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

[oldbear 390]

From my point of view, the i7 860 is still a playable CPU, even if it is a bit under "Old's Minimum Recommended" requirements level B)

But you must remember that FPS in Arma* games are CPU dependent, the main parameter to tweak FPS level being Global Visibility.

Switching some Quality parameter to "Low" such as Shadows is switching-off GPU.

So playing Arma3 in "Low" is adding some not-needed burden to the ancestor.

You need a GPU able to allow a "Standard/High" display in all the Quality parameters.

 

From my own experience with entry level graphic cards, the cheapest way to get a better game experience is to get a GTX 750Ti with the highest rebate you can get.

This "small" GPU will allow you to play at "Very High" level even if you will have to disable the most sexy "Water Reflections" Visual Update item in order to get the best level.

[3D_vet 29]

AMAZING info!  Thanks a lot!. I will be sure to purchase that new card (with the next pay check, lol) plus making those changes in the game configuration. Anyway, I have been missing some power and features in the GPU for some time, even in my 2D and 3D editing packages.  Thanks again !

[sambal112 0]

yhe i know there are thousend of these but i have killer lag 20 fps on low on all of the settings and 15 on ultra 

Processor

Intel® Core i7-4710HQ CPU @ 2.50GHz

 

Video Card

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M

 

Video Card #2

Intel® HD Graphics 4600

 

RAM

8.0 GB

 

Operating System

Microsoft Windows 10 (build 10586), 64-bit

 

 

 

running dx12

[sambal112 0]

well it fucked it up

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M          Intel® Core i7-4710HQ CPU @ 2.50GHz and 8 gb ram

[Mack. 58]

Hello,

I posted last year for advice on building a system for Arma 3 but for various reasons held off. Now I'm again looking to buy but I am not sure which components to go for.

I am looking for a bang for the buck system to play at 1080p. My budget is £600 - £700. I already have a monitor/keyboard/mouse/speakers and plenty of storage drives. I have a couple of SDD's however they are a few years old. The PC will be used solely for gaming.

Apart from that I need the case and everything else inside it.

CPU

I am currently undecided between the i5 4690k, 6400 and 6600k.

I am looking to buy a pre overclocked bundle, I have owned an overclocked PC however I have never done any overclocking. Skylake still appears to be more expensive but is it worth it? I have done some research on the non K chips and overclocking, is anyone here using one?

GPU

My research and budget has lead me to a choice of the 970GTX and the RX 480. Which one should I go for and any alternatives worth considering?

Thanks in advance.

Mack

[teabagginpeople 398]

Gtx 1060 has just released is around gtx 970 prices. Depending on your location and availability.

Might as well go skylake. No point in going Haswell now. try to get an ssd. Makes a big difference. If you are going for a k processor you will need to get a "z" motherboard to get most out of it. Example z170...

8 gigs of ram is all thats really needed specially starting off and with your budget in mind.

A good 500w psu.

A decent case don't underestimate it. Try overlooking how it appears. And aim for better Cooling /noise.

I'd recommend a fracral designed r4 / nanoxia deep silence range/ corsair. Don't spend crazy money but around 50 ish.

[ineptaphid 6413]

Hello,

I posted last year for advice on building a system for Arma 3 but for various reasons held off. Now I'm again looking to buy but I am not sure which components to go for.

I am looking for a bang for the buck system to play at 1080p. My budget is £600 - £700. I already have a monitor/keyboard/mouse/speakers and plenty of storage drives. I have a couple of SDD's however they are a few years old. The PC will be used solely for gaming.

Apart from that I need the case and everything else inside it.

CPU

I am currently undecided between the i5 4690k, 6400 and 6600k.

I am looking to buy a pre overclocked bundle, I have owned an overclocked PC however I have never done any overclocking. Skylake still appears to be more expensive but is it worth it? I have done some research on the non K chips and overclocking, is anyone here using one?

GPU

My research and budget has lead me to a choice of the 970GTX and the RX 480. Which one should I go for and any alternatives worth considering?

Thanks in advance.

Mack

Hi Mack,

 

Regarding CPU-do not go for a non k model.  The k versions are usually not that much more expensive and give you so much better options for overclocking.Spend the extra few euro/dollars/pounds-it is worth it.

