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

[Ezcoo 47]

First of all thanks for helping out. This is proving to be a bit more complicated than I thought it would be :D.

You recommended the GTX 760, I have heard that the GTX 670 would have a bit better performance though. Which would you recommend out of those?

Also I have a Corsair 550w PSU wonder if its gonna be enough for these beasts or should I get something like a 650w PSU.

About the SSD, well I personally dont know all that much about them and the differences in between brands. I just got recommended to go with the OCZ Vertex 4 as people told me its a good and pretty cheap SSD.

---------- Post added at 10:37 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------

Also I've been shown this benchmark where you can see a slightly better score for the 670 compared to the 760. http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

It's always nice to hear that you found it helpful mate. :)

About GTX 760, 670 (and 680) – I'd say that if the price is the same, get 680, next choice is 670, and then 760, because if you're really really lucky, you might find some 680 and 670 models from clearance sales (with heavily discounted prices naturally, usually the 680 and 670 are remarkably more expensive than 760). 680 is worth it if it's max. about €50 more expensive than the 760. Just make sure that that model of card is not bad, because unlike someone mentioned earlier, there are differences between cards from different manufacturers.

The quality of PSU matters a lot also, the wattage number doesn't tell anything about the quality (unfortunately). You might want to make sure that you're getting a good one by googling with the accurate model name. At least, make sure that you're not getting a model that the experts call "china bombs" – the name tells enough, I guess ;) 550 W (good quality) PSU is perfectly enough to run single GPU setup. If you decide to get SLI setup, then 650W-750W would be a safe choice.

There are many good SSDs out there (OCZ models tend not to be included in that group, unfortunately) and I'm not extremely familiar with them, but the ones that I mentioned are guaranteed to be at least "good" choices: get Samsung 840 (non-Pro model if you're on budget) if you decide to get 120GB disk, and Kingston V300 if you decide to go with 240GB disk.

Btw, if you're building the PC for Arma 3 especially, I'd definitely get a GPU model with 4 GB of VRAM instead of regular model with 2GB VRAM. A3 is one of the first games that can use up to 4GB VRAM without mods, and it has been proven to provide significantly smoother experience. As a bonus, you could go easily SLI by buying another 4 GB model (eg. GTX 760 4GB) later and have one damn kind of a beast machine (GPUs would have more power than the Nvidia flagship model Titan, for example). Then overclock your CPU (with proper aftermarket cooler), maybe even GPUs (760 can be overclocked to be almost same than 770 quite easily!), and well... Ohmygawd, what a grinder machine you'd have with relatively low price...! It would probably beat the expensive "high-end" PC builds bought from stores even after 3-4 years! :p

Edited September 21, 2013 by Ezcoo

[TheDevilex11 10]

Hey.

I'm gonna get a completely new rig in a month or two and I was wondering if it could run the game on medium-high.

Intel Core i5-3570K

EVGA GTX 660Ti 3GB Superclocked

ASRock Z77 PRO4

GoodRam DDR3 4gb 1600MHz CL9 x2

OCZ ModXStream PRO 600W

CoolerMaster Hyper 212 EVO

Sorry if I put up too much info :p

also 1st post get

[ric 1]

Hey.

I'm gonna get a completely new rig in a month or two and I was wondering if it could run the game on medium-high.

Intel Core i5-3570K

EVGA GTX 660Ti 3GB Superclocked

ASRock Z77 PRO4

GoodRam DDR3 4gb 1600MHz CL9 x2

OCZ ModXStream PRO 600W

CoolerMaster Hyper 212 EVO

Sorry if I put up too much info :p

also 1st post get

yes , you should be able to run high, MP FPS will vary depending on server and mission.

[iAspx 10]

Hi guys,

Before I buy Arma III, I'll ask You how many frames per second you think I'll get? :)

Thanks for the answer :)

My spec:

Card:

AMD Radeon HD 7970 3gb

Processor:

Intel Core i7-3770K ~4.0GHz

RAM:

DDR3 4096 x3

Motherboard:

ASUS P8Z77-V LX2

SSD 240gb and a 500gb extra disc for storage

[roni 11]

Hello, building my rig of dream especially for arma 2/3 and need ya help ^^

Here is what I'm going to buy, and looking for smooth gameplay with med settings:

CPU: Intel i5 4670k OR AMD X8 FX-8350 , going to overclock CPU to the limits

GPU: Here im sure it will be GTX 760 with 2gb or 4gb (do you think it's worth to pay more for 2gb extra?)

