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

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

NOT

the 660 is enough, i have one and get 35-50 in MP (for the most part) most of the time my CPU will choke long before the GPU does.

I run settings on Ultra/Standard/Standard, and get approx 25-35 frames in 40-player large scale multiplayer.

If there are <15 people and the server is 'fresh' then up to 40-50.

[dannyGrim 10]

Hey guys just curious what kind of frames I should be expecting to get on this setup.

intel i7-2600 @ 3.4GH

16GB DDR3 RAM

GF GTX 580

I've tweaked all my settings to kingdom come and barely scratch 30 in multiplayer servers. firefights drops down to 10-15 at times and it's hardly playable or enjoyable in this condition :j:

With tweaked settings I can get 60-75 constant with high's of 110+ in the singleplayer showcase scenarios but as soon as I click that multiplayer button... boom chug a lug time... :(

I didn't think my PC was that bad!!! IT runs other games on the market fine so what's the secret fellers :(

[St. Jimmy 272]

Hi..just tryed Jammys CTI becti server 32 players..5000 m viewdistance by choise and objeckts was 2400m serversettings.

No OC..

at the beginning 35 FPS online and when lots of AI respawn down all the way to 10 fps for short while..

So BI needs to work on the optimization if possible.. maybe i still need that second titan too..:confused:

Doesn't help on multiplayer performance. If you go for multi monitor setup then it might do something naturally :P

[jumpinghubert 48]

@dannyGrim

two postings above you get the answer (old Bear)

[dannyGrim 10]

@dannyGrim

two postings above you get the answer (old Bear)

Thanks. I've yet to find a MP server that runs fine though. So yeah... that kinda sucks big time.

[roni 11]

NOT

the 660 is enough, i have one and get 35-50 in MP (for the most part) most of the time my CPU will choke long before the GPU does.

You're wrong, look at this benchmark - http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page3.html

And these tests was done with i7 4770k@4.0ghz.

[ric 1]

You're wrong, look at this benchmark - http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page3.html

And these tests was done with i7 4770k@4.0ghz.

umm no ..not wrong, i am running at 4.2ghz my game is on an SSD i have 8gb of ram on win7 64bit running at 1080x1920 with shadows,PiP,ATOC off with AA at 4X :) if you need i will provide a screen shot :)

[nikiforos 450]

My GTX 570 runs with almost the same frames as the new GTX 680 that I bought. Yes, ofcourse when playing in an editor without AIs there is a huge difference in frames but who cares how many frames I get in an empty editor.

When the shit(AI) hits the fan you get the same FPS as my old GTX 570. Once again do not invest in expensive GPUs guys , buy CPU with good overclocking features. I actually regreted that I bought the GTX 680 .

[lazerath 10]

I might be blind but I could not find anything about benchmarking in Arma 3 like there was an ARMA 2. Does anyone know if they plan on adding benchmarking to arma 3.

I would like to run the benchmark and put up my system specs and results to compare with others.

Cheers.

[oldbear 390]

Non-official ArmA3Mark by Helo

Have look here : http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151794-ArmA3Mark-Benchmark-your-ArmA-3&highlight=benchmark

[roni 11]

My GTX 570 runs with almost the same frames as the new GTX 680 that I bought. Yes, ofcourse when playing in an editor without AIs there is a huge difference in frames but who cares how many frames I get in an empty editor.

When the shit(AI) hits the fan you get the same FPS as my old GTX 570. Once again do not invest in expensive GPUs guys , buy CPU with good overclocking features. I actually regreted that I bought the GTX 680 .

Holy shit, too late for me, bought asus gtx680 already, but I think I won't regret it, you can always set graphic details higher etc... better to have reserve power in gpu. As for cpu it looks like there is no enough strong cpu for arma. From benchmarks you can see that the best for arma is haswell overclocked to the limit.

[oldbear 390]

The game is more CPU dependent than GPU demanding ... so, in a general way, having a better CPU will have a greater impact on your game experience than having a better GPU.

[miraoister 1]

Hi, I'm planning on buying a shuttle barebones pc sx79r5 with an i7 core and adding a discounted Radeon hd6670 graphics card, could anyone tell me how this would run arma3 and any other suggestions of what would compliment it?

[Psilocybe 3]

Hey guys, quick one, Ive got a 7970 gpu and I am still using my now ancient phenom II 965 BE. Will I see any noticeable difference by getting the 8350?

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

Hey guys, quick one, Ive got a 7970 gpu and I am still using my now ancient phenom II 965 BE. Will I see any noticeable difference by getting the 8350?

Get the best CPU you can afford.

ArmA 3 seems to be better optimized for Intel/nVidia rather than AMD.

re GPU, the 7970 can handle ArmA 3 with ease.

And, yes.

[Psilocybe 3]

I am stuck with AMD for now as I would need a new Mobo if i were to go with Intel now... Perhaps i should bite that bullet anyway...

[Bee8190 10]

Hi, I'm planning on buying a shuttle barebones pc sx79r5 with an i7 core and adding a discounted Radeon hd6670 graphics card, could anyone tell me how this would run arma3 and any other suggestions of what would compliment it?

