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

[flight 11]

Hi,

I´m new here and to the game. I played the alpha today for about 4 hours and I´m completely stunned by the gameplay, graphics and animations.

I think those are the most realistic graphics I´ve ever seen :)

Now here is my question:

I have an i5 3570k @ 4,2GHz | 8GB 1600 Ram | GTX 660

I choose the ultra preset from the graphic tab and I get about 30 frames in Multiplayer when I´m going with 6-7 other people.

So 30 frames are not bad but it isn´t smooth.

So I decided to lower my setting to some mid settings, turned down AA postprocessing and stuff like that. And to my surprise I gained about 4-7 fps...

To gain some serious fps where the game runs smooth I have to really turn down the settings to low :( and then the game looks shitty

So do you think my GTX660 is a little to weak ? Or is it just because it´s not very well optimised ? Because when I lower the settings from ultra to mid I expect some serious fps gain which did not happen.

[call_911 10]

Just added a GTX 660ti 2048mb GDR5 game auto detected everything high/very high an Ultra, need to test more :bounce3:

If you don't need more hardware-power for one of your other games, then just wait that we get the beta or even final, as you could waste otherwise the money.

For myself it's ok, as I would have upgraded so or so, as I already pre-ordered BF4 and I will find for sure other Games which will utilise my rig much better, than ARMA-3 at the moment. If I would have upgraded only for ARMA-3, then I would be at the moment not happy at all.

There is still hope, but it could be already to late into the Development to archive or deliver a large improvement.

Not every Game or should I say the majority of broken Games never got fixed after the Release-Date.

:j:

[tonschuh 3]

Hi,

I´m new here and to the game. I played the alpha today for about 4 hours and I´m completely stunned by the gameplay, graphics and animations.

I think those are the most realistic graphics I´ve ever seen :)

Now here is my question:

I have an i5 3570k @ 4,2GHz | 8GB 1600 Ram | GTX 660

I choose the ultra preset from the graphic tab and I get about 30 frames in Multiplayer when I´m going with 6-7 other people.

So 30 frames are not bad but it isn´t smooth.

So I decided to lower my setting to some mid settings, turned down AA postprocessing and stuff like that. And to my surprise I gained about 4-7 fps...

To gain some serious fps where the game runs smooth I have to really turn down the settings to low :( and then the game looks shitty

So do you think my GTX660 is a little to weak ? Or is it just because it´s not very well optimised ? Because when I lower the settings from ultra to mid I expect some serious fps gain which did not happen.

Just check your GPU-Load when you play. I got ~30-40fps with a Single-GTX670-OC-2GB and get roughly the same with a Single-GTX680-SOC-2GB. I get with 2x GTX680-SOC-2GB in SLI 45-60fps when playing the Infantry-Showcase:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5343/arma32013050217394133.jpg (411 kB)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Just added a GTX 660ti 2048mb GDR5 game auto detected everything high/very high an Ultra, need to test more :bounce3:

I'm looking forward to see your results.

:)

Edited May 2, 2013 by TONSCHUH

[call_911 10]

Just check your GPU-Load when you play. I got ~30-40fps with a Single-GTX670-OC-2GB and get roughly the same with a Single-GTX680-SOC-2GB. I get with 2x GTX680-SOC-2GB in SLI 45-60fps when playing the Infantry-Showcase:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5343/arma32013050217394133.jpg (411 kB)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I'm looking forward to see your results.

:)

Yeah definate fps boost over a NVidia GTS 450(old card) server I have uodated to dev bianaries so lil misleading atm compared to b4. But fps fluctuates mid teens too around 30ish. need to try so suggestions from the DayO sight and test more. Liking the card the lighting an all allows me to see how beautiful Stratis is. Still get stutters in thing like ai contact/engaging while using PIP in vehicles. But least it's playable. want to test playing the Git evolution but it's broken atm.

