ArmA 3 System Requirements

[gpha5e 1]

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.

hey i bought a GTX680 and it was like a breath of fresh air after my 560 Ti, you can always overclock that 670, i'm sure there will be a huge difference, a 670 also has 2GB of ram

[samyg 3]

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.

While it would be cheaper to get a 560 TI (What is your current graphic card btw? Computer specs as well?) In the long run, it might be worth your money to invest in a 670 or a 680 and have one of those last you the next 3 years or so. I mean, many people still use a 480 and that's still a great card, but it sucks up a lot of energy.

[Phantom Six 25]

I have an MSI Twin Frozr 250 GTS (got it for $50 to replace a dead 9800 GT for this computer I'm using). I'm thinking of leaving the 250 GTS on the older comp, just using that temporally on the new comp for now.

I'm considering either this here http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125423 for a 670 GTX or cheap out and go for a 560 GTX TI although this one is refurbished http://www.aztekcomputers.com/N560GTXTITFIIGECOR-MSI-2595213.html

or how about an AMD 7850 instead?

Edited July 1, 2012 by Phantom Six

[Quality3DHD 1]

would a gtx 560 (ti) run ARMA 3 on the highest settings?

[samyg 3]

would a gtx 560 (ti) run ARMA 3 on the highest settings?

Maybe, we'll see once the alpha becomes available.

[Pummel 10]

Remember that resolution is just as important as everything else. For example pretty much any card could run the game on highest settings, if your resolution was only 640x480 :) But the higher the resolution, the more you will need, and nowdays resolutions can go very high!

[Jacky60 10]

would a gtx 560 (ti) run ARMA 3 on the highest settings?

I think that's extremely unlikely since a 560ti is utterly incapable of running Arma 2 at anything like highest settings. It's a bit like having a car which can't go 70mph and asking if it will be capable of reaching 120mph when the next Grand Prix is held.

[samyg 3]

I think that's extremely unlikely since a 560ti is utterly incapable of running Arma 2 at anything like highest settings. It's a bit like having a car which can't go 70mph and asking if it will be capable of reaching 120mph when the next Grand Prix is held.

No, I wouldn't say that. The GTX 560ti is NOT a bad card. It is capable of playing many games on high settings with 60-50fps. Now, Arma 2 isn't known to be a very optimized game so yea, some hardware will seem like it's lacking with said game but from the looks of Arma 3, I don't doubt a 560ti will handle this game well.

[nikiforos 450]

How about a GTX570? Do you think I need to upgrade the card?

[Leon86 13]

How about a GTX570? Do you think I need to upgrade the card?

nope.

might wanna upgrade to 8GB ram. 4 is enough but 8 is def. noticable + dirt cheap.

[oldbear 390]

Or upgrade your HD ... with a SSD as HD Cache or replace it by a SSD.

Extracts from Day Z + Arma 3 interview — optimization, map design, radios, porting Day Z into Arma 3 :

PC Gamer : Does the reputation of Arma being a demanding game bother you?

Ivan Buchta : Well, it’s like… The gamer with a cheap hard drive and an excellent graphics card, things like that, he may suffer from the weakest part of the hardware, which is just getting the data into the GPU…

...

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.

[Quality3DHD 1]

Ok so a gtx 580 can run arma 3 highest settings?

[samyg 3]

Ok so a gtx 580 can run arma 3 highest settings?

From what's been shown, yes.

[Steakslim 1]

Ok so a gtx 580 can run arma 3 highest settings?

No one can say for sure, but that post gives an IDEA on the current performance of a WIP alpha build if you watched any of the E3 demonstrations. We really won't get any hands on opinions on performance in mass till the community alpha, and even then, it'll be the different issues with various rigs that the alpha will help chisel away any bugs and help optimize things, so we could get reports from one person having odd stutters, and another person having stable framerates.

[ruhtraeel 1]

Hell yeah, maxing ARMA 3 time

[Azza FHI 50]

i think 'highest settings' is a bad goal. if u get the game and turn everything to very high and alot of view dist you will be dissapointed because there wont be a system that runs it on 60fps constant. same goes with arma 2 atm. every system is different and u just need to fine turn the game to what works well and what your satified with in regards to fps vs eye candy. i rather run normal to high with about 3000 VD and have smooth gameplay. ive got 2 580s and cant run arma 2 highest settings but thats becasue i refuse to play at 30 - 40 fps. especially with track ir u notice every bit of stutter

mid end systems will play the game just fine - if youve got the money to spoil yourself then you can play it a little better, but i reckon no one will be able to play it completely maxed out until they buy top end hardware a year or 2 after a3 is released.

[PuFu 4600]

no one can run a2 maxed out now either, even with top of line hardware, and it was release back in 2009...

[oldbear 390]

From my point of view, the project to play on "highest settings" a game from the Arma family is irrelevant.

You can play Arma2 on "very high" as a global parameter but behind when it comes to fine tuning, it's an other story.

Because some parameters are having unexpected or unpleasant effects ...

Unexpected : on my new GTX670, if I set "Anti-aliasing" to "8" ... the highest setting ..., as I was doing with the previous HD 6970 the landscape is whitewashed, but "6" seems fine

Unpleasant : totally subjective, as for the "Post-treatment effect", I don't like the blur resulting from this one so , here it's on "Disabled"

Strange : "Video memory" ... finally set on "Normal" here but can boost or impair your game without clear link between the level of the parameter and the result.

