ArmA 3 System Requirements

[mbamg 1]

OS - Vista 7 64-bit

CPU - i3-380M

GPU- ATI/AMD Radeon HD 5650M

RAM - 4GB

DirectX - 11 (but just barely)

Guess I'm jumping onto the bandwagon with this one. In ArmA 2, I experience FPS lag in medium settings when smokes are deployed, running at 1080p resolution with 1500 something 3D resolution. I also have to turn down AA, as it's something that my GPU isn't very good with, apparently. If I am to play ArmA 3, running medium settings smoothly is enough for me. What do I need to upgrade in order to achieve that?

[ruhtraeel 1]

OS - Vista 7 64-bit

CPU - i3-380M

GPU- ATI/AMD Radeon HD 5650M

RAM - 4GB

DirectX - 11 (but just barely)

Guess I'm jumping onto the bandwagon with this one. In ArmA 2, I experience FPS lag in medium settings when smokes are deployed, running at 1080p resolution with 1500 something 3D resolution. I also have to turn down AA, as it's something that my GPU isn't very good with, apparently. If I am to play ArmA 3, running medium settings smoothly is enough for me. What do I need to upgrade in order to achieve that?

CPU = i3

GPU = Radeon 6870/GTX 550 Ti

RAM = 4GB

---------- Post added at 03:07 ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 ----------

Edit: Actually an i5 would be better. Any i5 would do I think

...you aren't planning on upgrading your laptop, are you? From what I'm guessing it's a Lenovo Y460?

[mbamg 1]

CPU = i3

GPU = Radeon 6870/GTX 550 Ti

RAM = 4GB

---------- Post added at 03:07 ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 ----------

Edit: Actually an i5 would be better. Any i5 would do I think

...you aren't planning on upgrading your laptop, are you? From what I'm guessing it's a Lenovo Y460?

A Gateway NV5922h (they still sell it at the Source). Yep, I'm not even considering upgrading this laptop, and I think it'll be a few years before I get a computer that can play ArmA 3 well. Just wanted to get some clarification.

[samyg 3]

Just for the record, as far as Intel CPUs go, there really isn't that much of a difference between say, an i5-2500k and an i7-2600k. Basically, it goes likes this:

Core i3 CPUs contain 2 cores and has Hyper-threading enabled.

Core i5 CPUs contain 4 cores and DOES NOT have hyper-threading.

Core i7 CPUs contain 4 or more cores WITH hyper-threading.

As far as modern gaming is concerned, you could easily pass with an i3 cpu and a mid-range card BUT it would, of course, be more worth your money to invest in an i5 cpu. Now, in regards to an i7 cpu, they do not increase performance in anyway in comparison to an i5 expect for a few instances where a game would ever so slightly take advantage of the extra cores/threads (CIV V for example). Really, I would only recommend buying a core i7 cpu if you plan on making gameplay vids because the rendering process relies greatly on the amount of cores/threads contained in the CPU.

If you are planing on buy a brand new cpu and you DO NOT already own a first gen core processor (core i5 760, core i7 960) or second gen core processor (i5 2500(k), i7 2600(k)) then save up and purchase an i5 3570k or an i7 3770k. If you own a 2500k or 2600k, merely invest in a new graphics as well as a good aftermarket heatsink to overclock your cpu (if you have the unlocked version (K)). Anyone with an i3 cpu that is first or second gen, you are allowed to purchase a new quad core cpu, lol.

[SeaFoam 10]

I for one will be holding off on a new rig until Intel's Haswell comes out next spring. That is, unless AMD can pull a miracle out.

My current rig is sufficient though.

i7-920@4.0

12gb@2000

3x 6970 2gb

Most importantly, though - 256gb Crucial M4 SSD

[Tonci87 163]

I don´t think that people who own a i7 2600k need to OC. My CPU runs at 3,9GhZ without overclocking, that should be enough for Arma 3.

[samyg 3]

I for one will be holding off on a new rig until Intel's Haswell comes out next spring. That is, unless AMD can pull a miracle out.

My current rig is sufficient though.

i7-920@4.0

12gb@2000

3x 6970 2gb

Most importantly, though - 256gb Crucial M4 SSD

Crucial 512 GB M4 SSD for $384.22, you can't get a better deal than that.

