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

[Plexico 10]

Redirecting people to the same thread they're already posting in?... Nicholas - you posted a reply in a thread of mine that was closed today, so I'll say what I wanted to say in this thread. This thread deals mostly with highly generic questions like "Will my PC run Arma 3?" to which most responses are generally "Not on ultra; try low and play around with settings until you get a decent frame rate." In short, it's incredibly unhelpful for anyone seeking/searching for SPECIFIC advice to a SPECIFIC question - such as the one I asked earlier. Thankfully, the responses are out there - just not in here (or at least not in an easy to find place). Perhaps there are one or two nuggets buried deep in the 165 pages of one liner Q&A that seems to define this thread, but that's not very helpful. Who the heck is going to scroll through 165 pages. I didn't - instead I posted a question (after first checking that it wasn't answered in the first several pages of this thread), and 5 or so responses in I was pointed to a helpful website with a SPECIFIC response to my SPECIFIC question. THAT's what makes a good forum and community.

---------- Post added at 23:24 ---------- Previous post was at 23:15 ----------

You'll need to be more specific w/ regards to your set up (what's the clock speed of your processor, for example) and what settings you'd like to run. Arma has a TON of things you can tweak to improve FPS. I run a i5 3570K w/ a stable OC @ 4.5GHz, a Titan GPU, 16GB RAM and a 240GB SSD - and I get somewhere around 30-40 FPS in multiplayer with 30-40 folks (i.e. other players) running around. It sometimes dips to high 20s, and sometimes gets into the 50 range, but 30-40 is about normal. My view distance is set to 3,000M and object draw distance to 1,500M. Most other settings are on ultra, except for things like ground texture, HDR and clouds which I set to somewhere between high and low). Bottom line - even with a quad core 4.5GHz and Titan I'm getting pretty darn low FPS on settings that I find aesthetically pleasing. I haven't tried setting everything to low to see what sort of results I'd get - pointless for me as I'd never run the game like that.

I'm gonna be playing at lowest settings with 100% sampling at 1600x900, I have no SSD and a 7200rpm 1tb HDD. The i5 2320 is at the stock 3.0GHz. I am a competitive player so I would like to play at the best FPS possible so I can have the best advantage that I can, I don't care for eye candy.

Build again:

i5 2320 3.0GHz

HIS Radeon HD 7770

8GB ddr3 1600 ram

1600x900 monitor

[Harry_Flashman 1]

I'm not a technical expert but would imagine 60 FPS on a people-heavy MP server would be tough to achieve with a 3.0 GHz player even on low settings. But perhaps someone more familiar with that chipset and graphics card can help. This game is an IMMENSE CPU hog. That being said, it's worth a shot. Heck, even if you get 30 FPS I personally think it's worth it. Heck, to get my game to look decent I used Nvidia's adaptive v synch at half my monitor's refresh rate so I'm now locked into 30 FPS constant. Thankfully it's butter smooth, so I'm OK with the FPS I gave up to achieve graphical bliss. Also, don't forget that Arma requires a lot more forethought than, say CoD or BF: not much running and gunning, as that'll get you killed quickly. So I'm not sure that you gain much of a competitive edge with 60 vs 30 FPS (I'd personally gain none, playing CO-OP at least).

[Plexico 10]

I'm not a technical expert but would imagine 60 FPS on a people-heavy MP server would be tough to achieve with a 3.0 GHz player even on low settings. But perhaps someone more familiar with that chipset and graphics card can help. This game is an IMMENSE CPU hog. That being said, it's worth a shot. Heck, even if you get 30 FPS I personally think it's worth it. Heck, to get my game to look decent I used Nvidia's adaptive v synch at half my monitor's refresh rate so I'm now locked into 30 FPS constant. Thankfully it's butter smooth, so I'm OK with the FPS I gave up to achieve graphical bliss. Also, don't forget that Arma requires a lot more forethought than, say CoD or BF: not much running and gunning, as that'll get you killed quickly. So I'm not sure that you gain much of a competitive edge with 60 vs 30 FPS (I'd personally gain none, playing CO-OP at least).

:) Yes, I've played ArmA II for a very long time and a little bit of ArmA III so I know how stuff goes down, but fast-paced or not 60 FPS vs 30 FPS is an advantage.

