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

[Zecronas 0]

Hello everyone,

 

I'm really interested in ARMA 3. I played the first version, but back then my pc wasn't good enough. Anyway, with the Steam sale tomorrow (most likely) I want to buy it.

Will this be enough? If so how?

 

GPU: GTX 960m 4 GB with 1080 possibilities.

CPU: i7 5700HQ 2,7 GHz that can go up to 3,2 GHz

Memory: 8 gb (optional to go to 16)

OS: W10

SSD (120 gb) is present as well.

 

Thank you for your help and effort.

[oldbear 390]

@ Zecronas : hi! From my point of view it's OK for playing Arma3.

Note : the 120 Go SSD is a bit undersized, a 250 Go must be on your wish list.

[Valken 622]

For SSD, 250 GB is a must only because of all the mods you will add on later especially  terrain maps! Those need to be on the SSD as well. 500 GB or more would be preferred if you also have ARMA 2 installed with tons of mods or also play open world games like GTA.

 

Also, I wanted to advise fellow ARMA players about this website for guaranteed OC cpus! Wish I found it before I built my current system. The 6600K @ 4.7 GHZ is the same price as retail!!

 

I am not affiliated with these guys whatsoever. I found the link at Guru3D and thought ARMA players would probably be one of the few gamers that will benefit more here than upgrading GPUs.

 

Remember to buy the fastest RAM with the lowest CL rating you can afford. It will make a difference for ARMA 3.

[Johnny_boi85 0]

Hi guy and I'm sure girls. I'm switching from console to pc to play arma as I love how the game looks and I absolutely love playing team based games like it. The thing I would like advice on is the pc's that I'm looking at. At the present time I'm on a budget of a max of AU $700. So I know I can't afford top level gaming gear. Im looking at this pc on ebay http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/360675616284 I'm hoping it's good enough to get me by to play arma. Would just like your opinion before I spend what little money I have. And if it is worthy to play arma what do you think I could turn the graphics up to. thanks for you time and sorry for any grammar mistakes.

[oldbear 390]

Hi, ... you forgot the bears ... never mind  B)

 

A PC based upon an AMD A10 7890K 4.3GHz and 8GB is not a gaming PC and I am sorry to tell you it's NOT an appropriate solution to play Arma3.

Of course, Arma3 will "run" on it but you can't expect a high FPS level, probably in the 20/30 FPS range and limited to "Low" due to integrated graphics performances level.

 

In Arma3, CPU performances are critically important and ATM, only Intel CPUs have enough muscle to do the job efficiently.

ATM, looking for the "minimum playable level requirements", I am testing an Intel Pentium G4500 [skylake kind] and it seems rather good

In order to play, you need a discrete graphic card.

Before "Visual Update", my own opinion was that you can get a rather good experience with an entry level GPU like a R7-250 or GT 740.

Now you will probably need a higher level GPU like a GTX 750Ti or a R7-265.

[Johnny_boi85 0]

Ok sweet thanks I will try look into other systems and try to get a little more cash together for better hardware. I appreciate the response before I spent the money on something that wasn't good enough. It's hard to find something with a budget so low. If only I had more patients haha

[ceeeb 147]

For that budget, you might want to consider looking around for second hand high end parts, such as I7 2600k. $700AUD just isn't enough to build a new PC to run Arma.

FWIW, I've built a new PC for $2600AUD, which replaces one built at similar cost back in 2010. In Arma, the new one has only 60% better FPS, while the cost to buy today is probably around 300% more.

[2nd ranger 282]

I'm about to upgrade, mainly for Tanoa, and I had the following parts picked out:

 

ASUS Z97 pro gamer motherboard

i7 4790k 4ghz

HyperX 16gb 1866mhz DDR3

 

I already have a GTX 980 and a Samsung SSD that I will continue to use (I only got these a few months ago so have no desire to upgrade them now). But now I'm wondering if it's worth going for a Z170 build like fingolfin above, for example

 

ASUS Z170 pro MB (I don't know the difference between the various MBs)

i7 6700k 4ghz

HyperX 16gb 2400mhz DDR4

 

Would I see much performance gain between the z97 and z170 builds? Is it worth it, if only to have a newer setup? From what I can see, the extra cost would only be around £30. I don't know a great deal about the different chipsets or what is compatible, etc. I'd like to hear some thoughts on it. For example, I've seen many people saying that even the difference from 4770 to 4790 isn't worth it.

