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

[Leon86 13]

The 7990 is a very powerful card, he misread it for a 7790.

[gnrmarine 10]

Bought the Game in Alpha I have been waiting for the game to be at the end of Beta before playing and tweaking what settings should I be able to use with the below system. I will play at 1080p

Windows 8 x64

8Gb ram

FX 8350 @ 4500

2 x Evga SC GTX660ti SLi

Samsung 840 250gb

Edited September 3, 2013 by gnrmarine
added resolotion

[iwbtone 10]

win7 x64

8G

E3 1230 V2

GTX 670 2G

High option, 35~45 fps in infantry showcase, that' ok for me ,but sadly , bad fps in helicopter showcase or other open ground map

[nikiforos 450]

Nice GPU but the processor might or will unfortunately let you down.

[surfer 42]

What's your feeling about the below mobile rig I'm planning to purchase:

Intel 4700MQ

Radeon HD8970M

16 GB DDR

Samsung EVO SSD

Any opinions to prefer Nvidia GTX 770M instead?

Thanks

[Sneakson 1]

That is upsetting, I purchased the XfX R7990 because I thought it was a very powerful card..

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:34 ----------

Oh I see that we mis understood each other in that last post, that's what I get for checking posts on my phone. Time to look Into overclocking the i5

Ooops. 7990 is beastly.

With a 2500K that should go far.

Bought the Game in Alpha I have been waiting for the game to be at the end of Beta before playing and tweaking what settings should I be able to use with the below system. I will play at 1080p

Windows 8 x64

8Gb ram

FX 8350 @ 4500

2 x Evga SC GTX660ti SLi

Samsung 840 250gb

Try max settings except for visibility and then turn down object quality as needed, I guess.

win7 x64

8G

E3 1230 V2

GTX 670 2G

High option, 35~45 fps in infantry showcase, that' ok for me ,but sadly , bad fps in helicopter showcase or other open ground map

Remember that view distance makes a big difference.

[shrike 0]

Good afternoon,

downloading ARMA 3 as we speak but after skimming through the forum I am now starting to worry about my rig being able to play this at decent (not perfect) settings.

So, can anyone comment and probably suggest sensible improvements to my configuration? Currently, gaming is not important enough to me to spend a lot of money so...

AMD Phenom II X4 955 (stable overclock at 3.8 MHz)

2 x Sapphire Vapor-X HD5870 (crossfired if useful)

6 Gigs of RAM

System and games on SSD

(for now) Win 7 32bit, will switch to 64bit this weekend

Wanna play in 1600 x 1200 (yes I like my old TFT)

Thanks for any input

Shrike

[doveman 7]

Phenom II X4 955 @3.5Ghz, 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz, 6950 2GB

MP is unplayable for me on the few servers I've tried as I only get 8-15fps. Some SP missions are OK and give me 40-50fps but others are as bad as MP and run below 10fps (just happened with Op. Magic Carpet).

I'm only using viewdistance 1600, object distance 800 and have a lot of stuff turned down/off like clouds, ATOC, etc. GPU is only using up to 25%, so it's obviously the CPU bottlenecking.

Think it was better when I was using the non-dev build before I switched about a week ago but I didn't test much so I'm not sure.

Here's my graphic settings:

language="English";

forcedAdapterId=-1;

detectedAdapterId=0;

detectedAdapterVendorId=4098;

detectedAdapterDeviceId=26393;

detectedAdapterSubSysId=587667335;

detectedAdapterRevision=0;

detectedAdapterBenchmark=92;

displayMode=0;

winX=16;

winY=32;

winWidth=1024;

winHeight=768;

winDefWidth=1024;

winDefHeight=768;

fullScreenWidth=1920;

fullScreenHeight=1200;

refresh=60;

renderWidth=1920;

renderHeight=1200;

multiSampleCount=4;

multiSampleQuality=0;

particlesQuality=0;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=1;

HDRPrecision=8;

vsync=0;

AToC=0;

cloudsQuality=0;

pipQuality=0;

dynamicLightsQuality=0;

PPAA=6;

ppSSAO=0;

ppCaustics=0;

tripleBuffering=0;

ppBloom=0.9973262;

ppRotBlur=0;

ppRadialBlur=0;

ppDOF=0.9973262;

---

tripleHead=0;

anisoFilter=12;

textureQuality=3;

shadowQuality=3;

sceneComplexity=300000;

shadowZDistance=100;

viewDistance=1552.0331;

preferredObjectViewDistance=801.4892;

terrainGrid=25;

fovTop=0.75;

fovLeft=1.1999999;

[The Hebrew Hammer 10]

i7 870 2.93Ghz

GTX 760

8g DDR3 RAM

Windows 7 64bit

Plays terribly, I have Arma 2 maxed out at 8500 view distance and getting about 50 fps. I can't even fly a damn plane on Arma 3 without severe stuttering at standard settings across the board and a draw distance of 3500.

