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

[bangtail 0]

Hmm... I haven't played crysis 3 (though it benches at around 50 IIRC fully maxed at 2560x1440). I have played Far Cry 3, and I get far better performance than what you just described with a single 780 @ 2560x1600 with far cry 3. Fully maxed, I get around 32 average, and I've not seen it go below 27, and the peaks are in the mid to upper 40's. If I back MSAA down from 8x to 4x, I average around 40. If I back it down to 2x I get 45-50 average. If I turn it off, I get 60 average. At 2.5k resolution on Far Cry 3, the difference between 4x and 8x MSAA is not really perceivable. Certainly not worth the 10fps sacrifice. The difference between 2x and 8x MSAA at this rez, on this game, is negligible visibly, but the fps difference is significant. If you are really getting in the teens on Far Cry 3 with a Titan (which benches about 2% faster on average than a 780 for games), then I would suggest you might explore if you are having some other problem. It certainly doesn't wash with my experience, and it is far away from several benchmarks I have seen for the titan (and 780) running Far Cry 3 at 2560x1600 and 2560x1440.

Interesting... My machine handily exceeds the recommended specs (especially after recent GPU upgrade), and it doesn't matter whether I play A3 at 2560x1600 or 1080p (or 720p for that matter)... the end result is the same. The engine bottle-necking areas of the game will tank GPU usage, and cause frame rates to drop significantly with regular drops into the 20's. The lowest I've seen is 12, and there wasn't even that much going on. Pesky people with our unrealistic expectations... expecting our high-end machines to actually maintain a playable framerate under reasonable conditions. :)

--

My recommendation to anyone in this thread considering an upgrade... Unless you have a really old machine, don't upgrade just for this game. The performance gains are negligible once you pass a certain point (at least as of this post), and the hardware (contrary to popular belief) is not the limiting factor of performance in this game. Don't let them fool you. If you have need/desire to upgrade for other purposes as well... then, go for it.

Even 27 FPS is not acceptable to me and I never said the FPS stayed in the teens (I corrected that for clarity), simply that it will drop into the teens at certain points, which for me is too low (and I'm not one of these people that sits there watching the FPS but there is a threshold).

While I don't agree with everything ChrisB said, he is right with respect to everyone's experiences and what is 'acceptable' performance wise being very different.

I'll say it again, no currently available single GPU is enough to guarantee enthusiast level gaming at 1600P or above in my opinion or experience, if you are happy with it, more power to you.

As you stated, you haven't played C3 so I'll tell you that even when I had 4GB 680 SLI, the FPS were dropping into the teens in certain areas.

The Titans effectively kept C3 at an acceptable rate all the way through.

Oh, and I don't have any issues with my PCs, since yours seems to have so much trouble running A3, perhaps it is you who should 'explore if you are having some other problem' ;)

Edited August 23, 2013 by BangTail

[mobile_medic 43]

erm.. i was just going off of what I saw in your post... that it ran in the teens if maxed. Admittedly, I saw it as a quote in another post, so it did not reflect any later edit you may have made. I did not see your clarification. I also never indicated that 27 was acceptable, and I stated that it was the minimum framerate I had seen maxed out on FC3. I've never seen teens on FC3 with a 780

Yeah... b/c I'm the only one having trouble with Arma. It's not like this is a years-old, and well-known issue or anything :) Far Cry 3 is a pretty good example as far as taxing your machine, but not a great one since it doesn't utilize the CPU all that well either... But, for what the game needs, it is enough. Arma, on the other hand, does not use enough resources for what it needs in my experience. Pretty clearly demonstrable when looking at endless water maintains full GPU usage and high frame rate, but walking through Agia Marina causes GPU usage to drop (and fps with it)... It's one thing if the game doesn't need all of your GPU at a given time, and still performs fine. But, the above example is the exact opposite of that, as Agia Marina would be a more demanding location graphically, then hovering over an empty body of water.

p.s. If I avoid bottle-necking areas of the map/game/settings, A3 runs just fine on this card (mostly 40-60)... even with a 12k overall view distance, and everything else completely maxed. So, long as I keep the *object* view distance at around 2k or less... and, stay out of Agia Marina, the airfield, etc... And, avoid actually playing missions that have something going on :) While it is fun for about 10 minutes to run around on an empty map and engage in tiny firefights in order to keep GPU usage from tanking... that doesn't begin to scratch the surface of this game.

