Jump to content
Placebo

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

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone.

Some people say AMD CPU are shit for ArmA games, and ATI/AMD GPU too, so I think I'm going to change my configuration for Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU, but I want my actual configuration, but in Intel/Nvidia, can you help me ? Hmm, in fact, I want a computer who can running ArmA 3 in good condition (30+ FPS), idk if it's possible with my configuration...

This is my actual configuration :

Hmmm...."some people" talk a lot during a long day.

Although i am a AMD/ATI "Fanboy" i have to admit that Intel actually has the far better CPU's for gaming. So if it's your intention to get max FPS with highest settings, i agree that there is no way around a Intel CPU.

IMHO your rig should be capable of running ArmA 3 with 30+ FPS, given you can live with setting one notch lower. Myself i have a Phenom II X4 960 @stock and a AMD HD5870, runs fine with a mix of medium to high settings.

So while i do subscribe that Intels are faster, i wouldn't say that AMD CPU's are s***.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myke;2398132']Hmmm...."some people" talk a lot during a long day.

Although i am a AMD/ATI "Fanboy" i have to admit that Intel actually has the far better CPU's for gaming. So if it's your intention to get max FPS with highest settings' date=' i agree that there is no way around a Intel CPU.

IMHO your rig should be capable of running ArmA 3 with 30+ FPS, given you can live with setting one notch lower. Myself i have a Phenom II X4 960 @stock and a AMD HD5870, runs fine with a mix of medium to high settings.

So while i do subscribe that Intels are faster, i wouldn't say that AMD CPU's are s***.[/quote']

Thanks for your answer.

I am a "AMD/ATI Fanboy" too (until this day) but, when I see some people with ATI/NVIDIA config', less powerful than mine, and running ArmA 2/3 with 35/40+ FPS (better than me lol), it's unbelievable and crazy for me xD

So I want to change my CPU, but IDK if it's necessary to change my GPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting ready to order the parts to get a new machine up and running to play ARMA3, and whilst I am not worried about the graphic cards being a bottleneck, I am hearing a lot of about the CPU possibly being one. What sort of performance could I expect from a 3820? Should be good to excellent in theory, but if I've learned anything it never hurts to be sure in case it might be worth bumping up a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPU isn't the bottleneck. it is the game's engine and it's lack of ability to take good advantage of modern hardware that is the bottleneck. Higher clock speeds make a difference as a result, b/c you are using 50% or less of a little bit more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CPU isn't the bottleneck. it is the game's engine and it's lack of ability to take good advantage of modern hardware that is the bottleneck. Higher clock speeds make a difference as a result, b/c you are using 50% or less of a little bit more.

The CPU is the bottleneck, this has been proven over and over and over again.

Further to that, If memory serves, you are trying to drive a 1600P display with one 580.

One 580 is not enough to drive a 1600P monitor in A3 (or most other modern games).

And I would hardly consider it 'modern hardware', it was released in November 2010, that is pretty old by gaming PC standards (That's not to say it's bad, the 580 is a great card, but hardly cutting edge anymore).

I can list you game after game after game that will not run well with that setup so quit singling out A3 as the problem and spreading misinformation.

Does the current engine need optimized - undoubtedly (and it gets better with every dev build so kudos to BIS for continuing to improve the Alpha and for offering a level of support unheard of in PC gaming c. 2013).

Will any amount of optimization make your hardware perform outside of it's spec - not likely.

Edited by BangTail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I'm on the move and not currently in a permanent house for more than 6 months. I have been using my $600 laptop.

This laptop has an i5 @ 3ghz (turbo'd), an ATI HD6630M, and 4gb memory. I have the game settings on medium, and 1 setting is on low and I get 30 frames per second.

Can't complain for a $600 laptop where I didn't have the intention for gaming lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I'm on the move and not currently in a permanent house for more than 6 months. I have been using my $600 laptop.

This laptop has an i5 @ 3ghz (turbo'd), an ATI HD6630M, and 4gb memory. I have the game settings on medium, and 1 setting is on low and I get 30 frames per second.

Can't complain for a $600 laptop where I didn't have the intention for gaming lol.

Good to hear :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The CPU is the bottleneck, this has been proven over and over and over again.

