Arma 3 Alpha - CPU Comparison - Helicopter Showcase

[zhrooms 1]

Hi, this is a teaser for a Tweak Guide I'm currently working on, everything is tested on a 3930k but turned off cores and lowered the speed to simulate other CPU's, even if it's not entirely accurate it's close and you should get a good sense of how big of a difference the speed and amount of cores actually make. One thing I've not been able to try are 8 real cores, if anyone has access to a real 8 core CPU and could test ArmA 3 Alpha too see if it actually uses all 8 cores that would be mighty kind.

In this particular chart the CPU is heavily used, so much that GPU and memory overclocking make no difference, but in other tests without heavy AI the memory overclocking actually helps more than you would expect, going from 60 to 65 FPS when increasing from 1600MHz to 2500MHz, that's about ~10% FPS. Also GPU overclocking makes a noticeable difference in heavy GPU situations like when for example enabling Post Processing Effects such as FXAA/SMAA/ATOC and SSAO.

Thanks, www.zhrooms.com

Link: http://i.imgur.com/5bGlIjW.png

Edit: Quoting a post I made on the forth page that people can find useful and maybe miss,

It varies too much (and) to little, really no point other then what I explained on the second page of this thread.

Anyway to show what I mean by GPU is not very important I took some pictures demonstrating the actual impact of the graphics card and that you really do need two video cards to be able to max it out. DaRkL3AD3R really has no clue what he's talking about..

(DayZ Mod View Distance 1500/1060, Everything Highest except Post Processing Quality)

_____________________________________

One GPU in Town, GPU Settings Turned Off

http://i.imgur.com/dMSXoW0.jpg

One GPU in Town, GPU Settings Turned On

http://i.imgur.com/Wc3ooi0.jpg

Conclusion: No difference in FPS, CPU is bottlenecking GPU

Two GPU's in Town, GPU Settings Turned Off

http://i.imgur.com/Ws9Z5yX.jpg

Two GPU's in Town, GPU Settings Turned On

http://i.imgur.com/LdF9LIn.jpg

Conclusion: Adding another GPU makes no difference in FPS, CPU is bottlenecking GPU's

So what can we take from this? A used GTX 580 1.5GB that cost around €90 can literally max out ArmA 3 Alpha.. or wait a moment.. that's just the Heavy CPU Town? What about everywhere else on the island?

_____________________________________

One GPU in Forest, GPU Settings Turned Off

http://i.imgur.com/zbvMUDp.jpg

One GPU in Forest, GPU Settings Turned On

http://i.imgur.com/EDStWYT.jpg

Conclusion: Huge difference in FPS, GPU is not powerful enough to push 60 FPS, and SSAO isn't even turned on which would bring it down even further

Two GPU's in Forest, GPU Settings Turned Off

http://i.imgur.com/zFqHkSH.jpg

Two GPU's in Forest, GPU Settings Turned On

http://i.imgur.com/sftbeS7.jpg

Conclusion: Double the GPU, Double the FPS, In other words very good GPU scaling, still not powerful enough to deliver 109 FPS which is the CPU limit

So what can we take from this? In situations where the CPU is not under heavy load, one GPU won't be able to max out the ArmA 3 Alpha, so SLI/CF is very helpful in that regard, you do not loose any performance by enabling SLI or CF, you only gain, but only in situations where the CPU is not under heavy load, which is pretty much everywhere outside Towns or in Heavy AI situations.

_____________________________________

So, GPU is not very important at all, when I used one GPU in the Forest that was with every GPU setting turned up Highest except Post Processing Quality, because it doesn't necessarily make the game look better at all and has a huge performance strain on the GPU for almost no visual effect, but if I had turned down the Anti-Aliasing effects and Shadows I should have been able to push 60 FPS in the Forest with One GPU, so SLI/CF is only good when you really want to play on literally highest (maxed out AA & Post Processing or higher resolutions than 1080p)

But you can clearly see the CPU has a much bigger impact, buying a i5 3570k for €175 and a GTX Titan GPU for €900 (Total €1075) would not get you 60 FPS in Towns, you would actually get considerably more FPS in general with a i7 3930k for €450 and a GTX 660 2GB GPU for €175 (Total €625)

