What computing system do you have for the Arma 3 Beta?

[egoRAVEN 10]

i7 3750K 4.5 Ghz

Msi GeForce 660 TI

Asus sabertooth z77 motherboad

watercooling

16 gb corsair dominator platinum

[Lord_of_War_CZ 1]

Just upgraded from laptop (lenovo y570) to following desktop:

i7 4770 at 3.40 (no OC yet)

GTX 770

16GB ram

win 7 and arma installed on 256GB samsung SSD

I run arma on overall ultra, 1920*1200, dist. 2500 m, objects 2500, shadows 100

Runs smoothly on most MP servers (i dont play wasteland).

Looks incredibly! :rolleyes:

Edited June 26, 2013 by Lord_of_War_CZ
graamar

[ric 1]

Just upgraded from laptop (lenovo y570) to following destkop:

i7 4770 at 3.40 (no OC yet)

GTX 770

16GB ram

win 7 and arma installed on 256GB samsung SSD

I run arma on overall ultra, 1920*1200, dist. 2500 m, objects 2500, shadows 100

Runs smoothly on most MP servers (i dont play wasteland).

Looks incredibly! :rolleyes:

and there we have it...the new "recommended " specs for A3 :D

[Sneakson 1]

FYI I tried Razer's "Game Booster" tonight as well as some common Windows tweak like "classic theme" and "performance over appearance"... as well as turning of all background processes I didn't need.

Increased available physical memory by 10%-15% of the total but had no impact on fps.

[DayZPlayer 1]

Q6600@3,2 Ghz

6GB RAM

GTX 560ti

Win 7 x64 and Arma 3 both installed on a Samsung 830 SSD

Runs like shit basically. Not enjoyable at all.

[runekn 3]

Intel i5-3570

Geforce GTX 560

8 GB RAM

Windows 7 64x

120 SSD which I've installed windows and Arma 3 on ;)

[Sneakson 1]

Q6600@3,2 Ghz

6GB RAM

GTX 560ti

Win 7 x64 and Arma 3 both installed on a Samsung 830 SSD

Runs like shit basically. Not enjoyable at all.

I'm running it in 40-60+ fps with an average of about 50-55 though I haven't benchmarked a lot of battles.

560 Ti

Q9550 @ 2.84 GHz

4 GB RAM

Win 7 32-bit

HDD

You should tweak your settings. I'm running standard-ish settings but can even run high but don't because 40+ fps really helps your aiming.

Lowest settings: 85 avg

Low settings: 52 avg

Standard settings: 47 avg

High settings: 33 avg

Very High settings: 29 avg

Ultra settings: 22 avg

I'm currently tweaking between a Standard-like setting and one that's more High-Ultra... gonna benchmark the framerate differences now.

Edit: alright, some great settings for me are:

Everything maxed except for Visibility 1600/800/100, objects and terrain standard, shadows high, post processing all 100, SSAO off, FSAA/ATOC off.

Since you've got a better processor you may be able to handle some of this:

1600/1300 (-4 or more fps)

Objects high (-2 fps)

Terrain high (-4 fps)

SSAO standard (-2 fps)

FSAA x2 (-5 fps)

With those settings you're not far from Ultra, visually. Terrain higher than high increases grass distance and FSAA/ATOC makes small differences but framerate and visibility are more important after the above tweaks.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Sneakson

[mannulus 38]

I have the ASUS G46VW Gaming Laptop. Plays pretty good at my settings at 50-70FPS!

[SundownUK 10]

I seem to run the game relatively well, with some settings set to ULTRA on:

Intel Core i-7 2600k Sandybridge (OC to 4.8ghz watercooled)

8GB DDR3 1600mhz RAM

Gigabyte AMD HD7970 Ghz Edition GFX card

1TB External Seagate HDD

Windows 7 64-bit.

Sometimes struggles in multiplayer but seems sweet in single player. :)

Edited June 29, 2013 by SundownUK

[Sneakson 1]

Hey anyways: a lot of people say that ARMA is very CPU intensive.

I’m upgrading in August. Do you think keeping my 560 and only upgrading CPU could do well?

Right now I’m on a 2.84 GHz processor.

What would happen if I changed to some i7 processor? Say all of a sudden I had 4.8 GHz like the gentleman above. What would happen?

What CPU to GPU balance should you have not to cause any bottlenecks?

ARMA3 is mainly what I’m upgrading to play though naturally I’ll play all sorts of already released games as well as some upcoming games like Battlefield 4 and any interesting 2014 games I see including Dark Souls II and GTAV.

