Jump to content
Placebo

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

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, I'm thinking on upgrade my PC for the end of this year. This are my actual specs:

-AMD FX 8320 (cooled by Hyper212+)

-2x 4 Gb DDR3 1600 MHz Kingston HyperX

-ASUS DC II TOP Radeon 7870

-ASUS M5A99fx PRO R2.0

-Sentey ERP-650ss (650W)

So, I was looking for a powerful videocard, and I want your opinion, my budget is near 500 USD and I want to play on 60 fps, near Very High/Ultra settings at 1080p (or 1050p, or 900p). I watched some benchmarks and almost all said that the 770 and 280x are pretty close on the performance on ARMA III. In another games, sometimes win the 770, and others the 280x. Somebody has a good advice for me? If you want to purpose another videocard, or a special edition with more memory or something like that, please do it, I'm listening.

The PhysX, or CUDA, worth the money? And what do you think about buy another 7870 and make a crossfire?

Another games I play:

-ARMA III Mod King of the Hill

-Battlefield 3 (4 in a near future)

-Skyrim and GTA modded (I readed some opinions about, saying that this games works better with Nvidia, don't know if it's truth)

-Dirt 3

-NFS Shift 2

Software I use:

3DS Max and Unity3D

PS: I will be upgrading the PSU too, so don't worry about that point.

PS2: Maybe upgrading the CPU and mother to an i7 config in 2014 (I don't know if worth the money yet).

PS3: Sorry if I make some mistakes on the redaction, my english is upgrading to :D

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arma is more demanding on the cpu than the gpu. If you're upgrading for this game I'd go for cpu first, i5-4670K is the recommended cpu, not sure what it'll do in 3dsmax or unity but in multithreaded pro software the i5 and 8350 usually perform roughly the same.

60 fps won't happen in big fights in a city though, no cpu is fast enough.

if you really want to upgrade the gpu get the 7970, not that much of an upgrade, but the 280X is the same exact card, only with another sticker and the 7970's are being dumped for quite low prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ xGamerARG : from my point of view the question is not "GTX 770 or R9-280x", the right one is what it's worth.

The AMD FX 8320 is underpowered to pull the game "on 60 fps, near Very High/Ultra settings at 1080p", and a high end powerful GPU will not change this fact, for the game is fully CPU "dependent". I will suggest to save your money until you can upgrade for a real gaming rig and then an "i5-4670K/GTX770/SSD 256/8Go/Windows7-64" will give you a better in-game experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leon86 and @Old Bear I will totally disagree with you guys, the CPU is very important on ARMA, but after the FX 8150, the GPU is the center. I know the FX 8320/50 is far from be the best processor for the market. But in games, it really fight with the i Series. Games not totally multicore like ARMA II, the difference between the FX 8320 (4.0 GHz) and the i5 will be maybe about 5 to 10 fps on a heavy multiplayer game (i5 is best). In ARMA III (totally multicore) the difference is even less, max is about 5 fps. See some benchmarks. Bench.

CPU_03.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I was looking for a powerful videocard, and I want your opinion, my budget is near 500 USD and I want to play on 60 fps, near Very High/Ultra settings at 1080p (or 1050p, or 900p). I watched some benchmarks and almost all said that the 770 and 280x are pretty close on the performance on ARMA III. In another games, sometimes win the 770, and others the 280x.

Thanks!

If you get a GTX 770 get a 4GB one, not necessarily for Arma but for other games in the next few years that start to require more than 2GB (BF4 already requires 3). Apart from that if they are around the same price and you have a preference for nvidia or amd, get whichever brand you prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you buy a video card don't buy it for Arma3 but for other games . The benefits from a good videocard will be minimal for Arma3 and I have the experience and that's why I'm telling you that.

I have two GPU:s one GTX 570 and one GTX 680. You know what? I have the exactly same frames in the benchmark regardless of GPU. So it's up too you to experiment or to listen .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Leon86 and @Old Bear I will totally disagree with you guys

Up to you, dont say we didn't warn you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Leon86 and @Old Bear I will totally disagree with you guys, the CPU is very important on ARMA, but after the FX 8150, the GPU is the center. I know the FX 8320/50 is far from be the best processor for the market. But in games, it really fight with the i Series. Games not totally multicore like ARMA II, the difference between the FX 8320 (4.0 GHz) and the i5 will be maybe about 5 to 10 fps on a heavy multiplayer game (i5 is best). In ARMA III (totally multicore) the difference is even less, max is about 5 fps. See some benchmarks. Bench.

Prepare to be disappointed. Sub par CPU = sub par experience, irrespective of powerful GPU. Threading architecture has not changed between Arma 2 and 3, don't know where you are getting that from.

Save some money and get a previous gen GPU. I have a 4GB GTX680, it allows me to run a heavily modded GTA IV downsampled from 2880 x 1620 to 1080p at stable, high FPS. Although again this needs a good CPU too.