If I would recommend a computer to a person that wants to max out ArmA 3 Beta/Final I would probably recommend a Haswell Intel Core i5 4570k 4 Core 6MB, overclock that bad boy to 5.0GHz with 4x4GB 2400MHz Memory and maybe 2x GTX 660 2GB with aftermarket coolers for extra overclocking, that setup would easily get an average of 80 FPS in ArmA 3 and BF3 at highest settings, no doubt, for a much smaller cost than for example a 3930k and a GTX Titan that would cost twice as much but only deliver 15-25% more FPS

Edited May 12, 2013 by zhrooms
Added Quote

[Leon86 13]

I take it you didn't do the i7 920 and e8400 run on the 3930K?

[NeuroFunker 11]

not even nearly maxed out arma, with high end cpu, nearly clocked at 5ghz, just 48 fps? Umm, okay...

[teejayd 1]

>Only i5 and above got a framerate higher than 30fps

Can someone do a benchmark with the processors from the recommended specs for the game? ( Core i3-530 2.9GHz & Athlon II X3 440 ) ?

My Phenon II X3 720 @ 3.4 struggles hard with the helicopter showcase, 22 fps at the beginning i think.

[MavericK96 0]

Would be curious to see what the i7 920 pulls at 3.8 GHz or so.

Unfortunately those results are still rather sad for that powerful of a machine barely pulling 40 FPS with 1600 VD and a lot of stuff disabled.

[teejayd 1]

Would be curious to see what the i7 920 pulls at 3.8 GHz or so.

Unfortunately those results are still rather sad for that powerful of a machine barely pulling 40 FPS with 1600 VD and a lot of stuff disabled.

So far, the recommended specs do not aply in the slightest

[tonschuh 3]

What do you mean with ARMA-3 doesn't use HT ? If I disable Core-Parking and use the following Start-Parameters: -noSplash -high -maxMem=8192 -malloc=tbb4malloc_bi -cpuCount=8 -exThreads=7 , then all Cores / Threads are in use. I get around max ~60% Load for each Core / Thread when playing the Infantry-Showcase. As far I understand it, ARMA-3 / The Game-Engine is only not very good when it comes to the utilisation of the CPU.

:confused:

[zhrooms 1]

I take it you didn't do the i7 920 and e8400 run on the 3930K?

I did

not even nearly maxed out arma, with high end cpu, nearly clocked at 5ghz, just 48 fps? Umm, okay...

As said, it's during the Helicopter Showcase, it uses a lot of AI hence the 48 FPS average over an entire minute, remember this is just an Alpha so the AI part of the game will probably get optimized further until the release of the game.

Would be curious to see what the i7 920 pulls at 3.8 GHz or so.

Pretty much the same as a 3770k at 3.8GHz would do, the same 8MB cache size and amount of cores/threads, tho a 3770k should perform roughly about 15% faster at the same speed because of the new architecture, so if a i7 920 would get 60 FPS at 4.0GHz a 3770k would perhaps get around 65-70 FPS at the same speed. The only reason you would want to upgrade your i7 920 is because of the extra overclocking potential, a i7 920 will be maxed out for the average overclocker at around 4.2GHz while a 3570k can go up to 4.6-4.7GHz.

What do you mean with ARMA-3 doesn't use HT ? If I disable Core-Parking and use the following Start-Parameters: -noSplash -high -maxMem=8192 -malloc=tbb4malloc_bi -cpuCount=8 -exThreads=7 , then all Cores / Threads are in use. I get around max ~60% Load for each Core / Thread when playing the Infantry-Showcase. As far I understand it, ARMA-3 / The Game-Engine is only not very good when it comes to the utilisation of the CPU.

It does not use them, as you say you can force the game to use the extra threads, but at no performance gain at all, instead of using the first Core 100%, you will make it use 50% of the first Core and 50% of the Extra Thread, so it doesn't provide any extra performance what so ever.

