ArmA 3 System Requirements

[spotter001 82]

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

who says u need 60fps to enjoy a smooth gameplay? 40+ is totally enough though most people won't have any problems with 30+ either.

[[evo] dan 79]

15+ fps is enough actually to play smoothly on. although you will probably want at least 20.

[spotter001 82]

yes, 20 at least. i'm not sure if 15+ is enough for the Arma. have u tried targeting a moving/running soldier with a sniper zoomed in while ur fps is, say, under 20? i found it quite frustrating.

[CTCCoco 1]

yes, 20 at least. i'm not sure if 15+ is enough for the Arma. have u tried targeting a moving/running soldier with a sniper zoomed in while ur fps is, say, under 20? i found it quite frustrating.

If do you mean 15-20 stable, without FPS drop, yes. The problem is having fps drops to 5 fps or something like that.

[boredgunner 1]

I increased 3D resolution past 100% to try ArmA 2 at 15 FPS. Totally unbearable.

[artifex96 1]

i think i should upgrade my pc to be more powerful

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

Hopefully someone can help me out. I am going to have to get rid of my desktop and switch to a laptop because of school and travel within the next two months, I'm currently trying to configure a laptop online in the hopes that it will be able to run A3. Does anyone think I'd be OK with these specs?

-Windows 7 64bit

-Intel Core i7 2860QM @ 2.5GHz up to 3.6 w/Turbo Boost

-8GB of RAM

-256GB SSD SATA 3GB/s with 2nd 750GB 7200 RPM SATA 3GB/s

-2GB GDDR5 AMD Radeon HD 6990M

Sorry for being 'that guy', I'm only slightly knowledgeable when it comes to computers and I'm nervous about making a purchase because I'm afraid it will not be able to run A3 very well.

[PuFu 4600]

things is, such a laptop is not really convenient for moving it around all that much, because it will weight around 6-8Kgs...(i have a friend who is selling his alienware mx18 for his very reason) and will most likely cost around 3000-3500USD (your config does go around that price anyways).

Why don't you buy a 600-1000USD laptop for school and work, and a gaming PC when A3 hits alpha stage? Even if you move into a campus for school, you should be able to move your PC around (or buy it from a closer retailer to the spot you'll be living). That's what i would do.

btw: that config should be able to run A3 with some decent frames.

Edited March 22, 2012 by PuFu

[Ninja_Prime 10]

I increased 3D resolution past 100% to try ArmA 2 at 15 FPS. Totally unbearable.

Agree with you there, but anything over 40 FPS the human eye does not register, but anything from 20+ should be fine, also depends on the screen res that you use.

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------

Just a quick question has ARMA3 been configured for Windows 8, I haven't really read all the thread, and I couldn't find a topic about windows 8 and ARMA3

[Steakslim 1]

but anything over 40 FPS the human eye does not register

That's not actually true, not for everyone at least. It's different for everyone, but there is pretty much a point where after a certain number the human eye cannot distinguish the smoothness of movement, but it's not at 40fps.

[antoineflemming 14]

That's not actually true, not for everyone at least. It's different for everyone, but there is pretty much a point where after a certain number the human eye cannot distinguish the smoothness of movement, but it's not at 40fps.

So true. I think. All I know is this: I can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. If what Ninja_Prime says is true, and that to the human eye 40 FPS is the same as 60 FPS, then that's a great difference between 30 and 40. But I suspect there isn't a huge difference between 30 and 40. Am I correct or wrong on this (asking because I've never played anything or watched anything at around 40 FPS)?

[Capt. Eduardo del Mango 10]

I'm looking at the back of the ArmA2 box.

OPTIMAL requirements

Quad Core CPU or fast Dual Core CPU, 2GB RAM, video i.e. GeForce 8800GT or Radeon 4850

(optimal — adj another word for optimum, the greatest degree or best result obtained or obtainable under specific conditions.)

Heh. Heh heh heh heh. Reckon someone playing ArmA2 on that system would be getting an 'optimum' experience? I doubt it - on my Phenom II X4 965/HD4890 it doesn't take much of a built up area to sink it below 20fps on the very lowest detail settings excepting resolution.

So, yeah, when BIS say;

CPU – Intel Core i5 or AMD Athlon Phenom X4 or faster

GPU – Nvidia Geforce GTX 260 or ATI Radeon HD 5770, shader Model 3 and 896 MB VRAM, or faster

RAM – 2 GB

Do they really, honestly, expect anyone to not think they're lying again? Has BIS ever managed to write a game that works properly on a PC that exists at its launch? Essentially, take the best PC you can get in summer 2012, then add another 6 months to the PC - that's the machine you'll need to play ArmA3.

[W0lle 1050]

Do they really, honestly, expect anyone to not think they're lying again? Has BIS ever managed to write a game that works properly on a PC that exists at its launch? Essentially, take the best PC you can get in summer 2012, then add another 6 months to the PC - that's the machine you'll need to play ArmA3.

