Jump to content
Placebo

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

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

Looking to build a new machine, had someone reccomend these parts. How could I expect it to perform? And if it's not going to be great what could I improve without doubling the cost hehe.

Sapphire R9 270 OC DUAL-X 2GB GDDR5 Dual DVI HDMI DisplayPort PCI-E Graphics Card

Intel Core i5 4670K 3.40GHz Socket 1150 6MB Cache

Kingston 8GB DDR3 1600MHz Genesis Kit - Intel Haswell

CIT 550W Dual 12V Rail PSU - 12cm Fan - 20+4pin 3x SATA

MSI B85M-G43 Socket 1150 VGA DVI HDMI DisplayPort 8 Channel Audio mATX Motherboard

Seagate 1TB Desktop 3.5" SSHD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bhaaaaa...

Amd Phenom 9500 Quad 2.2ghz

4gb ram i think 1600s

GF gtx 550TI 2448mb

Im looking at the MINIMUM settings ingame and MP...

Any chance in a virtual world...Preferably in

reallity....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im still having troubles and I now have

Asus M5A87 mobo

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

AMD FX-8350 8 core

Gigabyte GTX 660

Coolermaster 550 psu

Corsair GT 120 GB SSD

I was wondering what is recommended for my settings?

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all,

Looking to build a new machine, had someone reccomend these parts. How could I expect it to perform? And if it's not going to be great what could I improve without doubling the cost hehe.

Sapphire R9 270 OC DUAL-X 2GB GDDR5 Dual DVI HDMI DisplayPort PCI-E Graphics Card

Intel Core i5 4670K 3.40GHz Socket 1150 6MB Cache

Kingston 8GB DDR3 1600MHz Genesis Kit - Intel Haswell

CIT 550W Dual 12V Rail PSU - 12cm Fan - 20+4pin 3x SATA

MSI B85M-G43 Socket 1150 VGA DVI HDMI DisplayPort 8 Channel Audio mATX Motherboard

Seagate 1TB Desktop 3.5" SSHD

Seems nice, except I've never heard of that graphics card or motherboard... and you will definitely want an SSD if you can afford it. 128GB is enough, even 64GB if you can get one at a good price.

Should perform well, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, okay.

How much cheaper is the R9 270 than a 760? The 760 seems consistently better.

Also you’re not going for a full size computer since the mobo is a mATX?

I’m also quite sure you can’t overclock with that motherboard, in case you were considering that. Of course overclocking with Haswell is useless though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mean a geforce gtx 760 like so:

http://m.dabs.com/products/asus-geforce-gtx-760-1006mhz-2gb-pci-express-3-0-hdmi-directcu-ii-oc-8SWQ.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc%20product%20search&utm_content=Q200&utm_campaign=Components%20and%20Storage%20-%20Graphics,%20TV%20Tuners%20and%20I/O%20-%20Graphics&origin=pla

Then there's around £50 Quid difference. which isn't an issue.

As for the motherboard...well as I say this was all reccomended to me as trying to pick parts separately just goes straight over my head. The pc will only be used for gaming though, I have a perfectly fine computer for everything else.

Edited by umbr44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some NVIDIA Control Panel settings:

Testing was done on empty Stratis, the northern (out of three) hill 80 below Agia Marina, looking 40 degrees while crouching in sunny weather.

All comments below in parenthesis are comments about visual quality.

Very small (0.2 fps) differences can be disregarded.

Basic settings:

Let the 3D application decide: 62.4 fps

Manually managed maximum performance settings: 64.1 fps (worse than Let the 3D application decide)

Use my preference emphasizing performance: 64.1 fps (same as above)

Use my preference emphasizing balance: 62.4 fps (same as Let the 3D application decide)

Use my preference emphasizing quality: 60.5 fps (better than Let the 3D application decide)

Manually managed maximum quality settings: 59.8 fps (same as above)

Best quality with best performance:

Use my preference emphasizing quality: 60.5 fps

Best performance with best quality:

Manually managed maximum performance settings: 64.1 fps

Use my preference emphasizing performance: 64.1 fps

Advanced settings: (everything max except for the mentioned setting below)

Everything max: 59.8

Ambient occlusion off: 59.8 (same as max)

Anisotropic app-control: 60.0 (worse than max)