Edit : again from PC Gamer

Hall : But part of the problem is, people think, “Oh, I’ve got a moderate system, I’m going to set everything to low,†but you can actually get bad performance from doing that. Because it puts everything onto the CPU.

Crowe : Yeah, like shadows for example. If it’s on normal, it’s run by the CPU, if it’s set to high it’s on the graphics card. Even things like chunks of data, if you have very high quality, it’s a bigger chunk and it’s easier to load.

Buchta : Yeah. Video memory, it’s the most tricky thing, because you’re actually setting whether it should be somewhere completely else, you’re setting how much video memory is dedicated to the game. So in fact, to achieve good performance, you should have everything on normal, but set this to very high, so you can make sure that your video RAM is used properly. I wonder why we keep this setting, by the way, maybe for some crazy diagnostic purposes…

Edited July 3, 2012 by Old Bear
Adding quote from PC Gamer

[Quality3DHD 1]

Of course there is a computer that can run arma 2 on the highest settings, the fact that there is a settings for hightest there is a computer that can do that I mean how was arma 2 created in he first place.

[De_little_Bubi 1]

Of course there is a computer that can run arma 2 on the highest settings, the fact that there is a settings for hightest there is a computer that can do that I mean how was arma 2 created in he first place.

i remember a time when i looked closely at my C&C Red Alert CD trying to see all the tanks and units of the game. They had to be somewhere in there!

unfortunatly thats not how its working :(

you can have a setting "view distance" regulating the view distance from 1m to 100km without the need to test every distance. imagine it like a mathematical function f(x) = 2x

you dont need to draw the infinitive graph in order to know how it would look like - no need to test the game, game mechanics etc on every setting out there as they will act the same.

this applies for mostly all the settings, its just doing what it already does but a little bit more or a little bit less.

the great thing about arma is that it give the player relativly free possibilities to finetune it as much as he wants. there are other games which just gives a hand full of graphic options - but that's just the user interface. in reality you could change a lot of graphical settings without changing the game.

[Azza FHI 50]

@Quality3dhd - obvously any pc can use highest settings but the game will run like crap if the system isnt up for it. Therefore it is not playable at highest settings. the game devs dont need state of the art gear to impliment settings that are heavy on the system. View dist the the most demanding setting for example. all it does is make how much terrain/objects the system processes at one time.

@pufu - they must be getting close tho yeah? Im interest to know this. Maxed out should not include 10000 viewdist either. Otherwise it will never happen, u dont need that unless ur flying high. 3000 - 5000 is enough on the ground. Are there any benchmarks with a fast new cpu and 2 or 3 680s?

Edited July 3, 2012 by Azer1234

[Pieman13 10]

Hello all! I believe this is the right place to ask this question, but I apologize if this is the wrong place. Anyway, I'm trying to customize a laptop that is fit for running Arma 3 in the future (I don't want to get a desktop since I need something I can carry easily from place to place). I am wondering if this configuration would be adequate to run Arma 3 (I know the the system requirements are speculation right now but might as well see what everyone else thinks).

CPU: 3rd Generation Intel® Ivy Bridge Core™ i7-3610QM (2.3GHz - 3.3GHz, 6MB Intel® Smart Cache, 45W Max TDP)

GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7970M (2048MB) GDDR5 DX11

RAM: 8GB - DDR3 1600MHz Dual Channel Memory (2 SODIMMS)

I could replace the 7970M with the GTX 680M, but I'm debating whether it would be worth the extra money. Also could do the same with the CPU and replace it with i7-3720QM (2.6GHz - 3.6GHz), but I"m trying to keep cost as low as possible. I am willing to spend a little more money for better performance though.

[Quality3DHD 1]

I would recommend the gtx 680, the processor you have now is fine, with that graphics card you wont need a new one for the next 5 years.

[samyg 3]

Hello all! I believe this is the right place to ask this question, but I apologize if this is the wrong place. Anyway, I'm trying to customize a laptop that is fit for running Arma 3 in the future (I don't want to get a desktop since I need something I can carry easily from place to place). I am wondering if this configuration would be adequate to run Arma 3 (I know the the system requirements are speculation right now but might as well see what everyone else thinks).

CPU: 3rd Generation Intel® Ivy Bridge Core™ i7-3610QM (2.3GHz - 3.3GHz, 6MB Intel® Smart Cache, 45W Max TDP)

GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7970M (2048MB) GDDR5 DX11

RAM: 8GB - DDR3 1600MHz Dual Channel Memory (2 SODIMMS)

I could replace the 7970M with the GTX 680M, but I'm debating whether it would be worth the extra money. Also could do the same with the CPU and replace it with i7-3720QM (2.6GHz - 3.6GHz), but I"m trying to keep cost as low as possible. I am willing to spend a little more money for better performance though.

Your current laptop is fine. I would advise to NOT try and replace components in your laptop.

[Pieman13 10]

It isn't my current laptop. This is just a laptop I am planning on buying from here: http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np9150-clevo-p150em-p-4341.html?wconfigure=yes

Thanks for the response :bounce3: