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

[Carcinogenic 10]

Intel® Coreâ„¢ i7-3770K 3.50 GHz 8MB Intel Smart Cache LGA1155 (All Venom OC Certified)

1TB SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 32MB Cache 7200RPM HDD

2 TB external for fraps

16GB (4GBx4) DDR3/1600MHz Dual Channel Memory

MOTHERBOARD: * [CrossFireX] ASUS P8Z77-V LX Intel Z77 Chipset DDR3 ATX Mainboard w/ IRST, Lucid Virtu MVP, 7.1 HD Audio, GbLAN, 2x PCIe x16 (1 Gen3, 1 Gen2), 2x PCIe x1 & 3 PCI (Extreme OC Certified)

Pro OC (Performance Overclock 10%

VIDEO: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB 16X PCIe 3.0 Video Card [+130] (EVGA Superclocked [+0])

VIDEO2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB 16X PCIe 3.0 Video Card [+299] (EVGA Superclocked [+0])

how good is my system? Tweaks? ideas? want a constant 60fps no problem

[verstand3n 13]

4350 isn't supported in the bios

than why not go with the FX 4170?

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/303/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4170_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-4350.html

since we are at it: I have a Phenom X4 965 BE.

From this it seems changing the cpu would not change anything. 2% in singlethreaded applications does not sound like a lot. And I have my Phenom OC'ed to 4Ghz. Thx to the free multi that was easy.

Edited September 13, 2013 by MissVerstanden

[Leon86 13]

In some tests it does make a difference, like in shogun 2, maybe because of the better memory subsystem, dunno, performs ~35% better.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

Arma3 tests dont seem to exist.

[Gryphus 1 10]

i found this custom build pc for $665. so can it run arma 3?

CPU: Intel Pentium Processor G2120 3.10 GHz

GPU:1GB nVidia Geforce GTX650 PCIE

RAM: 4GB ddr iii 1333 MHz

hard drive: 500gb

motherboard: h61 chipset motherboard

[ProbeEtPylon 1]

6300 only has 3 "real" cores, anyway, 4350 isn't supported in the bios, and the 6300 performs nicely in battlefield and other games that are nicely multithreaded (which is bound to happen given the 8 cpu cores in the consoles)

For overclocking, if you have a BE (black edition), you only have to change the vcore and multiplier.

If you dont you have to up the blck, this will increase the memory speed and ht bus, so you might have to find those multipliers and lower them.

Anyway, there are plenty tutorials, and it's pretty easy but it takes quite a bit of time.

Thank you guys, I just bought the FX6300, which should might be not optimal for ARMA but better for other games.

[aqarius 1]

i found this custom build pc for $665. so can it run arma 3?

CPU: Intel Pentium Processor G2120 3.10 GHz

GPU:1GB nVidia Geforce GTX650 PCIE

RAM: 4GB ddr iii 1333 MHz

hard drive: 500gb

motherboard: h61 chipset motherboard

Either not well or not at all.

Try something like this: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1DkZ5

[Kaoz 10]

I have trouble running arma 2 OA in high options with this system would it run arma 3?

i7 2600k

580 GTX

Asus P8Z68 V-PRO

16GB ram

[Leon86 13]

It'll run it much better than most systems.

[Shane 10]

Hey folks any light you can shed on this for me will be much appreciated I am currently getting between 7 online and 25 offline fps running a rig with:

AMD FX 8150 8core 3.61GHz

16GB of RAM

AMD Radeon HD 7800 aprox memory is reading at 4GB but its a 1GB card (supposedly overclocked by the company who supplied it)

Resolution 1920 x 1080

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit

I have tried turning down the settings in display from very high to very low with a possible 2 fps increase. It's making the game completely unplayable online and only just playable offline. Any suggestions are more than welcome I'm at my wits end here trying to get it to work?

[Furret 0]

Options:

• Wait for possible patches to improve performance
  
• 
  
• Get an Intel processor
  
• 
  
• Play on very specific multiplayer servers optimised for performance
  
• 
  
• Play only single player with minimal scripting/AI
  

Edited September 14, 2013 by Furret

[Millor 1]

I'm just horribly disappointed. I was so extremely hyped for this game and couldn't wait to play it. Alpha and beta were bad, I couldn't get any sort of playable FPS in multiplayer. So I waited and hoped it would be improved a lot but here we are at release and it isn't any better at all.

