7850 recommended, I have a 6870. ARMA III on actual RELEASE?

[UKFX 10]

There are obviously a lot of games out there which get the recommended specs, INCREDIBLY WRONG. ARMA 2, of what little I played appeared to run quite well on my 6870 and i5-2500K, and I know that ARMA III is in Alpha and it's full of bugs but I was wondering if a dev could actually post the likelihood of as to whether or not a single 6870 is actually going to be enough to play Standard/High on release at a 1080p res?

The recommended 7850 is, well, not that powerful, so it makes me wonder, did you guys put down that as a suggestion for the Alpha only, or for the game as a whole - when it's finally released in the future? The reason I ask this is because it encourages folks to purchase ARMA III Alpha but then when the game is released the recommendations could be drastically changed and those people who hit the initial recommendations are left wishing they chipped in towards a different game. Also, the 6870 is quite a bit more powerful than the 7850, so I was kind of hoping that the recommendation would give me a bit of hope for when the game comes out.

My concern is that, though I was able to play ARMA 2 at 1080p on a mix of High / Very High settings, on Alpha I don't get very much FPS at all. This is of course expected (due to bugs) but it worried me about its actual release in future. ARMA games have been notorious for their lack of optimisations - some people getting blinding results whilst many others with seemingly good specs suffering horribly - drivers aside. For me, I'm hoping that when the game is actually released, I can at least play ARMA III at 1080p at 60FPS on Standard with 2xAA. I know the 6870 isn't that powerful but it's not terrible either and it's surprisingly good in the many games I play. Of course right now, regardless of settings in the Alpha, my CPU usage is only 40-50% so that's capping me at 30fps, so I'm not sure what to expect in future.

Anyone else think it's reasonable a 6870 can handle Standard (medium) at 1080p/60fps? It's not too much to ask?

(Note I have a Core i5-2500K, 8GB DDR3 1600Mhz)

Thank you.

[UKFX 10]

Bumpidy bump.

1GB 6870 run Standard at 1080p/60fps on official release?

[Insanatrix 0]

Bumpidy bump.

1GB 6870 run Standard at 1080p/60fps on official release?

In a run of the mill combat scenario, you might get 60fps (average/constant) at 1080p with say like a GTX Titan or a 680/7970. I get anywhere from 18-55fps with a GTX 480 at 1080p. I would say my average fps in a combat scenario is around 28fps or so. A lot is going to depend on your detail settings and how well BI can get the game engine to run moving towards retail.

[UKFX 10]

In a run of the mill combat scenario, you might get 60fps (average/constant) at 1080p with say like a GTX Titan or a 680/7970. I get anywhere from 18-55fps with a GTX 480 at 1080p. I would say my average fps in a combat scenario is around 28fps or so. A lot is going to depend on your detail settings and how well BI can get the game engine to run moving towards retail.

Hmm. Then their super dooper ultra mega, insanely inaccurate Recommended Requirements and claims that "if you can Run ARMA II then ARMA III will run one setting lower" is just a random piece of bull spurted out at random with not a shred of research or faith in their development to have any essence of truth? I mean, I know exactly not to trust these suggestions 100% (like the requirements) but did they not think or measure anything up AT ALL? Ever?

28fps? with a 480? An their suggesting a 7850? Have you seen the differences between the 7850 and 6870? I know the 6870 isn't powerful but it craps on the 7850. I'd assumed this time around they wouldn't just add pretty FX over the top of ARMA 2 and say, ZOMG A BRAND NEWWW GAMEEEE. But it appears to me, so far, (I know it's early days), that this is just a repaint of the same, unoptimised, unfriendly, poor engine. There are still people out there with beast rigs who can't play ARMA II.

If I can't run 1080p at Standard at 60FPS, I'm going to be very disappointed.

[byku 13]

FYI in combat situations on my HD7870 and I5 3570K at 4,1GHz I get around 20-40fps, average around 30 I suppose. Most on high, some on ultra, no AA, vis. 3000, obj 2500. Personally I'm satisfied with how it works.