You should be looking at the best gaming PC your current budget allows you to buy and that is mostly not the case with pre-build systems. If I were you I'd get unlocked i5 CPU or better yet have your buddy build a PC for you or I am sure if you pop into any half decent PC store they will build it for you. Another option would be going through few pages here as I am sure there will be nice and balanced build recommendations for what hardware to get or just ask away here.

The bottom line is that you will never get the best for your money with most / all pre-build systems. They will sound impressive at first but closer look usually reveals the opposite.

I am stuck with AMD for now as I would need a new Mobo if i were to go with Intel now... Perhaps i should bite that bullet anyway...

I am confident that nearly? zero forum users in here would recommend anything other than high clocked intel chip and I'd be one of them. As sad as it may seem AMD chips just doesn't cut it for games like arma. Bite the bullet and change the platform

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

There is some merit in the idea of just getting the 8350 (it can hold its own) and relying on that until intel Broadwell chips come out, and then making the MB switch.

Right now switching to 1155 doesn't seem wise over the long term. Though robust and fairly future-resistant, it will be overmatched in a couple years with Broadwell.

The cost of switching just for an i5 3570k is too much $$$ (IMO) for the relatively minor performance difference.

Edited October 23, 2013 by MDCCLXXVI

[oldbear 390]

@ RAINF : Updating from Phenom II 965 BE to FX-8350 is not a good move from my point of view, the performances enhancements will probably be small. Have a look at this bench on Arma2:OA (all in French ... sorry, but no translation needed for the chart) :

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/897-21/cpu-jeux-3d-crysis-2-arma-ii-oa.html

The only way you can get a decent substantial jump in performance will be to switch to Intel i5/i7.

@ miraoister : buying a gaming PC with a HD 6670 is either a wrong idea or a bad joke, you need a GPU you can play with.To play, you must get a HD 7750 and to go along an i7, I will suggest HD 7790/R9 260x as a minimum.

[Psilocybe 3]

Well, thats all i need to hear, thanks guys, ill make it happen, its been a long time coming anyhow. :)

[PuFu 4591]

I am looking in the market for a new video card (or maybe too if things are good to replace the 460gtx, then maybe the 6980 ).

For 1920x1080p resolution gaming, and it needs to have enough to power most of todays dx and ogl 3d and video software. Budget is about 350-400EU/pop

I am wondering if i should stick with nvidia GTX 770, or better a R9 280X, or even the R9 290 (price pending, the 290X is 500EU so a bit over my budget).

Ideas?

[RuecanOnRails 10]

@PuFu What is your budget?

I'd suggest a 7970, or 280X. If you follow graphics cards, you will know that the 280X is a rebranded 7970. The 7970 is generally cheaper than the 280X as well until stock runs out of them.

You'd also be able to mine Crypto-Currency (Bitcoin, Litecoin) on an AMD card allowing the card to earn money and possibly pay for itself if that's something you're interested in.

[oldbear 390]

@ PuFu : ATM, I think the GTX 770 show the best balance between playability and cost.

Then I will suggest some "tactical waiting" to see how the price of this GPU moves, due to the AMD/NVIDIA pissing contest.

[Bee8190 10]

@ PuFu : ATM, I think the GTX 770 show the best balance between playability and cost.

Then I will suggest some "tactical waiting" to see how the price of this GPU moves, due to the AMD/NVIDIA pissing contest.

Few HW sites hint at possible release of GTX 780 Ti version which could move a bit the prices of cards like 770 / 7970. As bear said, I'd wait little longer and see

http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/61445-nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-ti-specifications-revealed/

[PuFu 4591]

@PuFu What is your budget?

For 1920x1080p resolution gaming, and it needs to have enough to power most of todays dx and ogl 3d and video software. Budget is about 350-400EU/pop

answer^^

I'd suggest a 7970, or 280X. If you follow graphics cards, you will know that the 280X is a rebranded 7970. The 7970 is generally cheaper than the 280X as well until stock runs out of them.

Yeah i know, just like the with the nvidia 7xx series.

I am more interested in possible mantle, as well as further development down the road. Also, the number of shaders plays an important role when it comes to RT rendering engines.

For now, it seems the the 280x is 50-100Eus cheaper than the 770 across the board, plus it has 3gb of vram.

Will be waiting for the 290 to pop up. There is no hurry, just wondering if anyone has first hand experience.

@ PuFu : ATM, I think the GTX 770 show the best balance between playability and cost.

I would have said the same, but seems than my local retailers have the amd card well cheaper, reviews puts the r9 above 770, close to the 780.

Then I will suggest some "tactical waiting" to see how the price of this GPU moves, due to the AMD/NVIDIA pissing contest.

might do.

Few HW sites hint at possible release of GTX 780 Ti version which could move a bit the prices of cards like 770 / 7970. As bear said, I'd wait little longer and see

I know that usually when it comes to hardware, the most of the time people recommend the top of the class, and so you did. BUT I already said i am NOT willing to put more than 350-400EUs. As expected the 780TI will fit between the current 780 and the Titan, which is well out of my price range at 650$ ~ 600EUs (normal US to EU conversion)

Edited October 24, 2013 by PuFu