Anisotropic off: 63.9 (much worse than max)

FXAA off: 59.8 (same as max)

Gamma off: 59.8 (same as max)

AA mode app-control: 60.0 (same as max)

AA off: 59.8 (same as max)

Negative LOD bias allow: 59.8 (worse than max)

AA transparency off: 59.8 (same as max)

Power management mode adaptive: 59.8 (same as max)

Texture filtering quality high performance trilinear optimisation off: 59.8 (same as max)

Texture filtering quality high performance trilinear optimisation off: 61.4 (same as max)

The settings that can be modified to improve performance:

Anisotropic (worsens graphics).

Texture filtering quality and trilinear optimisation combined (doesn't worsen graphics).

At least on my computer everything else should be max.

Recommended settings:

Ambient occlusion: Quality

Anisotropic filtering: 16x

Antialiasing - FXAA: On

Antialiasing - Gamma correction: On

Antialiasing mode: Override

Antialiasing - Setting: 32x CSAA

Antialiasing - Transparency: x8

CUDA - GPUs: All

Maximum pre-rendered frames: Use the 3D application setting (not tested)

Multi-display: Single display performance mode (not tested)

Power management mode: Adaptive

Texture filtering - Anisotropic sample optimisation: On

Texture filtering - Negative LOD bias: Clamp

Texture filtering - Quality: Quality

Texture filtering - Trilinear optimisation: On

Threaded optimisation: Auto (not tested)

Tripple buffering: Off (not tested)

Vertical sync: Use the 3D application setting (not tested)

The only change from all max is Texture filtering - Quality to High Performance and Trilinear optimisation to On which brings a 3% improvement yet.

Note that if Anisotropic filtering is 16x above then the in-game setting won't matter visually or performance-wise.

Up to a 7% performance increase can be had by turning Anisotropic filtering off in the NVIDIA Control Panel however this degrades texture quality:

16x 61.4

8x 61.4 Slight difference

4x 62.1 Noticable difference

2x 62.7 Complete smear, very ugly textures

Off 63.9 Complete smear, same as 2x

8G323gX.jpg

Note: anisotropic filtering only affects texture quality on slopes. The more steep a slope is the worse texture quality without enough aniso.

Edited by Sneakson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not a bad set up.

If you are not going to overclock drop the CPU from a k model to the cheaper non k. So get an I 5 4670 and Asus h87 board.

If you are overclocking keep the I 5 4670k and get a "z87" motherboard. Cheapest I think is asrock pro z87. (this will be more costly CPU and mobo)

The graphics card is not bad but if you are going for this get the 270 , the 270x is pretty much the same and more expensive. Get a decent brand Gigabyte or Asus then MSI Sapphire ...Cooling and noise in order.

Gtx 760 go for again same brand as above minus sapphire which is AMD only.

If you need anymore help don't hesitate.

This reply is for umbr44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not a bad set up.

If you are not going to overclock drop the CPU from a k model to the cheaper non k. So get an I 5 4670 and Asus h87 board.

If you are overclocking keep the I 5 4670k and get a "z87" motherboard. Cheapest I think is asrock pro z87. (this will be more costly CPU and mobo)

The graphics card is not bad but if you are going for this get the 270 , the 270x is pretty much the same and more expensive. Get a decent brand Gigabyte or Asus then MSI Sapphire ...Cooling and noise in order.

Gtx 760 go for again same brand as above minus sapphire which is AMD only.

If you need anymore help don't hesitate.

This reply is for umbr44

In Sweden the 4670 is $150 more than the 4670K :p

And MSI makes the best 700-series cards.

The MSI 760 is as strong, as cold and about 25% quieter than the ASUS. Something similar goes for the 770s too.

ASUS are very close though. EVGA and Gigabyte are also good but not the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh not here to debate specs with anyone. Is he from Sweden??? If so cool perfect , If he is not from Sweden, what exactly is your point? Other than bragging , means nothing to him because unfortunately like the rest of the world the k version Intel is more expensive.

As for your knowledge on graphics cards..... you never even heard of an r 9 270x graphics card??? *** I'll say no more. Best of luck with your build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugh not here to debate specs with anyone. Is he from Sweden??? If so cool perfect , If he is not from Sweden, what exactly is your point? Other than bragging , means nothing to him because unfortunately like the rest of the world the k version Intel is more expensive.