 

I should also mention that I have a Corsair 850w PSU and a Titan Fenrir CPU cooler that are about five years old. I'm not sure if the cooler would be compatible with a newer board.

[ceeeb 147]

I can't compare 4790k against the 6700k, but if you are building a DDR4 system I recommend you spend the extra money to get fast DDR4.

I have just built a 6700k system. At stock CPU and default RAM speeds (2400MHz CL15), it gets 40 FPS in YAAB.

By overclocking the CPU to 4.5GHz (7%) and running the RAM at it's rated 3200MHz CL14, it gets 50FPS (20% higher). That's 13% higher FPS under heavy AI load due the faster RAM.

(I got 32Gb RAM for CAD, not gaming. 16Gb gives better value for money for gaming)

[oldbear 390]

@ 2nd ranger : from my point of view not any change is needed !

You have one of the best combo you can use in order to play Arma3.

Best i7 CPUs for the job being Intel Core i7-5775C, Intel Core i7-6700K and i7 4790k.

The expected gain is going to be absolutely minimal.

 

So far as I understand what is taking place here ...

 

Source :  http://www.hardware.fr/articles/940-15/cpu-jeux-3d-crysis-3-arma-iii.html [warning : French language used in source ]

 

... the Intel Core i7-5775C @ 3.3 GHz [Turbo @ 3.7 GHz] is the best choice for Arma3 despite the fact it's older and running at a lower speed.

It seems that the magic is done by  the 128 MB eDRAM used as L4 cache.

 

So ... wait and play what you have B)

[I give up 152]

Mate, cut those.

In PC gaming everything is unique.

If I was telling you that I can run A3 flawless with a celeron @ 3.0 ghz, 4 GBs ddr2 @ 800 Mhz and a ati 5870, what you would say? BS? No, Just PC games.

[Johnny_boi85 0]

Ok so i shopped around abit and for around $1100 i think i may have a system that will work for arma around mid settings.
Correct me if im wrong and what i should change.
1- intel Quad Core i7-6800 or intel Quad Core i7-4790 to save a little more money at the time
2- 8gb DDR4 Ram
3- GeForce GTx 950
4- 500Gb HDD

 

the only other thing I'm unsure about is the size of the power supply I should need

[oldbear 390]

@ Johnny_boi85 : what do you mean saying "... mid settings?"

 

You shop some mismatched items in your shopping

1 - What is this "Intel Quad Core i7-6800" ?

2 - No DDR 4 can be used with Quad Core i7-4790

3- GeForce GTx 950 is not the best you can get unless you have a huge rebate with upcoming RX 460 and RX 470 you can expect some high drop on GTX at this level GTX 960/970

4- 500 GB HDD is not really fitting for the job : too small and/or too slow.

 

Edit : On your PC online dealer I have seen an INTEL Core i5 6600K 3.5GHz 1TB 8GB GTX750Ti 2GB Gaming Computer Quad Desktop PC  able to do the job.

It seems a bit of budget at AU $1,168.00

The GPU is a bit undersized, it will be used @100% and will howl as a DC3 on run-up [i know I am testing one ATM]

It will need some "Water Reflexions" and AA&PP parameters tweaking, but it's a fine asset.

[Johnny_boi85 0]

Yep I will aim for that system just got to wait a few extra weeks for the spare cash but it will be worth it into end. Thanks for all your help @oldbear really do appreciate the advice. And hopefully see you out the soon

[oldbear 390]

@ I give up : cut what ?

 

In PC gaming you must get a minimum hardware in order to get any experience.

If I tell you I am playing Arma3 on a Pentium without GPU you will say BS?

 

From my point of view there is a wide gap between being able to "run" a game and being able to "play" the same game.

Have a look on "Time for a configuration requirements update" topic.

 

Looking for a high end PC is one aspect of PC gaming,

Looking for the minimum hardware needed to "play" a game is an other one

Trying to help other PC gamers is an other way to live gaming experience.

 

... so cut what ?

[The Turbanator 32]

I'm looking to buy a new gaming laptop as the one I have at the moment is on it's last legs. This is what I'm looking to get, but will it run ArmA3 well? What are your thoughts?

