Jump to content
Placebo

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

Recommended Posts

Glad you didn't invest in the hardware for arma :D

Unfortunately I had to upgrade to get arma running well (going from an i3 530@ 4.62 + gtx260 216 to an i5 750 @ 4.2 + gtx660 made a world of difference and doubled fps) but it was less than £100 to do the upgrade and it also helps massively with running solidworks at home :)

Maxed out kills my machine, I tried it ages ago and I think I get something like 18fps on altis!

However you make a perfect example for Jake34 above who is talking about upgrading his rig for arma, assuming he has overclocked his cpu to decent limits (4ghz+) then he generally won't see much increase in performance in arma for either of the major upgrades he was considering. He could try some super fast ddr3 and make sure it is running at full speed, that has shown to increse performance quite dramatically when coupled with a fast cpu.

I like the arma3 engine, it's a great leveller for those with new super fast computers and drags them down to the performance level of my entry level rig from 5+ years ago :D

Yeah, there was already not much of a difference between running my rig with a GTX670-OC / 2x GTX680-SOC or now the 2x GTX780-Ti-GHz-Edition.

I already use 2400MHz-RAM and my CPU doesn't let me push it any further.

If I want to have more power for other games, then I have to go for a new MoBo + CPU + DDR4, but I will most likely only get a ROG-Swift-Screen within the next 6 month or so.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly in the Arma 2 days I found quite a lot of benefit to an SSD with regards to pop in and stutter. What I found was in a helicopter especially the terrain would pop in closer than I would like and it would often cause the game to have momentary frame rate reductions as well. Moving to an SSD eliminated that problem for me. I haven't even tried Arma 3 on anything other than an SSD but I imagine it has much the same problem with loading terrain as Arma 2 did. It never impacted the average fps in any way and I don't imagine it does today, but what it will do is remove almost all of the pauses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSD will improve loading times and consequently will contribute for stable fps but will not give more fps.

Multi Core CPUs with more than 4 cores (or Hyper-Threading) are useless for this or any other game. Better to have a 4 cores decently clocked than 6 core with Hyper-Threading enabled close from default speed. Stay away from AMD eight-core, not good for games in general. Also make sure that you know the difference between cores and threads.

Ram speed, I am not sure that higher frequencies by itself can give better fps, we have to take in consideration also the latency timings and the ratio between cpu, otherwise the profit will be nonexistent.

Graphics Card, well... here the game is heavily limited and I believe it's on purpose in order to give a more equal output, no matter the hardware.

Is not normal to have all settings in Very High, View Distance 3000 and having only 1150 Mb of graphics card memory loaded, the only way to have more Graphics Card Memory loaded is to set some graphic settings to Ultra with which is not possible to have stable 60 fps, however in some situations the game becomes more smooth, maybe because more Graphics Card Memory is loaded?

Another thing, LOD rendering distance is linked to objects quality and this, in my opinion, is a mistake. Should be linked to view distance or even better it could have a separated regulation method. This would give a better visualization and/or better performance.

PIP, something is terribly wrong with it, there is no valid reason for such demand in matters of hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't upgrade for the sake of trying to get more performance in arma because I think you will see minimal gains for a lot of expenditure.

Until the time the cpu bottleneck is removed from the engine the gpu isn't being pushed. You could add a second gpu in sli and push the resolution up but I doubt you will see and actual increase in real life performance.

My gtx660 pushes it along @ 30-80 fps single player on very high/ultra with 2.5k view distance, the same on mp until it gets chaotic in cities when it drops to around 25. That's with an i5 750 @ 4.2ghz.

Is your cpu overclocked? If not get that pushed as far as you can before considering a major upgrade for arma :)

edit: case in point...

I get 32fps on ultra settings @ 1080p on altis with my machine, a first gen i5 running a good deal slower than a 3rd gen i7. In reality get the cpu clock speed up to 4.5+ghz and this is likely to be your result.

Just re-run the benchmark with my optimised settings (mixture of ultra+very high with 2500 view distance and 2000 objects) and got 46fps.