[UKFX 10]

Obviously it's Alpha, so with my 2500K and my OC'd 6870, I expect god awful performance. However, the reason I posted was because I feared that given the history of ARMA games and their extreme lack of optimisation for the final product, that a year from now or whenever the game is out, it'll still run like a 1 legged Dog with a wheel for a foot. 7850 recommended anyone? 6870 eats it up.

I'm not asking for much, I'm just hoping that I can play on Standard with 2xAA and some solid FPS above 50+ (in combat scenarios). The ridiculously conservative recommendation they put down is a concern, an if it seems to be just for the sake of Alpha and not later on, then that's incredibly misleading because it doesn't say anywhere on that Steam page, that I can see, that those system requirements are for Alpha only.

I know it's a long way off before release, but I just don't want to be left behind after their own suggestions. It'll be like "Let's cater to the rich folk" or those who recently bought a PC!

It kind of reminds me of video drivers from both Nvidia and AMD, new card comes out, it's like "let's get max performance for that instead" and then everything else is pretty much minimized in driver optimisation for those who had a previous generation of card.

I just hope it doesn't end up being a waste of money.

Right now, may I just mention that my CPU utilisation in the game is only around 50%, so that's capping my FPS at around 30, so I can't actually play Alpha properly until that is sorted. (Oh, an that 30 isn't solid either, hence it being unplayable).

[Droikka 1]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/549?vs=540

[St. Jimmy 272]

It isn't really that much abou GPU because it doesn't matter what GPU you have the CPU will bottleneck your GPU somewhere 50% usage with some AI and maybe players. I upgraded my HD4870 1GB to GTX 560 Ti 1,2GB and the performance with AI didn't rise much because both times the i7 2600K @ 4,4 GHz bottlenecks the GPU usage. Alone in the editor performance rised nicely and performance with old GPU wasn't bad either but now I can use AA at x8 with very little fps drop.

[blu3sman 11]

I know it's a long way off before release, but I just don't want to be left behind after their own suggestions. It'll be like "Let's cater to the rich folk" or those who recently bought a PC! It kind of reminds me of video drivers from both Nvidia and AMD, new card comes out, it's like "let's get max performance for that instead" and then everything else is pretty much minimized in driver optimisation for those who had a previous generation of card.

I have ancient dual core and 550ti. Alpha runs smoother than A2 even with higher settings and 4xAA. So I'd say GPU is not a big concern.And I suggest to reconsider your "60fps or bust!!1" attitude.

[byku 13]

Wow Blu3sman You need to tell me your secret :p. UKFX on your place I would say bye bye to AA and 50+ fps. All on high and 2,5k visibility, 2k obj visibility, would give You around 30/40 I suppose as infantry. The key to success is oc'ing your CPU ;). Btw. Arma 3 is much more beautiful that Arma 2 imo

[UKFX 10]

Welcome to Forum world where everyone makes assumptions.

Regarding the card, I think I must have got it mixed up with something else.

It's not a 60fps or bust attitude, it's a post some accurate recommended system requirements for once thread. 7850 or not, the 6870 is hardly that far behind and what the hell is up with that Skyrim benchmark? :| does 120 more pixels vertically really equate to a 40fps drop? :\ (I use Vsync on Skyrim). Also, it's not as if the 7850 when compared with the 6870 is like comparing the 7850 with a 3xxx series, is it?

Also, about the 2500K, I'd assume if it were used properly by ARMA III, then I'd benefit from sticking my system on 4GHz for all cores? By the way, it's not much I know but my card is at 950 / 1125, not the stock 900 / 1050.

---------- Post added at 11:41 ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 ----------

Wow Blu3sman You need to tell me your secret :p. UKFX on your place I would say bye bye to AA and 50+ fps. All on high and 2,5k visibility, 2k obj visibility, would give You around 30/40 I suppose as infantry. The key to success is oc'ing your CPU ;). Btw. Arma 3 is much more beautiful that Arma 2 imo

I can't properly gauge anything yet because my CPU at at 3.5/3.7 (Intel Turbo Boost - dependant on core usage, therefore not all cores are at 3.7), isn't properly being utilised. Until it is, if I overclock it (which I have done many times before but reverted back since I never needed the OC), then I'll go back to 4GHz on all cores. Simples. ARMA 3 is indeed greater looking but they may as well of just got straight to the point and said "Recommended System Requirements - 7970" - Again, I know it's early days, so perhaps the 6870 won't have to run the game on ultra low just to obtain 7 fps, or something ridiculous like that.