Edited by jiltedjock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ xGamerARG : it was just free advice . As I have previously said, I have done many experiments with different rigs I built myself and still working to build up a review based on my own experience on low end rig. Every days, I am asking/answering questions on various forums about real experiences from people trying to play with minimal config. I have read almost every thing about the subject but I am not an expert, just a guy trying to help ... with a dedication to help people having low level bank account.

Well, if you believe only in Benchmarks, let's have a look at this one (all in Polish and related to Arma3 beta) : ArmA III (beta) – test kart graficznych i procesorów "Bez mocnego CPU nie podchodź" or at this one (all in French and related to Arma2) : Intel Core i7-4770K et i5-4670K : Haswell en test .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice guys, and I didn't saw benchs like that. But I don't have the money right now for buy a better GPU, a PSU, an i7 and a new motherboard. For now I will prioritize the GPU, because in other games I need to push a little more in that. Next year comes the i7 :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my low-end gts450/i5 650 stock, my key setting run like this for PvP play:

-600x900 rez.

-Object Detail = low.

-Vsync = On @75hrz.

-AA = 8x

-Mouse dpi 500.

Nvidia Control Panel settings --so it doesn't look like a jaggy mess:

-8 or 16x Anisotropic filter.

-32x AA (CSAA) "enhanced" or over-ride.

-8x super-sampling.

Obviously, I'm not concerned about high fps --I'm concerned about steady frames under load in a firefight.

I'm thinking "Fillrate" is the culprit for flooring people's frames. Be worth a look at Tom's to compare fillrates across cards.

Here's my quick fillrate benchmark:

Go prone in a stand of grass with a rangefinder. Zoom rangefinder at the grass. Check fps -- this is fillrate saturation.

I'm getting 23/25 frames.

On a side note, when i play 'Cliffs of Dover', my 450gtx throttles up like a vacuum cleaner in my case. A3 never hits that load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never turn on AA in arma, it kills performance like crazy, and don't do much to image quality...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Ratszo : on my low end rig "Athlon II x2 250/GTS 450", I am playing @20/30 FPS on "Standard/High", AA&PP all options disabled, 1000 m Visibility on Solo and Campaign as well on a 1680 x 1050 monitor.

On solo the CPU 2 cores usage is 80% to 100% and GPU from 90 to 100%.

Multi-players still un-playable with this rig @ 10 FPS. The fact is that when in MP, the CPU 2 cores usage is around 80%, but the GPU usage is around 50%.

I think it's not a good thing to deal with AA&PP on the Nvidia control panel, it's better to use the game built-in one and speaking about the Nvidia GTS 450, I suggest then to disable and/or set to 0 all the parameters in this section.

@ Roni : on my current game rig "i7 3770/GTX 670 OC", I am using the "HardOcp combo" in the AA&PP section :

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone.

I just bought a new desktop PC and I'm wondering at what settings I will be able to run Arma 3 with a playable FPS (at least 40 imo)? Med, High or Ultra?

Specs

CPU: Intel i5 4670K 3,4GHz

GPU: GTX770 OC 2GB

8 GB DDR 3 RAM

120GB SSD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medium/High will work for you. With your system I wouldn't accept less than 45 FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ LloydTheWeaboo : Of course, you can get "Ultra" with such a rig but to get the higher FPS rate you will have to deal with "Visibility" parameter and the AA&PP section.

Autodetect will probably set a Visibility around 3800 m on "global" setting and all the AA&PP parameters on "Ultra".

In order to get more FPS, I will suggest to set down global Visibility down around 2500m and the object Visibility accordingly. On the AA&PP section, I will again suggest to use to use the "HardOcp combo" :

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.

I must add that those tweaks are working Ok on Single player, on Missions and in the Campaign as well. In MP, it's quite an other story for it's well known that going from SP to MP will downgrade your FPS rate.

You will get -5/-10 FPS on professionally hosted servers, playing well built MP missions and what's the most weird, your GPU load will fall down !

But you must not change the parameters you have set for SP, most of the moves you can do will probably worsen the situation.

Edited by Old Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an Intel Core 2 Quad 4 core Q8200 x64, Windows 7 64bit, and im running the GTX 250 with it right now, but it's starting to poop out. Had this build since 2009. My mother board is a Gigabyte EP43 UD3L. Can anyone suggest one I should get to replace the graphics card I have now THAT will run Armed Assault 3 in most or max settings? I know I need to replace the processor soon but for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Chammy : I had build a "Core2Quad 9400/HD 7750" rig with various disused parts and tested it with Alpha [i can no longer test it for it has been given]. I was getting around 30 FPS on "Standard" with limited "Visibility" on a 1360x768 monitor. The Core2Quad 8200 runs @ 2.33 GHz, so here we are dealing with the low end border of the min. specs, for Arma 3 as all previous Arma* games is "CPU dependent". So you can't expect high performances in game even with a high end GPU on board!