Core #1: 80%

Core #2: 50%

Core #3: 50%

Core #4: 50%

CPU Usage: ~60%

With HT Enabled

Core #1: 40%

Core #2: 40% (Extra Thread)

Core #3: 25%

Core #4: 25% (Extra Thread)

Core #5: 25%

Core #6: 25% (Extra Thread)

Core #7: 25%

Core #8: 25% (Extra Thread)

CPU Usage: ~30%

Twice as many threads, half as much CPU usage: 0% performance difference

[tonschuh 3]

I did

As said, it's during the Helicopter Showcase, it uses a lot of AI hence the 48 FPS average over an entire minute, remember this is just an Alpha so the AI part of the game will probably get optimized further until the release of the game.

Pretty much the same as a 3770k at 3.8GHz would do, the same 8MB cache size and amount of cores/threads, tho a 3770k should perform roughly about 15% faster at the same speed because of the new architecture, so if a i7 920 would get 60 FPS at 4.0GHz a 3770k would perhaps get around 65-70 FPS at the same speed. The only reason you would want to upgrade your i7 920 is because of the extra overclocking potential, a i7 920 will be maxed out for the average overclocker at around 4.2GHz while a 3570k can go up to 4.6-4.7GHz.

It does not use them, as you say you can force the game to use the extra threads, but at no performance gain at all, instead of using the first Core 100%, you will make it use 50% of the first Core and 50% of the Extra Thread, so it doesn't provide any extra performance what so ever.

Core #1: 80%

Core #2: 50%

Core #3: 50%

Core #4: 50%

CPU Usage: ~60%

With HT Enabled

Core #1: 40%

Core #2: 40% (Extra Thread)

Core #3: 25%

Core #4: 25% (Extra Thread)

Core #5: 25%

Core #6: 25% (Extra Thread)

Core #7: 25%

Core #8: 25% (Extra Thread)

CPU Usage: ~30%

Twice as many threads, half as much CPU usage: 0% performance difference

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

:)

[NeuroFunker 11]

yup, no need to mention its an alpha. But i'm not so sure, this will get much better as now, performance wise. Especially on huge Altis island. Like Utes and Cherno, where nerly everyone gets 60-100fps on Utes, most of them barely have 40-50fps on Cherno.

[zhrooms 1]

yup, no need to mention its an alpha. But i'm not so sure, this will get much better as now, performance wise. Especially on huge Altis island. Like Utes and Cherno, where nerly everyone gets 60-100fps on Utes, most of them barely have 40-50fps on Cherno.

I'm guessing it's mostly because of the trees, there are at least two or even three times as many trees inland than there are on the island Utes, they're all rendered by the CPU so if you would turn down the Object Distance to 500 meters on Utes and do the same at maybe Veresnik below Vybor, you should get a similar FPS.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

That test is pretty fail. It isn't just a CPU comparison, nor even a clock-for-clock comparison. It's even got big time differences in RAM in there as well.

Truth is even at 4.2Ghz my 3770k and crumby 5870 net me a solid 50 fps on the helicopter showcase, when I load the mission and just stand there looking at the helicopters and infantry. If I had a better graphics card I would have probably 80+ FPS right there.

That's with 3500m vew distance, and 1000m object distance.

[zhrooms 1]

That test is pretty fail. It isn't just a CPU comparison, nor even a clock-for-clock comparison. It's even got big time differences in RAM in there as well.

Truth is even at 4.2Ghz my 3770k and crumby 5870 net me a solid 50 fps on the helicopter showcase, when I load the mission and just stand there looking at the helicopters and infantry. If I had a better graphics card I would have probably 80+ FPS right there.

That's with 3500m vew distance, and 1000m object distance.

Did you even look at it? How can you say it's not a CPU Comparison with different speeds and cores when you have it in front of you? It's like you're denying you have a computer monitor in front of you. And testing the different memory speed is clearly important, since it shows it doesn't give any performance increase at all when the CPU is under heavy load.

Truth? Noting you said has any truth behind it, you would not get a single more FPS with a better graphics card, because your CPU would be bottlenecking it, your GPU is probably not even at 75% usage, so if you added a GTX Titan the GPU usage would go down instead of up since it's already delivering what it can at a lower usage since it's more powerful. But sure go ahead and buy 3x Titan and enjoy your "solid 50 FPS". And this was tested in an earlier Alpha version when the Helicopter Showcase wasn't optimized, hence the lower FPS, but would pretty much deliver the same results now but maybe 10 higher FPS in every test.

Also a Higher View Distance and Lower Object Distance looks horrible, popping up trees and objects everywhere.