---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 ----------

Just overclocked to 4Ghz. Lowered card OC to 940 / 1120 - Ran ARMA III for a bit, ran around for 5 minutes, I had standard on, all standard, except shadows low, and PiP low. I had a max FPS of 50, an a minimum of 29. Estimate of average 33.

Checked OHM, CPU max usage throughout the entire thing was 52.7%

CPU Fan (886RPM - Has a max of 1300 RPM I believe - Alpenfohn Matterhorn Pure + MX4)

CPU Total - 52.7%

Core 1 - 90.8%

Core 2 - 63.1%

Core 3 - 53.8%

Core 4 - 62.1%

CPU Package Temp: 47.0°c

GPU Core: 940Mhz

GPU Memory: 1120Mhz

GPU Core Temp: 61°c (Max 105 I believe).

GPU Core 99.0%

GPU Fan 1846 RPM / 53%

The overclock certainly helped. If I had 100% of my CPU available for use it seems promising.

[chrisb 196]

I have a few performance related vids, here is one showing settings, older pictures in the form of a slideshow type YT vid. These were with a previous dev build, things are improving all the time so settings have changed slightly, details in the vid (only view distance & AA)..

Performance, fps/cpu/gpu with ai placed out two WP per group. AI set away from the player, details in the video. Provided I met no more than 50-70ai at once, I wouldn't usually meet more than 20-30ai at once in the type of missions I play, maybe upto 50, I could put out around 250-300 on the map at start and maintain sensible ai behaviour. Maximum ai is usually around 150-200 out at mission start, so even less of a problem.

Some screenshots of various locations, with fps counter:

Town

Airfield

Lighthouse NW

Hope this helps, pc details in sig (pc1 A2 pc), or in the first video..:)

Screenshots would be nice to see regards your pc performance, could help others. Recording performance with video costs me around -30fps, so really not helpful, better with screenshots, more reliable results..

I use msi-afterburner for screenshots and recording.

Edited May 17, 2013 by ChrisB

[UKFX 10]

I have a few performance related vids, here is one showing settings, older pictures in the form of a slideshow type YT vid. These were with a previous dev build, things are improving all the time so settings have changed slightly, details in the vid (only view distance & AA)..

Performance, fps/cpu/gpu with ai placed out two WP per group. AI set away from the player, details in the video. Provided I met no more than 50-70ai at once, I wouldn't usually meet more than 20-30ai at once in the type of missions I play, maybe upto 50, I could put out around 250-300 on the map at start and maintain sensible ai behaviour. Maximum ai is usually around 150-200 out at mission start, so even less of a problem.

Some screenshots of various locations, with fps counter:

Town

Airfield

Lighthouse NW

Hope this helps, pc details in sig (pc1 A2 pc), or in the first video..:)

Screenshots would be nice to see regards your pc performance, could help others. Recording performance with video costs me around -30fps, so really not helpful, better with screenshots, more reliable results..

I use msi-afterburner for screenshots and recording.

I'm a bit confused as to how this will help me. :|

Anyway, once they sort it so my 2500K is used fully (4Ghz), then I can worry about the 6870. After checking prices yesterday and weighing the pros and cons, the 7850 really isn't a leap far enough to warrant an upgrade. Especially when it involves me selling my 6870 and then spending some just to get it. Overall it won't equate to a big enough bump in FPS to even be worth the hassle.

6870 > 7870, now that's different. Hell, my Corsair Silent Power M (34 AMP Single 12v Rail) could handle a 7870, but that's pushing it and it's a bit of a concern for a game which may or may not be optimised even if I do upgrade. Besides, I just spent £32 on Fire Emblem Awakening haha ;D

Hopefully CPU stuff will be fixed in an update soon and then I can properly test it.