RAM: 8GB goodram - suggest something better at same price ?

MOBO: No idea! Would like something cheap, but enough good to overclocking cpu at least to 4.5ghz

PSU: No idea! Same here, something chep would be nice, but idk....

HDD: SSD Samsung 840 120gb + 1TB standard hdd

I would like to save some money on MOBO and PSU, but you know, in common sense...

[bangtail 0]

Hello, building my rig of dream especially for arma 2/3 and need ya help ^^

Here is what I'm going to buy, and looking for smooth gameplay with med settings:

CPU: Intel i5 4670k OR AMD X8 FX-8350 , going to overclock CPU to the limits

GPU: Here im sure it will be GTX 760 with 2gb or 4gb (do you think it's worth to pay more for 2gb extra?)

RAM: 8GB goodram - suggest something better at same price ?

MOBO: No idea! Would like something cheap, but enough good to overclocking cpu at least to 4.5ghz

PSU: No idea! Same here, something chep would be nice, but idk....

HDD: SSD Samsung 840 120gb + 1TB standard hdd

I would like to save some money on MOBO and PSU, but you know, in common sense...

You might want to wait and see what AMD has on offer, announcing on the 25th of September, just a thought.

[jumpinghubert 48]

Hello, building my rig of dream especially for arma 2/3 and need ya help ^^

Here is what I'm going to buy, and looking for smooth gameplay with med settings:

CPU: Intel i5 4670k OR AMD X8 FX-8350 , going to overclock CPU to the limits

GPU: Here im sure it will be GTX 760 with 2gb or 4gb (do you think it's worth to pay more for 2gb extra?)

RAM: 8GB goodram - suggest something better at same price ?

MOBO: No idea! Would like something cheap, but enough good to overclocking cpu at least to 4.5ghz

PSU: No idea! Same here, something chep would be nice, but idk....

HDD: SSD Samsung 840 120gb + 1TB standard hdd

I would like to save some money on MOBO and PSU, but you know, in common sense...

a intel 2600k @3,3ghz is faster than a FX-8350 @4ghz in arma3. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306247

the 3570k is better for overclocking than the 4670k. I get good results with asrock´s extreme4 mb and a 3570k.

[unixfool 10]

Most of the command line switches are auto-detected and configured by the game. You should't even bother with them in Arma 3.

You sure about that? Can you substantiate your claim? Because I saw a noticeable improvement when I added those switches. I'll keep using them because I think they work. I'll stop when I get the indication that the switches hurt performance.

Those two are quite heavy on GPU.

You think so? From my point of view, it helped, because I actually set them lower than what it was when I first ran the game. They may be quite heavy on your system, though. I wouldn't claim that everyone is going to have issues with those specific settings. YMMV on your particular system and in your own experiences.

Have you tried using something like MSI Afterburner or EVGA Precision with the built-in On-screen display server? Essentially a tool that will let you display all kind of hardware related (and not just FPS) stuff on-screen in the game. Configure it to display GPU/CPU usage and see where your bottleneck is (use another HWiNFO tool to configure display of per core CPU usage). If your GPU is at 99% - then you need to lower some GPU related settings. If one of your CPU cores are at ~70% - then you are already CPU bottlenecked. Another possible thing that is happening is that your notebook is overheating and the CPU is downclocking itself (make sure it's actually running at that 3.5 Ghz turbo mode).

The above is a LOT better than what you initially posted. I'll tune based on Afterburner and Hwinfo output. Thanks.

Arma maps are streamed. You can't really load the entire Altis under 32-bit 2 GB memory limit. SSDs are very very useful for Arma.

Care to elaborate? You're hinting at what I stated in my response, correct? You're stating that, because BI developed a game under 32-bit, limiting memory allocation to approx. 2 GB, an SSD is "very very useful", because it's going to be using swap space, and an SSD drive will traverse swap space far quicker than a mechanical drive, correct? They built a game that is 32-bit and can't load Altis without getting into swap? And you're saying that SSDs are very useful for Arma because of that? That's a game limitation and not exactly a system limitation...SSDs may help gameplay, but it hints at very poor game design, IMO. You're basically saying an SSD is a requirement because the developers didn't build under 64-bit. I also thought that, while the game is built under 32-bit, there was something helping it read more than 2 GB...I thought I read that somewhere either at SimHQ or on the Arma FB page -- I'll see if I can find that tidbit of information. If what you say is true, then it's no wonder that a lot of people are having gameplay issues...that's something you can't tune out.

