Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications?

[gliptal 25]

I'd say medium to high, but mine is just a pretty wild guess...

Yay!

[Leon86 13]

Can anyone tell my what graphics preference I can play on?

CPU: Intel Core i5 760 2.80GHz

Motherboard: ASUS P7P55D-E

Ram: 4GB DDR3

GPU: GeForce GTX670 2GB.

depends on what kind of fps you want. if you keep viewdistance and object viewdistance limited (cpu heavy) you'll have decent framerates even if you go allout on the rest of the settings.

[tansvanio 1]

My system specs:

Geforce GTX 460 Voltage Tweak Edition

Pentium Dual Core E6500 @2.93 GHz

4gb DDR3 Ram

At the moment I can run this on medium with 25 average fps, goes down when more players and AI are present, and changing to low or high doesnt seem too affect the fps that much. My processor gets at 100 porcent, running arma 3.

I am planning on upgrading to an i5 or an i7, and with it a pretty high tech motherboard aswell.

Do you guys think I can pull off a major performance increase with this update?

[k3lt 3]

My system specs:

Geforce GTX 460 Voltage Tweak Edition

Pentium Dual Core E6500 @2.93 GHz

4gb DDR3 Ram

At the moment I can run this on medium with 25 average fps, goes down when more players and AI are present, and changing to low or high doesnt seem too affect the fps that much. My processor gets at 100 porcent, running arma 3.

I am planning on upgrading to an i5 or an i7, and with it a pretty high tech motherboard aswell.

Do you guys think I can pull off a major performance increase with this update?

I would hold with it, look at some people specs which are facing same exact issues as you (including latest gen. i5 / i7's)

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716&nbn=29#bugnotes

[tansvanio 1]

Interesting. Thing is, this was a problem even in arma 2.

In arma 2 I would get an average of 25 fps, and changing to low, medium, high, very high, almost no difference between them. When I look to more populated areas with buildings or AI the fps would go lower, going up again when I looked at a less populated space.

In arma 3 its pretty much the same, except my base fps its a bit lower. So this leads me to believe its somehow related to the engine.

Also, in Arma 2 we had an option to allow the use of GPU memory. Where is that in arma 3? Due to my weak processor I would rather have the GPU handling things.

[S4Gin 1]

Windows 7 ultimate 64bit

Amd phenom II x4 965 black edition 3.4ghz

Msi gtx 560ti twin frozr II/OC'd

Corsair xms2 6gb ddr2

OCZ Vertex 3 120GB 2.5in SATA3 6Gbps SandForce

Corsair Obsidian 650D case

GA-MA785GMT-UD2H mobo

Asus VE247H monitor 2ms 1920x1080

Obviously with alpha its not fully optimized yet, after doing some testing.. i'm currently using high settings, vsync off.. i'm getting about 30-35fps and it will drop ofc for multiplayer... still enjoyable though I may consider dropping some settings such as for more performance but its still alpha it will probably get better.

So for now I'm pretty happy testing and playing the alpha! Ooooorarrr

[MaD_DoG 0]

Hi guys.

I have a straight question: Is there a significant fps difference between a i5 760 and i7 3770k ?

Right now, I have a i5 760, and since Arma 2, I'm blaming it to be the one who gives bad performance. Beside, I have a 7950 and 8gb ram. Let me explain.

I did 2 simple tests:

1) The first one was to compare my fps, alone on the island, and then with dozens of ennemy infantries, both with max video settings.

In the first scenario I had between 50 fps average. In the second one, I went down to 25. No matter where we were on the map.

That is typically a sign that my cpu struggles to handle that, right ?

2) The second test I did was to set the view distance to 12km. Then switching AA on or off didn't changed anything. I was still around 17 in both case. Though, when the distance was set to 500 meters, I noticed a difference of 10 fps.

One final test which this time, may be due to the network however, was on multiplayer. No matter what video settings I had, I had a constant 25-30 fps which is not smooth.

So, do you think upgrading to a i7 3770k or something would upgrade the performance slightly ? It really sounds it would, no ?

I also checked some Arma II benchmarks that showed around 8 fps difference between my cpu and a 2700k.

Thank you for reading me. And tell me what's your opinion about it ?

Edited March 6, 2013 by MaD_DoG

[Mays 1]

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-246-OE&tool=3

Will that run Arma 3 on Ultra?

