Anyone else wondering what machine they are using to run all these gameplay videos?

[Damu 10]

It makes a huge difference from what I've heard from all 3 people I know that have an SSD. They said you can enter towns in ArmA 2 without massive stutters.

From our observation, SSD influence on gameplay is low (but noticable), however the loading speeds are very very fast with SSD. So running the game again and again, the SSD is a must.

[Scoggs 1]

i7-2600, GTX 560, 8GB, SSD

Awesome! I am already above that! Is the i7 overclocked?

[tremanarch 6]

i7-2600, GTX 560, 8GB, SSD

wait - really? oh yeah babyyy :)

[maddogx 13]

Note that this info was for the trailer videos. I assume they're using more powerful hardware at E3.

[Undeceived 392]

From our observation, SSD influence on gameplay is low (but noticable), however the loading speeds are very very fast with SSD. So running the game again and again, the SSD is a must.

Yes, same here. It loads much faster and this includes the LODs too. That means that for me the difference was very noticeable.

I'm absolutely happy with the SSD and I definitely won't go back to the old HDDs!

Btw, thx for the spec answer! I was planning to upgrade to a similar system at the end of the year. :D

[Flash Thunder 10]

Are Hybrid solutions any good SSD/HDD?

I have a 4 year old HDD still works good but probably aint going to last much longer.

[Damu 10]

Note that this info was for the trailer videos. I assume they're using more powerful hardware at E3.

A little.

E3: Talon Core i7 960, GTX580, 12GB, Win 7 64, SSD

[roberthammer 582]

A little.

E3: Talon Core i7 960, GTX580, 12GB, Win 7 64, SSD

Oh very nice - i have i7 930 on default clock , GTX285 :D

i will see how good it will be in Alpha and pobably buy new GPU

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Hah, I've got a 965 @ 4.3GHz and RAM/SSDs coming out of my ears... but I fear my 2 x 285s will probably let me down a bit. :p

EDIT - Damu, any hint on what settings were being used @ the E3 presentation?

Edited June 6, 2012 by CameronMcDonald

[roberthammer 582]

Hah, I've got a 965 @ 4.3GHz and RAM/SSDs coming out of my ears... but I fear my 2 x 285s will probably let me down a bit. :p

EDIT - Damu, any hint on what settings were being used @ the E3 presentation?

Must be pretty high , when i looking at that View Distance :p

[nikiforos 450]

E3: Talon Core i7 960, GTX580, 12GB, Win 7 64, SSD

[roberthammer 582]

E3: Talon Core i7 960, GTX580, 12GB, Win 7 64, SSD

Why you posting same thing , which is 3-4 posts above yours?

Cameron asked for SETTINGS

[mr. bravo 17]

Much appreciated to get to know about these specs! Nice to see the old 1366's still in the game :D

[NeuroFunker 11]

hmm, if game were on high settings, it felt damn smooth. I hopy my ati 6970, can handle it well. Not rly wanna spend another 300€ for a gpu...

[liquidpinky 11]

Must be pretty high , when i looking at that View Distance :p

Will be same as ToH settings with separate object view distance etc.

I can run 20k view and 4k objects on Chernarus now in ToH, although I won't lie and say the frame rate is spectacular though as it probably sits around the low 20s.

The make up of Limnos map with less trees and clutter should improve the FPS over Chernarus though.

SMAA makes a big difference as well.

[nikiforos 450]

hmm, if game were on high settings, it felt damn smooth. I hopy my ati 6970, can handle it well. Not rly wanna spend another 300€ for a gpu...

I have a GTX 570 and I wont spend any more money for a GPU. I dont think you need to spend as they are equal.

[jblackrupert 14]

I'm buying a PCI-E SSD card just for Arma 3.

[dale0404 5]

Ok might be a stupid question but here goes.

Why the 12GB of RAM (if that what he means)? I thought the RV engine is 32 bit?

[roberthammer 582]

Ok might be a stupid question but here goes.

Why the 12GB of RAM (if that what he means)? I thought the RV engine is 32 bit?

Maybe because they got 64-bit win7 and more RAM is useful in many things - not just ArmA

[mrcash2009 0]

As regards the "max out" fixation, people need to really take stock of what Arma is doing and what it is, in some ways its not even built to be "max out" becuase what exactly is maxxed out on a sandbox that you can simply fry your CPU with just by using the editor for 2 mins in a stupidly massive battle.

You scale it to your sweet spot graphically in order for the AI to handle, and given the tech most people have the scaling will still be on par with reality enough. Scaling back and not maxxed isnt some failure measure where arma is concerned.

All I want is the view distance of around 5km minimum, in a battle of a mission like T-for online, medium to high settings at worst and no less than 25 fps at worst. If I can get that on a new rig and then realise I can push it more when on smaller missions, im happy, the rest is a bonus.

If your looking for 20k view distance all highest and a large battle at a solid an no less 35-40 fps then cry now :)

Edited June 6, 2012 by mrcash2009

[dale0404 5]

Maybe because they got 64-bit win7 and more RAM is useful in many things - not just ArmA

Yep I understand that mate but why mention it in the first place?

[maddogx 13]

Yep I understand that mate but why mention it in the first place?

Because otherwise a dozen people would have asked "but how much RAM?!".

[roberthammer 582]

Yep I understand that mate but why mention it in the first place?

Because guys wanted to know full specs ? and that's normal :D

[dale0404 5]

That's my question answered then!

[Tonci87 163]

How much more powerfull is a Talon Core i7 960 compared to an i7 2600k? At wich speed does it run?