 

Regarding GPU, I would go for the GTX970 as I have heard that Arma does not seem to run well with AMD products sometimes. I am not saying that is the case-I have just heard it from some people. But either of those cards will be absolutely fantastic for gaming on-and remember that Arma is CPU intensive, so if it comes down to spending a little more on a good CPU and getting a slightly less powerful GPU then go for it.

 

Only other thing I would recommend is that you install Arma on an SSD-I found that performance improved and loading times vastly improved when i switched to an SSD.

[oldbear 390]

@ Mack : from my own experience having nearby both an i7-4970K and an i7-4970, my general recommendation is to go to the K version of these CPUs, not for the overclocking options but because the speed/turbo speed without OC is higher.

 

It's not the case for the i5-6600 and the i5-6600K, both having the same 3.9 GHz Turbo Max Speed [the speed the CPU will auto-switch on when you played Arma3].

If your choice is a -K version with some OC in mind, you must go for a mother board allowing OC, meaning a H170/Z170 MoBo.

If you don't go for OC even in dreams, a B150 Mobo is quite enough for a gaming rig

 

The choice for a Skylake CPU is probably better than stay with a Haswell one, due to the overall improvements of the platform.

 

On the GPU front, having tested a lot of GPUs either from Nvidia and AMD such as GTX 970 and RX 480 ... I will go for a GTX 1060 [iRL : I have sent back the RX 480 and I am waiting for the GTX 1060]

But you must know that, if you are on a tight budget, a GTX 750Ti 4Go can do the job well, with some sacrifices on the sexiest "Water Reflexions" settings.

 

Of course as ineptaphid is saying having both the OS and Arma3 library on a SSD will improve the game experience, you will gain nothing FPS wise, but most of the stuttering due to the way Arma* is managing textures loading will disappeared, meaning a game more "fluid".

The most advanced B150/H170/Z170 MoBos are hosting a M.2 slot allowing to slide-in a M.2 SSD, ATM, a 250 Go SSD is a Minimum, 500 Go Go being recommended.

 

Of course 8 Go (2x4) RAM are a must have, but if your intend is to build a high end rig, my advice is to look for 16 Go on and/or 2400 MHz RAM

[Mack. 58]

Thanks for the info and my apologies for taking so long to reply, I had some issues logging in.

The GTX 1060 looks like a great card, I will see how price and availability is over the next couple of weeks.

I'm still not sure about the CPU, I need to do some more research.

I still have the SDD's from my previous Arma rig. One is 96GB and around 6 years old the other is 50GB and around 3 years old. In terms of fluid game play is it worth replacing them? I take the the game still doesn't take advantage of extra RAM to preload.

Thanks again the advice.

[oldbear 390]

On the CPU front : the choice must be dictate by your upgrading tempo, if your intend is build a rig to last a bit, the best strategy is probably to go for an i5 6600k [given your i5 4690k, 6400 and 6600k range for choice]

Meaning you can do some mild overclocking, so accordingly you must move for a H170/Z170 MoBo.

 

On the HD/SSD front : using SSDs 3/6 years old on a brand new config is not a good move for many reasons not only because of tearing and old technologies usage but also because you need more room than 96/50 GB in order to host the OS and some software, tools and games as well and as I have said previously  ..."B150/H170/Z170 MoBos are hosting a M.2 slot allowing to slide-in a M.2 SSD" ... directly on the motherboard in order to make a cleaner interior management.

Here you can get a look at how is looking a 250 GB Samsung SSD is looking on a M.2 slot on my own test rig.

With the performance level of SSDs ATM, there is not more interest to use a RAMdisk system.

Speaking about SSD performances, they can be boosted with a NVMe SSD on a mother board hosting a M.2 slot with NVMe compatibility, but it cost much ... tanstaafl!

[CallumGetty 0]

Hi, just a bit of advice needed really.

 

Currently, I have 2 pc's. I've tried both and they seem to differ but I just wondered:

 

I have a Nvidia GeForce GT 630 (4gb) in the current PC and a Nvidia GT 730 (2gb) in the other. I was wondering, if I switched them around could it possibly improve my FPS slightly? I'm currently getting 15-20 FPS on a 100 player MP server. I used to get more, though.