So you can go 2 ways, either go buy a nearly low end -Arma3 wise- graphic card such as a HD 7770 at a bargain price before it disappears, either look for a better GPU you can use on your future rig. Then you will consider the R9 270x /GTX 660Ti level as a minimum to enjoy the game ... in the future.

Note : you can't "replace the processor" only, but you need to go for a full CPU/Mother board overall replacement and probably some RAM extension/upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No chance for more than 25fps in SP, too weak CPU and GPU, sorry

Edited by Roni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ SS9 : of course, " the graphics are gonna require more power" because this GT430 with 1GB DDR3 is not good for your gaming health, but the main problem is the CPU. Here you are between the 'playable' and the 'enjoyable' specs.

The i5 650 3.2GHz dual core is probably making the game more or less playable in Single player and even in the Campaign.

I am wondering if you can play Multiplayer with "i5 650 3.2GHz dual core/GT430 with 1GB DDR3". I can join a server with my own "Athlon II x2 250 @3ghz/GTS 450 - 1GB DDR3" but it's not really playable @ 10/15 FPS and not enjoyable at all because in the same time the video quality is getting worse.

In fact, the more I am doing tests with my low end rig, the more I am thinking the so-called "Recommended" specs are in fact the "Minimum" specs for MP :confused:

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:31 ----------

@ Roni : with my own "Athlon II x2 250 @3ghz/GTS 450 - 1GB DDR3 - 8 Go RAM" low end -Arma3wise- rig, I am getting 25 Fps in Benchmark-Stratis, playing @20/30 FPS in SP/Campaign in "Standard" settings, disabled Vsync, disabled AA&PP section and "1000m/800m" visibility on a Prolite 22" Iiyama 1680x1050 monitor.

Then, in SP/Campaign the game is playable and I will say enjoyable due to DX11 lighting effects.

Of course, as I have previously said, it's not really playable in MP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any way to run this game decently with listed specs in my siggy? Obviously, the graphics are gonna require more power, but is the engine optimized better? Are the trees and clutter hard on fps like on Cherno?

I do fine on a i5 650 3.2GHz/450 in MP.

Just keep screen resolution low..., say 600x900 or 1024x788.

Vsync on --screen tearing makes for bad gameplay. Thru nvidia control panel try "adaptive half refreshrate". At 75hrz that's a very steady 37fps.

Read my post above for other settings.

Did you sweeten your voltage for the oc?

Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

My current system specs are:

OS - windows 7 64 bit

mobo - asrock z77 pro3

CPU - i5 3570k@4.2 Ghz (I'm sure it could handle more but it's rock solid at 4.2 and I haven't actually tried going higher yet)

ram - 12 gigs DDR 1333mhz

GPU - GTX560Ti 2 gig

OS and arma3 on ssd

I have virtual memory disabled to prolong the life of my ssd(been considering putting it on the sata drive but haven't had any problems without it).

With most settings on high, 1920x1080, 2200vd, 1800 obj distance, 4x fsaa, atoc on trees+grass, fxaa high, anio very high, my framerate in singleplayer missions is mid 40's - high 50's, unless looking at the sky of course lol.

I'm wondering if my game will benefit from a vid card upgrade, like a gtx760 or MAYBE 770. My days of buying top of the line vid cards ended with the Gforce 4 series.

Any input will be appreciated, thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Fitzee : I think that disabling virtual memory is not a good move, for it's in Windows genes, and some softs are looking for such a feature. It will change nothing about your SSD life, for you will change your whole rig long before 10% of your SSD cells are all burned out. With 12 Go Ram, a minimum amount of Virtual Memory will be enough and never used in game.

A better GPU, as a gtx760 will help you to switch to "Ultra" for the Quality settings, nothing more. I think it will change nothing FPS wise.

There will be some enhancements if you play other games more GPU demanding but as Arma* games are totally CPU dependent, you can rely for a while on your not so bad ol' GTX560Ti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you can get few more frames by OCing your rams or buying faster, as Arma likes fast rams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not having much problems running ArmA3 with this (but I would prefer a better vídeo card):

MONITOR

DELL 27" U2713M ULTRASHARP (8MS/IPS)

VIDEO CARD

GEFORCE GTX 980 STRIX 4GB

MODERBOARD

ASUS SABERTOOTH X79

CPU

INTEL QUAD-CORE I7-3820 3.6GHZ 10MB SK2011

CASE

CORSAIR GRAPHITE 600T White

HARD DRIVE

SSD Corsair Force GS 240GB

POWER SUPPLY

CORSAIR TX-650W M

CPU FAN

CORSAIR HYDRO H70 (CORE EDITION)

MEMMORY

CORSAIR VENGEANCE DDR3-2133MHZ 3x2X4GB (24 Gb RAM)

DVD

LG 24X DVD-RW SATA PRETO BULK

SO

Win8.1 Pro 64bit UK OEM

KEYBOARD

Teclado 1Life kb:bright Iluminado PT Black

MOUSE

Corsair Vengeance M95

Edited by bravo 6
update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×