[bboy 11]

Hi people! Please, help me with assembling my computer for ArmA 3.. Right now.. my comp is made of:

- Intel Dual Core E5200 2.5Ghz

- 4Gb ram ddr2 800Mhz

- sata hard disc 80Gb

- GA-945GZM-S2 motherboard

First off all, i know that everything from this is old... but, it is what it is! Right now, i dont have money to change complete machine... For now, i only want to change my graphic card and to run ArmA 3 on some medium settings.. And if i tell you that i played for years ArmA 2 and i finished ArmA 3 first campaign on my laptop, Intel Core Duo 2 2.0Ghz, 4gb ddr2 ram 800Mhz, Ati Mobility Radeon 4650 1gb ddr3 128bit (it's a Samsung laptop.. R522).. in that case... i think it's possible! Well, right now i have posibility to by for some good money an old but strong graphic card! The model is: Ati Radeon 4850 1gb ddr5 256 bit. I googled to find informations about this gpu, and i found that this gpu does not support nothing above direct x 10.1... But in other cases is strong i think? Well, can you people with more knowlege and experience tell me how much is that direct x important for ArmA 3 and, if i buy this gpu, would i have good enough performace playing ArmA 3 on my machine? Expecting your fast answer, cos' i am about to buy this gpu... Thank you! Or in other case... write me here your sugestions of some good enough gpu with less money...

And please tell me some diferences between those two graphics:

GeForce GT 630 2GB GDDR3 GT630-2GD3

- directX 11

- 2gb ddr3

- 128bit

or this one:

Radeon HD 4850 1GB GDDR5

- directX 10.1

- 1gb ddr5

- 256bit

What is more important for ArmA 3, size of memory, type of memory or directX support or something else?

[Dawks 10]

Sitting on the stairs at the shallow end of the gene-pool.

Hey, move over ... make some room!

Win7-64; 4X2 DDR3 1300

Phenom 965 default 3.4GHZ (Big cooler; will OC "real soon now".) This is new; just upgraded from Athlon II 630 OC 3.2GHz

GigaByte 7850 2Gig

Got 22FPS on a busy server last night.

I think I'm in.

[opendome 91]

Hello everyone! Im having some issues with settings and my rig

I have

AMD FX-6100

Gigabyte GTX 660

8 gb of RAM

Windows 7 64 bit

Corsair Force GT 120 SSD

Cooler Master 550 (PSU)

I was wondering what everyones thought are one what my settings should be?

Thanks!!!

[TheDeathStroke 10]

So I am currently building a computer right now, and I have all my parts and the last one is on its way, but I just wanted to know what you guys thought my rig could run it at. I have added some startup paramenters and changes to the profile.cfg and that has increased my current computer's FPS by 3-4, and I probably will do the same on this next computer. Anyways, here it is:

AMD FX-8320 (I may overclock it in the future)

Radeon r9 280x

8gb of RAM (Upgrading to 16 later)

Windows 7 home premium 64 bit

Samsung 840 EVO 120GB SSD

Rosewill 1000w PSU

Thank you in advance.

[scottybhoy85 10]

New to the pc world always had consoles. I have been a long time admirer of Arma and have ordered these parts. It should be built by the end of the week. So hopefully meet some friends and make some enemies lol

I have a

I5 4570 3.2ghz

Asrock h87 pro

Msi gtx 660 2gb Gaming edition

8gb corsair vengeance 1600

samsung 840 evo 120gb (should I instal my games on this will it make a difference over my standard 7200rpm hdd)

Is there anywhere I can find optimum settings for this or is it a case of try and see.

Thanks

Edited January 13, 2014 by scottybhoy85

[toscar12 1]

I just upgraded to SLI gtx 780 ti's and get this. Im getting 25fps in some parts make that a lot of parts on ultra at only 1080p it sucks I was sure I could max it out with my new cards but there you go. I love the arma games but why do they take so much to run? so anyone with less than sli 780 ti's don't expect to max it out properly.

---------- Post added at 20:34 ---------- Previous post was at 20:31 ----------

scottybhoy85-- You should try to get yourself at least a gtx 680(or a 770) or else I feel you might be disappointed there pretty cheap at the moment too.

Whats your budget?

[nikiforos 450]

Once again GPU won't help you with frames in intensive CPU moments. If you have a 680 or the 780ti you still get the same crap frames when you have 80 -100 AIs fighting each other. The only thing worth spending money for is a very strong CPU , RAM and SSD.

GPU should be the last of priorities.

[toscar12 1]

So true I just overclocked my cpu from stock to 4.7 where I have from time to time and it and it made quite a difference haven't tested frames yet but it felt smother and that's good enough for me. But get this..when running one card or two I get the same frames on ultra with 100% sampling but upon changing sampling to 200% one card tanks to about 20 fps but very interestingly changing to 200% sampling with two cards there is no more than a 2 fps drop if that. Why is this? no improvement from one to two cards on normal settings but change to 200% sampling and its unplayable on one but fully playable on two. Is this what they call a cpu bottle neck?

