ArmA 3 System Requirements

[mr. bravo 17]

Hmm. It seems that you are talking only about marketing. Whatever name it is given and on what name they start counting generations doesn't really matter. SB was new architecture and IB is indeed "just a shrink" (new manufacturing process which results in die shrink). Haswell will be new architecture and next generation will be die shrink. Etc...

Shrinking a processor is more of a technical advancement than another/modified architecture. That's what the new architecture is built upon, and how they can fit more controllers/chips around it for faster access. That's why I think the Tick is the new generation while the Tock is the finalized and polished version of it, and that's technically how Intel describes it themselves as well. But I guess in the end it's a matter of personal opinion, since it's not exactly carved into a fancy big old stone somewhere.

Care to elaborate?

Well, check your own links for examples;

Tri-gate transistor ("3-D") technology (up to 50% less power consumption at the same performance level as 2-D planar transistors).

-PCI Express 3.0 support.

-Max CPU multiplier of 63 (57 for Sandy Bridge).

-RAM support up to 2800 MT/s in 200 MHz increments.

-The built-in GPU will have 6 or 16 execution units (EUs), compared to Sandy Bridge's 6 or 12.

-Intel HD Graphics with DirectX 11, OpenGL 3.1, and OpenCL 1.1 support. OpenGL 4.0 is supported with 9.17.10.2729 beta drivers, 9.17.10.2770 beta drivers and later drivers.

-A new random number generator and the RdRand instruction, codenamed Bull Mountain.

-DDR3L and Configurable TDP for mobile processors.

-Multiple 4K video playback.

-Intel Quick Sync Video.

-5% to 15% increase in CPU performance

-25% to 68% increase in integrated GPU performance

That's not exactly improvements that magically appears from a shrink, but further development and more space utilized for new integrated functions.

[Bee8190 10]

Hmm. It seems that you are talking only about marketing. Whatever name it is given and on what name they start counting generations doesn't really matter. SB was new architecture and IB is indeed "just a shrink" (new manufacturing process which results in die shrink). Haswell will be new architecture and next generation will be die shrink. Etc...

How is IB only die shrink??

Native 1600Mhz RAM

iGPU 4000 ( what was it? about 40% better than HD 3000?)

PCI-E 3

Intel cashing technology (SSD'd + HDD)

Native USB 3

Intel turbo boost 2.0

3D transistors (77W at 3.40Ghz? yes pls)

alone, makes the upgrade justifiable enough in my book and yes, unless you push OC way too high, temps aren't problem. With that said, 2500K -2600K still excellent CPU's but If one is for upgrade, I don't see any sensible reason to upgrade ''backwards''.

[PuFu 4600]

It may have been overexaggerated, but it still doesn't help the fact that Ivy bridge isn't really worth it.

Surely, for someone running 2500/2600, or even the older i7 9xx series the upgrade is not worth it. That said, for someone running on older dual or quad cores (e6/7/8/9xxx series), it is a proper upgrade worth the money.

Would you actually say one should buy older generation hardware when the price difference is not all that much anyways?

:O ?

I thought it is really 2012 "Q4" :(

That post of mine is dated 2011. Moreso, the release date was push back to Q1 2013 as of E3. again, patience (although the rigs used @e3, as well as inside BI have been posted here).

[ruhtraeel 1]

It's very debatable whether or not a new architecture or a die shrink is a more significant advancement.

Ivy Bridge might have a lot more "features", but a huge amount of them don't make that big of a difference in real world performance.

The improved integrated graphics is a moot point, because nobody making a gaming machine would ever use Intel integrated, especially when AMD APU has like nearly twice the performance of Intel HD.

Each new product line is supposed to be an improvement over the previous in every single area. Another reason why Ivy Bridge wasn't a very good release in my opinion, because temperatures are supposed to go down when using less power. Something Intel decided to cheap out on to maximize profit margin (they are a company after all, companies obviously want themselves to benefit before anything else)

IMHO, if there's only a 10-20 dollar difference between SB and IB, go for the IB if you won't overclock much.