Acer Predator G9-591-73M9 15.6\" Gaming Laptop

SPECIFICATIONS

CPU - Processor

Processor Intel® Core™ i7 6700HQ Processor (2.6GHz - 3.5GHz)

Operating System

Genuine Windows 10

Memory (RAM)

RAM / Memory 16GB (8GBx2) DDR4 RAM

MAX:64GB (4x16GB)

Display

15.6" FHD IPS Acer ComfyViewâ„¢ LCD panel

Graphics Card

Graphics Card NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 980M 4G-GDDR5

Storage

Hard Drive 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD (5400RPM)

Optical Drive

Optical Drive DVD-Super Multi DL drive

Webcam(Inbuilt)

webcam HD Web Camera

Card Reader(Inbuilt)

SD Card Reader

Networking

802.11ac 2x2

BT M.2 Killer

Audio

Two built-in stereo speakers with subwoofer

Battery

8-cell Li-ion battery

Up to 6 hours battery life

Other Features

Backlit two color finetip keyboard

Other Interfaces

1 x USB 3.1 port

4 x USB 3.0 ports

1 x HDMI

1 x RJ-45

1 x DisplayPort

Dimensions

391 (W) x 299.5 (D) x 38.5/38.5 (H) mm

Weight

3.4 kg (7.5 lbs.) with 8-cell battery pack

Securtiy

Kensington lock

Manufacturer Warranty

1-year limited manufacturer hardware warranty.

[oldbear 390]

@ Fiddles27 : The overall laptop config looks OK.

The only flaw, from my point of view is the somewhat  limited "Hard Drive: 256G SSD + 1TB 2.5" SATA HDD (5400RPM)" combo

At this level, I believe you will need a 500 GB SSD in order to host the OS, the basic utilities software and Steam Arma3 Library, for you will need a high speed access to files while playing and enough room for the games and a lot of addons.

[The Turbanator 32]

@ Fiddles27 : The overall laptop config looks OK.

The only flaw, from my point of view is the somewhat  limited "Hard Drive: 256G SSD + 1TB 2.5" SATA HDD (5400RPM)" combo

At this level, I believe you will need a 500 GB SSD in order to host the OS, the basic utilities software and Steam Arma3 Library, for you will need a high speed access to files while playing and enough room for the games and a lot of addons.

I'll look into what SSD upgrades I can get for this laptop. Thanks for the sound advice. ☺

[Root-Access 2]

Hello,

 

Just wanted to know if really low performance (on lowest settings) on this system is as expected? I can't seem to get more than 20fps on the lowest settings, which I can't help but think may not be hardware related, unless the lack of an SSD really cuts into performance?

 

• i5-4670k @ 3.8Ghz
• R9 280
• 8GB RAM
• 500GB HDD

[oldbear 390]

In Arma* games FPS are mainly CPU dependent.

An Intel i5-4670k is allowing you to play in the 40 FPS zone meaning you will get 20/80 FPS in game due to variations FX/IA/Environment & Game Mode related.

The R9 280 is allowing "Ultra" settings

Lowering graphic presets to "Low" is a counterproductive move for it switch some rendering from GPU to CPU.

SSD is adding nothing to FPS level.

 

FPS Level being CPU related you must tweak CPU parameters, so after having used Auto-detection

- Overall Visibility being the main CPU parameter set it to 3500m for a try

- Quality Terrain being a mixed CPU/GPU parameter set it just one level down from Auto-detection given level

- Let Sampling on 100%

- In DISPLAY disable VSYNCH

- In AA&PP section use the HardOCP combo

... When it comes to AA in ARMA III there are a few things to remember and consider. SMAA is the worst graphics option in this game. Why? Because it literally reduces the texture quality on every single object in the game. Sure, it does a great job reducing rigid lines in some places that other AA solutions can't touch, but having that done is not worth looking at a world full of blurry objects. Next, enabling FSAA (MSAA) by itself, with no other aliasing will actually reduce the quality of textures very slightly. This can be counteracted by enabling some level of FXAA.