Thanks for the help. But what if I OC my CPU(I'm currently running it stock 3.3ghz) and get a GTX 970, would that make a big difference? I'm basically trying to get as close to 60 fps as possible while keeping my settings on Very High - Ultra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm basically trying to get as close to 60 fps as possible while keeping my settings on Very High - Ultra.

Just forget about anything above 50fps on a empty Stratis & Ultra preset - in my opinion that's not possible without a quad socket system.

[...] OC my CPU(I'm currently running it stock 3.3ghz) [...]

Definitely helps.

[...] get a GTX 970 [...]

Unless that rig is also meant for other modern games, invest your money into a CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some reference stats:

CPU : i5 3570k @ 3.4Ghz up to 3.8Ghz

Ram : 8GB @ 2000Mhz

Videocard: ASUS STRIX 970

Video settings: Maxed out

VD: 1800

OVD:1800

Shadow:200

Supersampling at 120% !

I have got 70+ FPS on empty Stratis an Altis. Changing from the 560ti to a 970 gave me a huge performance boost with increase grafic fidelity.

Keep in mind this is just a reference. And performance in a scenario, whether multiplayer or singleplayer, always depends highly on the scenario itself. (e.g. AI,Scripts)

In my opinion, Arma 3 can definitely run very smoothly, however, most mission designers just overdo it, because of ignorance or so ( no offense)

Kind regards

R3vo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some reference stats:

CPU : i5 3570k @ 3.4Ghz up to 3.8Ghz

Ram : 8GB @ 2000Mhz

Videocard: ASUS STRIX 970

Video settings: Maxed out

VD: 1800

OVD:1800

Shadow:200

Supersampling at 120% !

I have got 70+ FPS on empty Stratis an Altis. Changing from the 560ti to a 970 gave me a huge performance boost with increase grafic fidelity.

Keep in mind this is just a reference. And performance in a scenario, whether multiplayer or singleplayer, always depends highly on the scenario itself. (e.g. AI,Scripts)

In my opinion, Arma 3 can definitely run very smoothly, however, most mission designers just overdo it, because of ignorance or so ( no offense)

Kind regards

R3vo

I get more than 100 FPS on Altis but when I play medium heavy missions my FPS can drop to 40. The problem is AI heavy missions and not an empty map with only a player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get more than 100 FPS on Altis but when I play medium heavy missions my FPS can drop to 40. The problem is AI heavy missions and not an empty map with only a player.

Did I say anything else? The question here is, could this mission be built with less AI ? The problem is, we, who play the mission, have no influence on the AI count. So we can only play the scenarios we like with low fps, change to an other scenario, or ask the mission designers to optimize their missions, to get the maximum of performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Empty altis is 60+ fps although it drops in cities as expected.

@Jake, overclocking it to 4+ghz should make a massive difference, it will let your gpu push more frames at higher view distances.

I would echo about the gpu doesn't need to be upgraded for arma, it won't help bar being able to increase resolution/sampling. If the 660ti copes with all your other games then leave it as is :)

Edited by forteh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TONSCHUH, what were your view distances?

If you ran it maximized, that fps is pretty impressive.

Maxed-Out-Settings @1920x1080:

Stratis = 31fps

Altis = 16fps

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I hope this is an ok spot for this question:

I have recently been thinking about getting a new HDD. My current one is a Seagate Barracuda ST2000DM001 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" HDD. (I know, not the greatest). As far as the rest of my system goes, I have:

Nvidia GTX690

i7 3960x

16gb Corsair Vengeance RAM

EDIT- I also have a 256GB Samsung 850 Pro that I keep my Operating System files on.

