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

[bbdude101 10]

It will probably play, I wouldn't expect it to be pulling decent fps on higher resolution and settings. The game doesn't need a powerful gpu but I suspect the 7570 is holding the rest of the machine back.

Ah, gotcha.

One last question. How much does ISP and bandwidth contribute to a game like this? Im not sure what exactly I am running at right now but I have a middle of the line package with a local cable company (Brighthouse Media). I know FIOS is the top of the line but it isnt available in my neighborhood.

Would something like this cause the game to run poorly even if I optimized setting/ upped my GPU?

[forteh 11]

Can't really comment on isp/connection choice and the effect on the game, I guess as long as you have low enough ping and stable connection connection it should be fine.

I'm in the UK and use eclipse internet (a small business oriented isp) with a 40mbit fibre to the cabinet (fibre to the local distribution box then copper wires into my house - fortunately the cabinet is 10 yards from my house so get good connection speeds) and typically get 12-20ms ping to UK/EU servers. I can't say that I recall ever experiencing lag but I do tend to play on servers that I know I get good connection to.

[Hunter6003 10]

Switching to an ssd will help prevent stuttering in game but it won't increase fps. I think the gpu should be ok, won't run maximum settings but should be good for high with AA turned down.

The main problem is the cpu, it just isn't very fast and it's only got two cores. Granted arma3 only heavily uses 1 core but it will happily use 40% of the other three on a quad core. I think that it will get overwhelmed very quickly and drag the fps down with it.

Would this CPU fix the frame rate issue upgrading the i7 processor?

OLD-5th Generation Intel Core i7-5500U Processor (2.40GHz 1600MHz 4MB)

NEW-4th Generation Intel Core i7-4720HQ Processor (2.60GHz 1600MHz 6MB)

EDIT- Also what does "AA" mean not familiar with the terminology.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Hunter6003

[forteh 11]

The 4th gen i7 will run it better, it's still a slow clock speed but is a true quad core so won't bog down so much. Certainly the better of the two processors you've listed

AA is antialiasing, basically the gpu super samples the edges to smooth out the jaggies; it makes it look nicer but can cause a performance hit on slower gpus. Arma handles two types of AA, hardware and software, the hardware gives better quality but with greater performance hit, the software doesn't look as good but takes less resources. You can combine both together to give best quality if the gpu is fast enough.

[vapour87 10]

Hello Everyone,

Im sure this has been asked a ton of times, just want to see if this PC im planning to build will run Arma 3 on ultra how it is meant to be played. Any replies welcome just want to build the best PC I can to play this awesome game. Also im assuming if this PC runs Arma 3 killing floor 2 will be fine.

Processor - Intel Core i7 4790K 4GHz Socket 1150 8MB L3 Cache

Heatsink - Corsair Hydro Series H80i GT

Mboard - Asus Z97-DELUXE Socket 1150

RAM - Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3 2133MHz DIMM Unbuffered

G Card - MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4GB GDDR5

P Supply - Corsair RM 1000W Fully Modular 80+ Gold

Hard Drive - Corsair Force GS 240GB 2.5inch SSD

Monitor - ASUS VS278H/ 27, 1ms GTG response time with HDMI

Thanks in advance.

Max

[shx 11]

cause the game to run poorly

This game is surprisingly tolerant to bad networks - you need to go beyond 500ms/20% to experience significant performance drops (ad-hoc test on a decent half-filled 32 slots server).

DayZ

That engine is just a mess.

AMD Radeon R9 M275 2GB

Unless your reason is called nouveau, don't buy Radeon on mobile, they're just rebranded (and slightly overclocked) Southern Islands chips celebrating their third birthday.

[Hunter6003 10]

The 4th gen i7 will run it better, it's still a slow clock speed but is a true quad core so won't bog down so much. Certainly the better of the two processors you've listed

AA is antialiasing, basically the gpu super samples the edges to smooth out the jaggies; it makes it look nicer but can cause a performance hit on slower gpus. Arma handles two types of AA, hardware and software, the hardware gives better quality but with greater performance hit, the software doesn't look as good but takes less resources. You can combine both together to give best quality if the gpu is fast enough.

Ok thank-you, I'll definitely go for the 4th gen i7 and tweak the AA for the best setup between performance and graphics quality your advice really helping me pick the right rig... One last question what would be the optimal laptop processor for to play Arma what would you recommend even though ill most like be going for the 4th gen i7???

(eventually may upgrade processor in due time)

---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------

Unless your reason is called nouveau, don't buy Radeon on mobile, they're just rebranded (and slightly overclocked) Southern Islands chips celebrating their third birthday.

I found for a similar price a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M 4GB so ill properly end up going for that.