We recommend just enabling and leaving FXAA on ultra, because it doesn't cost much performance at any resolution. It also reduces a vast amount of aliasing and truly "crisps up" the image, making it appear sharper and clearer. It's best to use this with some level of FSAA enabled. With 8X FSAA enabled there is a large drop in performance. That being said, 2X is pretty affordable and 4X FSAA provides a great quality image.

Therefore, best AA combo in this game, FXAA Ultra + 2X/4X or 8X FSAA and you will get the best texture quality, no blurring, crisp textures, and well anti-aliased objects and vegetation.

 

 

Then RUN Arma3Mark bench mission on Stratis and YAAB

Post your results ... we will see then

[Root-Access 2]

In Arma* games FPS are mainly CPU dependent.

An Intel i5-4670k is allowing you to play in the 40 FPS zone meaning you will get 20/80 FPS in game due to variations FX/IA/Environment & Game Mode related.

The R9 280 is allowing "Ultra" settings

Lowering graphic presets to "Low" is a counterproductive move for it switch some rendering from GPU to CPU.

SSD is adding nothing to FPS level.

 

FPS Level being CPU related you must tweak CPU parameters, so after having used Auto-detection

- Overall Visibility being the main CPU parameter set it to 3500m for a try

- Quality Terrain being a mixed CPU/GPU parameter set it just one level down from Auto-detection given level

- Let Sampling on 100%

- In DISPLAY disable VSYNCH

- In AA&PP section use the HardOCP combo

 

Then RUN Arma3Mark bench mission on Stratis and YAAB

Post your results ... we will see then

 

Hello,

 

Thank you for responding, I sure do appreciate it! I have done everything you have asked/suggested except for the benchmark. I can't seem to find it in options or on the menus of the launcher or the in-game launcher. Is it a separate addon I must download?

[oldbear 390]

All these benchmarks are missions to be used as SP missions/Scenarios made by  community mission makers

to be DL from the Steam Workshop  YAAB or Yet Another Arma Benchmark and Arma3Mark-Stratis as benchmark_0.51

[Root-Access 2]

All these benchmarks are mission to be used as SP missions/Scenarios made by  community mission makers

to be DL from the Steam Workshop  YAAB or Yet Another Arma Benchmark and Arma3Mark-Stratis as benchmark_0.51

 

Thank you for the links!

 

I have run the benchmarks. Here are the results:

 

YAAB (ran it three times to test it)

Stratis

[oldbear 390]

Seems good for playing SP and MP on servers well administered hosting well built Mods, addons and scripts.

Having less than 20 FPS in MP means that unless you have a very low DSL connection the servers your are trying to play on ... are not so good :huh:

[3D_vet 29]

It goes non fluid in my i7 eldest generation (1st) i7 860. 8gb RAM, nVidia GTX 275. Tried in 1920x1080 -native- but also in 1280x1024. Doesn't seem to vary much. Tried setting all low. Or maybe am used to Quake Live, bf for free, and UT3 games, where response is very fast... here it has probs to move all, is non fluid, not nice for combat....Gotta try some more tweaks though. Anyway, I just purchased to make Arma 3 content, mainly. Would be nice to enjoy it as a game, for some rare free moments, too, lol. :D Is my bad, as I have not upgraded my hardware in eons. Anyway, while very used to FPS games, this is too different. I get easily fragged every time. Mostly from a distance (I don't happen to even see the enemy, miles away...) In CQC I'm much more lucky, it seems. Or even at mid-close distance. Yet there, the lags are extra enemies by themselves...

 

Anyway, in any other pc game, unless I set it to low, the fans get crazy, and I end up setting it low so that they get silent and cool down,  as the PC is my work machine, too (freelancer), can't risk it just for gaming. So yep, I guess I need to put together some extra cash, but regular bills are an obvious priority...Free to play FPSs were usually low on reqs, that's why i guess I never had to upgrade...

 

Anyhow, it seems am able to display in high what is the models, that is, human units, so to check the animations (my plan is to animate here, mostly, tho some modeling and texturing, too) which is good enough for the main purpose... But only for that might have gone then for the cheaper Take on Mars (indeed, I prefer the theme to military, tho I enjoyed some 'far west'  (ye old western) mods were I collaborated were there was a remarkable attention to historic accuracy on weapons; I love accuracy in any form...), which has some great modding utilities... Well, I might go for that one, too.   :D

 

Cheers,