[Ezcoo 47]

unixfool, Simas is right,

-noSplash -cpuCount=8 -exThreads=7 -malloc=tbb4malloc_bi -maxMem=8192

- cpuCount and exThreads are both detected automatically (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma2:_Startup_Parameters#Performance)

- the memory allocator that you've forced there is the default memory allocator (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA_2:_Custom_Memory_Allocator or check the readme.txt in your \Arma 3\dll folder: )

Default

=======

The default allocator used at the moment by the engine is based on Intel TBB 4 (see details about tbb4malloc_bi below)

- A3 is 32-bit application, it's not technically possible for it to use more than 2 GB (2047 MB) of RAM in 32-bit operating system and more than ~4 GB (4096 MB) RAM in 64-bit operating system (and no, there's no way to force it to use any more RAM with any trick without breaking the laws of physics or maths)

- noSplash actually works, but it just removes the Bohemia logo etc. when you start the game, doesn't do anything else

SSAO - Standard
ATOC - all trees and grass

- SSAO is very, very heavy on GPU - if you don't believe it, just try it yourself, disable it and see instant 20-30% FPS increase without almost any change in visual quality

- same with ATOC, probably not as heavy as SSAO but heavy GPU anyway

Care to elaborate? You're hinting at what I stated in my response, correct? You're stating that, because BI developed a game under 32-bit, limiting memory allocation to approx. 2 GB, an SSD is "very very useful", because it's going to be using swap space, and an SSD drive will traverse swap space far quicker than a mechanical drive, correct? They built a game that is 32-bit and can't load Altis without getting into swap? And you're saying that SSDs are very useful for Arma because of that? That's a game limitation and not exactly a system limitation...SSDs may help gameplay, but it hints at very poor game design, IMO. You're basically saying an SSD is a requirement because the developers didn't build under 64-bit. I also thought that, while the game is built under 32-bit, there was something helping it read more than 2 GB...I thought I read that somewhere either at SimHQ or on the Arma FB page -- I'll see if I can find that tidbit of information. If what you say is true, then it's no wonder that a lot of people are having gameplay issues...that's something you can't tune out.

You're kind of correct about the old 32-bit engine, but converting it to 64-bit isn't something that you do with a finger snap. It would require an engine overwrite, that would cost a lot and take years (especially because it would require other big changes in the engine to actually get benefit from it, only converting to 64-bit would have almost zero benefit). Remember, we aren't living in a world where everything is perfect. And after all, Arma uses pretty smart streaming technology (which is again not perfect, but quite good).

32-bit applications can use up to 4 GB RAM on 64-bit operating systems if they support it (known as LAA, Large Address Awareness), that's probably what you're talking about. A3 does support LAA.

You're making it sound like getting SSD would be something horrible, which it really isn't. Of course, it costs more than regular HDDs, but you don't have to store everything there, only programs, games and OS. As a bonus you get PC that is a lot faster and "agile" than before. Also, it would be kind of funny to say that they're expensive when getting enough RAM for A3 (if it was 64-bit) would cost more than a regular 120 GB SSD. And if you have the RAM already, you have a system that is being bottlenecked by the HDD so getting SSD would be a good option anyway. And you can always put the game on RAMdisk (eg. http://www.softperfect.com/products/ramdisk/) – you made the game magically 64-bit in practice! Ba dum tssshhh!

By the way, I really suggest you to put the game on the RAMdisk to simulate the 64-bit and do some benchmarks (or just usual gameplay). You shouldn't be able to see noticeable difference. I've tested it myself, and the performance gain was 0-1%. Haven't tested on Altis though, the difference might be a little higher there.

Edit: you could try startup parameter -nologs, it disables the error writing in the game. There's a chance that the possible stuttering decreases with that.

[williahg 10]

Howdy. Looking for a laptop that will run circles around this game. Don't know much about computers, so overly technical solutions are lost on me. Really just looking for a brand name product so I can skip the bullshit and go straight to nuking folks on the web.

Haven't played these games in a while, but I was an OFP junkie back in the day. ARMA III looks dope. I wanna play it. Thanks for your help.

[griffz 1]

SSD is nearly a requirement for arma series...

[38093 10]

G'day guys,

Before I blow some money on a game, I have taken to the forums to ask you if this computer has the capability to run Arma 3. I am running a Dell XT3. It seems to run other games like Far Cry 3 and World of Tanks reasonably well but they are installed on an external hard drive.