Also what affect will Upping my ram speed have? Thanks

[Brain 12]

Hey,

currently using:

AMD Phenom II X4 955 (not overclocked)

6GB RAM

Evga GTX 560Ti

Win8 and a 3 year old Seagate HDD with 500GB.

Getting bad frames on Altis in MP, around 15-23 depending on the Server and Mission.

I'm planning to update:

MB: ASROCK Z87 Extreme4

CPU: INTEL Core i7-4770K (BX80646I74770K)

GPU: EVGA GTX760 Phantom

RAM: 8GB G.SKILL [ RipjawsX ] Red DDR3-1600 C9 (F3-12800-CL9D-8GBXL)

SSD: 120GB Samsung EVO SSD

HDD: 1TB Seagate HDD

Any other suggestions? Maybe something cheaper that'll still run?

My main use is video creating but of course playing, too especially on Servers with 40+ Players (e.g. UO).

I'd feel comfortable with changing the CPU to Intel i5 4670k... anyone got some reports on how it behaves under heavy usage in A3?

[nicolasroger 11]

So true I just overclocked my cpu from stock to 4.7 where I have from time to time and it and it made quite a difference haven't tested frames yet but it felt smother and that's good enough for me. But get this..when running one card or two I get the same frames on ultra with 100% sampling but upon changing sampling to 200% one card tanks to about 20 fps but very interestingly changing to 200% sampling with two cards there is no more than a 2 fps drop if that. Why is this? no improvement from one to two cards on normal settings but change to 200% sampling and its unplayable on one but fully playable on two. Is this what they call a cpu bottle neck?

Also what affect will Upping my ram speed have? Thanks

Sampling to 200% is like doubling your ingame resolution. It happens that SLI is mostly only useful for people playing with high screen resolution (true for any game, not just arma 3).

[sayjimwoo 2]

No CPU or GPU can run Arma 1, 2 or 3 as intended and I have spent a fortune on hardware over the years for the Arma series (my current rig is well over £2,000). I have been PC gaming for nearly 20 years and Bohemia Interactive is one of only a few companies that can't make a game to run at acceptable framerates. If you can't obtain a constant 60fps all the time with a MASSIVE RIG then don't develop the game.

The few games that are graphically demanding on current hardware are eventually able to perform well when hardware has improved. With the Arma series this has NEVER been the case.

Operation Flashpoint never performed better the more you improved your hardware.

Arma 1 - Isn't multi threaded so you cannot run 60fps whenever there are several things on screen at once.

Arma 2 - Doesn't utilize quad core CPU's properly either. This title is about 5 years old now and still no one on this planet can run this game at 60fps with high detail and with moderate on screen action. I have tried every mod and tweak on this game and thrown bags of money at it and nothing makes a difference.

Arma 3 - Not much more graphically superior to Arma 2 but same old performance issues, perhaps even worse in my opinion. No modern system can run it as intended and no system will be able to run it at a constant 60fps in 5 years time.

With every future Arma release it will be the same performance problems without ever any changes in sight (this performance problem has been with Bohemia for 13 years now).

All the gamers out there that don't mind running Arma games with an inconsistent 30-60 fps, then non of the above applies to you.

And lastly. When Arma 2 was released in 2009, Codemasters released "Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising". Now I know this title was a failure for them and Arma 2 was a better game. But Arma 2 wasn't massively better to look at.

A mod was made for OFDR which opened up the whole Island and improved the AI and increased the amount of vehicles and infantry etc. Even in 2009 I could run this game with this mod at 60fps 100% of the time.

That is just an example that it can be done, but while they use the same engine over and over it will never be achieved. I just wish that Bohemia would break the mould and for once give us gamers such an amazing OPTIMIZED experience that we would gladly spend our money on faster hardware for it.

Up to now, we are wasting our money. (my post applies to single player).

Edited January 19, 2014 by Sayjimwoo

[gambla 10]

If you don't refer to MP only, then that's just not true:

1) There's no other game/combat sim comparable to ArmA

2) I'm playing the series since OFP and always enjoyed every part

2) I'm enjoying A3 "as intended" with my 3 years old rig, built for A2 (very high)

3) FPS are not at least a matter of video quality you like to play

[Felix24680 10]

Hey Guys

Will ArmA 3 work on my PC?

Graphics and video support:

NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory

ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics processor with 256MB of GDDR3 memory

(its a imac but with windows)

Thanks

Felix

[TomTomas88 1]

Hi all,

Just got my new laptop and i am wondering if it will run Arma 3 for me? Specs:

Acer Aspire V3-772G

Intel® Core™ i7-4702MQ 6M Cache / 2.2 GHz / up to 3.20 GHz

8GB DDR3

NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX760 2GB

Thanks!