Also any thoughts on SLI an this newAsus 660ti, as I might try that but might have to upgrade PSU as it's only @800watt. Also thinking at maybe finally making the SSD leap.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Call_911

[tonschuh 3]

Yeah definate fps boost over a NVidia GTS 450(old card) server I have uodated to dev bianaries so lil misleading atm compared to b4. But fps fluctuates mid teens too around 30ish. need to try so suggestions from the DayO sight and test more. Liking the card the lighting an all allows me to see how beautiful Stratis is. Still get stutters in thing like ai contact/engaging while using PIP in vehicles. But least it's playable. want to test playing the Git evolution but it's broken atm.

Also any thoughts on SLI an this newAsus 660ti, as I might try that but might have to upgrade PSU as it's only @800watt. Also thinking at maybe finally making the SSD leap.

GTX660 TI-DC2-2GD5 Spec's

Your PSU should be normally big enough if it's not one of this no-name ones. I have for my OC 3770k + 2x GTX680-SOC-2GB only a Antec High-Current-Gamer 900W.

SLI will give you some improvement, but we have no optimized GPU-Driver's for ARMA-III yet, so there will be still issues. If you don't mind to spend the money on another GPU and if you are playing other Games which could benefit from a SLI-Setup, then it would be evtl. worth to think about it. Otherwise wait for the beta or even final version of ARMA-III and make your decision then.

:)

[bangtail 0]

GTX660 TI-DC2-2GD5 Spec's

Your PSU should be normally big enough if it's not one of this no-name ones. I have for my OC 3770k + 2x GTX680-SOC-2GB only a Antec High-Current-Gamer 900W.

SLI will give you some improvement, but we have no optimized GPU-Driver's for ARMA-III yet, so there will be still issues. If you don't mind to spend the money on another GPU and if you are playing other Games which could benefit from a SLI-Setup, then it would be evtl. worth to think about it. Otherwise wait for the beta or even final version of ARMA-III and make your decision then.

:)

SLI works fine.

FYI, there is a working profile, and as much as Nvidia admits that there is work to be done, SLI is fully functional with the same restrictions that were present in A2, namely that when the CPU bottleneck kicks in, it won't matter if you have 10 videocards in SLI.

Edited May 3, 2013 by BangTail

[tonschuh 3]

SLI works fine.

FYI, there is a working profile, and as much as Nvidia admits that there is work to be done, SLI is fully functional with the same restrictions that were present in A2, namely that when the CPU bottleneck kicks in, it won't matter if you have 10 videocards in SLI.

Didn't play ARMA-2 when it came out, so I can't compare it.

I only want to prevent that someone is thinking, that they would get a similar improvement like in other game titles, which is not the case, because we have the mentioned CPU-Bottleneck. There is still the possibility that the game will be more optimized and therefore no one really knows, which hardware-setup would be the one to go for. It could be that later on a midrange or high-end Single-GPU would be just fine and the money would be possible better spend on a better CPU or some OC-Gear.

As I mentioned already before, the improvement from a Single-GTX670-OC-2GB or Single-GTX680-SOC-2GB to 2x GTX680-SOC-2GB in 2-Way-SLI is not as large as you would like to see it and therefore not really worth the money you would have to spend on it, if you would only upgrade for ARMA-III.

Your 2nd Rig has 2x GTX680 and even that you have the 4GB-Models, you should be able to understand what I try to say. I assume, that you already compared the performance with a Single-GTX680 vs. 2x GTX680 in a 2-Way-SLI.

:)

[bangtail 0]

Didn't play ARMA-2 when it came out, so I can't compare it.

I only want to prevent that someone is thinking, that they would get a similar improvement like in other game titles, which is not the case, because we have the mentioned CPU-Bottleneck. There is still the possibility that the game will be more optimized and therefore no one really knows, which hardware-setup would be the one to go for. It could be that later on a midrange or high-end Single-GPU would be just fine and the money would be possible better spend on a better CPU or some OC-Gear.

