foofi 1 Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) You're welcome...Just to ask, do you happen to see my signature? Yay! :-D NOW i have seen it - i think thats very cool, you help out here and - dont forget - Arma3 is still Alpha for the public! I like this Forum, here are nice people! I ike Arma3! I have worked from 2004 to 2006 for the german FarCry Community at FarCryHQ and after that from 2006 to 2009 for the Crysis-HQ Community (that are only Fansites) and i know that a Game can change very quick and without great announcments. I think that Crysis looks at the first Alpha at best... but this is only my oppinion. Now back to topic: Arma 3 is a big bam in the gameindustry... it sets new dimensions. I like the video on youtube, where a guy talks about the Video Settings. I like the statement on 31 Minute, where he talks about Consoles too! Edited March 12, 2013 by foofi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wardealer 10 Posted March 12, 2013 Ok peeps need some constructive answers please!!My specs: Intel Core I5 750 (o'c to 3.2Ghz) (stock is 2.67Ghz) Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti 8GB DDR3 RAM Win7 Ultimate 64 bit Motherboard: Asus P7H55 Hard drive: WDC WD5000AAKS-00UU3A0 ATA Device I am getting really low FPS, should I be? I have turned down the settings to "standard" in most cases, screenshots: http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2637/arma32013031014272959.jpg http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7538/arma32.jpg http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/1363/arma33.jpg U Should have no prob.Type and specs of ur system seem compatible and powerful enough to run the game on very high graphics with good fps. It's probably impossible, but maybe Arma3 alpha has issues with non ssd drives...? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charliemilk 10 Posted March 12, 2013 Hi, I currently have an i7 9210 @ 3.6Ghz 6GB of RAM ASUS Extreme Rampage II Mother Board. 2 x HD5870 (in corssfire) The graphics cards only have 1GB of memory on them each. But with crossfire it does not double up so I still only have 1GB of video memory to use in crossfire. They are still fast cards and the game looks great until the action starts.. .Once I have a few dozen units moving about and interacting, especially with effects like smoke and fire etc, then i drop a few frames per second. It is still playable but is not ideal. I was wondering if upgrading to a single GTX 670 (with 4GB of video memory) would make much of a difference and if so, what differences would it make? i.e further draw distance or allow me to choose highest settings and play smooth etc. From what I understand the speed of the GPU would be similar or less then the speed of the crossfire set up I have.. BUT the amount of video memory might make enough difference to make the game a much smoother experience. Any suggestions? If there would only be less then 10 frames per second difference then I would not upgrade right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foofi 1 Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) is it possible to Order the Card for testing and send it back between 14 days? I think Amazon make it. Iam from Germany and Amazon.de do it here. Edited March 12, 2013 by foofi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leon86 13 Posted March 12, 2013 Hi, I currently have an i7 9210 @ 3.6Ghz 6GB of RAM ASUS Extreme Rampage II Mother Board. 2 x HD5870 (in corssfire) The graphics cards only have 1GB of memory on them each. But with crossfire it does not double up so I still only have 1GB of video memory to use in crossfire. They are still fast cards and the game looks great until the action starts.. .Once I have a few dozen units moving about and interacting, especially with effects like smoke and fire etc, then i drop a few frames per second. It is still playable but is not ideal. I was wondering if upgrading to a single GTX 670 (with 4GB of video memory) would make much of a difference and if so, what differences would it make? i.e further draw distance or allow me to choose highest settings and play smooth etc. From what I understand the speed of the GPU would be similar or less then the speed of the crossfire set up I have.. BUT the amount of video memory might make enough difference to make the game a much smoother experience. Any suggestions? If there would only be less then 10 frames per second difference then I would not upgrade right now. More video memory is only usefull for very high resolutions with exotic types of antialiasing at the highest texture quality. Viewdistance is mainly a cpu bottleneck, works that way in most games. you can use memory use with msi afterburner, see if you fill up and get bad performance. I dont think I have a problem with my gtx470 with 1.28GB. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foofi 1 Posted March 12, 2013 do you have seen this here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306250 thats from here: http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-alpha-test-gpu.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kossak 1 Posted March 12, 2013 Hello, does anyone here has similar specs to mine and can tell me how Arma 3 alpha runs for him? What settings, how much fps you get? I think about buying it but i'm not sure if it would be playable on my hardware: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3GHz 6MB HD 6850 6 GB of RAM Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dethklokin 1 Posted March 12, 2013 Honestly man, I see you getting pretty bad frames seeming what your, what I'm guessing stock clock, CPU speed is, and if I'm correct that GPU is off the motherboard? I'm not usre but it seems like it. You need a better CPU, clocked at atleast 3Ghz and an actual graphics card, I'll say Nvidia because they have less problems with the game, even though ATI runs better with a AMD board. lol, yea, not good with computers, it's all stock. Not a very good computer. Can someone give a summary of how much this would cost me? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrazyBee 8 Posted March 13, 2013 I don't know about this game man,Evernote says this games is CPU intensive and I got amd fx 6300 oced to 4.5ghz and my gave still doesn't run well..btw if I get ssd and put arma 3 on it will it help my performance or it will just help me boot the game fast?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gliptal 25 Posted March 13, 2013 I don't know about this game man,Evernote says this games is CPU intensive and I got amd fx 6300 oced to 4.5ghz and my gave still doesn't run well..btw if I get ssd and put arma 3 on it will it help my performance or it will just help me boot the game fast??You would get no visible FPS increase with an SSD...Yay! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrazyBee 8 Posted March 13, 2013 Ok cuz I was about buy ssd.what really confusing is how come this game run so bad in my pc when I got pretty decent pc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leon86 13 Posted March 13, 2013 fx cpu's dont perform that well in arma, anyway, you should be fine in singleplayer as long as you keep the viewdistance at 2000m, objects at 1000m. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
k3lt 3 Posted March 13, 2013 If you have 10-12GB+ of RAM, you can run it from RAMDisk which is faster (and cheaper) than SSD there is even guide on forum how to setup it. Tapatalked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrazyBee 8 Posted March 13, 2013 So which CPU runs better 8100 series?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JakeB 10 Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) Hi guys, I'm after some advice. First of all I'd like to say that my current setup runs ArmA II pretty damn well - but I think it should be running ArmA III better than it is. At 1600x900 I have everything on a mixture of Disabled/Low/Standard. Specs: i7-720QM, ATI 5870M (16GB 1600MHz KHX etc. etc.). The 5870M is the equivalent of the desktop 5770 card. I have the clock speed OC'd from 700MHz up to 770MHz currently. CPU is at stock currently; my particular chip is poor at OCing, but can be knocked up to 3.15GHz (stock reaches 2.8). Secondly, I've decided I'm going to build myself a rig to play ArmA III (and others, of course). Currently I've settled on a single ATI 7950 for my choice of GPU (it overclocks very well), and as for my CPU...I'm not sure whether to go for the AMD FX-8350 or the i5 3570k. I read a lot of conflicting reports and benchmarks etc. as to which is better. Tek syndicate reported double the framerate in ArmA 2: OA with the 8350 vs the 3570K. What are everyone's thoughts on this level of build and how I'll be able to run A3? Any suggestions? I'm trying to put the thing together for as close to £500 as possible, max £600. Edited March 13, 2013 by JakeB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gliptal 25 Posted March 13, 2013 Laptop video cards are never as powerful as the desktop VGAs they come from, so this could explain the low performance your getting... Generally speaking, intel chips are better at gaming than AMDs... Yay! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadicalAtHeart 11 Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) Laptop video cards are never as powerful as the desktop VGAs they come from, so this could explain the low performance your getting...Generally speaking, intel chips are better at gaming than AMDs... Yay! Did some testing. Any Intel Core 2nd/3rd Gen i5/i7 will be able to play ArmA 2. I disabled turbo boost and did my testing with cpuCount=2 disabled cores as well during testing. Testing was done on a 7200RPM drive with GTX670 FTW using 'High' settings If you want to max out ArmA 3 I suggest buying LGA2011 6-cores. ArmA 3 makes heavy use of multithreading. Not the crappy multithreading from ArmA 2 Bulldozer and Piledriver CPUs should be fine with ArmA 3 Mobile i5 and i7 2nd gen and later should be able to play the game as well. For the GPU I suggest www.videocardbenchmark.net (1500+ points on the benchmark) Laptops with GT650M can play the game. I am buying one. His performance sucks because he has a i7-720QM which runs at base clock of 1.6GHz and turbo 2.8GHz. It's a crappy CPU in general. I also had it. Couldn't even play one game properly. Edited March 13, 2013 by RadicalAtHeart Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leon86 13 Posted March 13, 2013 So which CPU runs better 8100 series?? nope, the fx8100 series is the same as the fx6300, only with more cores enabled, you're going to have to reduce settings to get better framerates, unless you have a really crappy gpu. what's your gpu? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrazyBee 8 Posted March 13, 2013 My gpu is sapphire 7950 3 gig ram on card.so my 4.5oc CPU is not good enough for arma 3?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leon86 13 Posted March 13, 2013 You can make arma run like shit on any system, you have to change settings until it runs well enough for you. you have a very fast gpu, so you can keep resolution, antialiasing and shadows pretty high, those are mostly gpu heavy. your cpu isn't so I'd turn PIP off, viewdistance to 2000m, object viewdistance to 1000m. model detail standard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gliptal 25 Posted March 13, 2013 You can make arma run like shit on any system, you have to change settings until it runs well enough for you.you have a very fast gpu, so you can keep resolution, antialiasing and shadows pretty high, those are mostly gpu heavy. your cpu isn't so I'd turn PIP off, viewdistance to 2000m, object viewdistance to 1000m. model detail standard. True, although model detail ca be kept quite high with little to no performance hit... Use this video as a reference on settings: Yay! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charliemilk 10 Posted March 13, 2013 HI, I specifically installed ARMA III on my SSD so it loads faster, saves faster, and can grab textures faster if it needs to. Am I to understand it will only effect load time of games and levels? ---------- Post added at 01:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 PM ---------- If you have 10-12GB+ of RAM, you can run it from RAMDisk which is faster (and cheaper) than SSD there is even guide on forum how to setup it. Tapatalked. This is very good info!! Thank you. As I only play games, I've never needed more then 4GB of ram, although I did buy 6GB on my last build a couple of years ago I've never seen any game use more then about 3GB. From what you have said I will try and get about 24GB of RAM on my next build so I can use RAMDISK. So yet another reason to push me into an upgrade later this year!! ---------- Post added at 01:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ---------- More video memory is only usefull for very high resolutions with exotic types of antialiasing at the highest texture quality. Viewdistance is mainly a cpu bottleneck, works that way in most games.you can use memory use with msi afterburner, see if you fill up and get bad performance. I dont think I have a problem with my gtx470 with 1.28GB. do you have seen this here:http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306250 thats from here: http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-alpha-test-gpu.html Thank you both for replies. So it appears that a faster GPU is more important then amount of video memory. I can save money by getting a GTX670 with only 2GB of memory instead of 4GB and then use the saved money for a faster CPU. Although..... I want to triple screen by the end of the year. SO I guess I'll just keep saving and wait for prices of everything to come down and get everything in one go rather then just buying bits separately throughout the year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrazyBee 8 Posted March 13, 2013 So suggest me wat CPU is better to use Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leon86 13 Posted March 13, 2013 The 3570K is the "ultimate" cpu for arma, but even with that one you'll be able to completely cripple performance by running max viewdistance. It's probably better if you just tweak settings in the infantry showcase mission until you get reasonable performance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrazyBee 8 Posted March 13, 2013 I'm getting 30-40 with my fx 6300 is it good for arma ---------- Post added at 11:25 ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 ---------- I have everything on high besides cloud is off pp is off pip is off view dis is 2000 ---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ---------- And if I get 3570 or 3770 I'm good right???better than 6300 with 4.5 ghz?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