Edited May 9, 2013 by zhrooms

[jumpinghubert 48]

@zhrooms

you made a great job with your statistics/comparisons and your conclusions are right. Please ignore the uber-expert, in the past he tried to explain a mod the rules of the forum...lol

@DArkRUUULA

please keep in mind the simplest things zhrooms explained in his last posting: cpu is bottlenecking and object distance is one of the most important settings for cpu.

[babydoc 1]

@zhrooms

you made a great job with your statistics/comparisons and your conclusions are right. Please ignore the uber-expert, in the past he tried to explain a mod the rules of the forum...lol

@DArkRUUULA

please keep in mind the simplest things zhrooms explained in his last posting: cpu is bottlenecking and object distance is one of the most important settings for cpu.

Agree!

There are doers and onlookers.

Appreciated work zhrooms

[tonschuh 3]

That test is pretty fail. It isn't just a CPU comparison, nor even a clock-for-clock comparison. It's even got big time differences in RAM in there as well.

Truth is even at 4.2Ghz my 3770k and crumby 5870 net me a solid 50 fps on the helicopter showcase, when I load the mission and just stand there looking at the helicopters and infantry. If I had a better graphics card I would have probably 80+ FPS right there.

That's with 3500m vew distance, and 1000m object distance.

For sure ... rofl ... :rolleyes:

I get with my 3770k @4400MHz (Core-Parking disabled) + 2x GTX680-SOC-2GB in 2-Way-SLI and Stock-Speed + 16GB (4x4GB) G.Skill @2133MHz ~38-54fps with the Quality-Settings mentioned in the first post. When I use Auto-Detect, then I already start with only ~24fps.

:butbut:

[MavericK96 0]

Truth is even at 4.2Ghz my 3770k and crumby 5870 net me a solid 50 fps on the helicopter showcase, when I load the mission and just stand there looking at the helicopters and infantry. If I had a better graphics card I would have probably 80+ FPS right there.

That's with 3500m vew distance, and 1000m object distance.

Gotta call some major BS on that one without screencaps or video proof.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Some insanely skeptical people on this forum. That's okay, I enjoy posting screen caps to prove myself because it is what it is. So here ya go, here's some shots at 3.5Ghz on my 3770k (massively undervolting my chip because I want it to last me 5 years.) When I push it to my max daily OC to 4.6Ghz, my performance right here is exactly the same. I run MSI Afterburner almost all the time while tweaking and testing, and my GPU usage is consistently 99%, and it ONLY dips in massive firefights.

http://imageshack.us/a/img849/1847/arma32013051114241273.png

http://imageshack.us/a/img24/7207/arma32013051114242004.png

And this ones just to prove my clock speed, this is my chip's clock speed and vcore while running Prime95 Blend:

http://imageshack.us/a/img829/5633/prime95at35ghz.png

The screen is a little dark because I run lower gamma, it makes the game look better on my monitor.

Did you even look at it? How can you say it's not a CPU Comparison with different speeds and cores when you have it in front of you? It's like you're denying you have a computer monitor in front of you. And testing the different memory speed is clearly important, since it shows it doesn't give any performance increase at all when the CPU is under heavy load.

Truth? Noting you said has any truth behind it, you would not get a single more FPS with a better graphics card, because your CPU would be bottlenecking it, your GPU is probably not even at 75% usage, so if you added a GTX Titan the GPU usage would go down instead of up since it's already delivering what it can at a lower usage since it's more powerful. But sure go ahead and buy 3x Titan and enjoy your "solid 50 FPS". And this was tested in an earlier Alpha version when the Helicopter Showcase wasn't optimized, hence the lower FPS, but would pretty much deliver the same results now but maybe 10 higher FPS in every test.

Also a Higher View Distance and Lower Object Distance looks horrible, popping up trees and objects everywhere.

Clock-for-clock is the only thing that matters in poorly multithreaded applications like Arma. Showing various chips at various clock speeds really doesn't mean much, unless you're showing the potential performance gained from overclocking a single chip. However this should have it's own chart and should show performance from say 3Ghz to 5Ghz. Memory speeds do have an impact on performance, albeit not as large as overclocking a processor, but including varying chips in the same chart is just...... If these charts were seperated into various processors running at the same clock speed, vs the same processor running at various memory speeds, vs the same processor running at various clockspeeds, then this would be effective at showing the difference in performance from one architecture to another. But with all these varying clock speeds, and memory speeds, it's really just not an apples to apples test.