If someone's computer doesn't meet the specs, then a hardware bottleneck may need to be addressed. But, when you do, and hardware usage clearly drops under more demanding situations (rather than increases)... the root problem is not the hardware, or the game being too advanced for today's hardware. Sorry, but that is a pure fallacy, and one that has been repeatedly proven as such. Hard to argue that it is, when much of the hardware sits idle while fps tanks. Peace.

[bangtail 0]

erm.. i was just going off of what I saw in your post... that it ran in the teens if maxed. Admittedly, I saw it as a quote in another post, so it did not reflect any later edit you may have made. I did not see your clarification. I also never indicated that 27 was acceptable, and I stated that it was the minimum framerate I had seen maxed out on FC3. I've never seen teens on FC3 with a 780

Yeah... b/c I'm the only one having trouble with Arma. It's not like this is a years-old, and well-known issue or anything :) Far Cry 3 is a pretty good example as far as taxing your machine, but not a great one since it doesn't utilize the CPU all that well either... But, for what the game needs, it is enough. Arma, on the other hand, does not use enough resources for what it needs in my experience. Pretty clearly demonstrable when looking at endless water maintains full GPU usage and high frame rate, but walking through Agia Marina causes GPU usage to drop (and fps with it)... It's one thing if the game doesn't need all of your GPU at a given time, and still performs fine. But, the above example is the exact opposite of that, as Agia Marina would be a more demanding location graphically, then hovering over an empty body of water.

p.s. If I avoid bottle-necking areas of the map/game/settings, A3 runs just fine on this card (mostly 40-60)... even with a 12k overall view distance, and everything else completely maxed. So, long as I keep the *object* view distance at around 2k or less... and, stay out of Agia Marina, the airfield, etc... And, avoid actually playing missions that have something going on :) While it is fun for about 10 minutes to run around on an empty map and engage in tiny firefights in order to keep GPU usage from tanking... that doesn't begin to scratch the surface of this game.

If someone's computer doesn't meet the specs, then a hardware bottleneck may need to be addressed. But, when you do, and hardware usage clearly drops under more demanding situations (rather than increases)... the root problem is not the hardware, or the game being too advanced for today's hardware. Sorry, but that is a pure fallacy, and one that has been repeatedly proven as such. Hard to argue that it is, when much of the hardware sits idle while fps tanks. Peace.

I've acknowledged the CPU bottleneck many times, in fact most recently, just a few pages ago.

I'm not saying that A3 (RV4) is not without it's limitations and those of us that have been here since OFP/ArmA 1 are well aware of them.

Basically, you deal with it or you move on

Peace to you too Brother :)

[mobile_medic 43]

Basically, you deal with it or you move on

Doesn't seem like a great way to encourage improvement, especially during a pre-release period of the next iteration. To each his own, I guess. My only point is that hardware recommendations are of limited use so long as this underlying issue remains. And, I feel bad for folks who are going to go out and buy way more than they might need, and potentially see little to no benefit.

I've only been around since A2, but it was generally the same experience for me (and still is).

[Matt@RS 10]

Glad to see a few fellow Haswell 4670k owners on here. As far as im concerned they seem to kick arma3's butt especially when flying fastmovers. Im using a ssd for arma and the os, an old gtx 2 gig 460 .Running the cpu @3.4ghz and 3.8ghz turbo with stock aircooler .

Im very happy 12000 view distance all bells n whistles on running fraps cost me £500 to upgrade. The plane is jerky sometimes as im using the UnitCapture command to pre-fly then film.... plus the plane is unbinarized a whopping 260mb model. Ive had 5 different plane models flying at once so over a gig and a half being pushed around the sky with no problems.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Matt@RS

[ric 1]

Glad to see a few fellow Haswell 4670k owners on here. As far as im concerned they seem to kick arma3's butt especially when flying fastmovers. Im using a ssd for arma and the os, an old gtx 2 gig 460 .Running the cpu @3.4ghz and 3.8ghz turbo with stock aircooler .

Im very happy 12000 view distance all bells n whistles on running fraps cost me £500 to upgrade. The plane is jerky sometimes as im using the UnitCapture command to pre-fly then film.... plus the plane is unbinarized a whopping 260mb model. Ive had 5 different plane models flying at once so over a gig and a half being pushed around the sky with no problems.

nice video :) i see alot of micro stutters was that in game or from the recording? i ask because even with my SSD and cpu @4.2 and and FPS of 40-50 i am still getting micro pauses in infantry showcase.

[mobile_medic 43]

nice video :) i see alot of micro stutters was that in game or from the recording? i ask because even with my SSD and cpu @4.2 and and FPS of 40-50 i am still getting micro pauses in infantry showcase.