Thanks for calling the developers liars, thanks also for your constructive feedback...

Has BIS ever managed to write a game that works properly on a PC that exists at its launch?

Yes, ArmA2 worked pretty well for me from the beginning. But maybe it's just because I can enjoy a game without setting everything to max because "in other games it works too"... Maybe it's also because I must not bitch and cry about every little problem there is.

[NeMeSiS 11]

on my Phenom II X4 965/HD4890 it doesn't take much of a built up area to sink it below 20fps on the very lowest detail settings excepting resolution.

Dont be ridiculous.

[Capt. Eduardo del Mango 10]

Dont be ridiculous.

I'm not being ridiculous. I was playing an infantry-only co-op multiplayer session on Zagrabad last week as part of a fifteenth and final attempt at reinstalling ArmA2. By the time I'd got to the mosque in the center I was at about 15fps on that system (Phenom II X4 965, HD4890, 8gb DDR3 RAM) with all detail settings turned to lowest (AA and AF off) at 1680x1050. Asking around this seemed to be about normal - other players remarked that "you don't get good FPS in ArmA2" (I think he meant 'adequate' or 'functional' rather than 'good'). But, hey, if I'm being ridiculous let's you and I head over to the support forums and you can tell me where my config files are wrong - I've checked everything dozens of times against every official and unofficial piece of guidance I could find but if you reckon there's something I've missed, let's go! God only knows that the best resolution I could imagine is being able to actually play and enjoy ArmA titles.

It's worth noting that I've bought - at launch, at full price - ArmA2, ArmA2 OA, ArmA, one copy of OFP and the two addons separately and two GOTY editions of OFP. ArmA's ratio of time spent fiddling / playing was about 25 / 75, but I've spent days and days of time trying to get ArmA2 working correctly (on a rig that runs absolutely everything else without exception as expected for the setup) with barely a minute's enjoyable game time. So desparate have I been to enjoy these games that even after BIS decided to stop upgrading the ArmA2 engine unless you had OA I spent more money on that. That multiplayer session at Zagrabad was probably the last time I'll waste with the game, but, yeah - I want ArmA3 to be awesome so badly, it just hurts a bit knowing that my choices are either don't buy it or get screwed over again.

Thanks for calling the developers liars, thanks also for your constructive feedback... Maybe it's also because I must not bitch and cry about every little problem there is.

Heh. Really, I've spent two years trying to get ArmA2 playable - I've tried being constructive, patient, respectful... I'm now just irritated about the £80 I'm out for ArmA and ArmA2, two products I paid for that did not perform as advertised due to mis-represented requirements. Asking amongst regular ArmA2 players, the frame rates I'm getting don't seem to be wildly off the mark - so, yeah, I can't really assume that the somebody (I think I said 'BIS', which includes management, marketing, testing and QA* in addition to the developers) was doing anything other than lying when they claimed that 2gb/4850/Athlon 64 X2 would run ArmA2 in an 'optimal fashion'.

Ah well. You never know, maybe ArmA3 really will work on a Phenom X4?

*Well, probably not testing and QA.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Capt. Eduardo del Mango

[Bee8190 10]

I recently reinstalled my PC; fresh windows7 x64, fresh A2 and expansions and decided to have a quick mission of A2 alone before any patches applied. I was quite shocked at how good the performance I was getting at chernaruss playing my simple, quick mission.

In fact, I was seeing close to twice the frame rates I usually have, compared to what I'd have after all patches and expansions - betas.

The point is; at time of A2 release, I do believe the requirements specs were not understated. Perhaps all those patches etc.. introduced some heavy changes like |HI- textures or maybe lighting? I do not know but A2 run splendid after fresh instal as said above and I dont have a PC that much better than yours.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I recently reinstalled my PC; fresh windows7 x64, fresh A2 and expansions and decided to have a quick mission of A2 alone before any patches applied. I was quite shocked at how good the performance I was getting at chernaruss playing my simple, quick mission.

In fact, I was seeing close to twice the frame rates I usually have, compared to what I'd have after all patches and expansions - betas.

The point is; at time of A2 release, I do believe the requirements specs were not understated. Perhaps all those patches etc.. introduced some heavy changes like |HI- textures or maybe lighting? I do not know but A2 run splendid after fresh instal as said above and I dont have a PC that much better than yours.

Probably the changed made to AA. A2 patched with default settings after installation looks better but runs slower than A2 1.02 with default settings after installation. If you turn of the new AA it probably runs slightly better than unpatched A2.

You didnt state wether you used any mods, but they usually do have an impact. 1 may not matter much, but install 10 of those and it is visible. Though if you do it gradually you may not notice this.

@Capt. Eduardo del Mango: Once i get home ill post a pic with my settings and framerate in Zargabad on a PC thats 1 step below yours(PhenomII 955, HD4870, 4gb ram). Then ill yell at you for either overreacting or not maintaining your PC properly.