Using a GTX 560Ti, i5-2500k@4.2GHz and 8gb of ram I can't even reach 30 FPS in multiplayer at the lowest settings. A waste of $32 isn't very cool, but it's nothing in comparison to the massive disappointment of not being able to play this game.

[ric 1]

Hey folks any light you can shed on this for me will be much appreciated I am currently getting between 7 online and 25 offline fps running a rig with:

AMD FX 8150 8core 3.61GHz

16GB of RAM

AMD Radeon HD 7800 aprox memory is reading at 4GB but its a 1GB card (supposedly overclocked by the company who supplied it)

Resolution 1920 x 1080

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit

I have tried turning down the settings in display from very high to very low with a possible 2 fps increase. It's making the game completely unplayable online and only just playable offline. Any suggestions are more than welcome I'm at my wits end here trying to get it to work?

sorry mate but the game is dependent on the power of core 0 , your best bet right now is to overclock as far as you can go and get an SSD.

---------- Post added at 01:44 ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 ----------

I'm just horribly disappointed. I was so extremely hyped for this game and couldn't wait to play it. Alpha and beta were bad, I couldn't get any sort of playable FPS in multiplayer. So I waited and hoped it would be improved a lot but here we are at release and it isn't any better at all.

Using a GTX 560Ti, i5-2500k@4.2GHz and 8gb of ram I can't even reach 30 FPS in multiplayer at the lowest settings. A waste of $32 isn't very cool, but it's nothing in comparison to the massive disappointment of not being able to play this game.

Wwhat servers are you playing on? wasteland? have you tried turning down your object and view distance?

[Millor 1]

Wwhat servers are you playing on? wasteland? have you tried turning down your object and view distance?

Any server. The graphical options hardly even matter, they don't really have any affect on my FPS in multiplayer. In single player the game runs okay at least, but multiplayer is always unplayable.

[Flaky 10]

Don't neglect things like mobo BIOS. I updated from Asus 0201 to 0701 for my Core 2 Quad Q6600 and saw much better stability and an extra 15-20fps no joke. Wish I had pursued it more diligently back in 2008 when the latest BIOS came out...

[Dinowski 10]

My system:

Intel i5-2500k

GF560Ti

8GB RAM

Game is installed on SSD.

Game runes very poorly. Doesn't mater what settings I put in. If I turn off everything I can and put rest on low I get 60 FPS, but game looks worse than Quake 3. Also, if I happen to look in to the forest, FPS drops below 30. I don't recall game running so baldy in Alpha/Beta. When can we expect some tweak guide and/or patch? Will my system be enough to handle the game after it's been a bit more optimized?

Thanks,

Dinowski

[Furret 0]

Any server. The graphical options hardly even matter, they don't really have any affect on my FPS in multiplayer. In single player the game runs okay at least, but multiplayer is always unplayable.

Your FPS is reliant on server FPS, a better benchmark is to try Stratis in the editor, alone.

[Sneakson 1]

Note to everyone: multiplayer is currently badly optimized and will run poorly for nearly everyone. BIS are working on it but for now only expect good singleplayer performance and do your measuring in singleplayer regardless of machine.

Your fps depends on the server fps apparently so in order to have good multiplayer fps you will need to connect to a properly optimized server and most servers right now are poorly optimized.

Intel® Coreâ„¢ i7-3770K 3.50 GHz 8MB Intel Smart Cache LGA1155 (All Venom OC Certified)

1TB SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 32MB Cache 7200RPM HDD

2 TB external for fraps

16GB (4GBx4) DDR3/1600MHz Dual Channel Memory

MOTHERBOARD: * [CrossFireX] ASUS P8Z77-V LX Intel Z77 Chipset DDR3 ATX Mainboard w/ IRST, Lucid Virtu MVP, 7.1 HD Audio, GbLAN, 2x PCIe x16 (1 Gen3, 1 Gen2), 2x PCIe x1 & 3 PCI (Extreme OC Certified)

Pro OC (Performance Overclock 10%

VIDEO: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB 16X PCIe 3.0 Video Card [+130] (EVGA Superclocked [+0])

VIDEO2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB 16X PCIe 3.0 Video Card [+299] (EVGA Superclocked [+0])

how good is my system? Tweaks? ideas? want a constant 60fps no problem

Should run well in singleplayer.

i found this custom build pc for $665. so can it run arma 3?