Thanks guys,

380

[dionysus 10]

Ok, here I go:

AMD FX-8120 (3.8GHz)

16GB DDR3 - 1600MHz

nVidia GTX 660 2GB - Asus DCU2/OC

Asus Crosshair V Formula - 990FX

Corsair nForce 3 90GB SSD (Boot drive)

Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM 1TB (Games drive)

WD Green 5400RPM 1TB (Back-up drive)

I have a hard time running over 30FPS, even on the lowest settings, but auto-detect wants to push everything to Ultra, so I'm slightly confused by this. :confused:

[fabio_chavez 103]

thats a bit funny since, not only you expect us to either know or google what kind of hardware a Dell XT3 contains, there are serval different possible configurations of that hybridlaptop... do you have an i3,i5,i7? HDD, SSD? how many ram for the apu?

i would guess no, based on the fact that its only an apu but i really have no clue, and then again there apparently is no system in the world that is able to run arma3 anyway.

[Maio 293]

Howdy. Looking for a laptop that will run circles around this game. Don't know much about computers, so overly technical solutions are lost on me. Really just looking for a brand name product so I can skip the bullshit and go straight to nuking folks on the web.

Haven't played these games in a while, but I was an OFP junkie back in the day. ARMA III looks dope. I wanna play it. Thanks for your help.

What's your budget?

[Opendome84 10]

Hello everyone,

I'm getting fps drops every 5-10 seconds from 24 fps-16 fps and a super annoying freeze for about a second every 5-10 seconds. It doesnt matter if I have it on low or high settings, the fps/drops seem to stay. Also when I play the same MSO map on my own server, I get around 40 fps.

Also, I was wondering what my optimal settings would be :)

My rig

Asus M5A87 mobo

8 gb (2 x G.Skill Intl F3-12000CL9-4GBXL)

AMD FX-6100 6 core 3.30 ghz

Gigabyte GTX 660 Ti

Coolermaster 550 psu

Corsair GT 120 GB SSD

Thanks a tonne for your help!

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

Looking to upgrade my PC to squeeze out a few more frames and some more view distance for ArmA 3.

Ideally I'd like around stable 20-30fps on multiplayer instead of the 10-20 I'm getting now.

Budget? Dunno yet, just suggest the best upgrade path (priorities), given the results I want above.

Case: Cooler Master 430

Mobo: Asrock Extreme 4-m

PSU: Corsair TX-650w

CPU: Pentium G2020

GPU: Gigabyte GTX 650 Ti OC

RAM: 4GB 1600mhz Team Group Inc.

HDD: 1TB Seagate Barracuda

What are priorities to upgrade there, in order that I can increase some view distance and get decent 20-30fps?

I don't fight on the ground much, only when necessary. Usually pilot. Maybe that will influence suggestions.

cheers

[chrapladm 10]

I have tried to read through most of the pages on this thread. Seems to go back and forth quite a bit on what is needed. I have watched about 35 videos from Dslyecxi's youtube page and wanted to get started playing. Now I have no idea if what I am watching on his videos is Ultra settings or not but the rendering was beautiful. I normally play console games like BF3 and COD but have been getting quite fed up with those games. So I am wanting to go back to PC gaming. All this is new to me since the last time I played a PC game was Wolfenstein 3d.

I have built my computer to just be a simple non-gaming computer so I am wondering what will be the first upgrade I should consider.

GA-A75M-UD2H mother board

AMD A8-3850 APU 2.90Ghz

Samsung 830 60gb SSD

Kingston 4gb DDR3 ......not sure. Probably 1600Mhz

Also have a 2tb Seagate HDD

OS Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit

Was going to buy a 840 Evo 250gb very soon to replace the 60gb. Looked at maybe buying a EVGA PCIe GTX660 2GB SC GPU or possibly a EVGA GeForce GTX 760 With ACX Cooler. That being said I am not money bags and the 660 was looking more likely. I also thought about possibly upgrading the CPU but I figured best to ask here. So for now I am just going to get a SSd. Then hopefully someone can chime in on what would be the next option. And yes I also thought about upgrading the memory also.

[Valken 621]

I have done some testing and this is what I've found out.

ARMA 3 really needs 2+ GB VRAM video cards on ultra setting. VRAM alone just to load all the map assets models and textures. If you fly around the map, it will fill up your VRAM extremely fast. I feel 3 GB VRAM cards should be norm at 4 GB should be with plenty of room leftover.

I tested extensively by using the game editor to check each map with a player model and helicoptor. I fly around the map for 5 mins and watch all 2 GB VRAM for both of my video cards fill up.