As for your knowledge on graphics cards..... you never even heard of an r 9 270x graphics card??? *** I'll say no more. Best of luck with your build.

My point is that you shouldn't buy the "cheaper" 4670 if it's actually more expensive than the 4670K and even internationally it's only $15 cheaper than the K-model which is hardly worth the trouble of giving up being able to overclock in a possible future scenario.

And yeah, what the hell is an R9? AMD? The naming doesn't make any sense at all. Intel go 560 where 5 is basically the year and 60-70-80-90 is strength so you can tell a 560 is the weaker model two years older than a 770.

AMD go 7700, 7790... R9 270? Non sense.

Edited by Sneakson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that you shouldn't buy the "cheaper" 4670 if it's actually more expensive than the 4670K and even internationally it's only $15 cheaper than the K-model which is hardly worth the trouble of giving up being able to overclock in a possible future scenario.

And yeah, what the hell is an R9? AMD? The naming doesn't make any sense at all. Intel go 560 where 5 is basically the year and 60-70-80-90 is strength so you can tell a 560 is the weaker model two years older than a 770.

AMD go 7700, 7790... R9 270? Non sense.

He mentioned pounds, so I can guess he not in Sweden the land of cheaper k CPUs.

Read my post again. I never said don't get a k version. I gave him options for both not overclocking and an option for overclocking.

There is added cost with a k version not just the 15 euro difference as you put it. There is the definite need for an after market CPU cooler, and a more expensive motherboard to get the value out of the k model also a decent case for cooling.

Now if he is "never" going to overclock these added costs are not necessary and he may be on a tight budget which would mean money better spent on his Gpu. My post was catering to what ever his needs may be, not my own Desires in what pc I'd like.

An r9 270x is an AMD card ,the latest AMD cards out. The r9 270x is a rehash of the old AMD 7870. Don't know if AMD are going to continue using 7000/8000 ever again.

Anyway this getting off topic now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys,im thinking about building the pc for arma 3 and i want to know which one is the best CUP right now.i had 3570k oc to 4gz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys,im thinking about building the pc for arma 3 and i want to know which one is the best CUP right now.i had 3570k oc to 4gz.

What... if you currently have a 3570K you don't have to upgrade, fool!

If you had one and sold it or whatever you can buy another one.

If you’ve sold your entire computer you may want to buy a Z87 mobo and a 4670K instead which is last year’s 3570K model. That’s basically going to be the same but newer yaaay.

A complete computer:

Any case (that’s awesome, cool and quiet)

MSI Z87-G45 Gaming (or ASUS Z87-A, Gigabyte equivalent)

Intel Core i5-4670K

MSI GTX 760/770 Gaming 2GB (or the ASUS, EVGA or Gigabyte equivalent)

2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 MHz (or G.Skill Ripjaws) Note that testing has shown memories better than 1600 MHz to improve ARMA3 performance.

Western Digital Blue 1TB (or Seagate Barracuda 1TB)

Samsung 840 Evo 128-250GB

Any popular DVD

PSU

Win 8 64-bit

Can’t really recommend a PSU.

They’re all crap in my opinion and the component in your computer that’s absolutely the most likely to be dead/defective out of the box.

Corsair is a popular brand that has units in all price classes however Seasonic are the best if you can afford them.

Their 520FL should be dead silent except I’ve had three and all of them have had issues and even now I have issues including coil whine except I’ve solved the whining with an easy software fix.

The number one thing you should worry about after making sure it has enough wattage is the sound level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What... if you currently have a 3570K you don't have to upgrade, fool!

If you had one and sold it or whatever you can buy another one.

If you’ve sold your entire computer you may want to buy a Z87 mobo and a 4670K instead which is last year’s 3570K model. That’s basically going to be the same but newer yaaay.

A complete computer:

Any case (that’s awesome, cool and quiet)

MSI Z87-G45 Gaming (or ASUS Z87-A, Gigabyte equivalent)

Intel Core i5-4670K

MSI GTX 760/770 Gaming 2GB (or the ASUS, EVGA or Gigabyte equivalent)

2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 MHz (or G.Skill Ripjaws) Note that testing has shown memories better than 1600 MHz to improve ARMA3 performance.

