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

[lucable 10]

Attempting a RAMDisk install for Arma 3 is cheaper than getting a SSD, the SSD would be if you also want an OS on it (but I have no idea how well trying to install OEM Windows 8 onto it after the fact would work out) or certain other programs that would benefit.

Okay. Thanks, do you think with a RAMDisk I could reach 25fps or above on lowest settings with View Distance just above 1000? Or do you think I could reach it without RAMDisk? I know I'm asking a lot, I really appreciate the help.

[chortles 263]

Probably more likely with a RAMdisk than with a HDD, let's put it that way; right now the video card/GPU seems the main bottleneck. (For my part I'm running a i5-3570K for CPU, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, a SSD and a GTX 660 Ti video card.)

[lucable 10]

Alright, thanks for the help Chorties.

[widing 10]

Windows 7

Intel Core i5-2500k @ 3.60GHz

NVIDIA Geforce GTX 560 TI (using EVGA Precision X K-boost)

ASUSTeK Computer INC. P8P67 LE (LGA1155)

8,00 GB Dubbel-Kanal DDR3 @ 686MHz

I can only run this game on low settings to get any decent fps what so ever, I got over 50+ games installed ranging from old to 2013 releases with being able to roll in maximum graphics and getting 60+ fps, but this game just does not work with my computer at all man.

Playing ultra on this game is like running 3 fps lool

Also in multiplayer my fps seems worse, in editor I can atleast maintain a steady fps even though it might be low but multiplayer is just i dunno lol

Edited June 8, 2013 by widing

[ric 1]

Windows 7

Intel Core i5-2500k @ 3.60GHz

NVIDIA Geforce GTX 560 TI (using EVGA Precision X K-boost)

ASUSTeK Computer INC. P8P67 LE (LGA1155)

8,00 GB Dubbel-Kanal DDR3 @ 686MHz

I can only run this game on low settings to get any decent fps what so ever, I got over 50+ games installed ranging from old to 2013 releases with being able to roll in maximum graphics and getting 60+ fps, but this game just does not work with my computer at all man.

Playing ultra on this game is like running 3 fps lool

Also in multiplayer my fps seems worse, in editor I can atleast maintain a steady fps even though it might be low but multiplayer is just i dunno lol

your system is fine, wait and see what the final release brings and/or look in these forums for tweak/tuning guide

[nikiforos 450]

You should run at standard-high fine. Lower your view distance to 2000 and object distance to 1000. Disable AA, PP and you should be fine.

[Sneakson 1]

Windows 7

Intel Core i5-2500k @ 3.60GHz

NVIDIA Geforce GTX 560 TI (using EVGA Precision X K-boost)

ASUSTeK Computer INC. P8P67 LE (LGA1155)

8,00 GB Dubbel-Kanal DDR3 @ 686MHz

I can only run this game on low settings to get any decent fps what so ever, I got over 50+ games installed ranging from old to 2013 releases with being able to roll in maximum graphics and getting 60+ fps, but this game just does not work with my computer at all man.

Playing ultra on this game is like running 3 fps lool

Also in multiplayer my fps seems worse, in editor I can atleast maintain a steady fps even though it might be low but multiplayer is just i dunno lol

Dude what's really the point of having a $3000 rig when you can't tweak fo shit?

I've got a GTX 560 Ti Hawk unclocked or even underclocked slightly and a 2.84 GHz processor running the game on high-very high settings with a couple on medium and several on ultra and I get up to 40 fps, average around 25 I guess.

[nikiforos 450]

How much better will the game run with the following components?

Current rig:

i5-2500k @ 4.2 ghz

GTX 570

8 GB ram 1600 mhz

New Rig:

i7-3770(No K) 3.4 ghz

GTX 670

16 GB ram 1600MHZ

[Jackle 10]

Thinking about purchasing the Alpha,

but wondering if anyone has had experience with similar machine, and especially with this gpu;

i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz

8gb DDR3 1600Mhz

GTX 770

What could I expect from this?

Cheers

[OneZeoN 10]

Thinking about purchasing the Alpha,

but wondering if anyone has had experience with similar machine, and especially with this gpu;

i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz

8gb DDR3 1600Mhz

GTX 770

What could I expect from this?

Cheers

Your joking right??

