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

[Ezcoo 47]

I wonder if anyone can offer some quick advice here. I'm rebuilding after being down for almost 2 years. Its why I havent completed any projects on CSM3 at all even for ArmA2. Anyways, I want to replace both CPU and GPU. I have a GTX285 with Intel Quad Core Q8200 x64 with WIn7 which runs about 2.4GHz or so. Will I be ok changing my CPU to my line up of what I can afford: i5 3350p, 3470k, 4670k, or i3 3320, or 4130?. The only thing if I change my CPU I will have to upgrade my MOBO. I have the Gigabyte EP43. This setup is for both ArmA2 and 3. Or should I just change my GPU and my line up would be GTX650ti, 7850, 7770, or 7790 until I can afford another CPU? Or vice versa just change my CPU and use my existing GPU for as long as I can?. Any suggestions?

Hmm... Could you consider buying the GPU from second hand market? The prices of previous gen GPUs (such as GTX 6xx or Radeon 7xxx) have decreased quite nicely because of the recently released new gen GPUs, and bang for buck ratio is much better with them than with new GPUs.

If I were you, I would take either i5-3570k (LGA1155 / Ivy Bridge) or i5-4670k (LGA1150 / Haswell), preferrably i5-4670k though. Then I'd get decent mid-end motherboard that doesn't explode from overclocking the CPU plus decent and cheap CPU cooler like HR-02 Macho, and overclock the CPU. OC'ing the CPU makes quite remarkable positive difference in Arma and it's really easy nowadays: the interfaces are quite intuitive and there are very exhaustive, easy to understand and safe guides to OC those CPUs.

I lost my OC'ing virginity with my i5-3570k (mobo is ASRock Z77 Extreme 4), and it was really easy process. Took me about 3 hours to complete (time includes the stress tests after overclocking), it made my FPS in A2&A3 increase for about 30% and after that I was just thinking that "why didn't I do this before?" :D

[chammy 7]

So just getting a more powerful GPU isn't going to be sufficient for the time being you say? I am taking a look right now for MOBO.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Chammy

[Leon86 13]

For arma a cpu with fast per-core performance is much more important than a fast gpu. If the gpu is the bottleneck you can always lower settings, if you have a big battle you're probably cpu bottlenecked, and there are no settings to reduce the fidelity of the battle simulation.

I'd keep the 285 in, upgrade cpu, mobo, and ram if your ddr3 doesn't work on 1.5V

The "best" cpu for arma is the 4670K, combined with a Z87 motherboard.

[nikiforos 450]

I'm so happy with my choice 2 years back to get the i5-2500k version. I overclocked the CPU to 4.4Ghz and reading all the comparisons with newer more expensive CPUs justifies how good this old processor is.

Between the i5-2500k and the 4670K there is very small difference in FPS. Maybe you gain 2-4 more(4670K) FPS with 1920 x 1080 resolution.

[Leon86 13]

Resolution has nothing to do with the cpu.

[Ezcoo 47]

So just getting a more powerful GPU isn't going to be sufficient for the time being you say? I am taking a look right now for MOBO.

I agree with Leon86. If I were you, I would really consider about getting GPU from second hand after CPU, as the price/performance ratio is better with them than with new GPUs. If you have budget of eg. €200/~$300, you'd get remarkably better GPU from second hand market than if you bought a new one. Eg. here they sell GTX 670's with the best aftermarket coolers for about €200, while the about equal new gen GPU, GTX 760, costs over €300 often. I bought my parts new and I regret it now, I could have saved a huge pile of money if I bought them from second hand market :D

Welcome to the journey in miraculous world of decent FPS (assuming that they get the MP performance issues fixed, which seems quite promising atm)! :cool:

I'm so happy with my choice 2 years back to get the i5-2500k version. I overclocked the CPU to 4.4Ghz and reading all the comparisons with newer more expensive CPUs justifies how good this old processor is.

Between the i5-2500k and the 4670K there is very small difference in FPS. Maybe you gain 2-4 more(4670K) FPS with 1920 x 1080 resolution.

While the i5-2500k is still more than decent CPU, the difference in FPS/performance is bigger between that and i5-4670k (there was a chart about it recently, can't find it atm). Maybe you have compared the overclocked version of i5-2500k to i5-4670k that is running the default clocks (3,4 GHz).

[Gera_CCT 12]

Resolution has nothing to do with the cpu.

:rolleyes:

[chammy 7]

Thank you guys for helping me on my journey to fps .Yes I have been doing more research right now but this helps as I have narrowed down my search to the i5 4670k and my cursor is hovering over the check out tab on amazon :) , the only thing is the motherboards are freakin expensive, unless I went with a few I found for 47 to 78 bucks, the ones recommended are about 148 and up . any more additional advice is greatly appreciated.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Chammy

[Maslofski 10]

Thank you guys for helping me on my journey to fps .Yes I have been doing more research right now but this helps as I have narrowed down my search to the i5 4670k and my cursor is hovering over the check out tab on amazon :) , the only thing is the motherboards are freakin expensive, unless I went with a few I found for 47 to 78 bucks, the ones recommended are about 148 and up . any more additional advice is greatly appreciated.

isnt the ASRock Z87 EXTRME 4 ok at 109$?

[chammy 7]

Now does price play a big part in what I should be looking for in a mobo? What should I be considering in one? I've seen that model for about 50 to 100. Maybe not the extreme though

[oldbear 390]

Unless you want overclock your CPU on socket 1150, a Z87 is not needed. In fact I don't clearly understand why those MoBo with less and less parts on them are so expensive !