Western Digital Blue 1TB (or Seagate Barracuda 1TB)

Samsung 840 Evo 128-250GB

Any popular DVD

PSU

Win 8 64-bit

Can’t really recommend a PSU.

They’re all crap in my opinion and the component in your computer that’s absolutely the most likely to be dead/defective out of the box.

Corsair is a popular brand that has units in all price classes however Seasonic are the best if you can afford them.

Their 520FL should be dead silent except I’ve had three and all of them have had issues and even now I have issues including coil whine except I’ve solved the whining with an easy software fix.

The number one thing you should worry about after making sure it has enough wattage is the sound level.

thanks for ur reply.i sold my stuff.im not worried about mobo or psu or graphics card.its just the cpu.i want something better than 3570k.u suggested 4670k,ill take a look at it.what do u think about fx 9590 8 core.5ghz?

BTW this was my setup before

MoBo-ASRock Z77 Extreme4

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit SP1

CPU-I5 3570k 4 GHZ

RAM-8.00 GB DDR 3

Graphics-AMD Radeon HD 7970

Corsair H80i Watercooler

Hard Drives-500 GB WL500GSA6472 ATA Device/500 GB SSD/1 tb hdd

PSU-Thermaltake M series 850 watts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys,im thinking about building the pc for arma 3 and i want to know which one is the best CUP right now.i had 3570k oc to 4gz.
look at cpu based arma3 benchmarks in the internet:

http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

scroll down to the third diagram were all cpu´s are listed. You have sold your 3570k????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks for ur reply.i sold my stuff.im not worried about mobo or psu or graphics card.its just the cpu.i want something better than 3570k.u suggested 4670k,ill take a look at it.what do u think about fx 9590 8 core.5ghz?

BTW this was my setup before

MoBo-ASRock Z77 Extreme4

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit SP1

CPU-I5 3570k 4 GHZ

RAM-8.00 GB DDR 3

Graphics-AMD Radeon HD 7970

Corsair H80i Watercooler

Hard Drives-500 GB WL500GSA6472 ATA Device/500 GB SSD/1 tb hdd

PSU-Thermaltake M series 850 watts

There's nothing better, man! At least in mainstream CPUs :p

If you buy a 4670K you're going to have to change mobo and that will be more expensive than it's worth.

The FX9590 is a lot weaker than a 4670K, $100 more expensive and based on what one guy said it seems you need to buy extra CPU cooling to use it because it's overclocked out of the box and comes without cooling... sounds strange.

Besides Intel work better with the ARMA-series than AMD do.

One thing you COULD do is wait for new CPUs to come out. I would just buy another 3750K instead though.

Might want to try an Itroll 4770k instead and overclock it to the max.

Itroll lol! A 4670K would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the input guys.one more question.i had 7970 oc as my graphics card.i never had nvidia.can u recomend the best nvidia card that goes well with 4670k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks for the input guys.one more question.i had 7970 oc as my graphics card.i never had nvidia.can u recomend the best nvidia card that goes well with 4670k.

Currently the 760s and 770s are hot.

The best 760s and 770s are made by MSI that are marginally stronger and noticeably quieter than the competition too. Both are equally cost-effective: if you buy the 770 you will get what you pay for.

The 770 is about 10-30% stronger depending on game and about 25% more expensive.

They’re called:

MSI GTX 760 Gaming 2GB or N760 TF 2GD5/OC 2GB

MSI GTX 770 Gaming 2GB or N770 TF 2GD5/OC 2GB

Depending on where you look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have any suggestions to get better performance in arma? Right now I run everything pretty much at max and I struggle to get above 20 FPS, but lowering settings doesn't seem to make much difference in performance. I've been considering buying another video card and doing SLI, but I'm not sure if that will even help in arma. Maybe a CPU upgrade would be money better spent? I'll just post my specs and see if there's anything you guys see that stands out as a weak link.

