Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wasserkool

THE AMD R9 290X is now the NEW champion for ARMA3 with @_@ performance at all res!!

Recommended Posts

Dwarden do you know if Arma 3 seems to favour AMD or Nvidia graphics cards? Apparently AMD cards ran better in Arma 2/Arrowhead. Has this changed with Arma 3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it rather sad that it's near impossible to have a unbiased discussion when it comes to graphics cards. That aside the 290x is truly a great graphics card, at $550 it will force Nvidia to cut back on their relatively high margins. At the end of the day a great card like this is a win no matter on which side of the fence you are. On the heat and noise issue, this will most likely be solved in a few weeks when we get non reference coolers.

@wasserkool

I'm suddenly very tempted to try and get playable fps on a LN2 cooled rig with arma 3 running at the absolute max...

@Dwarden

Here you go. Guru3d 290x Review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back in the 90s, a gaming PC was rendered obsolete within a couple of years. These days a mid-range PC from 2009 can run most games fine unless you specifically want to play Crysis, Arma & co. I'm not sure what hardware today's casual PCs have, but it has to be pretty low-budget if what you're saying is correct.
You still don't get that much for 500€. just an example. those PCs are mostly lacking a competetive gfx card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem for me personally is...and think about that, you're basically throwing away a PC system that could run for another 10 years just for a game....now that's disposable society at its best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 3870 used to sit around 112-115c, and never had an issue.

When it's using around a lightbulb's difference in power or less, I don't see the big deal. Sure, it's clear that the Nvidia cards are more efficient. But at the price difference that we're seeing, it doesn't matter. Most consumers will buy whatever has the best performance value when they start tossing parts in carts.

And noise really isn't an issue as long as you actually apply some effort in machine design when you order your parts. I built my setup around dual 4870x2's, and hardly any noise got out then. I'm now running a 7950 with a heavily boosted fan speed (for the OC), and I literally can't hear it even while gaming. If noise is a real concern for you, you would build around that concern at the base level. If you leave it up to your video card to make the difference between sound, you care more about brand loyalty than noise. (I feel like I said a lot of the same things when Fermi was released)

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

The main problem for me personally is...and think about that, you're basically throwing away a PC system that could run for another 10 years just for a game.

Why not sell it? My old machine always finds a new home when it's time to upgrade. I even buy a cheap case to throw it in when it comes time to order parts so I can keep my current one and still sell off the old parts in one package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still love my GeForce 780GTX.

You say that like it's a 5 year old card or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it rather sad that it's near impossible to have a unbiased discussion when it comes to graphics cards. That aside the 290x is truly a great graphics card, at $550 it will force Nvidia to cut back on their relatively high margins. At the end of the day a great card like this is a win no matter on which side of the fence you are. On the heat and noise issue, this will most likely be solved in a few weeks when we get non reference coolers.

@wasserkool

I'm suddenly very tempted to try and get playable fps on a LN2 cooled rig with arma 3 running at the absolute max...

@Dwarden

Here you go. Guru3d 290x Review

The TITAN uses a huge chip at 7.1 billion transistor and according to the rumors, with a low yield so any price cuts will seriously erode their margins and make the product barely profitable. This is why the TITAN chip was initially only used on the quadro professional cards which cost $3000+.

I think the ONLY way to run Arma 3 in ultra with 10KM viewdistance is through some serious LN2 OC on the CPU and the GPU...maybe 6GHZ on an i7 will do it :D

---------- Post added at 22:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------

The main problem for me personally is...and think about that, you're basically throwing away a PC system that could run for another 10 years just for a game....now that's disposable society at its best.

It really depends on how you planned your initial gaming PC build, I know many people who are still gaming fine on their X58 intel platform with the first generation i7! I have a X58 based system with the classic i7-980X as my living room gaming PC and it plays all of the latest game without a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dwarden

Here you go. Guru3d 290x Review

hmmpf that 260X is pretty low scoring, worse than 7850 ... (which is cheaper)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Dwarden : ... here you go again, Radeon HD 7870 GE, GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost & Radeon HD 7790 on ARMA III Video Card Performance and IQ Review by HardOcp.

@ BusterBlader : I am getting 30 FPS on my Athlon II x2 250 (2 cores @ 3Ghz) and HD 7770, Visibility (global) 2000 m, tweaked AA&PP with HardOcp "combo", in Solo,on 1680x1050. However in MP it's quite a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't try the the multiplayer in dev branch only singleplayer. I'm playing multiplayer on stable branch and the multiplayer runs relatively fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ BusterBlader : I forgot to add something .... "I am getting 30 FPS on my Athlon II x2 250 (2 cores @ 3Ghz) and HD 7770, Visibility (global) 2000 m, tweaked AA&PP with HardOcp "combo", in Solo,on 1680x1050" ... with "Standard/High" settings. Settings some parameters on "Low" is counter-productive for then I believe that then, the render is switched from a GPU job to a CPU job, with a bad effect on the FPS.

Edited by Old Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been playing capped at 30 fps, recently I switched to 50fps using Msi afterburner however I switched the grass off completely and it's fairly steady at 50fps. It's much better at 50fps. I'll wait until I buy a new card next year.

Win 8 on Ssd

Arma 3 on Ssd

Gtx 3 gig 580

I72600k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And why limit to 2K viewdistance. the ultimate goal is to have the FULL 10K viewdistance hehe...which is what everyone is trying to achieve.

Because 2k is a reasonable VD. The people who run 10k VD are alot of the same people who come here and complain about fps. Ofcourse they don't like to say "oh btw I'm running ultra with 10k vd". 10k vd has never been a viable vd. Sure, 10k vd in the editor, previewing a bare map is okay. It's not at all viable in a real MP scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are talking about MP scenarios then the view distance is set by the mission, not the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because 2k is a reasonable VD. The people who run 10k VD are alot of the same people who come here and complain about fps. Ofcourse they don't like to say "oh btw I'm running ultra with 10k vd". 10k vd has never been a viable vd. Sure, 10k vd in the editor, previewing a bare map is okay. It's not at all viable in a real MP scenario.

Agree. Hell, i play with 1600 VD and it´s fine for infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found many guys who complaining the fps are often those who pursue the extreme setting. For ArmA series, a stable fps is much more important than a 20~100fps. I use MSI afterburner to cap the max fps at 30, VD&OVD=2.5KM, other settings at very high, except for the post effect(off). At this setting, 99%time my fps stables at 30. I got very smooth game experience, though my video card is the old HD6970, my CPU is the old 2500K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi guys im in the market for a new gpu What would you suggest for arma 3 a amd 290x or a nvidia 780ti?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi guys im in the market for a new gpu What would you suggest for arma 3 a amd 290x or a nvidia 780ti?

if you have enough money for gtx780 ti , go for it - also both these cards needs very high resolution to use their power

if you want crossfire or just cheaper gpu then go with 290x but i would wait for better cooler tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just that nVidia cards tend to be more expensive for what you get. Though I do enjoy things like PhysX and the drivers seem to be much better, so whether or not the "tax" is worth it to you is personal preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just that nVidia cards tend to be more expensive for what you get. Though I do enjoy things like PhysX and the drivers seem to be much better, so whether or not the "tax" is worth it to you is personal preference.

Hmm when I got my GTX 690 I also considered the extra heat and power required by not just the opposing cards, but also what it would take to counter that extra heat during summer with AC. Over the long term that 'tax' didn't look so bad for a premium product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×