It will play well....well as well as the unstable Alpha can

[Sneakson 1]

Hey, can anyone with a pretty new $300-500 NVidia graphics card and i5/i7 processor tell me what settings you can run to get stable 30 plus and stable 50 plus fps?

I'm considering upgrading by the end of summer for up to about maybe $1500 also including a chassis, motherboard, memory... probably going to end up buying everything except drives.

I would appreciate if you could test these exact settings during Showcase: Infantry:

1920x1200 or 1920x1080

Visibility 1600, 1300, 100.

Rendering res 100%, HDR Standard, Anisotropic Ultra.

AA x2, FXAA Ultra, ATOC All trees + grass, PIP Ultra, Dynamic Lights Ultra.

Post processing Normal.

Texture Very High, Objects High, Terrain High, Cloud Ultra, Shadow High, Particles High.

Much appreciated!

I'm currently running a pretty aged ol' GTX 560 Ti Hawk and vintage 2.84 GHz processor. Currently I run the Infantry showcase in 20-40 fps with an average above 30 and Helicopters in about 10-30 with average 20 I guess.

[oldbear 390]

@ Nikiforos : I have the "i7-3770(No K) 3.4 ghz/GTX 670" and the game run smoothly on it, but I think there is no need to change the whole rig .. The OCed I-5 is fine, just upgrade the GPU!

[tonygrunt 10]

@Sneakson. I tried your settings, graph below is from start of mission till capturing the town (around 10 mins). Min 55 fps in the middle of the mission.

[Sneakson 1]

@Sneakson. I tried your settings, graph below is from start of mission till capturing the town (around 10 mins). Min 55 fps in the middle of the mission.

http://i.imgur.com/ICunr0u.jpg

Min 55 fps? :D

I'm going to enjoy upgrading by the end of summer. I'm probably going to get all crazy and turn the settings up until I hit 20 fps minimum again though.

About what equipment do you use though?

[tonygrunt 10]

Min 55 fps? :D

I'm going to enjoy upgrading by the end of summer. I'm probably going to get all crazy and turn the settings up until I hit 20 fps minimum again though.

About what equipment do you use though?

Click on my sig(PC specs) for details.

i7 3930K@4.7GHz, 16GB RAM, GTX 680@1346MHz 4GB VRAM, SSD.

[chrisb 196]

Seemed about the right thread to put this:

A few tests here.

They are all using the ‘DVD’ mod/addon by ‘tpw’ from A2. I simply put the pbo and user/config in A3, nothing else. I didn’t alter the config, so obviously everything can be improved greatly from this test, if setup well.

Initial fps and vd (view distance) are just seen at the start of each vid, just prior to the recording hit, which drops me down -30 odd fps usually, with msi..

Still, I put the vids on, really just to show anyone having problems with performance, that this may help. I have put a message out for ‘tpw’ in the ‘addons request’ thread, to see if he would consider porting it over from A2-A3, no answer yet.

I know that he has put ‘houselights’ over, so hope he doesn’t mind me testing this for players to see.

There are descriptions in the vids, but the thing to keep an eye on is the ‘dvd’ info panel on the right, near the top of the screen, this shows you what is going on fps/vd wise.

Just a couple of things to mention:

Flying; the view distance (vd) changes are choppy when flying, more so when recording, but even without recording they are a little choppy. I put this down to the fact I didn’t tweak the user config, having tested with this a good while ago in A2, it ran very smooth when setup properly in the user/config.

Ground; the changes in everything are ultra smooth for me on the ground when not recording, does effect it some when recording, but that’s to be expected. But on the ground you don’t know its there, well for me anyway.

I’m not using the mod, just testing it out, I really haven’t had a problem with performance, yet. But I have to bare in mind I haven’t really made a heavy test mission for the island, so may need to use it later, who knows. But its nice to know its there, should I need it.

However, for those having problems, now, with performance, set your settings to where you want them in-game, preferably in the editor to begin with. Then have a look to see if it helps anywhere. Look at the user/config and set the fps etc, there is a little guide in there, have a play to see which works best.

There is another I am going to look at ‘VFFPSS’ mod/addon by ‘Victor Farbau’, I tested it a long while ago, but have never really used it to any degree, may help, again will see how it performs coming over from A2..