CPU: Intel Pentium Processor G2120 3.10 GHz

GPU:1GB nVidia Geforce GTX650 PCIE

RAM: 4GB ddr iii 1333 MHz

hard drive: 500gb

motherboard: h61 chipset motherboard

Yes, I think it should run on standard-high settings. Check out my sig for my older machine which is similar and should run similarly.

I have trouble running arma 2 OA in high options with this system would it run arma 3?

i7 2600k

580 GTX

Asus P8Z68 V-PRO

16GB ram

Should run well I would think at least if you look into overclocking.

Hey folks any light you can shed on this for me will be much appreciated I am currently getting between 7 online and 25 offline fps running a rig with:

AMD FX 8150 8core 3.61GHz

16GB of RAM

AMD Radeon HD 7800 aprox memory is reading at 4GB but its a 1GB card (supposedly overclocked by the company who supplied it)

Resolution 1920 x 1080

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit

I have tried turning down the settings in display from very high to very low with a possible 2 fps increase. It's making the game completely unplayable online and only just playable offline. Any suggestions are more than welcome I'm at my wits end here trying to get it to work?

Right now nearly everyone has poor online performance. I would think you should be able to do singleplayer somewhat well though, just don't be too greedy with the settings.

Don't neglect things like mobo BIOS. I updated from Asus 0201 to 0701 for my Core 2 Quad Q6600 and saw much better stability and an extra 15-20fps no joke. Wish I had pursued it more diligently back in 2008 when the latest BIOS came out...

Cool! My mobo BIOS is updated but not my graphics card BIOS because the process is a bit more complicated and seemed a bit riskier.

My system:

Intel i5-2500k

GF560Ti

8GB RAM

Game is installed on SSD.

Game runes very poorly. Doesn't mater what settings I put in. If I turn off everything I can and put rest on low I get 60 FPS, but game looks worse than Quake 3. Also, if I happen to look in to the forest, FPS drops below 30. I don't recall game running so baldy in Alpha/Beta. When can we expect some tweak guide and/or patch? Will my system be enough to handle the game after it's been a bit more optimized?

Thanks,

Dinowski

Check out my signature... you should be able to run at least my settings singleplayer!

Edited September 15, 2013 by Sneakson

[Dinowski 10]

Thanks mate, I'll try it out. Might even OC my processor again to 4.5GHz (only reason why I de-clocked it back to default is because I had no need for extra speed and didn't want to sweat processor for "bragging" rights).

EDIT:

It does work okay-ish, 40 FPS or so in SP. Once you get used to the not-so-smooth experience it gets ok :)

Edited September 16, 2013 by Dinowski

[coltti 1]

Im going to upgrade my pc for Arma 3, heres what I'm planning on buying.

CPU: AMD FX8350 Black Edition 8 Core Processor 4.0/4.2GHz

GPU: MSI NVIDIA GTX 660Ti 3GB

MB: Asus M5A97 R2.0

RAM: 2x Corsair 4GB (1 x 4GB) Vengeage, DDR3 1600MHz, CL7

SSD: OCZ 128GB Vertex 4 Sata III-6Gb/s 2.5 inch SSD

I already have a HDD 640gb and might try Arma 3 on SSD as it has been recommended by some.

I have heard quite a bit that Intel would run arma better, but I am afraid I cannot afford Intel products right now so I would rather go with AMD as they are rather cheap.

Would this machine run Arma 3 singleplayer quite nicely?

I currently have: ATI HD4890 1gb, AMD Phenom II x4 940 black edition, 4gb RAM, 640gb samsung HDD, Asus m4a78-e, and its getting too slow for the current games right now.

[gerwim 10]

I currently have an i7 950 (clocked at 3.8 Ghz) with a nVidia GeForce GTX470. I'd like to upgrade my machine and was wondering, what would be the true bottleneck for ArmA as I'd like to increase my FPS. Would I better be getting a new gfx card or CPU?

[nerdwing 13]

I've currently got a AMD Phenom II 970 X4 processor, running in the 3.5 ghz range according to Dxdiag. 8 Gigs of ram.

I've also got an ATI HD5770 card. My question is, am I in one of the rare-ish situations where a new GPU would offer better performance increase over a new CPU? The card is stock for my PC (prebuilt because Im a coward) I've been advised by a friend that the Geforce 660 is a very good card overall for the price-conscious.