[forteh 11]

The only cpu upgrade over the 4th gen i7 would be for a faster one, I don't think it would make a significant difference though as you're limited with power and heat in a laptop package. If you can get the gtx860 with the 4th gen i7 then you shouldn't have any issues with graphics quality, about the only setting you might have to turn down would be view distance :)

[Hunter6003 10]

The only cpu upgrade over the 4th gen i7 would be for a faster one, I don't think it would make a significant difference though as you're limited with power and heat in a laptop package. If you can get the gtx860 with the 4th gen i7 then you shouldn't have any issues with graphics quality, about the only setting you might have to turn down would be view distance :)

Ok, thank-you so much... you have answered all my qustions I have I really appreciate it...:)

Edited April 12, 2015 by Hunter6003

[forteh 11]

Now don't hold it against me when it runs like a dog :D

[Hunter6003 10]

Now don't hold it against me when it runs like a dog :D

Well, I am only aiming for Standard graphics and the 30 FPSish after hearing what you have said I am not expecting it to run any better then that... Then again it's only a laptop so what can you expect, as long as its playable and enjoyable thats all that counts.

[forteh 11]

I think you'll run high/very high graphics without a problem, probably even ultra on a lot of settings. Because the cpu is going to be the bottleneck for the gpu increasing the graphical quality doesn't effect the cpu capped fps. As said before, tone down the cpu dependant settings and you should get on pretty well with that spec; you may find that increasing the cpu dependant settings won't negatively affect performance, you will find out the happy medium when it's running.

[bigdools 10]

For the people running AMD crossfire how are you getting on with this , ive read people do not rate multiple gpus for arma 3 but most the stuff i have read was pre 2013 i was wondering how many people are using crossfire and what there thoughts are?

[oktyabr 12]

Spend $200 on a new video card OR keep it in my pocket until this next winter when I can afford to do a whole new build?

You help me decide? ;)

As it says in the title... I'm half heartedly considering a GPU upgrade. My current card is a 2GB HD6970 and I've been considering either the GTX960 or the R9 280 but no one seems to use ARMA3 as a benchmark! ARMA3, especially when I'm piloting with a higher view distance... 28FPS @ 4000m (mostly for CAS runs) on high. I don't mind playing at that FPS but twice that would be worth spending $200 on new hardware if that were possible.

I know the rest of my system is starting to show it's age but typically I don't do a major overhaul or new build until the winter.

Current hardware is:

AMD FX-4100 (@3.6 GHz)

Asus Sabertooth 990FX rev2

2x8 G.Skill Sniper DDR3 1866

Crucial MX100 (512GB) SSD for Steam and OS.

Rosewill CAPSTONE Series 750W 80 Plus Gold PSU

EVGA HD6970 2GB OC

So here is my quandary... I can afford roughly $200 for a GPU upgrade OR I can save it until I'm ready for a big build in another six or seven months. I'm not looking for any advice on a complete build at this time (thanks just the same!) I'm interested in knowing if either of those two cards would be a worthwhile improvement on my *existing hardware*. Of course if someone thinks that $200 could free up more FPS some other way I'd be interested in hearing that option too, but please back it up with benchmark comparisons or at least your upgrade story (most interested in hearing from someone with similar hardware, of course).

Thanks in advance!

---- EDIT -----

OR keep my HD6970 for another half a year and step up to an FX-8350 or maybe even a FX-9590?

Edited April 16, 2015 by Oktyabr

[Hunter6003 10]

I think you'll run high/very high graphics without a problem, probably even ultra on a lot of settings. Because the cpu is going to be the bottleneck for the gpu increasing the graphical quality doesn't effect the cpu capped fps. As said before, tone down the cpu dependant settings and you should get on pretty well with that spec; you may find that increasing the cpu dependant settings won't negatively affect performance, you will find out the happy medium when it's running.

Ok that sums it up perfectly thanks...

[TrapMacker 10]

will this computer http://www.eprice.it/portatili-ASUS/d-5653446 run arma 3 in High/ultra settings with good fps? (i Will overclock it to 3.5 GHz)

[shx 11]

will this computer http://www.eprice.it/portatili-ASUS/d-5653446 run arma 3 in High/ultra settings with good fps? (i Will overclock it to 3.5 GHz)

Yes. It's not the god machine, but it'll provide decent performance.

((Also, the ability to overclock your notebook's CPU is a rare bonus, not something to count on.))

[...] 28FPS @ 4000m (mostly for CAS runs) on high. I don't mind playing at that FPS but twice that [...]

Stable >50fps on high and 4000m? That's way more than possible on a AMD-based build.

As for your current build, do something else with your money. Unless you get a i7-3xxx (or newer) based build, your CPU will be the obvious bottleneck.

Edited April 19, 2015 by shx

[Dieter01 10]

hi,

I have a alienware gtx 970 3g graphics card with 16g ram and intel i7 cpu but arma 3 runs only at 8 or 9 fps when I start the game, why this happend??

Thanks

[HeadPop 11]

hi,

I have a alienware gtx 970 3g graphics card with 16g ram and intel i7 cpu but arma 3 runs only at 8 or 9 fps when I start the game, why this happend??