Further to that, If memory serves, you are trying to drive a 1600P display with one 580.

One 580 is not enough to drive a 1600P monitor in A3 (or most other modern games).

And I would hardly consider it 'modern hardware', it was released in November 2010, that is pretty old by gaming PC standards (That's not to say it's bad, the 580 is a great card, but hardly cutting edge anymore).

I can list you game after game after game that will not run well with that setup so quit singling out A3 as the problem and spreading misinformation.

Does the current engine need optimized - undoubtedly (and it gets better with every dev build so kudos to BIS for continuing to improve the Alpha and for offering a level of support unheard of in PC gaming c. 2013).

Will any amount of optimization make your hardware perform outside of it's spec - not likely.

It has been shown time and time again that cpu goes underutilized, and that gpu usage suffers as a result when the limit of what the game engine will use of the cpu is reached. The engine has poor multi-core/thread optimization. Kind of hard to say the cpu is a bottleneck when folks have shown over and over that the game doesn't use much of it in the first place.

My setup will play this game at 40-60 fps avg, with good settings (2k view distance, no AA, ultra shadows, textures, terrain, and objects)... unless i'm flying, or in certain areas of the island (airfield, and its nearby city, primarily), or dealing with more than simple AI, of course. Then gpu usage plummets, framerate goes with it, and no settings adjustments impact performance at that point. My system does exceed the recommended specs. That said, I'd be happy to play at lower settings. Initially, I was. But, you soon realize the difference is negated when you start running into usage issues. So, I tinkered and toyed with settings and found the best spot to encourage the most gpu usage without negatively impacting my framerate. But, again... once the problem shows itself, no settings changes impact it.

Not spreading misinformation. The issue has been demonstrated and known for years, and there are folks with far more powerful machines than mine who have demonstrated the same issue. You are right though... It's not just A3. A2 is the same :) Those are the 2 games from Bohemia I have experience with over the last 2 years or so, and both suffer the same issue. Beyond a certain point, the hardware is not the limiting factor of this games performance.

I am skeptical of how much optimization they can/will do with this game, and I feel I have a strong body of evidence to support that skepticism. I also feel the most mis-info that gets spread about this game and performance, is people spreading the fallacy that the game is just too much for today's hardware, when it is clear (to me) that the game doesn't make very effective use of the hardware. Which, for me, is doubly frustrating b/c it is clear that underneath the performance issues would be an amazing game. And, also b/c they actually do regularly patch their games, but never addressed this issue with the previous iteration. Unfortunately, a game that is meant to be played big is relegated (for me) to playing only small, tactical, infantry based missions.

Even on an empty map, step foot on the airfield, or the nearby city, and gpu usage goes from 99% to 30-40%, and fps from 50-60 down to 20'ish. Now, if that bf3 sized city, completely empty, with absolutely nothing going on, can cause a quad core 4ghz to choke, well, I don't see how that is any better than poor optimization of the engine. Worse, in my view.

One could make the case that the hardware is the bottleneck if the game was making more efficient use of it, and still suffering. But this is not the case with A3. And, it is easily demonstrable and repeatable (going back to A2 in my own experience, and carrying over with A3). Just my opinion, but if I were hiring a new guy, and I was deciding between someone for game balance, and someone for engine optimization, I'd choose the latter without hesitation. All the hard work is for naught, imo, if the foundation is not solid. A friend of mine turned me on to the guy who designed the Houdini chess engine. It is a bad-ass, mega-fast chess engine. And, it is, b/c he is apparently a wizard at multi-core/threaded coding. His engine runs circles around others on the same exact machine as a result. Perhaps BIS should give him a buzz :D

I don't want to start an argument here, though. I just feel kind of bad seeing so many posts of people saying you need to drop $ on this and that hardware, knowing the only benefit they are really getting is the game engine under-utilizing a little bit more horsepower. And, after a certain point, the ROI is not that attractive. It seems pretty clear to me that this game need not cutting edge hardware to be completely playable at reasonable settings for one's hardware, and that the limiting factor is not the hardware when someone can play on a system exceeding recommended specs, on all low settings at 720p and still be playing at 20fps.