Also was advised to get a new case, and was advised the Cooler Master HAF 932 is pretty much totally sufficient for all my needs if GPU heat is a concern. Going from an ATI 5770 to Geforce 660 would be a big heat difference I'm told, and my current case may have troubles.

CPU use seems to be evenly distributed across all 4 CPU's, and maxes out at 40-45% used at max. Does this mean the CPU is sufficent?

Any input on the suggested changes would be appreciated!

Edited September 17, 2013 by Nerdwing

[griffz 1]

recommended cpu for this game is , core i7 clocked @ 10ghz.just my 2 cents.

ps: it is NOT a joke.

[Bulldogs 10]

I've currently got a AMD Phenom II 970 X4 processor, running in the 3.5 ghz range according to Dxdiag. 8 Gigs of ram.

I've also got an ATI HD5770 card. My question is, am I in one of the rare-ish situations where a new GPU would offer better performance increase over a new CPU? The card is stock for my PC (prebuilt because Im a coward) I've been advised by a friend that the Geforce 660 is a very good card overall for the price-conscious.

Also was advised to get a new case, and was advised the Cooler Master HAF 932 is pretty much totally sufficient for all my needs if GPU heat is a concern. Going from an ATI 5770 to Geforce 660 would be a big heat difference I'm told, and my current case may have troubles.

CPU use seems to be evenly distributed across all 4 CPU's, and maxes out at 40-45% used at max. Does this mean the CPU is sufficent?

Any input on the suggested changes would be appreciated!

A new graphics card would help performance a fair amount but you still will be bottlenecked by the CPU. If you want to be able to run perfectly smooth in heavy battles you'll need to upgrade your CPU but in standard fights your CPU should fair fine as long as you upgrade the graphics card.

That said, if you upgraded your CPU to a Core i7 and kept the 5770 you would not notice an increase in performance unless you are playing on very low graphics settings.

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

I currently have an i7 950 (clocked at 3.8 Ghz) with a nVidia GeForce GTX470. I'd like to upgrade my machine and was wondering, what would be the true bottleneck for ArmA as I'd like to increase my FPS. Would I better be getting a new gfx card or CPU?

The GTX470 will be your bottleneck if you are looking to increase FPS on higher graphics settings.

The best way to look at it is if you are having issues with low fps and lowering your graphics settings increases your fps then your bottleneck is your graphics card. If a certain mission is slowing you down and adjusting your graphics settings has no effect then it's likely caused by the CPU or hard drive. If you're hard drive is excessively reading then the issue is likely your hard drive. If your issue is multiplayer that's likely due to the netcode and you'll just have to wait for it to be fixed.

I am currently running a Core i5 with a ATI HD5850 and have no issues unless I crank the graphics settings right up including Anti-aliasing and long view distance (or just enable Post Processing, my card hates Post Processing), so the Core i7 950 shouldn't have an issue.

[ric 1]

recommended cpu for this game is , core i7 clocked @ 10ghz.just my 2 cents.

ps: it is NOT a joke.

10ghz? WOW very nice , are you running an after market cooler? ;)

---------- Post added at 02:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 ----------

I've currently got a AMD Phenom II 970 X4 processor, running in the 3.5 ghz range according to Dxdiag. 8 Gigs of ram.

I've also got an ATI HD5770 card. My question is, am I in one of the rare-ish situations where a new GPU would offer better performance increase over a new CPU? The card is stock for my PC (prebuilt because Im a coward) I've been advised by a friend that the Geforce 660 is a very good card overall for the price-conscious.

Also was advised to get a new case, and was advised the Cooler Master HAF 932 is pretty much totally sufficient for all my needs if GPU heat is a concern. Going from an ATI 5770 to Geforce 660 would be a big heat difference I'm told, and my current case may have troubles.

CPU use seems to be evenly distributed across all 4 CPU's, and maxes out at 40-45% used at max. Does this mean the CPU is sufficent?

Any input on the suggested changes would be appreciated!

look at my sig, the 660 does fine :) but the real punch comes from an I5 or higher, when i am on line (like tonight) playing invade the annex and my view distance set to 3600 on the ground and 6000 in the air I get 25-35 FPS ...not the best but still playable :)

[nerdwing 13]

GPU it is then :) The lesser of two evils for bottlenecking I guess. Thank you, gentlemen!

Edited September 18, 2013 by Nerdwing