[chrisb 196]

I'm a bit confused as to how this will help me. :|.

The idea is just a 'comparison' the 5850 and the 6870 aren’t that different other than your 6870 should handle AA a lot better. I showed you performance details based on my 5850 2gb which is oc’ed slightly, this in turn was nearer to your card, however, the 2gb makes a difference from a 1gb.

Regards optimization, to use your 4ghz to its full, don't hold your breath, if that did happen, it would be a first in the series..;)

[andressergio 1]

no card will benefit for now as game is not optimized, runing 3 SLI here and runs exact the same as 1 card so you should base your decision on other games for now

[Desrat 0]

I have a few performance related vids, here is one showing settings

Off topic - why is your aspect ratio set to 5/4 when you screen is 16/9?

Back on Topic - Current specs here are i5 2500k (@4ghz all cores), 8gb 1600mhz ram, and a 7950 (pre overclocked) and ArmA3 still crushes it to 20-30fps at busy times.

[UKFX 10]

The idea is just a 'comparison' the 5850 and the 6870 aren’t that different other than your 6870 should handle AA a lot better. I showed you performance details based on my 5850 2gb which is oc’ed slightly, this in turn was nearer to your card, however, the 2gb makes a difference from a 1gb.

Regards optimization, to use your 4ghz to its full, don't hold your breath, if that did happen, it would be a first in the series..;)

I see.

Again, the reason for this thread is the super conservative Recommended Requirements, and the history of the lack of optimisation on the finished products of ARMA games. Now I'm hoping, when the game is somewhat optimised, that those Recommended Requirements remain the same and that the 6870 can be taken advantage of. Afterall, the game does recommend 1GB VRAM as well.

Sometimes it seems, developers will put unnecessary and innacurate Recommended Requirements for the sake of luring other folk in, under a false hope that they will be able to play the game at reasonable settings. Now I'm not criticising the game or its developers but asking for a smooth ride on medium settings after the other things they've stated is hardly asking for much.

Basically, I'm just wanting to the enjoy the game based on what they've said when the product is final (I don't mind so much now), and not be lied to. I've wasted a lot of money in the past on deceit and it's quite annoying to be honest. All I hope for is some smooth FPS in combat with some average settings. It's all about the gameplay to me, graphics are secondary to my interests (unless of course there is a massive advantage with high graphical options, then I'll either avoid the game altogether because my system isn't up to par or I'll upgrade if it's a small price to pay).

:)

[Sryan 1]

I got a HD6990 4gb, 16gb RAM and a Phenom II X6 1100T ( 6 cores @ 3,4Ghz ) and perfomance is still unstable. Between 6 and 100 fps usually.. it can't even run the second benchmark on arma 2.

[UKFX 10]

I got a HD6990 4gb, 16gb RAM and a Phenom II X6 1100T ( 6 cores @ 3,4Ghz ) and perfomance is still unstable. Between 6 and 100 fps usually.. it can't even run the second benchmark on arma 2.

Shame to have a mega expensive card like that a Phenom II. But yes, I already expected the game to run like crap, but the main point to all this was to call it up and point out the recommended requirements and whether the game will run well on what they said would be enough when the game is finally released. Now considering it says 1GB VRAM and 7850, the 6870 not being that far behind, all I want or should I say would like to expect is some smooth FPS on medium settings. I won't go into the whole blah blah boycott stuff but if the game is released say a year from now and it runs at 30fps on my card, I'll be pretty damn annoyed.

[chrisb 196]

Off topic - why is your aspect ratio set to 5/4 when you screen is 16/9?.

I use my own fov setup in the configs usually, but I don't really play missions in A3 yet, just testing and setup at the moment, so 5:4 is a quick setup without touching the configs, plus my monitor has a 5:4 switch to adjust the screen to fill a 16:9 frame 1920x1080p, its near to my config settings.

I always adjust the fov in the configs in this series to a custom setting anyway, much better I feel, more immersive to find your own prefered fov. I will set a custom fov for A3 once its settled and I play it a little more often.