CPU - Core i7 - 2600k 3.4Ghz

RAM - 8Gb DDR 3 1600

Samsung SSD (arma is installed on the SSD)

GPU - GTX 680 2Gb 2680

Some of the components are a few years old, I've kinda been upgrading bit by bit. I'm not really sure what the best bang for the buck upgrade would be. I spend most of my time in arma flying, and the minigun fire rate REALLY gets choppy and erratic when the framerate drops.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone have any suggestions to get better performance in arma? Right now I run everything pretty much at max and I struggle to get above 20 FPS, but lowering settings doesn't seem to make much difference in performance. I've been considering buying another video card and doing SLI, but I'm not sure if that will even help in arma. Maybe a CPU upgrade would be money better spent? I'll just post my specs and see if there's anything you guys see that stands out as a weak link.

CPU - Core i7 - 2600k 3.4Ghz

RAM - 8Gb DDR 3 1600

Samsung SSD (arma is installed on the SSD)

GPU - GTX 680 2Gb 2680

Some of the components are a few years old, I've kinda been upgrading bit by bit. I'm not really sure what the best bang for the buck upgrade would be. I spend most of my time in arma flying, and the minigun fire rate REALLY gets choppy and erratic when the framerate drops.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Is that a stock 2600k? It's one of the better CPUs for overclocking so you may want to try that out, because upgrading to another CPU isn’t going to do anything much.

Upgrading your graphics card would also be an expensive affair I believe.

Upgrading to 2400 MHz memories could give you a 10-20% boost… however I can’t guarantee exactly what sort of a boost because we haven’t seen a lot of benchmarking about it yet. I’m considering trying a 1600 to 2400 upgrade.

Other than that there’s not much to do hardware-wise.

In software you can basically make sure everything is clean and updated then tweak your in-game settings and that’s about everything you can do. I believe Windows 8 is slightly quicker than Windows 7 too but I’ve never seen this in a benchmark.

I’m assuming you have 20 fps in multiplayer. Try a different server, try a different mission… that’s about all you can do currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone have any suggestions to get better performance in arma? Right now I run everything pretty much at max and I struggle to get above 20 FPS, but lowering settings doesn't seem to make much difference in performance. I've been considering buying another video card and doing SLI, but I'm not sure if that will even help in arma. Maybe a CPU upgrade would be money better spent? I'll just post my specs and see if there's anything you guys see that stands out as a weak link.

CPU - Core i7 - 2600k 3.4Ghz

RAM - 8Gb DDR 3 1600

Samsung SSD (arma is installed on the SSD)

GPU - GTX 680 2Gb 2680

Some of the components are a few years old, I've kinda been upgrading bit by bit. I'm not really sure what the best bang for the buck upgrade would be. I spend most of my time in arma flying, and the minigun fire rate REALLY gets choppy and erratic when the framerate drops.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I don't think buying a new video card and doing SLI do much difference, due to the fact that its most likely your CPU that is the limiting factor. Overclocking the cpu is most likely the most cost efficient and effective way to increase your fps in your case.

Get a solid CPU cooler. Consider a closed circuit water cooler like the corsair h100i, its effective, easy and won't cost you are fortune in money and time. As for the overclocking part there is plenty of guides on the internet for any given processor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that a stock 2600k? It's one of the better CPUs for overclocking so you may want to try that out, because upgrading to another CPU isn’t going to do anything much.

Upgrading your graphics card would also be an expensive affair I believe.

Upgrading to 2400 MHz memories could give you a 10-20% boost… however I can’t guarantee exactly what sort of a boost because we haven’t seen a lot of benchmarking about it yet. I’m considering trying a 1600 to 2400 upgrade.

Other than that there’s not much to do hardware-wise.

In software you can basically make sure everything is clean and updated then tweak your in-game settings and that’s about everything you can do. I believe Windows 8 is slightly quicker than Windows 7 too but I’ve never seen this in a benchmark.

I’m assuming you have 20 fps in multiplayer. Try a different server, try a different mission… that’s about all you can do currently.

Yes, the CPU is stock. I did try to OC it once but had some issues. I never really had a need to mess with it before though, so I guess I should give that a shot before anything else.

And yes, 20 FPS in multiplayer. The thing is, I still only get 20 FPS when I run a "multiplayer" mission on my machine with practically no scripts, and I'm the only one playing. I have a mission saved that I goof around on with a handful of helicopters and the only scripts running are respawn and VAS. In singleplayer I'm usually hitting around 45-50 FPS with all the same settings.

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

×