Thanks

this is a laptop? am i right? laptops are NOT for gaming. and thats all.

could you specfic in the ram and the CPU?? i mean.. ram Mhz and procesor Ghz, cache..etc

have you got an SSD?

BUT, you can play with that PC. or you should..

Take a look to the view distance in the video settings. It can be the problem. and try lowering the quality.

i´ve got an i5, 8gb ram and 2gb graphic card and i play at very high settings. Stable 60-75 fps. Because its not a laptop :p

---------- Post added at 08:56 ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 ----------

Yes. It's not the god machine, but it'll provide decent performance.

((Also, the ability to overclock your notebook's CPU is a rare bonus, not something to count on.))

Stable >50fps on high and 4000m? That's way more than possible on a AMD-based build.

As for your current build, do something else with your money. Unless you get a i7-3xxx (or newer) based build, your CPU will be the obvious bottleneck.

high/ultra with a Laptop??? hahahahaha sorry but no. maybe the graphic quality, but not the view distance.

not a good idea OCing a laptop. OVERHEATING.

[shx 11]

OVERHEATING.

Apart from the automatic downclocking processors do these days, I've seen notebooks with good enough cooling (sophisticated gaming/workstation models are good candidates).

high/ultra with a Laptop???

He specifically asked about graphics quality, and that's going to work - including a decent viewdistance.

--

As for gaming on notebooks in general: You won't go as far as with a desktop, and you'll pay a hefty extra for the same performance, but it's not worse by definition anymore.

[SageNTitled 25]

I want to host an Arma 3 server 24/7 and I'm wondering whether my server build will suffice:

CPU: Intel Core i3 4160 3.6 GHz

RAM: Corsair Vengeance LP 16GB DDR3 PC3-12800 1600MHz

MB: ASUS CS-B

SSD: 250 GB

It will run on my 100/100 network. Any comments? Also, I haven't decided on using a Windows or Linux server; any thoughts?

[HeadPop 11]

I want to host an Arma 3 server 24/7 and I'm wondering whether my server build will suffice:

CPU: Intel Core i3 4160 3.6 GHz

RAM: Corsair Vengeance LP 16GB DDR3 PC3-12800 1600MHz

MB: ASUS CS-B

SSD: 250 GB

It will run on my 100/100 network. Any comments? Also, I haven't decided on using a Windows or Linux server; any thoughts?

How many slots?

You could host a server for 20-25 players without problems, I mean, without lag.

But his depends too if you are gonna use mods. More gigas, more lag. :S

I dont know if its better hosting a server on linux, but in the most games, the big servers (40-100 slots) are hosted in linux.

Try both and compare them. Then select the OS wich works better in your PC.

[bangtail 0]

this is a laptop? am i right? laptops are NOT for gaming. and thats all.

ROFLMFAO, I haven't been here for a while but the level of cluelessness is at an all time high.

Please professor, explain to me how this laptop is 'not for gaming':

http://www.msi.com/product/nb/GT80-2QE-Titan-SLI.html#hero-overview

http://www.msi.com/product/nb/GT80-2QE-Titan-SLI.html#hero-specification

(Yes, it is an extreme example, but there are plenty of more affordable gaming laptops that are very capable of running any game you throw at them).

The desktop remains the ultimate at the enthusiast level but to say that 'laptops are not for gaming' is pure FUD, do some research :)

PS: Dieter01's post clearly stated that he had an 'Alienware' laptop. By definition, Alienware laptops are gaming laptops JFYI.

Edited April 23, 2015 by BangTail

[HeadPop 11]

ROFLMFAO, I haven't been here for a while but the level of cluelessness is at an all time high.

Please professor, explain to me how this laptop is 'not for gaming':

http://www.msi.com/product/nb/GT80-2QE-Titan-SLI.html#hero-overview

http://www.msi.com/product/nb/GT80-2QE-Titan-SLI.html#hero-specification

(Yes, it is an extreme example, but there are plenty of more affordable gaming laptops that are very capable of running any game you throw at them).

The desktop remains the ultimate at the enthusiast level but to say that 'laptops are not for gaming' is pure FUD, do some research :)

PS: Dieter01's post clearly stated that he had an 'Alienware' laptop. By definition, Alienware laptops are gaming laptops JFYI.

the refrigeration of any laptop is a shit. And in my opinion this is one of the most important things in a computer.

Try playing 4 or 5 ours Wasteland in ArmA3and then take a look to the temperature of the proccesor.

[bangtail 0]

the refrigeration of any laptop is a shit. And in my opinion this is one of the most important things in a computer.

Try playing 4 or 5 ours Wasteland in ArmA3and then take a look to the temperature of the proccesor.

Listen, you don't know what you're talking about, do some research before you spout anymore FUD.

There was a time when laptops were not a good choice for gaming, that time is long past.

Gaming laptops from Alienware, MSI, ASUS etc have very effective integrated cooling (even with tandem GPUs).

They are designed for high end gaming over long periods of time.

Edited April 23, 2015 by BangTail