N.B: View Distance is a killer for many players, quite a few set it too high, why not just try this out and let it do it for you. Lets be honest, some players may find a playable frame rate even though the vd reduces down some way. It will soon adjust automatically back to a better vd, when it’s a less heavy area or scenario.. Won’t hurt trying.

Anyway all these videos should give players a good idea how ‘dvd’ works, all done on the dev version..:).

Best in 'Full Screen 1080'..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDb1NShVomM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peXxTAduRYc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCa6w5HM4LY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noiHeNMBwJ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFMKyKg0CmU

'DVD' mod/addon

Edited June 11, 2013 by ChrisB

[Sneakson 1]

My Orbweaver arrived today. It's a neat keypad with cherry blue switches in case anyone's got any questions in mind.

I'd highly recommend keypads. I've used the Nostromo since November and it’s really neat to use.

It’s got 16 buttons, 8-direction directional joystick and scroll wheel. It’s just what you’ll need.

Occasionally I’d want another row of buttons and that’s just one of the Orbweaver’s many improvements.

One neutral change though is that the scroll wheel is gone. A negative change is that the backlighting is exclusively green in different brightness settings or even slowly pulsating though as soon as I’m sure mine works the way it should I’m going to unscrew mine and change to sweet blue. If you like green it’s perfect though. A minor cosmetic sorta issue is that the cable is unbraided.

My thumb part is also slightly wiggly though I’m going to ask around if it’s a defective unit or will have to be repaired by sticking a thin sheet of paper into where the thumb part attaches to the main unit or something such. I’m sure it can be easily mended but it’s not so nice for a £100 product.

The Orbweaver does seem nice but apparently will need some minor adjustments before it is indisputable. Does seem like something I could be using for years. Now it’s time to playtest it to see how well blues work for gaming though!

http://blog-imgs-53.fc2.com/w/a/t/watchmonoblog/Razer_Orbweaver_92.jpg (128 kB)

Nostromo left, Orbweaver right.

Right now I wish my G9 mouse had more buttons though. I'd like to be able to zero, elevate, change weapons and modes right on the mouse so I'm considering a MMO7 but will probably go for a cheaper stylish Abbysus or Orochi instead.

Recommending the HP Zr24w monitor too by the way. I'll use it until it breaks.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Sneakson

[polar bear 10]

So I have determined that I need a new video card to play Arma III. Fortunately, just received my annual bonus from work, so I have some cash burning a hole in my pocket and itching to get into A3.

I think my i7 930 cpu is ok? Versus the published recommend, with 6gb RAM and an SSD drive:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5765%5D=on∏%5B5752%5D=on

Some advice please -- I have two choices here:

-- Buy a whole new system with a faster CPU and the recommended graphics card

-- Spend all my money on the best graphics card I can buy

Given the CPU I have, which way would you go? I am thinking graphics card. But which one? And do you agree with my thinking? What is the absolute best graphics card for A3?

Edit: GRRR GRRR

I have just learned about PCI-E gen 3 and how my system doesn't have it and how that means a high end graphics card likely wouldn't perform so well for me, even if I did go down the "spend it all on graphics" route. So, total system upgrade it is. THANKS ARMA!

Edited June 14, 2013 by Polar Bear

[Gunneysean 10]

Hi, I new to PC gaming (came from consoles) I was looking into getting a new PC for Collage & Gaming what kind of specs would I want to run A3 on High?

[gliptal 25]

An i5 or AMD eqivalent, and a HD7850 or better (and NVIDIA equivalent) should do the trick for High...

Yay!

[Leon86 13]

So I have determined that I need a new video card to play Arma III. Fortunately, just received my annual bonus from work, so I have some cash burning a hole in my pocket and itching to get into A3.

I think my i7 930 cpu is ok? Versus the published recommend, with 6gb RAM and an SSD drive:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5765%5D=on∏%5B5752%5D=on

Some advice please -- I have two choices here:

-- Buy a whole new system with a faster CPU and the recommended graphics card

-- Spend all my money on the best graphics card I can buy

Given the CPU I have, which way would you go? I am thinking graphics card. But which one? And do you agree with my thinking? What is the absolute best graphics card for A3?

Edit: GRRR GRRR

I have just learned about PCI-E gen 3 and how my system doesn't have it and how that means a high end graphics card likely wouldn't perform so well for me, even if I did go down the "spend it all on graphics" route. So, total system upgrade it is. THANKS ARMA!