As I mentioned already before, the improvement from a Single-GTX670-OC-2GB or Single-GTX680-SOC-2GB to 2x GTX680-SOC-2GB in 2-Way-SLI is not as large as you would like to see it and therefore not really worth the money you would have to spend on it, if you would only upgrade for ARMA-III.

Your 2nd Rig has 2x GTX680 and even that you have the 4GB-Models, you should be able to understand what I try to say. I assume, that you already compared the performance with a Single-GTX680 vs. 2x GTX680 in a 2-Way-SLI.

:)

If you compare where the CPU limitation is low, the scaling is very good.

Unfortunately, as I said, when we get into the CPU limitation, the scaling is not so good.

My point was simply that SLI works but is gimped by the CPU bottleneck in some circumstances.

:D

[tonschuh 3]

If you compare where the CPU limitation is low, the scaling is very good.

Unfortunately, as I said, when we get into the CPU limitation, the scaling is not so good.

My point was simply that SLI works but is gimped by the CPU bottleneck in some circumstances.

:D

Yeah, that's unfortunately right.

;)

[Colonel-ONeill 11]

I wonder why do I get 1-17 FPS atm?

Windows 7/64b

Corsair PSU-850TX 850W

Corsair Cooling Hydro Series CH100

Gigabyte X58 UD3R r:1.6

Intel i7 920 D0 2.66 3.0Ghz

6GB Triple Channel RAM 2000Mhz

Gigabyte GTX 660Ti 2GB

OCZ RevoDrive 3 120Gb 6Gb/s

2x1TB Western Digital Black RAID 0

HDD Seagate 3TB OEM

BenQ XL2420T

any advice? :bounce3:

[SandMan13 10]

GPU-Charts

CPU-Charts

OC FX-8120 BIOS settings for a stable 4500 MHz

I would say that the GPU will be a bottleneck and should allow you low-to-midrange Quality-Settings.

:)

What do you mean bottleneck? Could I possible change a few things on that rig to make it get mid-to-high range settings or would that not be possible? I assume the processor and video card would need to be better.

EDIT: I hate to keep asking questions but I have never bought a gaming computer before or built one, and it's a lot of money for me to be spending right now. Anyways would this computer preform better than the other one I listed?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227425

The reviews are great so I think I'm going to get it anyways, but still would like to know what to expect while it ships.

Edited May 6, 2013 by SandMan13

[PaxowDash 1]

What do you mean bottleneck? Could I possible change a few things on that rig to make it get mid-to-high range settings or would that not be possible? I assume the processor and video card would need to be better.

EDIT: I hate to keep asking questions but I have never bought a gaming computer before or built one, and it's a lot of money for me to be spending right now. Anyways would this computer preform better than the other one I listed?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227425

The reviews are great so I think I'm going to get it anyways, but still would like to know what to expect while it ships.

Okay, second time making my reply as I accidentally clicked previous page on my mouse. This one might not be as in-depth so sorry about that.

What I basically said was that a bottleneck means that one PC component does not compare to another component. So basically if you have a very bad CPU (processor) and an extremely fast GPU (video card), the CPU will hold the GPU back, power-wise. I quote here, a good example of a bottleneck: ''say you have a rubbish CPU, it can send 50 bits of data to the graphics (video) card per second, but the graphics card is able to process 100 bits of data per second. So basically, the CPU is holding the GPU back because it is not sending enough info to the GPU to keep up.'' Like TONSCHUH said, this was probably the case with the rig you posted earlier.

Now for the new rig you posted. That's miles better than the previous one. The FX-4100 is a very decent quad core CPU, which definitely lives up to (or above) it's price tag. I think it's also safe to say that the GT 640 is a very good mid-range graphics card capable of playing pretty high end games. I've seen it play Crysis 3 on extreme settings running on average at 30 frames per second (which is very reasonable), sometimes dropping to 20. The FX-4100 should definitely not bottleneck the GT 640 as one of my friends is running that CPU perfectly with no problems together with a GTX 660. Your new rig (or soon to become new rig) is definitely a good one, and I would estimate it to run Arma 3 at around mid to high range (most likely high) settings depending on your resolution and fps you want to play at, if 30 FPS and a 720p resolution (console level) is fine for you, you could probably ramp the settings up very high, if you want to play at 60 FPS, perhaps with a higher resolution (if your monitor supports it), you'll still be able to play at quite a high setting. Add CPU and GPU together with the 8 GB of GDDR5 RAM and not to forget Windows 7 (not that horrible OS that is Windows 8) and you've got yourself a fine machine (PSU, Motherboard etc.. are not very important in this case as it is a pre-built machine).