[doveman 7]

I know a lot of people will recommend i5/i7 but I can't afford to change my whole system. I currently run a Phenom II X4 955 @3.8ghz and was wondering if the FX-8120 is likely to improve my Arma3 experience much, as I can currently get £20 cashback on it and was thinking of giving my current CPU to my Dad to upgrade his Athlon II X3 425 (he only really plays X-Plane, but even that could do with a better processor)?

[oldbear 390]

I think you will get nothing -apart frustration- in moving from a Phenom II 955 to a FX-8150

Have a look here on this test on Hardware.fr :

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-20/jeux-3d-crysis-2-arma-ii-oa.html

Of course, it's in French but have a look at the pic !

Stack your money somewhere to buy the late winning GPU at the right time ... at game release, you are in no hurry to buy anything now !

ATM, just wait for the "Community Alpha" release.

From my point of view, now, as I am writing the best hardware team for Arma2 is Intel/Nvidia. I was totally disappointed by AMD Buldozer performances and ... well... exploded by ATI 6970 electric consumption. That's why I switch to i7-3770/GTX670.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Old Bear

[doveman 7]

Hmm, that doesn't look promising I agree, although Arma II doesn't use all the cores properly does it so perhaps Arma III will benefit more? I've already got a 2GB 6950 unlocked to 6970 and overclocked so I won't be upgrading my GPU anytime soon.

Anyway, I guess I should hold off and wait for the Alpha as you suggest. Guess my poor old Dad will just have to put up with his Athlon II X3 435!

[oldbear 390]

Take care with the 6970 ... the electric consumption when OCed* is tremendous ... and I get a smoking burned out Seasonic X 750 and too many parts of my previous rig destroyed ... my fault, I was playing Civ V :(

*No manual overclock, just using the Overdrive option !

[doveman 7]

I've got the 6950 unlocked which doesn't use as much juice as the 6970 anyway. Sounds like you were very unlucky though :(

[ruhtraeel 1]

IMO Phenom x4 and stuff will be able to handle the game fine. GFX card wise, I think anything below a 4870 is worthy of an upgrade. I was pretty disappointed by the 6xxx series from AMD cause it took more power than the 5xxx series but weren't that much better unlike the gtx 6xx stuff. IMO upgrading should be done on the new architectures and not the revisions.

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:22 ----------

Not to be biased or anything but I think the 5xxx series was the biggest jump. Almost double the performance of the 4xxx series, but cost like 200 less than the cards right now which almost doubles the performance of last Gen..

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:25 ----------

But yeah. Seeing as how Arma 3 won't be any more demanding than arma 2, I think most people who played arma 2 don't need to upgrade.

[ProfTournesol 956]

But yeah. Seeing as how Arma 3 won't be any more demanding than arma 2, I think most people who played arma 2 don't need to upgrade.

That would really suprise me.

[SeaFoam 10]

Take care with the 6970 ... the electric consumption when OCed* is tremendous ... and I get a smoking burned out Seasonic X 750 and too many parts of my previous rig destroyed ... my fault, I was playing Civ V :(

*No manual overclock, just using the Overdrive option !

The video card shouldn't have caused that. That just sounds like a bad PSU.

I was on an 850 watt before with the same setup I have now - i7-920@4.0 3x 6970 and it was ok. I could tell it was pushing it though, started to get capacitor whine.

On a 1200 now, rock solid.

Here is a PSU calculator http://extreme.outervision.com/PSUEngine - I think a lot of people overlook the importance of a solid PSU; no clean power, no stability.

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------

IMO Phenom x4 and stuff will be able to handle the game fine. GFX card wise, I think anything below a 4870 is worthy of an upgrade. I was pretty disappointed by the 6xxx series from AMD cause it took more power than the 5xxx series but weren't that much better unlike the gtx 6xx stuff. IMO upgrading should be done on the new architectures and not the revisions.

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:22 ----------

Not to be biased or anything but I think the 5xxx series was the biggest jump. Almost double the performance of the 4xxx series, but cost like 200 less than the cards right now which almost doubles the performance of last Gen..

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:25 ----------

But yeah. Seeing as how Arma 3 won't be any more demanding than arma 2, I think most people who played arma 2 don't need to upgrade.

Are you talking about the Phenom II? Because the original Phenom is garbage.

[kirvepakk 1]

I have a feeling I may be trying to do the impossible here.