I have only tried out a couple of dev builds, so I can't speak to them with confidence. In my limited experience with them, though, I've noticed no performance gains vs. the stable builds. Based upon your words, perhaps I will give the current dev build (it has been a couple of weeks since i last tried) a try and see if there is any performance difference with regards to the low cpu/gpu utilization issue. And, I'm not just here trying to spread fud, troll, or rail/hate on BIS. I *want* them to prove me and others wrong on this particular issue. I'll leave it at that, as it is straying off topic.

But, I stand by my recommendation to folks reading casually. Be wary of mega-hardware recommendations. It is not (at this point in time) the limiting factor to this games performance, in my opinion. I feel there is overwhelming evidence to support this point. I hope it changes, and I hope I am proven wrong, but I remain pretty damn skeptical at this point, save the performance of some of the showcases, and a few scattered posts that tacitly acknowledge the issue.

p.s. my 580 with it's overclock has been sufficient to drive any game I have played on it to my satisfaction (and I dont' demand 60fps) except for 2. It has also been sufficient to do more intensive work than gaming on it (hence why I have a large resolution monitor in the first place). If I felt it would make a meaningful improvement to A3, I'd consider upgrading, as I am coming up on my 2 year gpu upgrade mark (and have passed my 4 year cpu upgrade timeline). But, I see no need to upgrade for this game at this point in time.

Edited by Mobile_Medic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has been shown time and time again that cpu goes underutilized, and that gpu usage suffers as a result when the limit of what the game engine will use of the cpu is reached. The engine has poor multi-core/thread optimization. Kind of hard to say the cpu is a bottleneck when folks have shown over and over that the game doesn't use much of it in the first place.

My setup will play this game at 40-60 fps avg, with good settings (2k view distance, no AA, ultra shadows, textures, terrain, and objects)... unless i'm flying, or in certain areas of the island (airfield, and its nearby city, primarily), or dealing with more than simple AI, of course. Then gpu usage plummets, framerate goes with it, and no settings adjustments impact performance at that point. My system does exceed the recommended specs. That said, I'd be happy to play at lower settings. Initially, I was. But, you soon realize the difference is negated when you start running into usage issues. So, I tinkered and toyed with settings and found the best spot to encourage the most gpu usage without negatively impacting my framerate. But, again... once the problem shows itself, no settings changes impact it.

Not spreading misinformation. The issue has been demonstrated and known for years, and there are folks with far more powerful machines than mine who have demonstrated the same issue. You are right though... It's not just A3. A2 is the same :) Those are the 2 games from Bohemia I have experience with over the last 2 years or so, and both suffer the same issue. Beyond a certain point, the hardware is not the limiting factor of this games performance.

I am skeptical of how much optimization they can/will do with this game, and I feel I have a strong body of evidence to support that skepticism. I also feel the most mis-info that gets spread about this game and performance, is people spreading the fallacy that the game is just too much for today's hardware, when it is clear (to me) that the game doesn't make very effective use of the hardware. Which, for me, is doubly frustrating b/c it is clear that underneath the performance issues would be an amazing game. And, also b/c they actually do regularly patch their games, but never addressed this issue with the previous iteration. Unfortunately, a game that is meant to be played big is relegated (for me) to playing only small, tactical, infantry based missions.

Even on an empty map, step foot on the airfield, or the nearby city, and gpu usage goes from 99% to 30-40%, and fps from 50-60 down to 20'ish. Now, if that bf3 sized city, completely empty, with absolutely nothing going on, can cause a quad core 4ghz to choke, well, I don't see how that is any better than poor optimization of the engine. Worse, in my view.

One could make the case that the hardware is the bottleneck if the game was making more efficient use of it, and still suffering. But this is not the case with A3. And, it is easily demonstrable and repeatable (going back to A2 in my own experience, and carrying over with A3). Just my opinion, but if I were hiring a new guy, and I was deciding between someone for game balance, and someone for engine optimization, I'd choose the latter without hesitation. All the hard work is for naught, imo, if the foundation is not solid. A friend of mine turned me on to the guy who designed the Houdini chess engine. It is a bad-ass, mega-fast chess engine. And, it is, b/c he is apparently a wizard at multi-core/threaded coding. His engine runs circles around others on the same exact machine as a result. Perhaps BIS should give him a buzz :D

I don't want to start an argument here, though. I just feel kind of bad seeing so many posts of people saying you need to drop $ on this and that hardware, knowing the only benefit they are really getting is the game engine under-utilizing a little bit more horsepower. And, after a certain point, the ROI is not that attractive. It seems pretty clear to me that this game need not cutting edge hardware to be completely playable at reasonable settings for one's hardware, and that the limiting factor is not the hardware when someone can play on a system exceeding recommended specs, on all low settings at 720p and still be playing at 20fps.