One last thing though, have you thought about building the PC yourself? Really saves money and is also pretty fun. My first time building a rig was fun anyway and it all went smoothly, I recommend watching Newegg's PC building tutorial. It's great and will help out a lot, (

link for part 1). If it seems like too much of a hassle, go for the LanWarrior rig you posted.

Now this has still gotten pretty long so I think I'll stop here. I hope you found this useful.

~Peace

Edited May 6, 2013 by PaxowDash
Added link

[bangtail 0]

What do you mean bottleneck? Could I possible change a few things on that rig to make it get mid-to-high range settings or would that not be possible? I assume the processor and video card would need to be better.

EDIT: I hate to keep asking questions but I have never bought a gaming computer before or built one, and it's a lot of money for me to be spending right now. Anyways would this computer preform better than the other one I listed?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227425

The reviews are great so I think I'm going to get it anyways, but still would like to know what to expect while it ships.

This is not going to run anything well at 1050P or 1080P (Even 720P will be a stretch with most modern games).

The 640 is not a 'good mid range' video adapter and you will be setting most newer games to low in order to get them to run acceptably.

I would class the 640 and the 650 as low to low mid range adapters.

The 650Ti (Boost flavors) and 660Ti are true mid range cards and this is reflected in the price.

Always better to build your own machine, but if you insist on a prebuilt, get one with a 650Ti or 660Ti (or alternative AMD flavor).

Windows 8 is an awesome OS (and can be run exactly the same as Win 7 if you don't happen to like Metro - which I don't on desktops although it is great on touch devices).

Cheers :)

Edited May 6, 2013 by BangTail

[James Sullivan 5]

Hey' everyone !

I have a question (oh really ?), my computer is enough good for ArmA 3 ? I mean, playing in good condition ? Thank you for answers!

CPU : AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Processor 3.20GHz

GPU : Radeon HD 6950

RAM : 8Go

Syst. : Windows 7

[Leon86 13]

^

should run, cpu isn't the best for this game though, you'll be under 30 fps often, well, in the helo showcase mission.

[bangtail 0]

Hey' everyone !

I have a question (oh really ?), my computer is enough good for ArmA 3 ? I mean, playing in good condition ? Thank you for answers!

Should be fine at a mix of medium/high settings @ 1080P.

As always, best to mess around until you get it right where you want it :D

Edited May 6, 2013 by BangTail

[Leon86 13]

yeah, lots of stuff can go to high as the gpu is pretty good, try to find out which settings are gpu intensive and which load the cpu.

[ric 1]

What do you mean bottleneck? Could I possible change a few things on that rig to make it get mid-to-high range settings or would that not be possible? I assume the processor and video card would need to be better.

EDIT: I hate to keep asking questions but I have never bought a gaming computer before or built one, and it's a lot of money for me to be spending right now. Anyways would this computer preform better than the other one I listed?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227425

The reviews are great so I think I'm going to get it anyways, but still would like to know what to expect while it ships.

fx4100 and 640 and 300 watt PSU??? no no and no! $600 your budget? ill take 10 mins and spec out a better system for you. (start counting down :) )

half hour later... :)

before i put down these specs remember anything you Can use from you old system such as hard drive, DVD, case etc means you can get a better video card :)

now let me say this as a system builder, the core of any build is 3 things...the PSU the MB and the CPU, they MUST be good components unless you like trooubleshooting DOA builds and weird performance issues, that being said i have speced you a very decent build whose only real weak spot (for and entry level build) is the video card, but that is something you can change down the line :)

I build all my systems with a "1 and done " philosophy because it gets to a point where a system is to old and to do any further upgrades would be a waste of money.

the MB i have chosen is a good ASROCK build that will allow you to upgrade later to an FX chip

ASRock 970 EXTREME3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard

the CPU i have chosen is old but still a very decent gaming CPU especially for an entry level rig and unlike the FX4100 it is a REAL quad core.