[gliptal 25]

Hi guys.

I have a straight question: Is there a significant fps difference between a i5 760 and i7 3770k ?

Right now, I have a i5 760, and since Arma 2, I'm blaming it to be the one who gives bad performance. Beside, I have a 7950 and 8gb ram. Let me explain.

I did 2 simple tests:

1) The first one was to compare my fps, alone on the island, and then with dozens of ennemy infantries, both with max video settings.

In the first scenario I had between 50 fps average. In the second one, I went down to 25. No matter where we were on the map.

That is typically a sign that my cpu struggles to handle that, right ?

2) The second test I did was to set the view distance to 12km. Then switching AA on or off didn't changed anything. I was still around 17 in both case. Though, when the distance was set to 500 meters, I noticed a difference of 10 fps.

One final test which this time, may be due to the network however, was on multiplayer. No matter what video settings I had, I had a constant 25-30 fps which is not smooth.

So, do you think upgrading to a i7 3770k or something would upgrade the performance slightly ? It really sounds it would, no ?

I also checked some Arma II benchmarks that showed around 8 fps difference between my cpu and a 2700k.

Thank you for reading me. And tell me what's your opinion about it ?

I would wait for a more stable, refined, and optimized versione of the game before upgrading your rig...

At the present time the game is highly CPU intensive because of the CPU driven PhysX libraries, seemingly faulty AI routines, and heavy particle effects: personally I think things will change as the developement progresses...

Yay!

PS How's my english? I'm Italian and I really can't manage to understand if I'm making myself clear or not... XD

[MaD_DoG 0]

I would wait for a more stable, refined, and optimized versione of the game before upgrading your rig...

At the present time the game is highly CPU intensive because of the CPU driven PhysX libraries, seemingly faulty AI routines, and heavy particle effects: personally I think things will change as the developement progresses...

Yay!

PS How's my english? I'm Italian and I really can't manage to understand if I'm making myself clear or not... XD

My cpu still is kinda weak for this game lol unless OC which I don't practice. As you mentionned the particle effects are very greedy, I notice it every time some vehicules blow out ..

I'm sure there will be some progress. I hope so.

Good, your english is good I guess since I understand you. I'm french myself :)

[gliptal 25]

My cpu still is kinda weak for this game lol unless OC which I don't practice. As you mentionned the particle effects are very greedy, I notice it every time some vehicules blow out ..

I'm sure there will be some progress. I hope so.

Good, your english is good I guess since I understand you. I'm french myself :)

I'm playing with a worse version of an i5 (AMD FX 4100), and although it's OC'd @ 4Ghz I have pretty bad FPS myself... I really hope the engine get's optimized as the developement goes on, or I'm afraid any non-i7 player will be stuck at medium quality becaus of exaggerated CPU usage...

Yay!

Edited March 6, 2013 by Gliptal

[Leon86 13]

Hi guys.

I have a straight question: Is there a significant fps difference between a i5 760 and i7 3770k ?

Right now, I have a i5 760, and since Arma 2, I'm blaming it to be the one who gives bad performance. Beside, I have a 7950 and 8gb ram. Let me explain.

I did 2 simple tests:

1) The first one was to compare my fps, alone on the island, and then with dozens of ennemy infantries, both with max video settings.

In the first scenario I had between 50 fps average. In the second one, I went down to 25. No matter where we were on the map.

That is typically a sign that my cpu struggles to handle that, right ?

2) The second test I did was to set the view distance to 12km. Then switching AA on or off didn't changed anything. I was still around 17 in both case. Though, when the distance was set to 500 meters, I noticed a difference of 10 fps.

One final test which this time, may be due to the network however, was on multiplayer. No matter what video settings I had, I had a constant 25-30 fps which is not smooth.

So, do you think upgrading to a i7 3770k or something would upgrade the performance slightly ? It really sounds it would, no ?

I also checked some Arma II benchmarks that showed around 8 fps difference between my cpu and a 2700k.

Thank you for reading me. And tell me what's your opinion about it ?

There's no point in getting anything above 3570K if you're buying it to play arma (and other games) with.

[MaD_DoG 0]

I'm playing with a worse version of an i5 (AMD FX 4100), and although it's OC'd @ 4Ghz I have pretty bad FPS myself... I really hope the engine get's optimized as the developement goes on, or I'm afraid I'll be stuck at medium quality...