 

All settings are on the lowest and I run the game with these startup parameters: -winxp -noSplash -maxMem=6144 -exThreads=7 -noFilePatching -world=empty -maxvram=3072

 

If anybody has any information as to what to do to improve my FPS it would be appreciated.

 

I run in 1920 x 1080p, would lowering resolution help any? Thanks in advance.

 

(I have got a GPU on order at the minute, not much in the fancy range but it's a step up from what I have now: XFX AMD HD Radeon 7850 (2gb))

 

My CPU:

 

In this PC: Intel Xeon E5345 @ 2.33GHz (Quad) - 8GB Ram

In other PC: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.6 (Quad) - 4GB Ram

 

Please advise me in any way possible, much appreciated.

[oldbear 390]

There is not much room for FPS gain with those rigs.

Getting a better GPU is not the right way to go,.

FPS in Arma* games are CPU dependent.

 

 

From my point of view, here, the only CPU in the minimum requirement range is the Core 2 Quad Q8400.

A HD 7850 can help a bit in order to get a better overall performance level for the config

The only enhancement I can advised otherwise is to get 8 Go on this PC

 

I will suggest to let the parameters as given by the Autodetection.

Disable most of those fancy parameters, you don't need them, most of them are related to Windows XP and you must have a Windows 7/8.1/10 in order to play Arma3  ...

startup parameters: -winxp -noSplash -maxMem=6144 -exThreads=7 -noFilePatching -world=empty -maxvram=3072

The only useful one is  -noSplash
 

[Pedro De Castro 0]

Hey i was wondering if this pc can run arma on high with60+fps on high or medium on wasteland

Specs: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/fGnbLD

[domokun 515]

I doubt it. The main reason is that your CPU seems little on the light side. But you'll still get good (30-50 fps) performance in MP & excellent performance (60+ fps) in SP.

 

If you really want 60+ FPS in  MP you'll need a very fast (4+ GHz) CPU, i.e. if you can stretch your budget by another $127 replace that i3-6300 & Hyper T2 with a i5-6600k & Hyper 212 Evo.

But to get the benefit you'll need to overclock your 6600k (she'll do 4.2 no sweat, 4.3 easily, 4.4 prolly, 4.5 maybe & 4.6 if you're lucky).

 

Also why are getting Win7-64 Pro when you can get Win10-64 Pro for $13 cheaper?

Equally, I'd suggest upgrading your case to a Fractal Design Core 2300. It's only $1 more and it's a better design and quality.

Also, why buy a motherboard and a separate WiFi adaptor? Just get a better-quality motherboard with built-in WiFi for the same price. 

Finally, save $20 and get faster RAM by switching to G.Skill Ripjaws V Series. Then, with the $20 you've saved on the RAM, upgrade that SSD from 128GB to 240GB because once you've installed Windows, Arma 3 & all those mods (CUP, RHS, etc.) you'll soon be running out of space.

 

Welcome to Arma!

[oldbear 390]

@ Pedro De Castro : You can do more than just run the game, you can enjoy playing Arma3 with such a rig, but ...you probably can't play "...on high with 60+fps"

 

Your link rig :
Intel i3-6100
ASRock Fatal1ty Z170
Kingston FURY 16GB
Kingston SSDNow 120GB
Toshiba 1TB
Asus GeForce GTX 1060 6GB

 

Arma3 as all PC game is showing wide variation of FPS level while playing, with a i3-6100 based rig you can expect playing in the 25/55 FPS range at an average 35 FPS level with 3000m of Global Visibility.

Arma3 is still a CPU dependent game, it means you must get the most efficient et powerful CPU in order to reach the 60 FPS level.

At the moment 2 CPUs are fulfilling these requirements :  i7-6700K and i7-5775C ... whoops, a bit expensive!

So a more realistic level, a powerful and efficient CPU such as the i5-6500 or better an i5-6600K  is a better choice but if you are on a budget an i3-6320 is a better pick.