And yes I am aware people with SLI and Titan's are not GPU bottlenecked. But I am running a card from 2009, and it IS bottlenecking my 3770k in Arma 3. If you aren't seeing 99% GPU usage then obviously your graphics hardware is way more advanced and you should probably start running with anti-aliasing so you are getting the most from your graphics hardware.

Edited May 11, 2013 by DaRkL3AD3R

[zhrooms 1]

Showing various chips at various clock speeds really doesn't mean much, unless you're showing the potential performance gained from overclocking a single chip. However this should have it's own chart and should show performance from say 3Ghz to 5Ghz. Memory speeds do have an impact on performance, albeit not as large as overclocking a processor, but including varying chips in the same chart is just...... If these charts were seperated into various processors running at the same clock speed, vs the same processor running at various memory speeds, vs the same processor running at various clockspeeds, then this would be effective at showing the difference in performance from one architecture to another. But with all these varying clock speeds, and memory speeds, it's really just not an apples to apples test.

And yes I am aware people with SLI and Titan's are not GPU bottlenecked. But I am running a card from 2009, and it IS bottlenecking my 3770k in Arma 3. If you aren't seeing 99% GPU usage then obviously your graphics hardware is way more advanced and you should probably start running with anti-aliasing so you are getting the most from your graphics hardware.

What the hell is it that you don't understand? The whole point is to show different CPU's so people understand what differences speed and cores do in the game, for example if they are thinking of upgrading they need to know if it will even make any difference to them or not, I really have no clue what you think I did this for. And no, memory speed doesn't have any impact on performance (Under Heavy CPU load) as you can clearly see in the picture, so why are you rambling on about it?

Why the hell would you compare one architecture to another? That wouldn't apply to any real situation, it would just provide useless data, literally waste of time. And the architecture differences at the same speed is just like with most games, pretty much non existent, if you compare 3770k vs 4770k at the same speed it will probably be 0 to 1 FPS increase, that magic ~10% performance increase that Haswell promises over Ivy Bridge doesn't apply to games, but to Benchmarks and heavy CPU applications. A 3770k is just as good as a 4770k in ArmA 3 at the same speed.

It doesn't matter if you use a video card from 2007 or from 2013, it will still not use 100% when the CPU is under enough pressure, and that can easily happen, all you have to do is throw in a lot of AI or increase View Distance. So it has nothing to do with how "advanced" your GPU is in any way.

Basically the entire problem with people whining about it not being CPU optimized is because Bohemia never set any rules, they gave people the option to see 12.000 Meters with full detail, that was a mistake, because people have no clue what the engine or settings even does, so when they see the limit is 12.000, then if they have the latest CPU on the market, they think they can easily manage 1 third of those 12.000 which is 4.000 View and Object Detail Distance, and of course it doesn't work, they get 10 FPS and they go whine on forums that the game is badly optimized, a fun fact about Chernarus vs Battlefield 3, is that in the Battlefield 3 Multiplayer you only have a MAXIMUM of 500 trees at any given time on any map, but in Chernarus when you are in the heavy forests down south east, with ONLY 1500 View Distance and 1060 Object Distance, that is DayZ Mod locked settings, you see around ~2500 trees at the same time, that's 5 times as many trees on the same spot then BF3, imagine if you put 2500 trees in a Battlefield 3 MP 64 Player Map.. everybody would go down from 60 to 30 FPS and start complaining that it wouldn't be playable. So that was a "some what kinda ish" mistake by Bohemia, NOT locking it at like 1000 or even 500, if they had done that everyone would have 60 FPS, and never complain, oh wait, what people would be complaining about instead would be that you can only see five hundred/a thousand meters, so.. people would still complain and whine, I guess that's in peoples nature, never being satisfied.

Anyway, I am actually very impressed by what the engine can deliver, in Chernarus on the ArmA 3 Alpha engine I can push 1500 View and Object Distance with around 1500 Trees at highest settings with 60 FPS stable, how can anyone say that's "badly optimized", really?

