7%20Gen3

http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.asp?Model=Z68%20Extreme4%20Gen3 (mine since January :cool:)

[excess3 11]

It is not that simple of a math than you think. For ramdisks the I/O is higher, but the CPU is usage is higher as well. You are comparing apples with cookies here.

It depends, but i will always go for a decent (the newest affordable technology) SSD available.

I for once have 24gbs/16gbs because i am actually NEEDING that amount of ram for work. So i cannot really use for a ramdisk as a permanent solution, hence i will most likely follow my own (brilliant :P) advice and get myself one of those "decent" SSDs in the near future.

The technology has improved quite a lot, the average life of one of those has been increased and the prices have droped around affordable for a medium-sized drive (120gb -256gb). You can always raid those...;)

I for one would recommend the SSD since you can have the OS on it. I really find RamDisks just a temporary solution (ram based hdds have already been anounced for end of 2012 beginning of 2013 - most likely at a premium price)

This is uncorrect, it's nothing to do with cpu usage if we talking about game loading texture , ram is the closer level memory to the cpu hence cpu acesses it much faster ( he will try to access same amount of times to you ssd to load textures when runnung game , so it's basicly same amount of cpu work)

the only problem i see there if you have another tasks for ram like you mentioned and you cant use ram (althought i dont see what programm can take away from you 32 gb of ram :) )

So ye , pretty much ramdisk will own any ssd , you also don't have to load your game folder into it each time so you can utilize it for other tasks

[PuFu 4600]

This is uncorrect, it's nothing to do with cpu usage if we talking about game loading texture , ram is the closer level memory to the cpu hence cpu acesses it much faster ( he will try to access same amount of times to you ssd to load textures when runnung game , so it's basicly same amount of cpu work)

[..]

So ye , pretty much ramdisk will own any ssd , you also don't have to load your game folder into it each time so you can utilize it for other tasks

don't get me wrong, i never said SSDs perform faster than the ram. I just said it makes a lot more sense from a global perspective to grab a SSD rather than more ram that you will turn in a limited SSD because of the space restrictions.

the only problem i see there if you have another tasks for ram like you mentioned and you cant use ram (althought i dont see what programm can take away from you 32 gb of ram :) )

I only got 24 on the work PC, and 16 on the other rig. max + mudbox + PS + AE > 12gb ram when project files are loaded.

[SexParty 1]

BF3 is a console game and is built for 7 years old hardware first and foremost. So handling BF3 well means nothing when talking about ArmA3

There is no AI in BF3 and graphics side is quite outdated even when talking about PC version. Besides the game takes place in corridors - can't even compare.

You are a fool. I have tri crossfire HD 6970s and BF3 gives them and my CPU a dam good work out.

Honestly after looking at the screenshots BI released you're kidding yourself to think that anything less than an i5 2500k and a GTX 580 would play the game at a decent framerate with high (good looking graphics). All new games coming out are going to be pushing and enjoying the new and faster hardware thats available to us and the time of single GPUs running games on max settings is bordering on ending.

Doesn't matter though, GTX580s and HD 6990s prices are about to drop and then most guys with decent motherboards and i5-i7 CPUs will be able to take advantage of them.

But don't think high settings and GTX 560s are going to be pushing out 60FPS.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Snip.

Are you running multi monitors?

Ultra settings on BF3 supposedly aren't very different from HIGH and cut FPS by the shit ton.

You're running tri crossfire So i got to assume you're doing the multi monitor super resolution super Super sampling setup which would explain why your system is getting a good workout.

Any who couldn't think of a more mature name?