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

[gliptal 25]

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!

What are the -noPause, -world=empty, -noFilePatching and -maxMem for?

Also, is the -cpuCount necessary if you have a quadcore CPU?

Now that I notice, under the "Betas" Tab in Steam, should I select "Development Build" or leave it at "NONE"?

Yay!

[ESGVirus 1]

What are the -noPause, -world=empty, -noFilePatching and -maxMem for?

Also, is the -cpuCount necessary if you have a quadcore CPU?

Now that I notice, under the "Betas" Tab in Steam, should I select "Development Build" or leave it at "NONE"?

Yay!

-noPause = the game doesn't freeze when you tab out.

-world=empty = There is no world loaded at main menu.

-maxMem = Avalible RAM

[dannynickelov 1]

Nvidia GeForce GTX560 1 GB

Intel Core i5-3470

8 GB Ram.

What to do to play on Ultra settings? i am able to play ArmA II on the highest settings including 10.000 viewdistance, i would like to do the same in ArmA III. :)

Edited March 6, 2013 by DannyNickelov

[wez 1]

EVGA 680 SC2, AMD FX 6100 4.2GHZ, 8gb 1600mhz corsair ram, i have played the alpha on the lowest settings i get about 20 fps on highest i get 24 fps

is this purely because of it being an alpha? but what should i expect with such a system? settings exactly

[vivoune 1]

wez, that happens to a lot of peeps, it's just because it is Alpha yes, and also because there's no official Nvidia driver to support Arma III yet. stay on High but try to lower view distance and object draw to around 2500 and disable Vsync, that should help. Don't expect miracles though, I get a similar config as yours and my average is 30fps. With such config, one should hit a good 50-60fps imo, once the game has been optimized further and drivers show up, although that is pure speculation on my part.

[KrazyBee 8]

hey guys im new to this site,can you tell me if my pc can handle arma 3 or not and on what settings?what is the ideal fps for arma 3..thanks

Operating System-Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit SP1

CPU-AMD FX-6300(6 core, 3.5ghz)

RAM-8.00 GB Single-Channel DDR3 @ 709MHz

Graphics-AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series(1920x1080)

Hard Drives-466GB WL500GSA6472 ATA Device

[hinkkiz 10]

Showcases run pretty easily for me. Actually I really believe it runs better than Arma2 ! :D Cheers BI ! ;)

- quality settings on standard.

- everything else low-standard.

[Levycore 1]

Hello,

i don't know much about pc's or anything so where best to ask then on Arma 3 forums

i'm thinking about this specc

Intel Core i5-3570K 3.40 GHz

Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3-1600

1000 GB SataIII Harddisk

Nvidia GTX660Ti 2GB

& Windows 7 64-bit if that makes any difference

Thanks in advice

[gliptal 25]

Hello,

i don't know much about pc's or anything so where best to ask then on Arma 3 forums

i'm thinking about this specc

Intel Core i5-3570K 3.40 GHz

Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3-1600

1000 GB SataIII Harddisk

Nvidia GTX660Ti 2GB

& Windows 7 64-bit if that makes any difference

Thanks in advice

Should run decently, but as said already the Alpha is still too CPU driven, so (hopefully) expect better performance in the final release...

I'd try OCing the CPU a tad, if your cooling system permits it...

Yay!

[KrazyBee 8]

hey gliptal wat about my specs

Operating System-Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit SP1

CPU-AMD FX-6300(6 core, 3.5ghz)4.4 OC

RAM-8.00 GB Single-Channel DDR3 @ 709MHz

Graphics-AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series(1920x1080)

Hard Drives-466GB WL500GSA6472 ATA Device

[gliptal 25]

hey gliptal wat about my specs

Operating System-Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit SP1

CPU-AMD FX-6300(6 core, 3.5ghz)4.4 OC

RAM-8.00 GB Single-Channel DDR3 @ 709MHz

Graphics-AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series(1920x1080)

Hard Drives-466GB WL500GSA6472 ATA Device

Well, your system is definitely better than mine both on the CPU and VGA side, and I have between 15 and 30 fps in High (Textures and Object Models on Ultra though)...

I'm not an expert though, so don't use my post as a 100% sure reference on performance...

Anyone about that Steam "Betas" tab?

Yay!

EDIT: Edited, I was completely wrong (read the VGA number wrong)

[KrazyBee 8]

so in ur opinion i could run on high right???btw what do u think is the ideal fps for arma 3?thanks man

[gliptal 25]

so in ur opinion i could run on high right???btw what do u think is the ideal fps for arma 3?thanks man

Yes, you should be able to play on High, but be advised it's still an excessively CPU driven Alpha (I think I'll put it in my signature, I probably said it a hundred times by now XD)...

IMHO ideal is 50+, playable ~30...

Yay!

[KrazyBee 8]

so when u say cpu itensive,should i get 8 core??cuz i got 6 core with 4.4 oc

[gliptal 25]

so when u say cpu itensive,should i get 8 core??cuz i got 6 core with 4.4 oc

In my opinion you should wait for a more optimized version of the game before thinking of upgrading...

Yay!

[KrazyBee 8]

ok thanks man.

[Banz 1]

Hey guys, i would like to know if somebody can to help me to know exactly which option i have to select with my cfg of my computer?