[Leon86 13]

I can keep draw distance at ridiculous levels as long as I keep object draw distance sensible (1.5-3k or something)

[Sneakson 1]

Yeah.

I did some more testing:

Windows 8, 1920x1200

4770K @ 4.0 GHz

770

16GB 1600 MHz RAM

Samsung 840 Evo

Dev-build

Maxed everything except Objects quality high, Terrain quality high and pip disabled with visibility 3200/3200/200...

I tried flying around Altis and had a nice 50-something framerate and in the showcase with lots of AI I had a 45 fps average. Not sure how it will perform in ultimately stressful situations however turning down FSAA to x4 makes a big difference and so does lowering SSAO.

By the way the game does look really nice on all max settings:

http://i.imgur.com/I7H9cwD.jpg?1 (197 kB)

How to you link images here so they show up in a small window instead of just a link anyways?

This one's smaller...

Anyways I also did some easy ground testing yesterday and on ground a lot more settings matter than in air.

Texture quality and anisotropic cause absolutely zero slowdown (on my machine). Dynamic lights and particles also did nothing though they are probably situational but at least lowering particles does not make smoke clouds lag less. Clouds only cause minimal slowdown and so does post-processing anti-aliasing. Shadows I’m not sure but in any case maxing them doesn’t seem to be very demanding. FSAA causes slowdowns and especially x8 is much more demanding than x4 to me while x4 only is somewhat more requiring than x2 and the difference between x2 and disabled is small. ATOC also causes a noticeable slowdown but only if set to Arrowhead trees or all trees with or without grass. And then there’s object quality which makes a big difference in the air but not on ground and terrain quality which makes a big difference on ground but not in the air. Finally SSAO does make some noticeable difference and I didn’t test picture-in-picture but it should cause massive slowdowns in vehicles with picture-in-pictures. Also I still haven’t really tested that newer setting that causes underwater reflections or something.

Not sure what difference overclocking does yet but auto-overclocking to 4.2 and 1200-something MHz on the 770 didn’t really make a difference anywhere I think.

Still haven’t tried manual overclocking, disabling hyper-threading or changing any ARMA start-up parameters.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Sneakson

[tonygrunt 10]

.....

http://i.imgur.com/I7H9cwD.jpg?1 (197 kB)

How to you link images here so they show up in a small window instead of just a link anyways?

....

With imgur you can add a letter (l,m,s) before the full stop and you will get smaller size images (l=large,m=medium,s=small).

You then use the thumbnail as description to link to the full size image, click on the image and you get the full size.

[url="http://i.imgur.com/I7H9cwD.jpg"][img=http://i.imgur.com/I7H9cwDl.jpg][/url]

[sberla101 50]

Hi everyone, now i play with medium details with this config

CPU Intel 2600K (4,4Ghz), Ram 8Gb, VGA GTX470 (no OC), SSD; if i want upgrade my VGA, with a new GTX770, can i put maximum (or very high) the graphic???

[chrisb 196]

Most all Ultra (vids in my YT channel). Terrain set to Standard or High, above that it’s a big draw fps wise, the rest in that category on the highest they go. PIP disabled waste of time, AAx2 or x4 little difference, SMAA Ultra, Atoc all trees.

I never use PP, don't like it.

VD on the ground 1000-1500 upto a possible 2000’ish. In the air more, obviously.

That’s all on a 640 Athlon (my A2 pc, sig), no problems running the type of missions I like, top AI count of around 150’ish for A3, not that I play much A3, A2 is better.

Same pc runs A2 as well, if not better, but certainly no worries regards performance in any of the series, so far..

It’s a funny game, that’s for sure, performance wise, pc to pc changes so dramatically..

Doesn't seem to care what pc you have, provided you have it setup well and its lean & clean, it will run. Setup badly, full & dirty, it won't..

[Shadowshot28 10]

The only thing I'm really worried about is my processor speed at 2.2 GHz as the Arma 3 website says the game requires 2.4 GHz.

Specs in sig.

[xcess_second 10]

Should be ok. Your specs are better than mine and I can get it running adquately, gets a bit choppy in some areas/missions though.

[Jaslr83 10]

Will this run the game on highest settings?

Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition 3.5GHz 6-Core

MSI Big Bang - XPower II XL ATX LGA2011

G.Skill Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-2133

EVGA 06G-P4-2793-KR Titan 6GB VRAM

[tonygrunt 10]

Will this run the game on highest settings?

Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition 3.5GHz 6-Core

MSI Big Bang - XPower II XL ATX LGA2011

G.Skill Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-2133

EVGA 06G-P4-2793-KR Titan 6GB VRAM

There is no known computer in the world that it will run the game on highest settings with acceptable frames.

Maximizing view distance and object distance in an Altis town will get me less than 1 fps when I move and my pc specs are pretty much the same as yours.

With this out of the way, the only improvement on your pc to get the most out of Arma 3 is a SSD and any overclock on your CPU you feel comfortable.

[Tyl3r99 41]

There is no known computer in the world that it will run the game on highest settings with acceptable frames.

Maximizing view distance and object distance in an Altis town will get me less than 1 fps when I move and my pc specs are pretty much the same as yours.

With this out of the way, the only improvement on your pc to get the most out of Arma 3 is a SSD and any overclock on your CPU you feel comfortable.

my pc does quite well well all settings maxed out and view distance on/around 4000 - 5000 and object distance 3500 (that's all you need to be honest)

I get 40-45-50fps like that.

however, I changed the settings so the view distance is 4000 and object is what the game sets it too when the viewdistance is changed.

you can see my rig in the spoiler and it cost me around 3.5K :/

(bugger thing is still in for repair - water cool kit went bye bye)

yeah so you can run it on high settings no doubt :) just the altis memory thing has affected this since :(

[tonygrunt 10]

my pc does quite well well all settings maxed out and view distance on/around 4000 - 5000 and object distance 3500 (that's all you need to be honest)

I get 40-45-50fps like that.

however, I changed the settings so the view distance is 4000 and object is what the game sets it too when the viewdistance is changed.

you can see my rig in the spoiler and it cost me around 3.5K :/

(bugger thing is still in for repair - water cool kit went bye bye)

yeah so you can run it on high settings no doubt :) just the altis memory thing has affected this since :(

He said highest settings which is 12K for view and object distance.

As he apparently is new on the forums and doesn't have Arma 3 yet, I wanted him to be prepared that he won't be able to do anything meaningful at highest settings except taking pretty screenshots.

Of course if you lower your graphics settings the game will be playable, nobody denies that.

And I tried low flying around with 5000 view distance and 3500 object distance in Altis and my frames dropped below 10 over towns and over the solar power stations which in my opinion is not playable.

[Jaslr83 10]

Yea, I'm coming home from Afghanistan so I'm looking forward to the upgrade. Anything is better than what I was playing this on. Is the view/object distance in meters?

[Leon86 13]

The parts you listed are kind of overkill, I'd recommend a 4670K (or 4930K, if you dont mind paying more for a little bit better, although some games scale better with cores.) and a gtx780 for graphics. Spending a lot on the motherboard isn't required either, a midrange board is plenty even for high overclocks, top end boards are for liquid nitrogen overclocks and quad gpu setups.

as said before nothing runs arma on absolute max.

[Shadowshot28 10]

Should be ok. Your specs are better than mine and I can get it running adquately, gets a bit choppy in some areas/missions though.

What settings or FPS can you run the game at?

[Leon86 13]

try to keep the object distance low if you have performance problems, 1500m should be fine even for flying.

[Sneakson 1]

I would love to hear how 8 GHz CPUs and such run ARMA... that should max.

Hi everyone, now i play with medium details with this config

CPU Intel 2600K (4,4Ghz), Ram 8Gb, VGA GTX470 (no OC), SSD; if i want upgrade my VGA, with a new GTX770, can i put maximum (or very high) the graphic???

Yes. A 4+ GHz Intel Quad-core, 8GB RAM and strong graphics card is pretty much the best you can get today for playing games.

Will this run the game on highest settings?

Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition 3.5GHz 6-Core

MSI Big Bang - XPower II XL ATX LGA2011

G.Skill Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-2133

EVGA 06G-P4-2793-KR Titan 6GB VRAM

Yes, except viewdistance.

Oh, by the way: do you have ANY idea what you are doing?

Because either that’s a work computer for media editing or something such or you have no idea what you are doing.

So I have to ask.

A MSI Z87-G45, i5-4670K, MSI 760 and 8GB Corsair Vengeance is my current recommendation and that only costs a fourth of your components and will probably run the game very nearly as well.