EDIT- I still have a 120GB Intel SSD, but I do not currently have it installed in my PC (I'm thinking about installing it and putting Arma on it)

Considering the rest of my system, I have always wondered why I have such sever "texture pop" in Arma 3 (such as vehicles, buildings, and tires taking their sweet time to load the full texture when introduced into a scene), and I recently read that it could be slow due to my HDD; as well as how Arma 3 is trying to pull textures from it. So, I was hoping you guys could point me in the direction of a good 4tb HDD that can handle the strain of Arma 3. My price range is $200ish USD. I have been looking at this one:

The Western Digital Black

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236622

Any advice? Thanks in advance

EDIT- Now that I have an idea of where to put Arma 3, I STILL would like everyone's opinion on a really good 4TB HDD and am still wondering what you guys think of the WD Black Fzex?

Edited by corona2172
Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HDDs have kind of come to a dead end in terms in read speeds so I don't think there's anything to do in that regard. Most people recommend an SSD for Arma, I however did not see any improvement except while covering large distances fast (flying etc).

Have you considered if this is a software problem concerning disk use? I.e. Do you have Arma installed on the same HDD as Windows / other background applications that also read/write data while you play and therefore possibly hinder Arma's content streaming? If you have serious issues I'd try cleaning the whole system, format the whole thing or something. Even today, a Windows installation can get messy after a few years of use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would keep the barracuda and use it for photos/videos/other games/music. Buy an SSD and install windoze and Arma on it.

There is a lot of talk on the interwebz about life expectancy of ssd, but in practice as long as you don't continually create/delete large data on it, then it is fine. Also, no need to defrag it as random block access speed is very fast compared to HDD (either random or contiguous).

But do some research for yourself and check it out (don't just take my word for it) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would keep the barracuda and use it for photos/videos/other games/music. Buy an SSD and install windoze and Arma on it.

There is a lot of talk on the interwebz about life expectancy of ssd, but in practice as long as you don't continually create/delete large data on it, then it is fine. Also, no need to defrag it as random block access speed is very fast compared to HDD (either random or contiguous).

But do some research for yourself and check it out (don't just take my word for it) :)

Absolutely! Your SSD is going to last as long as you need it - certainly long enough for you to get it filled up or just want the next, faster one. Unless it's a crappy OCZ, it probably won't die before you retire it. Install Windows and Arma on the SSD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best HDD for Arma? A SSD - think Samsung Evo / PRO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SandyBandy: I actually have my operating system installed on a 256GB Samsung 850 Pro; everything else is on the Barracuda.

@Defunkt: Could I put the addons folder itself on my SSD instead of a Ramdrive?

@the rest: As mentioned to SandyBandy, I do have an SSD but I was hoping to only keep system files on it. I suppose, though, that I could install Arma 3 on there. It certainly has the space.

Still though, do you guys think the WD Black I posted is any good for gaming? Or do you guys recommend anything else just in general (my current HDD is beginning to make the typical noises that say "I'm 3 years old and it's showing. Might want to buy a new me" lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tankbuster: whoa.... that is insanity lol. Unfortunately, money is somewhat of an object as I must stay in the 2-250 USD range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An SSD, pretty much any SSD will be the best thing you can do for Arma with popin. There isn't a HDD you can buy that can solve that problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, for Arma 3 I'm thinking I will take everyone's advice and move it to my current SSD. But I still need a new HDD, and a 4tb one is what I'm going for. That's why I was asking about the WD Black, or any other HDD that is pretty highly praised by fellow gamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Tankbuster: whoa.... that is insanity lol. Unfortunately, money is somewhat of an object as I must stay in the 2-250 USD range.

The PCE-E stuff is rather faster than a SATA one, but the difference in performance between the two is not as significant as the performance gap when you consider a SATA HDD and a SATA SSD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use the harddrive for mass storage, and get an SSD to put your operating system and games on. It's the only way these days. You will never look back, and you will ask yourself "why did I not do this upgrade a long time ago?".

Edit: If you still need to get a new harddrive, then get both a SSD and a HDD. There's no way I would accept having my operating system on a HDD these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have AMD Radeon videocard and PhysX do much load my CPU, how can i turn it off?

PhysX is CPU-only in ARMA-3 and can't be turned off.

:)

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

×