 

Unless you are expecting to overclock your CPU, you don't need to go for a high level Z170 MoBo, a B150 is quite enough.

Looking for a 1151 MoBo, I have found the Gigabyte GA-B150M-D3H a good choice.

 

In order to play Arma3 on "High" you don't need a GTX 1060, a GTX 750Ti is quite enough [i know, I am playing Arma3 with these 2 Graphic cards].

Of course, getting a GTX 1060 is allowing you to play on "Ultra" and enhancing the whole performance level of the rig but a basic custom Gaiward is quite enough at a lower cost.

 

16 Go of DDR4 are not needed for playing, 8 Go are good for the job

Note :  be very careful in the choice of RAM sticks height so there will be no interference with the CPU cooler.

 

120GB for a SSD is way too small, 255 GB is a minimum, 500 GB will give you some room

Note : getting a MoBo hosting an M.2 slot  will allow you to buy a SSD in M.2 format for better case management ... and performances.

 

Last note, of course, taste and colors are your own but be careful to choose a case with enough room for the CPU cooler, unless you have the tools to cut a hole in the side panel.

.

[The Turbanator 32]

@ oldbear, I took your advice that you gave me a couple of months ago about purchasing a new gaming laptop. That's currently on the back burner as my work is currently ad-hoc on/off, so I realistically won't be able to afford a new laptop for about 6-8 months. My current laptop finally did shit itself 2 weeks ago, so no ArmA3. In the meantime I can afford a refurbished laptop to last until then. I live in Australia & have been looking around to see what I can get & afford. I only need this to run ArmA3 Apex & a few mods as I sorely miss it already. A loptop is a must due to space restraints. This is the laptop I'm currently looking to get as it will cost me only half a weeks pay :

Dell XPS 15 ( 9550 ) Laptop, Silver : AU $520

6th Generation Intel® Core i7-6700HQ Quad Core (6M Cache, up to 3.5 GHz)

16GB Dual Channel DDR4 2133MHz (8GBx2)

512GB PCIe Solid State Drive

15.6`` 4K Ultra HD (3840 x 2160) InfinityEdge touch

NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 960M with 2GB GDDR5

High Definition Audio with Waves MaxxAudio Pro

DW1830 3x3 802.11ac 2.4/5GHz + Bluetooth 4.1

Widescreen HD (720p) webcam with dual array digital microphones

SD card reader (SD, SDHC, SDXC)

HDMI Port, 2 x USB 3.0 Ports with Power Share, Thunderbolt 3

Built In Primary Battery, AC Power Adapter and Power Cord

Windows 10 Pro (64bit) Pre-installed

So, will this rig be sufficient for the time being? Thanks.

[domokun 515]

@ oldbear, I took your advice that you gave me a couple of months ago about purchasing a new gaming laptop. That's currently on the back burner as my work is currently ad-hoc on/off, so I realistically won't be able to afford a new laptop for about 6-8 months. My current laptop finally did shit itself 2 weeks ago, so no ArmA3. In the meantime I can afford a refurbished laptop to last until then. I live in Australia & have been looking around to see what I can get & afford. I only need this to run ArmA3 Apex & a few mods as I sorely miss it already. A loptop is a must due to space restraints. This is the laptop I'm currently looking to get as it will cost me only half a weeks pay :

Dell XPS 15 ( 9550 ) Laptop, Silver : AU $520

<snip>

So, will this rig be sufficient for the time being? Thanks.

Not wishing to gate-crash the party, check-out my recent reply here:

https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/194093-arma-3-vs-high-end-laptop/?p=3089190

But essentially your laptop looks good except for the GPU. NVidia recently released mobile versions of their Maxwell GPUs are they are unusually close to their desktop counterparts in terms of performance.

Given that you were considering a GTX 960, I'd suggest a GTX 1060 because they offer performance similar or better than 980M.

Here's recent video that offers a good impression of A3 framerates on a 6700HQ with GTX 1060 @ 1080p on Ultra:

By lowering a few of those settings from Ultra to High or even Standard, I'm sure he could increase his framerates from 35-40 fps to 50-60 fps.