Just since beta, or have you had it before then? My st-st-stutter started with beta. -nologs helps a *little* with it. Someone mentioned SSAO as being the culprit for them (something that wasn't individually adjustable prior to Beta). I turned it off, and it does help quite a bit, but it doesn't get rid of it entirely... enough to make it not so much of a nuisance though.

[ric 1]

Just since beta, or have you had it before then? My st-st-stutter started with beta. -nologs helps a *little* with it. Someone mentioned SSAO as being the culprit for them (something that wasn't individually adjustable prior to Beta). I turned it off, and it does help quite a bit, but it doesn't get rid of it entirely... enough to make it not so much of a nuisance though.

I think i have -nolog already but i will double check and i will give SSAO a shot, thnx

[Matt@RS 10]

Seems pretty smooth when playing to be honest .....the unitcapture recording process only captures the plane co-ordinates at about 17 fps and has a guess in-between frames so you see a bit of a stutter. My biggest problem is with scenery popup/low textures at middle distances.

[ric 1]

Seems pretty smooth when playing to be honest .....the unitcapture recording process only captures the plane co-ordinates at about 17 fps and has a guess in-between frames so you see a bit of a stutter. My biggest problem is with scenery popup/low textures at middle distances.

are you running the DEV version?

[cesdan13 10]

I wouldl ike to know if this pc will be able to run arma 3 on ultra settings. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/12xaF However if it cant can you guys make some changes or recommend me some parts that will run it on ultra

[Matt@RS 10]

Yep

Didnt know about the -nologs thanks

[mobile_medic 43]

-nologs works in stable now, as well.

[Sneakson 1]

I wouldl ike to know if this pc will be able to run arma 3 on ultra settings. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/12xaF However if it cant can you guys make some changes or recommend me some parts that will run it on ultra

I'd change the motherboard to MSI Z87-G45 Gaming, CPU to Intel Core i5-4670K and maybe the power supply to something else but it will work.

Also remember that the MSI 760 Gaming 2GB is an option with about 20% less strength but probably matters less in ARMA if money is an issue.

Would also recommend an SSD (Samsung 840 or better yet 840 Evo depending on availability) and by the way ASUS DRW-24F1ST is this year’s model of that same DVD not that it matters one single bit but new is nice.

It should ultra nicely.

[masonddg87 16]

Question: How many of you are gaming programmers, or have a back ground in computing and information technologies?

Statement: Some comments are just based upon not knowing how programs are writing for different performance levels. Are how the hardware interacts with it. This is a ongoing issue with ArmA. BIS seem to write in C++ based upon algebra (witch takes more line of code to perform a task, that leads to bottle necks in the performance). The resolution would be to write it in calculus formula (so far as the graphics are concerned) to reduce the lines of codes to reduce the consumption of cpu & gpu power. Now someone stated that this is theory. But without that theory we would not have computer, nevertheless playing ArmA are any other game or simulation.

[Shaunnyy 10]

Hello. I have just bought ARMA 3 and now my computer keep crashing on it. I have been meaning to upgrade for a while.

Here are my current Specs:

Windows 7 64x

Power Supply: Corsair 750W HX Modular

Processor: Intel Core i5 2500k 3.3ghz

Processor Cooler: Arctic cooling freezer 7 pro rev2

Ram: 8GB Corsair vengeance DDR3 1600mhz

Motherboard: ASUS p8p67 LE

Graphics Card: Nvidia GTX 560 TI 1gb

Now i understand i need a new CPU and GPU. my budget is around £400 for both items. also would i need anything else? i want to run it on high/ultra. High is pretty fine though, am getting 40 FPS right now.

Thanks !

[Simas 12]

Processor: Intel Core i5 2500k 3.3ghz

Processor Cooler: Arctic cooling freezer 7 pro rev2!

Have you considered overclocking that 2500k? Arma is heavy on the CPU, you would gain a lot by simply overclocking from let's say 3.7 Ghz turbo to 4.2 Ghz turbo.

Graphics Card: Nvidia GTX 560 TI 1gb

A relatively cheap upgrade path would be to go with GTX 760 (£200). Or, if you choose to overclock your old 2500k, you can invest more and get GTX 770 (£320) which should be plenty for Arma 3.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Simas

[mobile_medic 43]

Hello. I have just bought ARMA 3 and now my computer keep crashing on it. I have been meaning to upgrade for a while.

For the crashing... putting -nologs in the launch parameter resolved my crashing issue (which started during beta)

[Sneakson 1]

Hello. I have just bought ARMA 3 and now my computer keep crashing on it. I have been meaning to upgrade for a while.

