A good review and cpu/gpu benchmark by Tech Spot.

[Harbinger2456 10]

http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/

[oldbear 390]

Tech Spot has released an interesting "ARMA 3 Benchmarked: GPU & CPU Performance" review, even if I can regret the high end orientation of the GPU benchmarks. I am also wondering about Crossfire and SLI usage, does these options are working well now with Arma3 ?

The tests tend to enhance the "GPU-intensive" part, but we all know how much this game is "CPU-dependent", so ...

Here are the final words

So, How Demanding Is It?

Although we love to test demanding PC exclusives, there is always a concern that the game's visuals may not justify its hardware requirements. We imagine that'll be the case for some folks here, especially those who will draw comparisons to say, Crysis 3 or Tomb Raider. Those titles definitely have nicer looking vehicles, weapons and people, but they're lacking Arma 3's expansive environment.

The draw distances on ultra are unlike anything we've seen before and the crazy part is that they can be increased much further if you have that kind of GPU power on tap. It's impressive to watch a detailed landscape form in the distance and then remain consistent without random things popping in or out of view -- something we've experienced when playing plenty of games, including Battlefield 3.

Even when running BF3 on its highest settings using dual GTX Titans in SLI, so many objects simply vanish if you get too far from them on larger maps. That's distracting at best and it definitely takes away from the realism. Point being, this isn't a major issue with Arma 3, and we believe this is at least partly why it's so GPU-intensive, not because it's poorly coded. Your opinion may vary, of course.

Considering how demanding this title is, it's one of the rare times we strongly recommend using SLI or Crossfire, especially if you want to get the most out of the experience. Both technologies scaled well, though AMD's solution was around 100% whereas Nvidia's was closer to 70 or 80%. It's also worth noting that we didn't test for frame lag this time, but neither technology seemed to have an issue there.

For the money, a pair of GTX 770s would be hard to beat if you want to crank up the settings without thinking twice, particularly since they performed better than two HD 7970 GHz Edition cards for around the same price or less. They also crushed the GTX Titan, delivering well over 30% more performance in almost every test at around $200 less, making the $1,000 single-GPU option a pretty tough sell.

Those working with a tighter budget could probably get by with a GTX 760 or HD 7950 if playing on very high at 1920x1200 (or 1080p), but we didn't enjoy the gameplay at less than 40fps, so we'd stick with the high or standard presets if it means you'll be closer to 60fps. If things are that tight, you might also want to overclock your CPU, especially if you have an i3, i5 or just about anything from AMD.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Old Bear

[David77 10]

Read your final words quote. I don't think they're very familiar with the franchise at all. Arma3 is GPU intensive? They recommend using SLI or crossfire? Also saying you should especially overclock if you have an i5? i5 have good mhz on each core already compared to a host of i7s. If anything you need to overclock the more lavish cpus that have many lower mhz cores. LOL

I'm not a computer guru, but I know the game doesn't utilize the hyperthreading stuff very well.

Edited September 21, 2013 by David77

[fred41 42]

Especially this:

" ... a 20km view distance ..." sounds very interesting, lets try it out :rolleyes:

[ric 1]

Especially this:

" ... a 20km view distance ..." sounds very interesting, lets try it out :rolleyes:

well fred some of us have no problem with 20km...in fact it works out quite well for me....in between waiting for frames to render i can...walk the dog , do the dishs , go on a beer run.... ;)

[tonygrunt 10]

Especially this:

" ... a 20km view distance ..." sounds very interesting, lets try it out :rolleyes:

There is no need for a 20km view distance in the game but anyway I tried it and it performs better than Arma2OA.

In Arma2OA with VD at 10km I got around 25 fps in Chernarus and 50 in Takistan all settings max. In Arma 3 with VD at 20km I got around 35 fps flying across Altis all settings max, object distance at 5km. All tests was just a plane flying across the map at 1500 height in editor.

Arma3 seems to run better than Arma2OA.

[fred41 42]

... i just now tried it too, 12000m viewdistance, 5000m object distance, at 1500m height, ~25fps, really not bad ...

To be honest, i am suprised. I didnt expect that the height has that great effect.

BTW: Altis looks really nice at this height, with that viewdistance :o

There is no need for a 20km view distance in the game but anyway I tried it and it performs better than Arma2OA.

In Arma2OA with VD at 10km I got around 25 fps in Chernarus and 50 in Takistan all settings max. In Arma 3 with VD at 20km I got around 35 fps flying across Altis all settings max, object distance at 5km. All tests was just a plane flying across the map at 1500 height in editor.

Arma3 seems to run better than Arma2OA.

[RushHour 11]

The draw distances on ultra are unlike anything we've seen before and the crazy part is that they can be increased much further if you have that kind of GPU power on tap. It's impressive to watch a detailed landscape form in the distance and then remain consistent without random things popping in or out of view -- something we've experienced when playing plenty of games, including Battlefield 3.

This is just false.

It´s actually very easy to test if it´s the GPU that´s in charge of view distance.

Like choosing everything graphical on standard then to ultra, about 1fps in difference for me.

Increase view distance by a smidge and all hell breaks loose. It´s pure CPU power.

[tonygrunt 10]

... i just now tried it too, 12000m viewdistance, 5000m object distance, at 1500m height, ~25fps, really not bad ...

To be honest, i am suprised. I didnt expect that the height has that great effect.

BTW: Altis looks really nice at this height, with that viewdistance :o

You can set view distance to 20000 or more in your .Arma3Profile if you want to give it a try.

And it's not height that has big impact it's just that there are less objects in lower detail because you are too far from them.

Setting object distance to 500 I get 50fps.

[fred41 42]

Yes, it will be the lower LOD of objects and textures, which causes that significant effect of the height.

But are you sure, that the viewdistance is not truncated to 12000, like in editor?

You can set view distance to 20000 or more in your .Arma3Profile if you want to give it a try.

And it's not height that has big impact it's just that there are less objects in lower detail because you are too far from them.

Setting object distance to 500 I get 50fps.

[tonygrunt 10]

Yes, it will be the lower LOD of objects and textures, which causes that significant effect of the height.

But are you sure, that the viewdistance is not truncated to 12000, like in editor?

It's not truncated. While you are in the air open video options and you will see it's at 20000, if you move the slider it will go to 12000 and you will immediately see the fog closing in. Cancel and it will move further back. Don't click ok or you will have to edit your arma3profile again.