I have only tried out a couple of dev builds, so I can't speak to them with confidence. In my limited experience with them, though, I've noticed no performance gains vs. the stable builds. Based upon your words, perhaps I will give the current dev build (it has been a couple of weeks since i last tried) a try and see if there is any performance difference with regards to the low cpu/gpu utilization issue. And, I'm not just here trying to spread fud, troll, or rail/hate on BIS. I *want* them to prove me and others wrong on this particular issue. I'll leave it at that, as it is straying off topic.

But, I stand by my recommendation to folks reading casually. Be wary of mega-hardware recommendations. It is not (at this point in time) the limiting factor to this games performance, in my opinion. I feel there is overwhelming evidence to support this point. I hope it changes, and I hope I am proven wrong, but I remain pretty damn skeptical at this point, save the performance of some of the showcases, and a few scattered posts that tacitly acknowledge the issue.

p.s. my 580 with it's overclock has been sufficient to drive any game I have played on it to my satisfaction (and I dont' demand 60fps) except for 2. It has also been sufficient to do more intensive work than gaming on it (hence why I have a large resolution monitor in the first place). If I felt it would make a meaningful improvement to A3, I'd consider upgrading, as I am coming up on my 2 year gpu upgrade mark (and have passed my 4 year cpu upgrade timeline). But, I see no need to upgrade for this game at this point in time.

I doubt what you and I consider 'sufficient' is anywhere close to the same thing as I found 2 x 680s adequate for 1600P, one was nowhere close to enough.

One 580 certainly is not but if you are happy with it, all good - just stop whining about performance because a 3 year old video card is not up to 1600P in most current games (and even some older ones) - go crank up C3 and get back to me about 'sufficient' (Even C1 will choke at 1600P with a decent level of AA on a single 580 and that is a ~6 year old game).

If you're going to insist on complaining endlessly, I'll have to insist you apply these ridiculous standards to all games as opposed to just A3 (which isn't even released yet, a fact you and your ilk are very fond of ignoring).

PS: I never suggested you or anyone else spend a dime on hardware, merely that you come to terms with the fact that PCs are not consoles and do not share the same lifespan and that a ~3 year old video card is not necessarily going to play newer games that well especially at 1600P which is really a multi GPU resolution for graphically intensive games (like Arma, Metro, Far Cry 3 etc)

PPS: I know this is a difficult concept for you but BF3 != to A3, stop making that comparison.

And a chess game? Are you f**king serious dude :rolleyes:

I have to clarify again because I know I'll be accused of being a BIS fanboy and that I'm ignoring the fact that performance could be better:

Performance is being improved through the dev builds (almost daily) and I know this has been repeated ad nauseam, but this is still an Alpha.

5 days ago, pilots were invisible, 3 weeks ago, some jackass was crashing every server - Point being, everything, including performance is being addressed.

Edited by BangTail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take a pass on all your personal jabs and logical fallacies, rather than direct responses.

Funny, I thought talking about other games performance in here was a no-no, as it often prompts the "how can you compare bf3 to Arma!?!?!? Rawrrr!!!" type responses. Though, there isn't really much of a comparison between a fully manned 64 player server vs. an empty bf3 sized city, that much is true.

My machine is sufficient to play the games I play at full or close to full settings (though, I typically roll with no, or low aa) at 40+. And, i've seen over 80 on this game with the same system. The fact that you point out that my standards are lower than yours kind of disputes your claim that I have ridiculous standards. You can play the e-peen game if you like. I'll stick with the observation and evidence as much as possible. Unfortunately, much of the input is one-side due to lack of feedback over the last years on this issue.

p.s. tell it to the guy with 3x SLI Titan's...