[Phoenix1.0 10]

I personally run two 660ti's and an i5 3rd generation processor with 16gb of ram the game right now has problems with multiplayer, at least for me a lot of servers out there are either underpowered or they do not have ample internet connection. You can plainly tell because my system can run A3 with 60fps+ on singleplayer.... multiplayer however is dependent on the server speed and the processing power of the server. there is a significant amount of desync between servers and players right now. I have had some servers run at 3 fps and cause my client to slow down to around 30 below fps. multiplayer is in the process of being optimized and I can only hope a company like NVidia will release a driver for optimizing arma.

[mamasan8 11]

Nvidia wont fix BIS' engine

[Leon86 13]

Hey Guys

Will ArmA 3 work on my PC?

Graphics and video support:

NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory

ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics processor with 256MB of GDDR3 memory

(its a imac but with windows)

Thanks

Felix

It might run on the 4670 gpu, but won't run well. Also, arma's requirements state a 512MB gpu as minimum, the 4670 really only has 256MB?

[antipr0duct 1]

Dear Arma3 Community,

it took a while for me to actually find players/friends who would join the Arma3 world, I've now got approx. 5 people I know to play this game in multiplayer.

I've been owning this game since the alpha and only tested it in alpha and beta state. I never got around playing it in the finished version.

Having played a few rounds of CO-OP in multiplayer, I got to the point that this game somewhat close to unplayable in MP.

The reasons for this:

FPS drops!

I've managed to tweak (using this guide: http://day0.com.au/forum/arma/638-arma-3-performance-tweaks-and-settings-guide) the game here and there, and using the ArmA3Mark benchmark mission, I've got it running at about 40 - 60 FPS, which is nice.

However, the game itself in multiplayer just does not play fluent, it drops below 20FPS at runs at most around 15FPS, which is just horrible. Getting close to a fire, makes it even worse as the the frames per second drop below 3-5.

I've tried to figure out what exactly may be causing this.

Yes, I am aware that there are issues with the servers itself reducing the FPS of the client, however I do also think this might be related to a somewhat "bad" PC setup.

Here are my specs:

CPU: AMD Athlon II x4 640 @ 3GHz

RAM: 8GB DDR 3 1333MHz

GPU: Radeon HD 7950 PCS+

MoBo: ASUS M5A78L-M LX

The issue I see here is the CPU and the MoBo. The CPU's cache is at 512k which is quite low I am afraid, additionally the MoBo (motherboard) only supports PCIe 1.x whereas the graphicscard actually supports PCIe 3.x

See where I am going?

My idea is now to upgrade to a new MoBo and CPU.

I've came across a new branch of CPUs (or APUs) called the A-series. I am not going to plan to use the integrated GPU chip at all, but rather use it in conjunction with my HD 7950. I am aware of the fact those A-series CPUs are basically "just" quadcores, however, they are usually clocked at higher GHz than the FX series. As far as I am aware of (please correct me here), multithreading is not really supported by Arma3, is it? So as a result a CPU with better performance in single threaded applications should do much better than a hex- or octacore CPU of the FX-series!?!?

What do you think will be the benefits running on PCIe 3.x instead of PCIe 2.x ? (to my knowledge, FX series does not support PCIe 3.x?)

Do you have any other recommendations?

thx

the antipr0duct

[sultanofswing 10]

Dear Arma3 Community,

it took a while for me to actually find players/friends who would join the Arma3 world, I've now got approx. 5 people I know to play this game in multiplayer.

I've been owning this game since the alpha and only tested it in alpha and beta state. I never got around playing it in the finished version.

Having played a few rounds of CO-OP in multiplayer, I got to the point that this game somewhat close to unplayable in MP.

The reasons for this:

FPS drops!

I've managed to tweak (using this guide: http://day0.com.au/forum/arma/638-arma-3-performance-tweaks-and-settings-guide) the game here and there, and using the ArmA3Mark benchmark mission, I've got it running at about 40 - 60 FPS, which is nice.

However, the game itself in multiplayer just does not play fluent, it drops below 20FPS at runs at most around 15FPS, which is just horrible. Getting close to a fire, makes it even worse as the the frames per second drop below 3-5.

I've tried to figure out what exactly may be causing this.

Yes, I am aware that there are issues with the servers itself reducing the FPS of the client, however I do also think this might be related to a somewhat "bad" PC setup.