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core

the PSU is from a very well know and trusted company called seasonic it is gold rated and will be able to power pretty much anything up to a 680 :)

SeaSonic X Series X650 Gold ((SS-650KM Active PFC F3)) 650W ATX12V V2.3/EPS 12V V2.91 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply

the video card i have selected is the low end...you can play alot of games on medium setting some on high depending but it is good enough for a starter rig

HIS iCooler H775F1GD Radeon HD 7750 1GB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600

Western Digital WD Blue WD3200AAKX 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s

ASUS 24X DVD Burner - Bulk 24X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 12X DVD+R DL 24X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 32X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM Black SATA Model DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS

the case i have chosen is very decent in terms of ventilation and layout

Thermaltake V3 Black Edition VL80001W2Z Black SECC / Plastic ATX Mid Tower Computer Case

this all comes to right around $500 throw in another $100 for win 7 home and you are right around the same price as the link you posted.

if you can go it i would throw another hundred in and get a real decent video card like a 660 or 7850.

now maybe a year from now you want to upgrade...this system will allow you to go to an FX chip bump up the ram and Add a new video card such as a 670/80 and you should get another 2-3 years of service out of it.

[TingTank 10]

Specs:

Windows 8 Professional

Intel i7 870, HT on

MSI GTX 560 TI Twin Frozr II/OC

WD Caviar Green, 90-100 mb reading

Aspire 5910 Motherboard, OEM

530W PSU, OEM

Settings:

Distance: 1600m

Object: 1300m

Shadow Distance: 100m

AA: Off

PPAA: FXAA Low

Post Process: Disabled

ATOC: Disabled

HDR: Standard

Anistropic: Ultra

PIP: Low (unfortunately it must be on low, as a Ifrit Gunner..)

Dynamic Lights: Low (heavy fps drop when high)

Texture: High

Objects: Low (fps improvement)

Terrain: Standard

Cloud: Standard

Shadow: Standard

Particles: Standard

Singleplayer: 40-50, Showcases: 60-80. But Multiplayer: 20-30, 40 fps (very rare on few servers)

Good Setting? I think my CPU is too slow.

[tonschuh 3]

What do you mean bottleneck? Could I possible change a few things on that rig to make it get mid-to-high range settings or would that not be possible? I assume the processor and video card would need to be better.

EDIT: I hate to keep asking questions but I have never bought a gaming computer before or built one, and it's a lot of money for me to be spending right now. Anyways would this computer preform better than the other one I listed?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227425

The reviews are great so I think I'm going to get it anyways, but still would like to know what to expect while it ships.

GPU-Charts

That should tell you already how good a GT640 really is, as the HD6670 is just one rank above. If you don't want to run the Game with pretty low quality-settings, then this kind of GPU is just far to weak in these days.

The FX-8120 is the better CPU, if compared with the FX-4100, BUT not for ARMA-3, as the Game in it's actual state needs a high Core-Clock and not more Cores / Threads.

If you are lucky to get a CPU from a good batch, then you can OC the FX-4100 pretty good as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-5OTdwMbX4

But as I said before, only a good CPU will not do the trick.

Maybe have a read here, to see what other people archive with their setup's:

Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

... as this should give you some understanding about the problem. If you have a tight budget, then wait for the Beta or Final and decide then, which setup within your budget would give you the maximum possible outcome, as we all can only share our actual achievements, but no one knows if ARMA-3 will receive further optimisations.

