Are you going to upgrade because of ARMA 3?

[Gonazz 1]

Definitely upgrading for ARMA 3 and the DayZ standalone. My build is needing it and this game is my excuse.

Anyone do anything like a WMware lab build that they also use as a gaming PC? Would build a new machine for that.

I think it can be done but not sure.

Otherwise the Antec 900 gets a new mobo, CPU, RAM, and HD running Win 7 Pro 64-bit.

I figure I can get by with my GTX460 for a while. That supports PhysX, correct?

[onlyrazor 11]

I figure I can get by with my GTX460 for a while. That supports PhysX, correct?

PhysX won't be a problem on any GPU, since it's going to run on the CPU to level the playing field for ATI users.

[Psychomorph 1]

I did upgrade from my previously two years old lower mid range system (i5-760, Radeon HD5850, 650W PSU) to a high end system (i7-3770K, MSI GTX 680 Lightning, 850W Seasonicc PSU). Also got me the Asus Maximus V Formula mainboard and a Noctua CPU cooler. Kept my 1600mhz 8GB RAM. I have a Crucial M4 SSD drive, but for the OS only, will probably spend another big money on a large SSD to store the games (and keep the HDD for all sorts of junk like my increasing desktop wallpaper collection).

I did it with the focus on ArmA3. It was necessary anyway, the old system could have worked another year, but I really want to run ArmA3 as good and as good looking as possible.

Usually I upgrade when the game is about to be released, ArmA3 could still take another whole year, but I could afford the upgrade now and would probably not be able to afford it by the end of the year or the next year, so I did the move now. I really really hope ArmA3 will be released in December (this year)!

Edited August 15, 2012 by Psychomorph

[BasileyOne 10]

"Arma as VRAM hog" - mind larger[up to 15x times]viewdistance in Arma2, than most wargames had, also mind about 4x-6x[or more, depend isle/setup/settings]hugher footprint of terrain/textures and etc, literally crossing-out consistent performance on huge setup WITHOUT 64-bit binaries.

PhysX won't be a problem on any GPU, since it's going to run on the CPU to level the playing field for ATI users.

sure.

cuz regardless of brand of used GPU, its unfeasible to code in mission/time-ciritcal usage/parts, such as games on other-ways, than with heavy reliance on CPU-crunching/dataflow as well as low-latency GPU's itself, which is slowly changes too tnx to GPGPU market demands.

not unless we're get system bus with 50 bigger bandwidth and 100x less latency and less EMI side-effects, like do IBM and SUN in their global["building-scale full-speed system/CPU-bus"] arch optical bus-es.

Edited August 15, 2012 by BasileyOne

[avfc 10]

I'm getting the 660ti today :D

[vuckotadic 10]

I'm getting the 660ti today :D

Nice, don't forget to tell us average fps in ArmA :)

[skulldragon 1]

Definitely upgrading my graphics card (HD 5770). Not sure whether to go for an nVidia or an AMD - AMD seem to do better in Arma 2, but Arma 3 is being developed with nVidia GPUs, it seems, which may mean that the situation is reversed. The Alpha should tell us. Won't be upgrading until HD 8000 series/GTX 700 series anyway. Also, depending on just how CPU intensive Arma 3 is, I might get myself a new motherboard for a Haswell CPU (currently running an i5-2500), which should also open me up for a SATA-3 SSD. Can't hurt to step up to 8GB of RAM either. I'll probably do all this over the next few years anyway, but Arma 3 may well accelerate the process considerably.