If it's a 40+ dollar difference, get a SB and then get a cooler for the overall price of the IB processor, OC it if you want, either way it's going to last longer because the temperatures will be like 30 degrees cooler if you use the cooler as well.

Edited July 13, 2012 by ruhtraeel

[Pilman85 1]

I just saw something about i5 being minimum requirements for the processor. I just built a system and while I have a decent video card being a xfx radeon 6870, 8 gigs of ram, I went with a i3 intel processor running at 3.2 ghz. I can play bf3 on ultra as well as arma 2 on high settings, if I don't have a i5 processor does that mean I'm pretty much screwed?

[maddogx 13]

I just saw something about i5 being minimum requirements for the processor. I just built a system and while I have a decent video card being a xfx radeon 6870, 8 gigs of ram, I went with a i3 intel processor running at 3.2 ghz. I can play bf3 on ultra as well as arma 2 on high settings, if I don't have a i5 processor does that mean I'm pretty much screwed?

Check the confirmed features thread:

GAME REQUIREMENTS

Minimum:

OS: Windows Vista SP2, Windows 7 SP1

CPU: Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT or ATI Radeon HD 3830 or Intel HD Graphics 3000 with Shader Model 4 and 512 MB VRAM

RAM: 2 GB

HDD: 15 GB free space

DirectX®:10

The i5 is not the minimum required CPU. Your i3 will be fine.

[samyg 3]

Arma 3 was built to play at MAX settings on a first generation Intel Core processor and a GTX 480/580. Pretty much, anyone with a processor that was made in mid 2010 to today, SHOULD be able to play this (granted that your cpu contains an L3 cache).

Really, it may all just come down to the graphics card that you are using. We will find out soon enough though.

[maddogx 13]

Arma 3 was built to play at MAX settings on a first generation Intel Core processor and a GTX 480/580.

MAX settings whut?

I want some of whatever you've been smoking.

[liquidpinky 11]

Arma 3 was built to play at MAX settings on a first generation Intel Core processor and a GTX 480/580. Pretty much, anyone with a processor that was made in mid 2010 to today, SHOULD be able to play this (granted that your cpu contains an L3 cache).

Really, it may all just come down to the graphics card that you are using. We will find out soon enough though.

Using ARMA and the word MAX in the same sentence isn't wise, no-one and no PC can max it.

The E3 videos were only at 4 to 5k draw distance, mentioned in one of the videos by Jay Crowe, and A3 is capable of at least 20k draw distance and was even touted as 40k capable way back when news of A3 was first released.

It will probably also have an independant slider for object draw like Take ON as well, putting that to 20k would result in a slideshow no doubt.

Anyone expecting to fire up A3 and putting sliders to "Max all the things" is in for a nasty surprise.

Draw distance is also more CPU than GPU based, so your processor will make a difference.

[The_Blackfish 2]

My current system was ok with ArmA 2 however I will be planning an upgrade after Christmas as there is always a great reduction in prices of components due to sales and new tech being released at the start of the year.

Current System:

AMD Athlon X2 6200+ (3.0ghz)

8GB DDR2 800mhz

120GB SSD for games

2 x 1GB 8800GTs

2 x 500GB HDDs

This system was built in 2008 which makes it 4 years old now, I don't want to simply throw it away. Do you think I could use it as a dedi server for games like ArmA 3, if so how many players do you think I could handle with it on a 60mbps fibre optic connection?

Thanks

[CarlGustaffa 4]

The i5 is not the minimum required CPU. Your i3 will be fine.

I'm well within "minimum specs" on several games. Doesn't mean they are playable at all. Some even on minimum settings (except resolution, where I may only get one valid option). Some even require cold boots to boot up properly after a crash.

[maddogx 13]

I'm well within "minimum specs" on several games. Doesn't mean they are playable at all. Some even on minimum settings (except resolution, where I may only get one valid option). Some even require cold boots to boot up properly after a crash.

I'm tempted to say "cool story brah". :D

Of course the mininmum requirements need to be taken with a grain of salt, especially with a game like Arma, but I still believe an i3 should do the trick. (With appropriate settings, of course.)

[css_matt 1]

Hello lads, looking for a bit of advice as im not all clued up about hardware!