Maybe it’s safest to upgrade everything to make sure I can also run games that aren’t ARMA smoothly?

Experts?

[Reuter 1]

I'm running it in 40-60+ fps with an average of about 50-55 though I haven't benchmarked a lot of battles.

560 Ti

Q9550 @ 2.84 GHz

4 GB RAM

Win 7 32-bit

HDD

You should tweak your settings. I'm running standard-ish settings but can even run high but don't because 40+ fps really helps your aiming.

[...]

Are we talking of Single- or Multiplayer here?

[Sneakson 1]

Are we talking of Single- or Multiplayer here?

Singleplayer. Multiplayer is terrible for everyone but will probably get better in time and it depends a lot on server and number of players etc so it's hard to compare.

[Reuter 1]

[...]Multiplayer is terrible for everyone but will probably get better in time and it depends a lot on server and number of players etc so it's hard to compare.

I'd like to remind you that Arma II is still an absolute nightmare when it comes to performance in Multiplayer. What exactly tells me that ArmA III will be any different? The track record so far doesn't look too promising.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Reuter

[Sneakson 1]

I'd like to remind you that Arma II is still an absolute nightmare when it comes to performance in Multiplayer. What exactly tells me that ArmA III will be any different? The track record so far doesn't look too promising.

Well, maybe it won't be different then :p

We can always hope though.

[Billy Bones 0]

Thinking about a new card , I have a HD5770 1gb ddr5 , should I got for the HD7870 Ghz Edition or step up into the entry level of the HD7900s ?

[rakowozz 14]

Thinking about a new card , I have a HD5770 1gb ddr5 , should I got for the HD7870 Ghz Edition or step up into the entry level of the HD7900s ?

Until March, I hadn't been playing so much. Then came Arma 3 Alpha, I changed my card, an HD 5770 Vapor-X for a Sapphire HD 7870. Couldn't be happier. You may want to look into an SSD, if you haven't already.

[Laqueesha 474]

'ere are me specs (as in me signature):

[RAM]: 8GB Corsair XMS3 RAM (DDR3)

[sSD]: 500GB Samsung 840 SSD (MZ-7TD500KW)

[CPU]: Intel Core I7-2700K (3.50GHZ)

[MoBo]: ASUS P8Z77-V PRO

[GPU]: Galaxy NVIDIA GTX 680 (2048MB VRAM)

[Hiikeri 10]

My current system gives me these FPS:

beta (stable, NOT develoment) v0.70xxxxxx

I play MP in High settings. Or sometimes Very High -2000 distance, 2xAA, HDR:Off, PP:Off, PIP:Low, Shadows:High > gives almost same fps than straight High presets, only in totally great fps server.

[AsterixTG 1]

My i5 3570k (4.3Ghz) & GTX680 is running nicely at over 40fps - probably averaging around 55fps - with everything maxed out pretty muc.

Game looks stunning.

[tremanarch 6]

nice graph hiikeri! thats exactly what we need! even more data would be nice, broader range of OC etc

I use

2500k 4.5ghz - 560ti 1gb vram, 8 gb ram, SSD

--> very high

[HorbeySpector 164]

i5 3570k 3.4 GHz

GTX 760 OC (Gigabyte)

8GB Ram

Everything maxed out except VD

SP > ~3km VD average 45fps

MP > ~2km VD +- 35-40 fps(depends on server)

I love it!:D

[pharoah 65]

i5 3570k

Gigabyte ATI 7950 3gig

8 gig ram

Everything maxed out. System runs perfect except if I try to run through smoke from a smoke grenade (or multiple...thats worse!) but ONLY if I go into or very near to the smoke.

[Reuter 1]

i5 3570k 3.4 GHz

GTX 760 OC (Gigabyte)

8GB Ram

Everything maxed out except VD

SP > ~3km VD average 45fps

MP > ~2km VD +- 35-40 fps(depends on server)

I love it!:D

How can you love playing at mediocre Framerates on such a powerful rig?

Edited July 29, 2013 by Reuter

[nikiforos 450]

Everything below 45 is a no go for me, but I guess it's all about taste.

[Sneakson 1]

Everything below 45 is a no go for me, but I guess it's all about taste.

And game! I played Crysis in 20-25 fps for years :p

Now I'd say 30 is acceptable if it's something like Crysis 3 but in any other game I'd want 40 or 50, 60 in multiplayer.