Here are my specs:

CPU: AMD Athlon II x4 640 @ 3GHz

RAM: 8GB DDR 3 1333MHz

GPU: Radeon HD 7950 PCS+

MoBo: ASUS M5A78L-M LX

The issue I see here is the CPU and the MoBo. The CPU's cache is at 512k which is quite low I am afraid, additionally the MoBo (motherboard) only supports PCIe 1.x whereas the graphicscard actually supports PCIe 3.x

See where I am going?

My idea is now to upgrade to a new MoBo and CPU.

I've came across a new branch of CPUs (or APUs) called the A-series. I am not going to plan to use the integrated GPU chip at all, but rather use it in conjunction with my HD 7950. I am aware of the fact those A-series CPUs are basically "just" quadcores, however, they are usually clocked at higher GHz than the FX series. As far as I am aware of (please correct me here), multithreading is not really supported by Arma3, is it? So as a result a CPU with better performance in single threaded applications should do much better than a hex- or octacore CPU of the FX-series!?!?

What do you think will be the benefits running on PCIe 3.x instead of PCIe 2.x ? (to my knowledge, FX series does not support PCIe 3.x?)

Do you have any other recommendations?

thx

the antipr0duct

There is no benefit with current hardware when it comes to having PCI-E 3.0 vs 2.0.

Personally I would go with a Intel Chip, They just perform better.

Optimizing your settings and running the Arma Benchmark will not do you any good when it comes to multiplayer, your wasting your time there.

There is nothing that you, myself or anyone on this forum can do about Low FPS in multiplayer except for BIS. All the optimization guides in the world will not help in multiplayer.

Hopefully BIS made enough money off Arma 3 that they can Make a completely new engine for the next game. If they do not make a new engine then I do not think they should even consider making a new game if they are thinking about it.

[doveman 7]

My idea is now to upgrade to a new MoBo and CPU.

I've came across a new branch of CPUs (or APUs) called the A-series. I am not going to plan to use the integrated GPU chip at all, but rather use it in conjunction with my HD 7950. I am aware of the fact those A-series CPUs are basically "just" quadcores, however, they are usually clocked at higher GHz than the FX series. As far as I am aware of (please correct me here), multithreading is not really supported by Arma3, is it? So as a result a CPU with better performance in single threaded applications should do much better than a hex- or octacore CPU of the FX-series!?!?

I was recently advising my Dad about upgrading his Athlon II X3 425e 2.7Ghz CPU and worked out that, for single-threaded, the FX-6350 would be a 53% improvement, whilst the i5 4440 would be 94%.

FX-6350 3.9Ghz (1,491): £100 53% improvement

i5-4440 3.3Ghz (1,889): £130 94% improvement

i5-4570 3.6Ghz (2,076): £145 113% improvement (9% faster than the i5-4440 for 11% extra cost)

i5-4670 3.8Ghz (2,186): £160 125% improvement (15% faster than the i5-4440 for 23% extra cost)

So as you can see, the higher clock speed of the FX-6350 doesn't give it any advantage and the more expensive i5 CPUs aren't good value.

You'll have to work out how much better these A-series CPUs you refer to are than the FX 6350, to see if it makes sense to get one but I suspect they're not much better, as AMD CPUs are just not very good when it comes to single-threaded unfortunately.

[antipr0duct 1]

Yeah, I heard about "intel" being the better choice, my budget however is somewhat limited. I just revised my hardware and it isn't as bad as I thought.

It turns out that the MoBo does support PCIe 2.0 and would also support an fx-6300 AMD. I would rather spend my money on that CPU (fx-6300), new case and power supply and maybe a ssd than spending the same money just for a new MoBo and CPU (intel).

But if I do understand correctly, the fx-6300 would not really change anything, despite the fact it does have a larger cache than my current athlon?

Thx for the help

[doveman 7]

The X4 640 scores 1,027, so the FX-6350 which scores 1,491 would be a 45% improvement, so I wouldn't say it won't change anything but whether that 45% improvement is enough to give you acceptable fps only you can decide. It just seem pointless to me spending £100 on the FX-6350 rather than £200 on the i5-4440 and Intel motherboard for about twice the improvement, which will also help avoid the CPU becoming the bottleneck for better GPUs (maybe not in ArmA, as the CPU seems to be pretty much always the bottleneck but in other games certainly). Apparently multi-tasking works a lot better with Intel CPUs as well, so that's something to consider and they generally draw less power than the AMD chips too, so you might not even need a new PSU.

Certainly you should consider getting the best CPU you can afford to get decent framerates with ArmA before getting a SSD, which will only improve loading times and perhaps eliminate some stuttering as the world data streams as you play but I'd rather have 40fps and some occasional stuttering than 20fps and no stuttering.

Here's the table if you want to check the CPU scores yourself: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html