EDITED TO ADD: Yeah, the guy coming in with BIS' dick in his hand lobbing out personal insults didn't contribute to the threads closing at all </sarcasm>. It was people's emotions on both sides of the fence that got the thread closed.

Edited by Mobile_Medic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll take a pass on all your personal jabs and logical fallacies, rather than direct responses.

Funny, I thought talking about other games performance in here was a no-no, as it often prompts the "how can you compare bf3 to Arma!?!?!? Rawrrr!!!" type responses. Though, there isn't really much of a comparison between a fully manned 64 player server vs. an empty bf3 sized city, that much is true.

My machine is sufficient to play the games I play at full or close to full settings (though, I typically roll with no, or low aa) at 40+. And, i've seen over 80 on this game with the same system. The fact that you point out that my standards are lower than yours kind of disputes your claim that I have ridiculous standards. You can play the e-peen game if you like. I'll stick with the observation and evidence as much as possible. Unfortunately, much of the input is one-side due to lack of feedback over the last years on this issue.

p.s. tell it to the guy with 3x SLI Titan's...

EDITED TO ADD: Yeah, the guy coming in with BIS' dick in his hand lobbing out personal insults didn't contribute to the threads closing at all </sarcasm>. It was people's emotions on both sides of the fence that got the thread closed.

I didn't wave any kind of e-peen - not sure where you got that from.

I simply commented that I know from my own experience with hardware that a 580 will not drive a 1600P monitor at a level I would be happy with.

I'm not sure who you are referring to with your last ad hom attack but I've criticized BIS plenty over the years and will continue to do so if I feel it appropriate.

Edited by BangTail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buddy,<...> I've criticized BIS plenty over the years and will continue to do so if I feel it appropriate.

"Lil' Buddy", as a paying customer I will, too, I hope you don't mind. At least right up until release, and if the situation is still relatively unchanged, and the input (or lack thereof) from devs is still relatively unchanged. At which point, BIS will have gotten the last of my dollars, and earned a *wonderful* (see: sarcasm) review from someone who could not, in good conscience, recommend this game to anyone at that point.

I kept my mouth shut on Arma 2 over this issue, b/c I already had my answer. The jury is still out on this one. Call it complaining, criticism, whatever. I've largely kept my emotions in check, and try to stick to the evidence. Not much point in engaging with you, when your response is "too long, didn't read, but you are a cry baby and your machine is shit".

My statement was not ad hominem. I did not attack your character, as I was not even referring to you. Merely, "colorfully" pointed out (in light of your own, colorful response) that it was people's emotions that caused the thread to be closed. And, not just those of the naysayers, but of the apparently, undyingly loyal to BIS as well. If you want to talk ad hominem, your repeated claims of "incessant whining/complaining" would more accurately fall under those lines, especially when coupled with your admission of not having an interest in reading it in the first place :/

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Lil' Buddy", as a paying customer I will, too, I hope you don't mind. At least right up until release, and if the situation is still relatively unchanged, and the input (or lack thereof) from devs is still relatively unchanged. At which point, BIS will have gotten the last of my dollars, and earned a *wonderful* (see: sarcasm) review from someone who could not, in good conscience, recommend this game to anyone at that point.

I kept my mouth shut on Arma 2 over this issue, b/c I already had my answer. The jury is still out on this one. Call it complaining, criticism, whatever. I've largely kept my emotions in check, and try to stick to the evidence. Not much point in engaging with you, when your response is "too long, didn't read, but you are a cry baby and your machine is shit".

My statement was not ad hominem. I attacked no ones character. Merely, "colorfully" pointed out (in light of your own, colorful response) that it was people's emotions that caused the thread to be closed. And, not just those of the naysayers, but of the apparently, undyingly loyal to BIS as well. If you want to talk ad hominem, your repeated claims of "incessant whining/complaining" would more accurately fall under those lines, especially when coupled with your admission of not having an interest in reading it in the first place :/

Peace.

Let me preface this by saying that this is not necessarily directed at you Mobile Medic, just a general observation.

I respect everyone's right to voice their concerns, but there are a few people here who do nothing but complain, tear down the developers and attack other users, it is annoying and counterproductive.