The next step is how fast do you want to render everything. First tip: Turn OFF AntiALIASING and use FXAA or SMAA. I use FXAA on high sharp detail and it is good enough for me at 1920x1080. I am currently running ATI 6950 CFX unlocked and the speed is fairly good until I get near a cluster of AI. Then my FPS drops due to cpu loading.

For main memory, it is best to get 6+ GB main memory, 8+ GB is better and the absolute fastest Intel CPU you can overclock it to. This will give ARMA 3 up to 4 GB of ram in a 64 bit OS without hanging your system or forcing it to swap to virtual memory too much. Smoother gameplay. When I run low on ram, the game stutters due to windows swapping things out of memory to the HD swap file.

From extensive AI testing in big games with A LOT of AI running around in Single Player with AI enhancement mods, you want the fastest possible cpu you can afford. You do not need more than 4 cores really. ARMA 3 cannot load balance the AI that well. AI alone is one big thread so it will use up the maximum speed of one core.

I've tested with Zeus AI setup, WW AICOVER and TPW mods. Try these 3 mods to test the ingame AI load and how much better it feels playing scenarios and missions. It is not as good as ARMA 2 with AI mods, but it is better than the stock game.

Lastly, more ram for a ramdisk or SSD to stream all the content around. It is noticeable against a fast HD and is way more quiet during loading.

This is for Ultra setting usage at 1920x1080p. If you are using less video settings, you can use less powerful gpu. But if you plan to play with lot of AI running around, you will need an FAST INTEL CPU (i5/i7 or NEWER generation at 4+ GHZ with 4 cores or faster cpu equivalent. I believe this means AMD cpus at nearly 5 GHZ speeds per core.

If you want to justify buying a 6 or 8 core cpu just for gaming, then make sure to play Battlefield 3, 4 in the future and Crysis 3. Those games really can use up to 8 core cpus, but ARMA 3 just needs the FASTEST clock sped cpu you can afford.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Valken

[PapaRomeo 10]

I have done some testing and this is what I've found out.

ARMA 3 really needs 2+ GB VRAM video cards on ultra setting. VRAM alone just to load all the map assets models and textures. If you fly around the map, it will fill up your VRAM extremely fast. I feel 3 GB VRAM cards should be norm at 4 GB should be with plenty of room leftover.

I tested extensively by using the game editor to check each map with a player model and helicoptor. I fly around the map for 5 mins and watch all 2 GB VRAM for both of my video cards fill up.

The next step is how fast do you want to render everything. First tip: Turn OFF AntiALIASING and use FXAA or SMAA. I use FXAA on high sharp detail and it is good enough for me at 1920x1080. I am currently running ATI 6950 CFX unlocked and the speed is fairly good until I get near a cluster of AI. Then my FPS drops due to cpu loading.

For main memory, it is best to get 6+ GB main memory, 8+ GB is better and the absolute fastest Intel CPU you can overclock it to. This will give ARMA 3 up to 4 GB of ram in a 64 bit OS without hanging your system or forcing it to swap to virtual memory too much. Smoother gameplay. When I run low on ram, the game stutters due to windows swapping things out of memory to the HD swap file.

From extensive AI testing in big games with A LOT of AI running around in Single Player with AI enhancement mods, you want the fastest possible cpu you can afford. You do not need more than 4 cores really. ARMA 3 cannot load balance the AI that well. AI alone is one big thread so it will use up the maximum speed of one core.

I've tested with Zeus AI setup, WW AICOVER and TPW mods. Try these 3 mods to test the ingame AI load and how much better it feels playing scenarios and missions. It is not as good as ARMA 2 with AI mods, but it is better than the stock game.

Lastly, more ram for a ramdisk or SSD to stream all the content around. It is noticeable against a fast HD and is way more quiet during loading.

This is for Ultra setting usage at 1920x1080p. If you are using less video settings, you can use less powerful gpu. But if you plan to play with lot of AI running around, you will need an FAST INTEL CPU (i5/i7 or NEWER generation at 4+ GHZ with 4 cores or faster cpu equivalent. I believe this means AMD cpus at nearly 5 GHZ speeds per core.

If you want to justify buying a 6 or 8 core cpu just for gaming, then make sure to play Battlefield 3, 4 in the future and Crysis 3. Those games really can use up to 8 core cpus, but ARMA 3 just needs the FASTEST clock sped cpu you can afford.

This!