The game performance difference between 2.0 and 3.0 is barely measurable. 2.0 will not be a performance limiting factor.

Your cpu is not the newest, you could look into overclocking it a bit, I've got my i5-750 on 4.2 GHz (very similar to your cpu), performs quite well.

what's your current graphics card by the way?

[ric 1]

The game performance difference between 2.0 and 3.0 is barely measurable. 2.0 will not be a performance limiting factor.

what's your current graphics card by the way?

ditto , i read a while back that 2 680's in SLI did not even saturate 2.0, now if you plan to SLI 2 titans well maybe you will need 3.0 :):):)

[bangtail 0]

You need > 2 high end cards (and a fairly high res) to take advantage of PCI 3.0, at which point the differences are very significant - having said that, as much as SLI is pretty popular these days, Tri and Quad SLI users are a really small demographic (usually extreme benchers etc - super high res multi mon users).

[ric 1]

You need > 2 high end cards (and a fairly high res) to take advantage of PCI 3.0, at which point the differences are very significant - having said that, as much as SLI is pretty popular these days, Tri and Quad SLI users are a really small demographic (usually extreme benchers etc - super high res multi mon users).

The Bottom Line

We have put forth a great effort to get to the bottom of the PCIe 2.0 versus PCIe 3.0 debate. We put a lot of time into testing performance and verifying that our data is accurate. Except for a couple of specific scenarios, most of the performance advantage had under PCIe 3.0 was well under 10%. This actually falls in-line with the kind of performance advantages one might expect using n Ivy Bridge CPU clock-for-clock compared to a Sandy Bridge CPU. The IPC can affect performance by as much as 4-7% in favor of Ivy Bridge easily. As you noticed, most of our data when we experienced an improvement on the Ivy Bridge system was in this range of improvements. There were a few specific cases of 11% in The Witcher 2 in one test, and 19% in Batman (for part of the game only) and 14% when we cranked up the settings to unplayable levels in Max Payne 3. For the most part, at the real-world highest playable settings we found playable, all performance advantages were under 10%.

With real-world gameplay performance advantages under 10% it doesn't change the actual gameplay experience. It in no way allows us to improve in-game quality settings nor does it give us any advantages over the PCIe 2.0 system. As we've stated previously in this evaluation, the technical performance advantages are "benchmarkable" but not relating to the gameplay experience.

It is also very clear from our testing that the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 receives an overall higher percentage of improvements with Ivy Bridge than the Radeon HD 7970 does. It is possible that similar to our past CPU frequency testing, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 GPUs are simply more sensitive to CPU clock speed and IPC, especially when you scale these upwards. We've done testing in the past that also shows NVIDIA GPUs are more sensitive to CPU clock speed than AMD GPUs are as you scale those up to dual and triple-GPUs. Therefore, we are not shocked to find that one brand might benefit with a technology more than another. It is an interesting result that we didn't expect when we started testing.

So do not fret if you are on a Sandy Bridge PCI Express 2.0 system, you aren't missing out on a bunch of performance compared to an Ivy Bridge PCI Express 3.0 system. Most of our readers will likely benefit from higher CPU overclocks on Sandy Bridge anyway if you are truly pushing the CPU clock and this alone will likely negate any "advantages" from PCIe 3.0 or Ivy Bridge IPC when it comes to real-world gaming scenarios. PCIe 3.0 is a great evolution, one day it may actually support a better gameplay experience compared to PCIe 2.0, but that day is not today.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/07/18/pci_express_20_vs_30_gpu_gaming_performance_review/3#.Ub4A9s6Vs1I

complete article

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/07/18/pci_express_20_vs_30_gpu_gaming_performance_review/1#.Ub4BEM6Vs1I

[bangtail 0]

I'm not sure what your point is by posting that, I already agreed that 2 way SLI (current gen) will not benefit from PCIe 3.0.

PCIe 3.0 is only beneficial in 3 and 4 way SLI configs (High res surround with a CPU that can feed them and an amount of traffic that can effectively choke 2.0) as I illustrated - we are in agreement (I think) :D

Not many people have setups like that, PCIe 3.0 will become a lot more relevant next year with x99, 4K res etc.

Edited June 16, 2013 by BangTail