Edited March 31, 2012 by NeMeSiS

[Capt. Eduardo del Mango 10]

@Capt. Eduardo del Mango: Once i get home ill post a pic with my settings and framerate in Zargabad on a PC thats 1 step below yours(PhenomII 955, HD4870, 4gb ram). Then ill yell at you for either overreacting or not maintaining your PC properly.

Thanks, I'll give it a go. The PC is properly maintained - as I said it plays absolutely everything else without exception exactly as you'd expect on the rig so it's never given me any cause to think there's any issue with my setup.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Capt. Eduardo del Mango

[Rampastein 10]

I have a quick question: I see that the GPU requirement is stated as a Radeon HD 5770. However, as far as I know a Radeon HD 4870 is as fast as a 5770. Will Arma 3 run on a Radeon HD 4870 or is there some feature in the 5770 that Arma 3 is using and which isn't included on a HD 4870?

[deathil93 10]

I have a quick question: I see that the GPU requirement is stated as a Radeon HD 5770. However, as far as I know a Radeon HD 4870 is as fast as a 5770. Will Arma 3 run on a Radeon HD 4870 or is there some feature in the 5770 that Arma 3 is using and which isn't included on a HD 4870?

Most probably.

You guys also need to take into account that resource usage optimization isn't the strong side of any ArmA game.

[spotter001 82]

will A3 use Intel's hyper-threading? I'm currently running the i3-2130, it has only 2 cores but can run 4 thread.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Thanks, I'll give it a go. The PC is properly maintained - as I said it plays absolutely everything else without exception exactly as you'd expect on the rig so it's never given me any cause to think there's any issue with my setup.

My settings:

(FPS was 35 at the time but i forgot to make fraps show the FPS in screenshots, after restarting the game to take new screenshots the FPS was lower for the sake of randomness or something..)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/585/fps1.jpg/

My FPS in calm conditions:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/fps2.png/

My FPS with ~150 units in combat in front of me:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/209/fps3.png/

My specs:

Phenom II 955

4gb ram (DDR3, forgot the speed, nothing special though)

HD4870 512mb

Nothing overclocked at the moment.

No microstutter/odd lod switching/input lag problems.

[LondonsFinestSon 1]

Alright lads and ladies? First of all hello and it's nice to see so many people who are as crazy about OFP and Arma as me, second, I was wondering if people could give me an idea if this spec is decent. It's my intended future spec for ARMA3. I will probably get 'Ivy' when it comes out so just use the current spec as reference. Any good? Bearing in mind I know sweet jack bananas compared to most about stuff like this.

Processor (CPU)

Intel® Core™i7 Quad Core Processor i7-3820 (3.6GHz) 10MB Cache

Motherboard

ASUS® SABERTOOTH X79: SOCKET 2011, R.O.G

Memory (RAM)

16GB KINGSTON HYPERX GENESIS QUAD-DDR3 1600MHz X.M.P(4 x 4GB KIT)

Graphics Card

2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 680 - 2 DVI, HDMI, DP - 3D Vision Ready

Memory - 1st Hard Disk

120GB INTEL® 520 SERIES SSD, SATA 6 Gb/s (upto 550MB/sR | 520MB/sW)

2nd Hard Disk

1TB WD CAVIAR BLACK WD1002FAEX, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64MB CACHE (7200rpm)

[PuFu 4600]

all i got to say is that unless you go for a six core for LGA 2011, or you push the towards the 32GB ram limit, you are better of (and cheaper) with the i7 2600k/i7 2700K - the MBs are cheaper, not the CPUs - (or the upcoming CPUs that will run on the same LGA1155 boards - or so it seems at the moment).

Other than that, the things should be rock solit for this game ;)

[froggyluv 2136]

Alright lads and ladies? First of all hello and it's nice to see so many people who are as crazy about OFP and Arma as me, second, I was wondering if people could give me an idea if this spec is decent. It's my intended future spec for ARMA3. I will probably get 'Ivy' when it comes out so just use the current spec as reference. Any good? Bearing in mind I know sweet jack bananas compared to most about stuff like this.

Processor (CPU)

Intel® Core™i7 Quad Core Processor i7-3820 (3.6GHz) 10MB Cache

Motherboard

ASUS® SABERTOOTH X79: SOCKET 2011, R.O.G

Memory (RAM)

16GB KINGSTON HYPERX GENESIS QUAD-DDR3 1600MHz X.M.P(4 x 4GB KIT)

Graphics Card

2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 680 - 2 DVI, HDMI, DP - 3D Vision Ready

Memory - 1st Hard Disk

120GB INTEL® 520 SERIES SSD, SATA 6 Gb/s (upto 550MB/sR | 520MB/sW)

2nd Hard Disk

1TB WD CAVIAR BLACK WD1002FAEX, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64MB CACHE (7200rpm)

Welcome :)

Yep, very good build there.