Here are my current Specs:

Windows 7 64x

Power Supply: Corsair 750W HX Modular

Processor: Intel Core i5 2500k 3.3ghz

Processor Cooler: Arctic cooling freezer 7 pro rev2

Ram: 8GB Corsair vengeance DDR3 1600mhz

Motherboard: ASUS p8p67 LE

Graphics Card: Nvidia GTX 560 TI 1gb

Now i understand i need a new CPU and GPU. my budget is around £400 for both items. also would i need anything else? i want to run it on high/ultra. High is pretty fine though, am getting 40 FPS right now.

Thanks !

No.

There’s no reason for your specs to crash ARMA.

If you’re crashing then you should solve the relevant bug.

If you’re not already running high settings well you tweak.

With that CPU which is legendary for overclocking I would look into that before changing it though your graphics card is only mid-strength so you may want to upgrade it but to what effect I’m not sure.

If you can wait a while I’ve got a 560 Ti and can compare it to a 770 later this week I hope.

By the way with overclocking you’re probably going to want a stronger cooler.

Anyways £400 is just right for a new motherboard, i5 and 760 however just adding a £70 air-cooler or slightly more for water-cooling could be enough to overclock nicely and then maybe you’ll do nicely enough not to have to do anything else and save quite a lot.

If you want to max you may have to buy a graphics card at least though.

By the way is that the Silver or Gold HX?

Anyways what settings are you using, what framerate in a mission like Showcase: Helicopters or Infantry and what are your temperatures already?

By the way when (if) upgrading count on having an easy time selling the 2500K and the 560 Ti should also sell quite easily.

Never seen that motherboard but it should sell.

The money you get from selling them will cover in between a new CPU to both a new motherboard and CPU at least based on Swedish second-hand pricing of the very same.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Sneakson

[KingScuba 1]

Hello. I have just bought ARMA 3 and now my computer keep crashing on it. I have been meaning to upgrade for a while.

Here are my current Specs:

Windows 7 64x

Power Supply: Corsair 750W HX Modular

Processor: Intel Core i5 2500k 3.3ghz

Processor Cooler: Arctic cooling freezer 7 pro rev2

Ram: 8GB Corsair vengeance DDR3 1600mhz

Motherboard: ASUS p8p67 LE

Graphics Card: Nvidia GTX 560 TI 1gb

Now i understand i need a new CPU and GPU. my budget is around £400 for both items. also would i need anything else? i want to run it on high/ultra. High is pretty fine though, am getting 40 FPS right now.

Thanks !

You don't need anything new, a 2500k is still a very solid cpu.... Overclock it to 4.2ghz in the bios, you shoudn't have to do anything but boost your multipliers at that speed.

The 560 is a tad dated, but should work perfectly fine regardless since arma 3 barely uses any gpu. I'd venture to say a GTX 400 series can work well enough.... if you really want to, grab a new 760. You might want to get something better than that after market cooler though. Corsair's H80 is a pretty solid product.

[Simas 12]

Is the 4770k worth it over 4670k for Arma 3? How far can you overclock 4670k with a good aftermarket air cooler?

[otoris 1]

Is it normal to get 19 FPS +/- on Altis with a GTX 560 TI, i5 750 Lynnfield OCd, 8gb RAM, 1TB HDD 7200rpm ? This was with settings on LOW. To be fair I was hosting a local server off it, but I don't think it would strain it that greatly...

[rafo23 10]

Is the 4770k worth it over 4670k for Arma 3? How far can you overclock 4670k with a good aftermarket air cooler?

I'd say no. Save the money and get the 4670k, which is like $100 cheaper and performs just as well. Spend the money on a good graphics card or cooler.

I managed to get it at 4.2Ghz without changing anything else and runs Arma 3 without going over 55C, and thats with an air cooler. I'll see if i can push it a little more, maybe 4.4

[tharos 2]

Im runnin a radeon 6990 ... That is good enough for arma 3 yeh?

[Sneakson 1]

Is the 4770k worth it over 4670k for Arma 3? How far can you overclock 4670k with a good aftermarket air cooler?

Still haven't heard anything indicating 4770K works better.

A 4670K goes to 4.2-4.8. It varies a lot, yes.

If you're willing to throw warranty out the window you can do some things to it that should make your overclock a lot nicer if it is in the lower of that spectrum.

Im runnin a radeon 6990 ... That is good enough for arma 3 yeh?

Yeh.