Still using A2 for missions, A3 for testing, setup etc, until ai are sorted in A3 I won’t be mission making for it really...

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

I have ancient dual core and 550ti. Alpha runs smoother than A2 even with higher settings and 4xAA. So I'd say GPU is not a big concern.And I suggest to reconsider your "60fps or bust!!1" attitude.

Note this! It will run perfectly well on older hardware and will be ok in MP - tested it on several configurations. You will hit a problem if you want to host a game or run a server though - the CPU or RAM bottlenecks 1st with all those AI calculations etc. Invest in some high quality cooling and overclock your CPU/RAM/SSD before spending lots of $$$s on that latest GPU / i7.

[UKFX 10]

Note this! It will run perfectly well on older hardware and will be ok in MP - tested it on several configurations. You will hit a problem if you want to host a game or run a server though - the CPU or RAM bottlenecks 1st with all those AI calculations etc. Invest in some high quality cooling and overclock your CPU/RAM/SSD before spending lots of $$$s on that latest GPU / i7.

I didn't actually notice that guy claim that with an old CPU and a 550ti, if that is true, and along with Bohemia's Recommended Specs for running ARMA 3 with a 7850, then assuming it is optimised that Medium settings 60fps I hope for should be easy to reach. Maybe I can have a good blend of medium/high and some AA with a comfortable 45-50fps average.

Do note I am running my 2500K at 4Ghz but I could push it on air a bit higher. Not going to mess with voltages though.

I still know what will end up happening though. My luck, along with many other peoples' will probably end up running out and we draw the short straw, end up with awful performance and horrid optimisation for our cards / CPUs or something like that. :( I just hope this isn't the case. Long way off yet.

Got my eye on you BI. Don't let us folks down.

[St. Jimmy 272]

I didn't actually notice that guy claim that with an old CPU and a 550ti, if that is true, and along with Bohemia's Recommended Specs for running ARMA 3 with a 7850, then assuming it is optimised that Medium settings 60fps I hope for should be easy to reach. Maybe I can have a good blend of medium/high and some AA with a comfortable 45-50fps average.

Do note I am running my 2500K at 4Ghz but I could push it on air a bit higher. Not going to mess with voltages though.

I still know what will end up happening though. My luck, along with many other peoples' will probably end up running out and we draw the short straw, end up with awful performance and horrid optimisation for our cards / CPUs or something like that. :( I just hope this isn't the case. Long way off yet.

Got my eye on you BI. Don't let us folks down.

Result and settings from Arma 3 benchmark mission with Radeon 4870 1GB and i7 2600K @ 4,4GHz. Not the most optimal settings for that card but not a bad result either.

[UKFX 10]

Result and settings from Arma 3 benchmark mission with Radeon 4870 1GB and i7 2600K @ 4,4GHz. Not the most optimal settings for that card but not a bad result either.

What the F? A 4870? I had one of those years ago. You got those frames with that card on THOSE settings? :|

I don't understand :|

I'd of thought 4Ghz on the i5-2500K is okay. Of course they need to patch it because I can't properly test yet because my CPU is only used 52% in game.

Hmm. This is interesting.

[Desrat 0]

I use my own fov setup in the configs usually, but I don't really play missions in A3 yet, just testing and setup at the moment, so 5:4 is a quick setup without touching the configs, plus my monitor has a 5:4 switch to adjust the screen to fill a 16:9 frame 1920x1080p, its near to my config settings.

Yeah I adjust FOV in the configs also as I prefer a 90deg FOV whenever possible, but I always change settings in game first so menu items etc appear correctly (not stretched or cut off), that 5/4 setting just jumped out at me..

Current specs here are i5 2500k (@4ghz all cores), 8gb 1600mhz ram, and a 7950 (pre overclocked) and ArmA3 still crushes it to 20-30fps at busy times.

Just want to add that ArmA3 performance is much better than Arma2 is for me on the same hardware, with the exception of hosting - the cpu hit for running AI is much higher in A3 vs A2 in my testing.

However during my old HD5830's lifespan the average fps has more or less doubled in A2 with patches/optimisation from BIS.