Will this laptop

http://arvutikeskus.ee/est/TOOTEKATALOOG/SULEARVUTID-15-ekraaniga-sulearvutid/VAGA-VOIMAS-SULEARVUTI-PARIMA-HINNAGA-MSI-GT683-Black-156-FHD-1920x1080-Core-i5-2430M-24GHz-nVidia-GTX560M-6GB-DDR3-640GB-HDD-W7HP-64bit-KAMPAANIA-135748

Be sufficent to run Arma 3 on a playable quality?

[mr. bravo 17]

I have a feeling I may be trying to do the impossible here.

Will this laptop

http://arvutikeskus.ee/est/TOOTEKATALOOG/SULEARVUTID-15-ekraaniga-sulearvutid/VAGA-VOIMAS-SULEARVUTI-PARIMA-HINNAGA-MSI-GT683-Black-156-FHD-1920x1080-Core-i5-2430M-24GHz-nVidia-GTX560M-6GB-DDR3-640GB-HDD-W7HP-64bit-KAMPAANIA-135748

Be sufficent to run Arma 3 on a playable quality?

Completely depends on how you define "playable quality". I'd guess it's enough to run the game on medium settings at least, but it's kinda hard to tell with laptop hardware. The HDD is slow as hell though which will definitely give you stuttering no matter what graphic settings you use. Check if it has room for an SSD first, otherwise I would not recommend it.

[metalcraze 290]

Measure your FPS in ArmA2, now divide it by two and you will most likely get ArmA3's FPS at the same settings (with better looks of course).

[SeaFoam 10]

Completely depends on how you define "playable quality". I'd guess it's enough to run the game on medium settings at least, but it's kinda hard to tell with laptop hardware. The HDD is slow as hell though which will definitely give you stuttering no matter what graphic settings you use. Check if it has room for an SSD first, otherwise I would not recommend it.

Laptop hard drives are 2.5" - the same size as an SSD drive. It will fit, but the original hard drive will have to come out. He could get an optical bay adapter to run 2 hard disks.

[EDcase 87]

Measure your FPS in ArmA2, now divide it by two and you will most likely get ArmA3's FPS at the same settings (with better looks of course).

What are you basing that on ?!?!?!

[Leon86 13]

Take care with the 6970 ... the electric consumption when OCed* is tremendous ... and I get a smoking burned out Seasonic X 750 and too many parts of my previous rig destroyed ... my fault, I was playing Civ V :(

*No manual overclock, just using the Overdrive option !

in that case there must have been something wrong with the X750. they should be able to deliver 750W all on the 12V line, a system with a single 6970 will not use over 500W in games, even with a very power hungry overclocked cpu to match.

[oldbear 390]

An interesting entry here in a PC Gamer interview : Day Z + Arma 3 interview — optimization, map design, radios, porting Day Z into Arma 3

PC Gamer : What were you guys running Arma 3 on at E3?

Crowe: 580s and i7s. Not even SLI. Just one graphics card.

PC Gamer : One 580?

Crowe: Yeah. My system that we captured the videos on, that’s a special one… I think 560 on an i7, 3.2GHz or whatever? The SSD helps. It’s all little bits of good components, overall, that make the game smoother. They are running really nice at E3. In fact I’m going to print out that DirectX config, post it up and say, “Guys, this will run smooth, we’re happy with it.â€

Hall : I mean, my personal computer isn’t anything kick-ass. If you can run Arma 2 you can run Arma 3. Everyone’s saying they’ll need to upgrade their computer—you’ll need a reasonable graphics card, but the average user doesn’t need a latest-generation graphics card.

Dslyecxi: One part of it, also, it’s so easy for people to set their settings wrong. You can have one setting be wrong and it ruins the whole thing.

[Phantom Six 25]

Even though if you don't need such a high end graphics card, would it still help to pick a 670 GTX over a 570 GTX instead? Like frame rates increase or anything like that? I'm wondering because I'm planning to get myself the Windforce 670 GTX by Gigabyte, just need someone to confirm how much it would help.

[samyg 3]

Even though if you don't need such a high end graphics card, would it still help to pick a 670 GTX over a 570 GTX instead? Like frame rates increase or anything like that? I'm wondering because I'm planning to get myself the Windforce 670 GTX by Gigabyte, just need someone to confirm how much it would help.

Yea, plus the 670 will suck in less juice than the 570 will.

[Phantom Six 25]

Hmm, I'm wondering whether I should spend $400 on the 670 GTX or cheap out grab a 560 TI. The price difference is pretty high.