Yay!

Well, the point is that no matter what settings I set to, either lowest or highest, I don't have any difference at all in terms of performances.. So It's not a matter of being stuck in low or medium quality, it's a matter of having a decent FPS depending on your rig AND your settings. Which is not the case right now, because it's fully dependent of the rig aswell as the game engine optimisations :/ (At least, that's what I'm thinking)

[JaeSueng 1]

CPU - AMD Phenom X6 Processor

GPU - EVGA GTX 660

RAM - 6 Gigs DDR3

[MaD_DoG 0]

There's no point in getting anything above 3570K if you're buying it to play arma (and other games) with.

Ok, but then anyway, do you think there would be a significant difference with a 3570k ? Check this out : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/815-20/crysis-arma-2.html (scroll down to Arma 2)

[Mays 1]

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-246-OE&tool=3

Will that run Arma 3 on Ultra?

Anyone?

[gliptal 25]

At the present time and for what I've been reading on the forums, an i5 is not enough for Ultra...

On an unrelated note, my humble advice is to never buy pre-built desktops, but assemble one yourself...

Yay!

[MaD_DoG 0]

Anyone?

I can't really tell about the Nvidia cards.. But you know Arma is 80% cpu dependent. So the rest of the rig looks good enough.

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:30 ----------

At the present time and for what I've been reading on the forums, an i5 is not enough for Ultra...

On an unrelated note, my humble advice is to never buy pre-built desktops, but assemble one yourself...

Yay!

I disagree about the i5, check this link out : http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/08/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-todays-cpus/8/

However, I agree about building your setup yourself. Costs more time , but less money and potentially better optimisations..

[Mays 1]

At the present time and for what I've been reading on the forums, an i5 is not enough for Ultra...

On an unrelated note, my humble advice is to never buy pre-built desktops, but assemble one yourself...

Yay!

So high with some ease?

[gliptal 25]

So high with some ease?

I might even guess so, but with this initial Alpha build performance is more about betting and luck than actual hardware and settings combinations...

Yay!

[Mays 1]

I might even guess so, but with this initial Alpha build performance is more about betting and luck than actual hardware and settings combinations...

Yay!

Sounds good! Not being on Ultra doesn't bother me, as long as I can be on high with some ease!

The reason I'm getting that is because I'm terrible with PCs, plus I've had good reviews from people I know!

[MaD_DoG 0]

At the present time and for what I've been reading on the forums, an i5 is not enough for Ultra...

On an unrelated note, my humble advice is to never buy pre-built desktops, but assemble one yourself...

Yay!

Link ? If you're talking about i5 on Sandy bridge, I disagree: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/08/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-todays-cpus/8/

[ESGVirus 1]

My specs:

i5-2500k @ 4.5Ghz

GTX 680 2GB @ Stock speeds

8GB 1600Mhz RAM

I run the game from a SSD.

I seem to get around 40-55 fps on "High" settings, and I'm wondering if something might be wrong in my system.

If I join a Wasteland server my frame rate plummits to around 15-30.

What could I do to possibly increase my FPS.

(I currently run with these launch options: "-nosplash -noPause -world=empty -noFilePatching -maxMem=8192 -cpuCount=4")

Thanks!

[MaD_DoG 0]

My specs:

i5-2500k @ 4.5Ghz

GTX 680 2GB @ Stock speeds

8GB 1600Mhz RAM

I run the game from a SSD.

I seem to get around 40-55 fps on "High" settings, and I'm wondering if something might be wrong in my system.

If I join a Wasteland server my frame rate plummits to around 15-30.

What could I do to possibly increase my FPS.

(I currently run with these launch options: "-nosplash -noPause -world=empty -noFilePatching -maxMem=8192 -cpuCount=4")

Thanks!

I have the exact same problem with this server. Going down to 25-30 no matter what settings. I'm getting a new cpu, hope there will be some differences.

Don't forget that on multiplayer, your performances will depend on the host..

[ItsTehShadow 1]

Thought I'd just update what happened when I reran the game today. Placed the quality on high and ran it at 50fps everywhere but the village which was 30. I honestly don't know what was happening yesterday to warrant 7fps but it seems to be a bit more stabilized today :)