If you're interested, here are the specs for that laptop:

http://www.avadirect.com/Clevo-P670RP6-17-3-Core-i7-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1060-G-SYNC-Graphics-Gaming-Laptop/Configure/10731680

But any laptop with 6700HQ, GTX 1060 & SSD will offer similar performance.

[oldbear 390]

@ Sneaky_Pete : hi ...

 

From my point of view this refurbished laptop is going to be a nice asset in your project to play the Game B)

 

With the Visual Update and APEX release some sexy visual aspects are needing higher hardware.

But nothing this rig can't deal with and even if you will have to get "Lighting" preset on low and even disable "water reflections" in order to gain some FPS

You must remember not to lower your Shadow  preset to "Low".

The GTX 960M being more or less on par with GTX 750, it means that you can play Arma3 on "High" and perhaps some chunks on "Very High" on 720p.

 

Have fun :D

[The Turbanator 32]

@ Sneaky_Pete : hi ...

 

From my point of view this refurbished laptop is going to be a nice asset in your project to play the Game B)

 

With the Visual Update and APEX release some sexy visual aspects are needing higher hardware.

But nothing this rig can't deal with and even if you will have to get "Lighting" preset on low and even disable "water reflections" in order to gain some FPS

You must remember not to lower your Shadow  preset to "Low".

The GTX 960M being more or less on par with GTX 750, it means that you can play Arma3 on "High" and perhaps some chunks on "Very High" on 720p.

 

Have fun :D

Thanks for the info, will go shopping 1st thing in the morning!!

[Pedro De Castro 0]

@ Pedro De Castro : You can do more than just run the game, you can enjoy playing Arma3 with such a rig, but ...you probably can't play "...on high with 60+fps" Your link rig :

Intel i3-6100

ASRock Fatal1ty Z170

Kingston FURY 16GB

Kingston SSDNow 120GB

Toshiba 1TB

Asus GeForce GTX 1060 6GB Arma3 as all PC game is showing wide variation of FPS level while playing, with a i3-6100 based rig you can expect playing in the 25/55 FPS range at an average 35 FPS level with 3000m of Global Visibility.Arma3 is still a CPU dependent game, it means you must get the most efficient et powerful CPU in order to reach the 60 FPS level.At the moment 2 CPUs are fulfilling these requirements :  i7-6700K and i7-5775C ... whoops, a bit expensive!So a more realistic level, a powerful and efficient CPU such as the i5-6500 or better an i5-6600K  is a better choice but if you are on a budget an i3-6320 is a better pick. Unless you are expecting to overclock your CPU, you don't need to go for a high level Z170 MoBo, a B150 is quite enough.Looking for a 1151 MoBo, I have found the Gigabyte GA-B150M-D3H a good choice. In order to play Arma3 on "High" you don't need a GTX 1060, a GTX 750Ti is quite enough [i know, I am playing Arma3 with these 2 Graphic cards].Of course, getting a GTX 1060 is allowing you to play on "Ultra" and enhancing the whole performance level of the rig but a basic custom Gaiward is quite enough at a lower cost. 16 Go of DDR4 are not needed for playing, 8 Go are good for the jobNote :  be very careful in the choice of RAM sticks height so there will be no interference with the CPU cooler. 120GB for a SSD is way too small, 255 GB is a minimum, 500 GB will give you some roomNote : getting a MoBo hosting an M.2 slot  will allow you to buy a SSD in M.2 format for better case management ... and performances. Last note, of course, taste and colors are your own but be careful to choose a case with enough room for the CPU cooler, unless you have the tools to cut a hole in the side panel..

Hey i changed a little the build http://pcpartpicker.com/list/8xg89W i am buying the components from a local store so i am very limited (cant find a mother board with wifi there D:) i have to get w7 because the wifi adapter does not has compability for w10

[domokun 515]

Hey i changed a little the build http://pcpartpicker.com/list/8xg89W i am buying the components from a local store so i am very limited (cant find a mother board with wifi there D:) i have to get w7 because the wifi adapter does not has compability for w10

Why hobble (less security, less performance, less future-proofing) your entire PC with a 7-year old OS for the sake of a $18 WiFi dongle?