Obviously, we all want the game to run well, but if we are going to insist on throwing BIS under the bus, can we please refrain from pretending we are investigating 'pre crimes' and at the very least wait until the game is released?

@Mobile_Medic

While I did imply that you complain, I certainly did not call your PC 'shit', I actually said the 580 was a great card, just not enough for 1600P imho.

Anyway, this is not the thread for this discussion so I'll reciprocate.

Peace :D

Edited by BangTail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously, we all want the game to run well, but if you are going to insist on throwing BIS under the bus, can you please refrain from pretending you are investigating 'pre crimes' and at the very least wait until the game is released?

I would tend to agree with you, but there is the simple fact that this issue is not new to arma 3. It has now carried over across multiple iterations of the game, and full number version changes to the engine. When coupled with lack of meaningful developer input (from a typically chirpy dev team) it should be cause for concern.

I do not feel like I am trying to throw anyone under the bus. I have also attempted to include myself in the community here (after finally joining) in other ways beyond just reporting about this issue. But, I am trying to advocate for what is (in my mind) THE #1 issue. I find it tends to get clouded by so many different performance/settings tweaks and hardware suggestions, rather than addressing the root (which can only be done by the devs). If there was a clearer presence from the devs about this issue (the time is now during the pre-release phases), much of that noise could go away, and performance and hw suggestions could be more accurately provided, rather than providing cover for this issue. But, I guess that is debatable. Dwarden seems to think he has said all there is to say on it until he is blue in the face. But, I don't recall ever receiving any input from the devs as to the cause, a proposed solution, or timeline, etc. Only, (mostly) tacit acknowledgement.

Anyway, yes... I figured my posting something to the contrary of "your cpu isn't hoss enough" vibe might derail the thread. What followed has, and is off-topic. I apologize (again) for my part in that. However, my original comment is relevant to the thread, and I stand by it as my opinion (one I do not feel I have arrived at casually). Obviously, it is a touchy issue to suggest that the engine itself is the primary bottleneck, assuming one meets the recommended specs. Until that is resolved, all hardware suggestions are un/necessarily inflated. I now return you to your regularly scheduled hw chat.

---------- Post added at 02:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:40 ----------

@BangTail

I have noted and appreciate the editing of the tone of some of your posts. But, perhaps, in the future, I will quote the full contents of your posts for my own safety... As some of the contents of my posts now seem out of context as a result.

In response to one of your edits. I've played far cry 3. At 2560x1600. ssao, enhanced alpha to coverage, all settings in the "Video Quality" tab on "High" (which is max for a few things, and high out of very high, or ultra for the others). 110 FOV. It was a steady 40+ experience (I would say 38-45 avg). And, I'll tell you what it didn't do... My gpu usage never crapped out and took my fps with it from walking around in a town, or encountering a few ai. I've never claimed expectation of running any of these games at balls to the wall settings @ 60fps. Though, I can run arma at higher settings than FC3 and with better frame rate (if there are no usage crappers present). The key difference is not what settings I can run x game at, but that one of these had reliable, predictable performance. The other has erratic, unpredictable performance with bottlenecks (wherever they may be) occurring from acts as simple as jogging through a vacant town. And, the performance didn't degrade into the teens as I progressed (an hour into a mission). Likewise, running this game at all lowest settings and 720p res, with similar effect, under rather mundane "load" conditions produces no appreciable benefit to performance, and pretty much closes the book on whether the bottleneck is hw or not. Unless of course, my computer can't handle a cell phone resolution and graphics quality from 1998.

Edited by Mobile_Medic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in this game and i dint play arma 2 b4. I wonder if my comp can run this game? can i run it at high quality? approximate how much fps will i get?

here is my cpu specs:

Processor: intel core 2 quad q8300 @ 2.5 Ghz

window: 32bit

ram: 4 Gb

graphic card: nvidia geforece gts 250

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am interested in this game and i dint play arma 2 b4. I wonder if my comp can run this game? can i run it at high quality? approximate how much fps will i get?

here is my cpu specs:

Processor: intel core 2 quad q8300 @ 2.5 Ghz

window: 32bit

ram: 4 Gb

graphic card: nvidia geforece gts 250

Thank you.

Even at low settings the performance will likely be very bad :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try the lite version if someone has a spare code.