Im looking to upgrade my system in the next week or two, with the main reason being wanting to see Arma3 in all its glory. (And faster processing on Footy Manager!)

At a push, I can budget 800 Quid towards my system. Got all the externals already (keyboard, screens, etc).

I was wondering, is this sufficient for a system that will do me well in games like A3.

Am I also right in thinking that games nowadays are more focused on using CPU rather than GPU, in regards to what one is asked to work harder?

Thanks!

[Azza FHI 50]

If u wait until intels next processor ' haswel' come out around the same time arma is released then the price of slightly older hardware will drop. Just dont make sense to me to upgrade for arma before its out unless u got other games u wanna upgrade for.

Arma is more cpu heavy than other games. its definitly more important to have a fast cpu than gpu in arma. Im not an expert but i reckon this is because its a dedicated pc game which is rare.

[css_matt 1]

Well Arma3 is the tipping point. I would wait, but I am tired of poor performance in games like BF2 PR, FM and DayZ. I guess I can wait a little longer. Will be able to increase my budget as well the longer I wait!

[oldbear 390]

@ Azer1234 : I think that saying " its definitly more important to have a fast cpu than gpu in arma." is not right, that game need a good CPU and a better GPU as well to be fully enjoyable, I will add it also need fast HD or better a SSD.

You can play the Arma2 with Core2Duo and 450GTS, you can enjoy it with i5 and GTX670. The i5 is a good CPU to play with, but try the best DX11 compatible GPU you can get to enjoy the game ... don't forget the SSD! And I do believe it will be the same for Arma3, we will soon have the real taste of it ;)

[css_matt 1]

Ok so I did some window shopping. I know no one really knows how things are going to cope in A3 yet, and I wont actually upgrade until release but I was hoping someone could guesstimate how a system with these specs would perform, preferably with a 7-10k view distance.

OS - Win7 64bit

CPU - i7-3770K

HDD - 2TB 6.0Gb/s

RAM - 16GB (4x4GB) 1600mhz

GFX - GTX 670 2GB

Considering approx 1600-1700 quid, but 3/400 more than Id like to spend really.. (price should go down a bit by A3 release)

Would like a SSD as well..

[maturin 12]

By dropping your graphics settings, you can play ArmA quite well with an average GPU and hard drive. Very little RAM is required, so it's all in the CPU.

[vuckotadic 10]

Ok so I did some window shopping. I know no one really knows how things are going to cope in A3 yet, and I wont actually upgrade until release but I was hoping someone could guesstimate how a system with these specs would perform, preferably with a 7-10k view distance.

OS - Win7 64bit

CPU - i7-3770K

HDD - 2TB 6.0Gb/s

RAM - 16GB (4x4GB) 1600mhz

GFX - GTX 670 2GB

Considering approx 1600-1700 quid, but 3/400 more than Id like to spend really.. (price should go down a bit by A3 release)

Would like a SSD as well..

OS - Win7 64bit

CPU - i5 3570k (hyper threading doesn't matter in games)

HDD 2x1TB RAID 0 (same capacity, double the speed)

RAM 8GB (16gb is overkill)

GFX - GTX 670 (or even GTX 660ti if you want to save some more money)

Thats what I would get if I was you.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Swap any mechanical drive for a 240-256 GB capacity SSD - you don't want to run 10 km VD and maxed out only to find you can't stream textures fast enough when flying over those beautiful towns on Limnos.

[onlyrazor 11]

Swap any mechanical drive for a 240-256 GB capacity SSD - you don't want to run 10 km VD and maxed out only to find you can't stream textures fast enough when flying over those beautiful towns on Limnos.

Another possibility is to go for two SSDs with half capacity.

[PuFu 4600]

that would be 160-180% price of that single drive

[onlyrazor 11]

Good point. Apparently some people still promote two SSDs over one, though the reasons elude me.

[setlec 2]

Do you guys know if the intel HD 3000/4000 will be supported for this game or should i think investing into a discrete GPU (a.k.a Nvidia/AMD-ATI)?

[froggyluv 2136]

... or should i think investing into a discrete GPU (a.k.a Nvidia/AMD-ATI)?

This for sure.