Likewise halving A3 performance to save $80 (GTX 750 @ $125 vs GTX 1060 @ $200): 

The GTX 750 doesn't appear on the graph with the GTX 1060 but it's safe to assume that it'd be x2-x3 slower, given that an R9 380 (already half the speed of a GTX 1060) is much faster than a R9 270 which is itself 50% faster than a GTX 750..

[Pedro De Castro 0]

Why hobble (less security, less performance, less future-proofing) your entire PC with a 7-year old OS for the sake of a $18 WiFi dongle?

Likewise halving A3 performance to save $80 (GTX 750 @ $125 vs GTX 1060 @ $200):

The GTX 750 doesn't appear on the graph with the GTX 1060 but it's safe to assume that it'd be x2-x3 slower, given that an R9 380 (already half the speed of a GTX 1060) is much faster than a R9 270 which is itself 50% faster than a GTX 750..

What about now? http://pcpartpicker.com/list/s3B89W is it better?

[oldbear 390]

I don't clearly understand why all the fuss about the graphic card.

In order to play Arma3 you need a discrete graphic card built for gaming.

Basically, game performances in Arma3 -what else ?- are CPU dependent.

 

Here the Intel i5-6600K is a good choice.

 

From my own experience, in order to get a nice experience in game, Arma3 must be played at the "High/VeryHigh" level.

It means that the minimum GPU must be at the moment at the GTX 750Ti level [i know, I have one running on my test bench]

But with the Visual Update and APEX release some visual enhancements in lighting are needing higher hardware.

So playing a GTX 750Ti, you will have to get "Lighting" preset on low and even disable "water reflections" in order to gain some FPS.

 

From what I can see in game ATM, you must get a GPU at the GTX 1060 level in order to enjoy full high level Water Reflections and Lighting effects.

A GTX 950 ... why not?

With GTX 1050 release approaching why not wait a bit and hunt for a GTX 970 with a high rebate ?

[domokun 515]

I don't clearly understand why all the fuss about the graphic card.

In order to play Arma3 you need a discrete graphic card built for gaming.

Basically, game performances in Arma3 -what else ?- are CPU dependent.

 

Here the Intel i5-6600K is a good choice.

 

From my own experience, in order to get a nice experience in game, Arma3 must be played at the "High/VeryHigh" level.

It means that the minimum GPU must be at the moment at the GTX 750Ti level [i know, I have one running on my test bench]

But with the Visual Update and APEX release some visual enhancements in lighting are needing higher hardware.

So playing a GTX 750Ti, you will have to get "Lighting" preset on low and even disable "water reflections" in order to gain some FPS.

 

From what I can see in game ATM, you must get a GPU at the GTX 1060 level in order to enjoy full high level Water Reflections and Lighting effects.

A GTX 950 ... why not?

With GTX 1050 release approaching why not wait a bit and hunt for a GTX 970 with a high rebate ?

The "fuss" is the difference between playing at 25 fps and 60 fps for 1080p with Ultra settings.

The cost is less than 10% of the build's total budget.

So to not "don't clearly understand" seems either disingenuous or very short-sighted.

Just to be clear, no-one is doubting the value of 6600k. What is being doubted is wisdom of bottle-necking a 6600k with a low-range card like the GTX 750. Because, contrary to popular widsom, GPUs do significantly contribute to performance in A3.

Also don't expect GTX 970 prices to drop any further than $260 because you can already buy a quicker & cooler card for only $200.

 

What about now? http://pcpartpicker.com/list/s3B89W is it better?

Better because a GTX 1050 will prolly (it's so new that no A3 benchmarks have been published yet but she'll likely offer GTX 960-like performance) offer 35-40 fps @ 1080p instead of 25-30 fps but it still seems a shame to miss out on 80% increase in performance for only $50 (35-40 fps instead of 65-70 fps).

[oldbear 390]

That's not the point ...

The GTX 950 2GB in this link :  http://pcpartpicker.com/list/s3B89W don't look from my point of view as the best choice.

As the GTX 1050 release is nearing, it will be a good idea to wait a bit or to hunt for an other option.

 

Note : here, in Europe, you can get a GTX 970 4Go for 240€ but the minimum for a custom GTX1060 6Go is 270€.