;)

Edited May 7, 2013 by TONSCHUH

[teejayd 1]

Specs:

Windows 8 Professional

Intel i7 870, HT on

MSI GTX 560 TI Twin Frozr II/OC

WD Caviar Green, 90-100 mb reading

Aspire 5910 Motherboard, OEM

530W PSU, OEM

Settings:

Distance: 1600m

Object: 1300m

Shadow Distance: 100m

AA: Off

PPAA: FXAA Low

Post Process: Disabled

ATOC: Disabled

HDR: Standard

Anistropic: Ultra

PIP: Low (unfortunately it must be on low, as a Ifrit Gunner..)

Dynamic Lights: Low (heavy fps drop when high)

Texture: High

Objects: Low (fps improvement)

Terrain: Standard

Cloud: Standard

Shadow: Standard

Particles: Standard

Singleplayer: 40-50, Showcases: 60-80. But Multiplayer: 20-30, 40 fps (very rare on few servers)

Good Setting? I think my CPU is too slow.

Don't blame your CPU. In normal situations, you would be able to max it... I just hope the situation improves for the beta/final. Computers slightly above recommended specs are getting 20fps on MP, if not less.

[gliptal 25]

Specs:

Windows 8 Professional

Intel i7 870, HT on

MSI GTX 560 TI Twin Frozr II/OC

WD Caviar Green, 90-100 mb reading

Aspire 5910 Motherboard, OEM

530W PSU, OEM

Settings:

Distance: 1600m

Object: 1300m

Shadow Distance: 100m

AA: Off

PPAA: FXAA Low

Post Process: Disabled

ATOC: Disabled

HDR: Standard

Anistropic: Ultra

PIP: Low (unfortunately it must be on low, as a Ifrit Gunner..)

Dynamic Lights: Low (heavy fps drop when high)

Texture: High

Objects: Low (fps improvement)

Terrain: Standard

Cloud: Standard

Shadow: Standard

Particles: Standard

Singleplayer: 40-50, Showcases: 60-80. But Multiplayer: 20-30, 40 fps (very rare on few servers)

Good Setting? I think my CPU is too slow.

You can probably ramp up to FXAA Ultra with no FPS drop (and get a much crisper image); you could also try setting shadows at or above High (since from what I understand from High up they get calculated by the GPU, freeing the CPU); ATOC has no FPS drop on my config, try enabling it...

Yay!

[James Sullivan 5]

Hey' everyone !

I have a question (oh really ?), my computer is enough good for ArmA 3 ? I mean, playing in good condition ? Thank you for answers!

CPU : AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Processor 3.20GHz

GPU : Radeon HD 6950

RAM : 8Go

Syst. : Windows 7

So my CPU is not enough good for ArmA III ? I can overclock him to 3.7GHz, but not after that...

I play with a team on ArmA II (and soon on ArmA III), can I hope play in good condition ? With 30+ FPS ? :eek:

[tonschuh 3]

So my CPU is not enough good for ArmA III ? I can overclock him to 3.7GHz, but not after that...

I play with a team on ArmA II (and soon on ArmA III), can I hope play in good condition ? With 30+ FPS ? :eek:

If you are able to OC the CPU, then do it, as a high Single-Core-Speed is more important then the amount of Cores / Threads.

You could be able to get 30+ fps, if you adjust your Quality-Settings to a lower level, but you could still get lower fps when playing vs AI, as 3.7GHz is not such fast anymore.

Maybe things will change when we get the Beta and / or Final, but we don't know it yet.

:)

[James Sullivan 5]

This is my configuration IG, and with that, I can have, 40-50 FPS in the infantry Showcase, but in the helicopter Showcase, I have...maybe 25/27 FPS in maximum. It is bad sign for the multiplayer with my team? :icon_neutral:

Quality :

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2013/19/1368114977-arma3-2013-05-09-17-55-39-28.jpg (156 kB)

Rendering :

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2013/19/1368114977-arma3-2013-05-09-17-55-42-28.jpg (170 kB)

Basic :

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2013/19/1368114977-arma3-2013-05-09-17-55-45-85.jpg (161 kB)