My computer is a notebook MSI game serie Gx660: Intel® Core™ i5 Processor (2.4Ghz), ATi Mobility Radeon HD 5870 GDDR5 1GB, 4Gb DDR3 1066MHz, 500GB SATA,

So if you can tell me which option i have to select because i try to know with fraps and the problem my FPS is around 10 :/ and i don't know how to update that one,

thanks,

[gliptal 25]

I'd try Low with those Specs...

Cut AA to 2X (off would be even better), then start tuning down shadows, particle effects, lighting, texture, and terrain... Be advised though that at the present time, for a lot of people, changing settings ingame has little to no effect on actual FPS performance...

Yay!

[MaD_DoG 0]

Guys, even though AMD cpus have 8 cores and more than 4ghz, they are not as good as any intel. They are pretty bad at single threading so.. Be careful of AMD cpus. Just look at some cpu benchmarks in gaming around and you will see. (for exemple check this link http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html and search for the first AMD in the list to see how down the list it is).

Hey guys, i would like to know if somebody can to help me to know exactly which option i have to select with my cfg of my computer?

My computer is a notebook MSI game serie Gx660: Intel® Core™ i5 Processor (2.4Ghz), ATi Mobility Radeon HD 5870 GDDR5 1GB, 4Gb DDR3 1066MHz, 500GB SATA,

So if you can tell me which option i have to select because i try to know with fraps and the problem my FPS is around 10 :/ and i don't know how to update that one,

thanks,

Try to put the distance view to the minimum and I'm scared you'll have to stick to low details, or try autodetect.

Edited March 7, 2013 by MaD_DoG

[gliptal 25]

Guys, even though AMD cpus have 8 cores and more than 4ghz, they are not as good as any intel. They are pretty bad at single threading so.. Be careful of AMD cpus. Just look at some cpu benchmarks in gaming around and you will see. (for exemple: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html)

Listen to him, he's totally right... That's why I want to try and OC my FX4100 @ ~4.5Ghz...

Yay!

[Banz 1]

Ok thank you, i will try but i know i have try in auto detect and it was the same. :confused:

[daftmedic 1]

Ok so I'm running:

1100t. BE OC @ 4GHz

660ti power edition MSI

8 GB 1600 RAM.

All settings are at High/Very high.

Avg FPS 55 Max 65 min 25(in villages with lots of enemy and smoke)

I saw earlier that someone put Physix is CPU intensive. I would beg to differ. Physix is a GPU nvidia invention so will be handled by the GPU. I am also a tad confused with this Intel is better at single core applications. As when I ran some tests I was using 4cores at 100% making arma3 Alpha multicore.

I maybe an exception to the Bad naughty AMD processor rule or aliens have been down and messed with my system and added a futuristic Processor without my knowledge. If that did happen it would explain my sore bottom.

[gliptal 25]

Ok so I'm running:

1100t. BE OC @ 4GHz

660ti power edition MSI

8 GB 1600 RAM.

All settings are at High/Very high.

Avg FPS 55 Max 65 min 25(in villages with lots of enemy and smoke)

I saw earlier that someone put Physix is CPU intensive. I would beg to differ. Physix is a GPU nvidia invention so will be handled by the GPU. I am also a tad confused with this Intel is better at single core applications. As when I ran some tests I was using 4cores at 100% making arma3 Alpha multicore.

I maybe an exception to the Bad naughty AMD processor rule or aliens have been down and messed with my system and added a futuristic Processor without my knowledge. If that did happen it would explain my sore bottom.

Point is, PhysX is handled by the GPU only on NVIDIA cards: if you have an ATI VGA PhysX libraries will get implemented by the CPU...

Yay!

[MaD_DoG 0]

Ok thank you, i will try but i know i have try in auto detect and it was the same. :confused:

And what does autodetect says ? For me, the autodetect worked pretty good as they improved it compared to Arma 2. However my cpu is the one to blame.

So try with the autodetect and reduce the view distance. The view distance has a huge impact on performance.. I goes from 17 to 60 fps between 12km and 500 meters..

Also, make sure the VSync is off, it has a big impact too.

---------- Post added at 11:11 ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 ----------

Ok so I'm running:

1100t. BE OC @ 4GHz

660ti power edition MSI

8 GB 1600 RAM.

All settings are at High/Very high.

Avg FPS 55 Max 65 min 25(in villages with lots of enemy and smoke)

I saw earlier that someone put Physix is CPU intensive. I would beg to differ. Physix is a GPU nvidia invention so will be handled by the GPU. I am also a tad confused with this Intel is better at single core applications. As when I ran some tests I was using 4cores at 100% making arma3 Alpha multicore.

I maybe an exception to the Bad naughty AMD processor rule or aliens have been down and messed with my system and added a futuristic Processor without my knowledge. If that did happen it would explain my sore bottom.

As Gliptal says, PhysX (not Physix) works on the GPU only if you have a NVidia.

For the single thread performances, just check the link I wrote ... Thing is kinda the same for multi-threading. Of course I'm talking about gaming performances. It's been said that AMD cpus are not really optimized for video gaming, just some benchmarks around. I won't search for the links again so I let you Google it.

[luizsilveira 5]

My specs:

CORE 2 DUO 3.00GHZ, 4 GB RAM, 250 GB SATA HARD DRIVE, NVIDIA GT 520 1GB GRAPHICS

It's still running on XP. I'm thinking about upgrading it to Win7 to test the Alpha Lite but maybe it's not even worth it to bother...