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Why the hell would you compare one architecture to another? That wouldn't apply to any real situation, it would just provide useless data, literally waste of time.

Oh God, why....

No difference between architectures? You're telling me that my Phenom II x6 1100T THUBAN running at 4Ghz, is no different than my Core i7 3770k Ivy Bridge running at 4Ghz? Christ, it's like you're trolling me right now.

There is a MASSIVE difference between different architectures. And the ONLY way to be absolutely certain of the performance difference from architecture to architecture is by running various chips at THE SAME CLOCK SPEED. This shows how much of an improvement the different architecture yields over others.

I came from that Thuban and was seeing horrible CPU bottlenecks. Now on my Ivy Bridge, EVEN AT STOCK SPEED, I am not. I just posted that I am getting 99% GPU usage, even at 3.5Ghz, and you are dismissing it like I am lying. Why? Why is it so hard to accept?

I know my hardware inside and out, I know when I am CPU bottlenecked and when I am GPU bottlenecked. Almost all the time playing Arma 3, especially with things like Shadows on Very High, Clouds on Ultra, Terrain on High etc, I am 100% GPU bound.

You wanna really test CPU differences? Take the GPU out of the equation completely. Turn the resolution down to 800x600, drop ALL anti-aliasing, and remove shadows. NOW do your test and watch the difference in FPS between various chips and clock speeds, and YES memory speeds. If you honestly think you'll STILL be capped at ~40 frames per second, you're in for a real treat. And I dare you to tell me that this is not due to GPU bottlenecking.

[tonschuh 3]

@DaRkL3AD3R

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6016/arma32013051209314310.jpg

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/6569/arma32013051209315488.jpg

As you can see above, the fps are not solid and I can't see you getting solid 80+ with a better GPU, as I already run 2x GTX680-SOC-2GB in 2-Way-SLI.

:)

Edited May 12, 2013 by TONSCHUH

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

@DaRkL3AD3R

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6016/arma32013051209314310.jpg

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/6569/arma32013051209315488.jpg

As you can see above, the fps are not solid and I can't see you getting solid 80+ with a better GPU, as I already run 2x GTX680-SOC-2GB in 2-Way-SLI.

:)

SLI puts significantly extra work on your CPU, and unless you're running 2560x1600 with AA, there's no point in running SLI 680's. Try disabling or removing one card and check it again.

[jumpinghubert 48]

If I had a better graphics card I would have probably 80+ FPS right there.

thats nonsense. Please stop trolling and make your own thread with your 80+ showcase when you have a better graphic card. Ok?

zhrooms shows at common settings and lots of ai the performance dependent on

-haswell and ivy

-coreclock

-dualcore, quadcore and hexacore

-ramspeed.

What do you show? bad manners? LOL

[zhrooms 1]

SLI puts significantly extra work on your CPU, and unless you're running 2560x1600 with AA, there's no point in running SLI 680's. Try disabling or removing one card and check it again.

Wow, what you just said is completely false and wrong, please never reply in any hardware related thread ever again.

[tonschuh 3]

SLI puts significantly extra work on your CPU, and unless you're running 2560x1600 with AA, there's no point in running SLI 680's. Try disabling or removing one card and check it again.

A Single-GTX680-SOC-2GB makes things even worse:

http://imageshack.us/a/img521/6016/arma32013051209314310.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img109/6569/arma32013051209315488.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img89/9231/arma32013051211205033.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img191/5580/arma32013051211205159.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img199/8782/arma32013051211205421.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img4/2562/arma32013051211205724.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img705/7404/arma32013051211231785.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img195/4765/arma32013051211231885.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img43/8837/arma32013051211231998.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img825/2707/arma32013051211232083.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img29/6198/arma32013051211232331.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img12/2645/arma32013051211233089.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img189/9120/arma32013051211233339.jpg

Beside this, my 2-Way-SLI is still not strong enough to drive a 1920x1080 120Hz Screen, when playing BF3 with Ultra-Settings. I would need a 3-Way-SLI to reach the 120fps on a stable base, as the 2-Way-SLI reaches only ~90fps on average. I didn't upgrade only for ARMA-3.

:)

Edited May 12, 2013 by TONSCHUH