[chrapladm 10]

Well after looking more int my FM1 slot CPU I have found that I cant really upgrade cpu very much at all. SO I may just try the graphics card add some memory. I am wanting to start playing soon. I will just buy another MB and build again if my image quality is severely lacking in game play. Is there a recommended CPU to run when wanting to use the ULTRA settings for Arma?

I know I will need the rest of the accessories in order for it to work but want to know where to start for CPU's. Not that it matters much but I do play all my gaming on a 40" HD LCD Samsung 60hz TV.

[Recardio 1]

My computer is absolute crap, and I can only get a maximum of 10FPS in ArmA 3, but in ArmA 2, with comparable settings, I get 40 FPS at 4 times the view distance. Here's my stats.

Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit

CPU - AMD Athlon II X4 620 Overclocked to 3.2Ghz per core.

RAM - 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 1066(7-6-6-18)

Mainboard - Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. GA-MA790X-UD4P

GPU - Nvidia Geforce GT240 with 512MB of GDDR5 VRAM.

Hard Drive - 699GB Seagate ST3750330AS SATA 7200RPM HDD

I have no income that I can spend on upgrading my computer. How can I get better FPS out of A3?

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

My computer is absolute crap, and I can only get a maximum of 10FPS in ArmA 3, but in ArmA 2, with comparable settings, I get 40 FPS at 4 times the view distance. Here's my stats.

Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit

CPU - AMD Athlon II X4 620 Overclocked to 3.2Ghz per core.

RAM - 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 1066(7-6-6-18)

Mainboard - Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. GA-MA790X-UD4P

GPU - Nvidia Geforce GT240 with 512MB of GDDR5 VRAM.

Hard Drive - 699GB Seagate ST3750330AS SATA 7200RPM HDD

I have no income that I can spend on upgrading my computer. How can I get better FPS out of A3?

I too am in a position where I don't have much to spend on PC upgrades.

In the short term I'd suggest tweaking view distance settings and altering your play style and server/mission selection. Large missions in urban settings are going to kill your frames.

So if you stick to small squad-based missions on low-pop servers, and have View Distance tweaked to achieve balance between playability/performance, then you'll have a good time.

In the long term, I'd politely suggest working on a source of income to fund your desired modest lifestyle.

cheers :)

[verstand3n 13]

I have done some testing and this is what I've found out.

What is your cpu?

I doubt you can play A3 on ultra settings on a 6950, at least not on altis.

I have a 6950 (unlocked @ 6970 and some OC done) and can hardly play on standard. but I just have a Phenom X4. Anyway my VRAM is never filled more than about 1,5GB.

For RAM I am not sure but I have 8GB in my system and that was always enough.

Over at the techspot commentary section a Bohemia DEV said that PhysX is completely done by the CPU but it might be done by Nvida GPU later. I always thought I would benefit from buying nvidia over amd because the cpu load would be decreased. for now that is not true.

I find the techspot cpu testing very irritating as well. For instance they have benchmarked the cpu overclocking potential of the i7 on page five. In the first diagram on page five they say the i7 @ 3.5Ghz delivers 49fps and 53 @ 4Ghz. The next diagram where cpus are compared @stock frequency shows the i7 with 53fps for 3.5Ghz while settings and gpu are the same as before. If this is a mistake the difference between i7 and FX-8350 is barely noticable. And why did they not benchmark the current i5-4670k modell? it would have been very interesting to see whether there is a difference between i5/i7 and ivy/haswell and see how much OC does for every modell.

However this shows a completely different picture. >50% single thread performance gain for the i7.

Now what is true. Is a 8350 (or 6350 or 4350) just as good for arma as a i5/i7? Because than I can just get a new CPU instead of new plattform. Piledriver is way cheaper then haswell, too.

I also doubt their gpu test. A friend of mine played exactly the same mission they used. He has an i7 extreme and a GTX 670. He can play ultra on 60-80 frames...

[miraoister 1]

Hi,

I'm currently looking into buying a new PC, I live in Japan, so chosing anything in a PC shop is a long hard process, here are the two PCs im thinking of buying,

FMVD53LB1 FUJITSU ESPRIMO

INTEL HD GRAPHICS 2500

INTEL H61 EXPRESS CHIP SET.

MEMORY 4 GB

CORE I3 3240 3.40 GHz

Windows 7. 64bit.

second candidate...

LENOVO 57316989

windows r 8 64bit.pentiumR G2030

3.00GHz

4 gb memory

intelR H61 EXPRESS

INTELR HD GRAPHICS CARD.

please let me know ASAP!