But might be not playable with the specs listed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, updated idea of what specs I am going for, and therefore an updated opinion requested:

Vantage Blue Gaming Case with LED Fans .

Intel Ivy Bridge I7 3770K 3.5ghz 8mb Cache - Would probably OC it up to a higher but still safe level, say 4.4Ghz

16gb DDR3 1600mhz

ATI Radeon 7950 3gb with HDMI

240gb SSD

1TB HDD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, updated idea of what specs I am going for, and therefore an updated opinion requested:

Vantage Blue Gaming Case with LED Fans .

Intel Ivy Bridge I7 3770K 3.5ghz 8mb Cache - Would probably OC it up to a higher but still safe level, say 4.4Ghz

16gb DDR3 1600mhz

ATI Radeon 7950 3gb with HDMI

240gb SSD

1TB HDD

Personally I think 16GB of RAM are something of an overkill...

Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I think 16GB of RAM are something of an overkill...

Yay!

For gaming - yes (Unless you need a large RAM Drive).

There are plenty of applications that will take advantage of however much physical RAM you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What hardware would be necessary to run Arma 3 under the following settings at a consistant rate > 80fps.

Resolution = 1920 x 1200

Rendering Resolution = 2880x1800 (150%)

Every other video and quality setting on max possible. IE ULTRA

And most importantly...

Visibility:

  • Overall - 12,000
  • Object - 1,088
  • Shadow - 200

Please tell me there is some combination of hardware out there that will run this game at its max settings.

Would a 3960x overclocked to 5ghz, 16 gigs of ram with 2 GTX Titans in SLI do it?

Would a 3960x overclocked to 5ghz, 16 gigs of ram with 4 7970s in crossfire do it?

Would a 3960x overclocked to 5ghz, 16 gigs of ram with 3 7970s in crossfire and a GTX Titan for physics do it?

12k view distance is a must, 150% rendering resolution + ultra settings on everything a must. Can it be done?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I recently bought arma 3 and a new graphics card thinking it would get me to a smooth fps level, however my pc only runs it at about 12 FPS

System Specs:

OS Name Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium

Version 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Build 7601

Other OS Description Not Available

OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation

System Name KELLERS-PC

System Manufacturer Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.

System Model G41M-ES2L

System Type x64-based PC

Processor Intel® Core2 Duo CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz, 2133 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 2 Logical Processor(s)

BIOS Version/Date Award Software International, Inc. F3, 9/04/2009

SMBIOS Version 2.4

Windows Directory C:\Windows

System Directory C:\Windows\system32

Boot Device \Device\HarddiskVolume1

Locale Australia

Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "6.1.7601.17514"

User Name Kellers-PC\Kellers

Time Zone E. Australia Standard Time

Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 4.00 GB

Total Physical Memory 4.00 GB

Available Physical Memory 1.77 GB

Total Virtual Memory 8.00 GB

Available Virtual Memory 4.92 GB

Page File Space 4.00 GB

Page File C:\pagefile.sys

Graphics card NVIDIA GTX 650 Ti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Processor Intel® Core2 Duo CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz, 2133 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 2 Logical Processor(s)

Dude, that Processor is quite old, looks to me like that's your bottleneck.

Get a newer I5 or I7 to get good frames.

Your 650 shouldn't be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What hardware would be necessary to run Arma 3 under the following settings at a consistant rate > 80fps.

Resolution = 1920 x 1200

Rendering Resolution = 2880x1800 (150%)

Every other video and quality setting on max possible. IE ULTRA

And most importantly...

Visibility:

  • Overall - 12,000
  • Object - 1,088
  • Shadow - 200

Please tell me there is some combination of hardware out there that will run this game at its max settings.

Would a 3960x overclocked to 5ghz, 16 gigs of ram with 2 GTX Titans in SLI do it?

Would a 3960x overclocked to 5ghz, 16 gigs of ram with 4 7970s in crossfire do it?

Would a 3960x overclocked to 5ghz, 16 gigs of ram with 3 7970s in crossfire and a GTX Titan for physics do it?

12k view distance is a must, 150% rendering resolution + ultra settings on everything a must. Can it be done?

Thanks

ROFL - Good luck with that - AKA: Can't be done.

Edited by BangTail

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

×