If you are looking for a MoBo featuring 4 slots for RAM, 6 SATA ports (4 SATA3), USB3 and Ethernet Gigabit despite the ugly yellow color (not so sexy than the MSI Gaming) have a look at the ASUS 85M-G C2.

If you still think about OC but don't you want to build a SLI have a look at MSI Z87-G41.

[oldbear 390]

@ SS9 : No experience with refurbished graphic cards, not so good experiences with second hand ones ...

The GT430 1GB DDR3 is not matching the "Minimum" specs for Arma3.

When I had switched from MSI GTS 450 to MSI HD 7770 on my Athlon II x2 250 rig, I have been quite impressed by graphic quality jump. The GTS 450 being just on par with "minimum" specs Nvidia 8800 GT.

I think you can play Arma3 with the i5 650. Here, the 2 cores/4 threads feature, the nice 3.46 GHz boost and 4MB L3 cache are going to help. With a better GFX, I believe you can get a nice experience in SP, missions and campaign. The question about MP is still open. If there is some enhancement from BIS in that part of the game it will be OK, otherwise it's still a big question mark.

I have been unable to play MP on my enhanced "Athlon II x2 250/HD 7770/8 GO 1866/Dedicated Arma3 SSD", in fact it's running in MP but not really playable for it falls too often under 15 FPS and the "bottleneck" effect degrade graphic quality. But this AMD CPU is not featuring the nice assets you get on your Intel i5.

[shadowlid 11]

Is this a custom built rig or a store bought One if its a custom rig I would over clock the crap out of your CPU and GPU. And while your at it your ram. I would download the latest drivers and make sure your mobo chip set driver is up to date. I think you should be getting at least 30 fps on low. You meet the minimum specs for the game? What kind of hard drive do you have this could be your weak spot if your running a 5400rpm ide drive your transfer rates will be horrible. Try a ssd see if that help if it don't keep it for your new build... Or at least pick up a 7200rpm drive with 64mb cache should run you about 50 to 60 bucks on newegg for a 1tb.

[3hirdEYElevation 10]

asus g74s

[Vojtechsonik 34]

Hi guys,

I was wondering if you could help me - I have been having beatiful FPS with 1.04 patch but since then I am experiencing stuttering and drops even in Single-player.

My rig is:

Mobo: Asus X79 Sabertooth

CPU: i7 3820, 3,60 GhZ, Hyper-threading off

RAM: 8GB Dominator Corsair DDR3

GPU: GTX 560 1 GB RAM

Settings I use:

View Distance 1800

Object Distance 1100

Mix of medium and High

Post-process effects mostly turned off (like motion blur)

Thing is, I was able to play Single-player with 50 AI's and View Distance 5000 just fine few months ago.

Can you help me please what could be the best settings (in-game,drivers,BIOS) to have smooth framerates? Or what to check if my PC is ok?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

[Whizz 10]

A new CPU probably won't help you until you get a better graphics card. Don't get me wrong you could definitely use a better CPU as well as more RAM, but I doubt either of those are going to make much of a difference without a better GPU.

Edited December 25, 2013 by Whizz

[Furret 0]

A nice Intel i5 + 760/770gtx would work nicely. 8gigs of RAM too.

Don't use Vista.

[oldbear 390]

@ Vojtechsonik : it's a bit strange ! Have look at energy saving parameters ... last Windows update moves many parameters on my own rig, I was unable to make restore point and get unwanted energy saving parameters.

[Vojtechsonik 34]

@ OldBear : Thanks I will look into it. Do you mean energy saving in Windows or in BIOS? I will probably check both, but yeah it is a bit strange. My computer is behaving strangely as of late. Is there any good diagnostics program that could tell me if something is wrong? I use ASUS diagnostics but that just stress my CPU, RAM and GPU and shows ok all the time. Maybe my PSU is weak as I have only 550W - could that be the source of problem?

[Plexico 10]

Op, what is your budget for upgrading? Also I recommend just building a completely new computer since you're going to need a lot more new parts to make ArmA III playable.

[Nicholas 5]

There is already a dedicated thread for things such as this: Will my PC run Arma3?What CPU/GPU to get? What settings? What System Specifications?

[NicotinKickballovich 1]

I had the same exact CPU as yours and had it clocked to 3.6Ghz, which wasn't much of a help, also had 4gigs of DDR2 RAM and a HD7750. Could play at high settings at around 15-25 frames on multiplayer, while singleplayer was around 50. Recently made a pretty big upgrade as I went to a i5 3570k, Crucial Ballistix Sport DDR3 8GB RAM and a new motherboard to support it and the difference was immense. Can finally play at around 40-45 frames on multiplayer, on a good server that is and crank up the viewdistance even and that's still on stock speeds. And if you were to overclock it to around 4.5Ghz then that will give you a hell of a boost on top, best bang for the buck when it comes to this CPU, or you could go for an i5 4570k instead.

Also I'd suggest to upgrade your graphics card, because my old NVIDIA GT240 wasn't really up for the task for ArmA 3 or any other newer games for a long time now.

[Leon86 13]

is a 600 series with 1GB of GDDR5 enough to run medium to high settings on a 23" monitor in 1080? For the record, I don't use PP because the motion blur is nauseating (literally nauseating). Or can you turn that shit off in Arma 3?

depends, a 650 Ti boost probably will, a 630, not a chance.

[Plexico 10]

i5 2320

7770 1gb DDR5

8gb ddr3 ram

Playing at 1600x900, do you think I can run it with 60+ fps out of big cities and above 30 in cities?

[Harry_Flashman 1]

There is already a dedicated thread for things such as this: Will my PC run Arma3?What CPU/GPU to get? What settings? What System Specifications?

Redirecting people to the same thread they're already posting in?... Nicholas - you posted a reply in a thread of mine that was closed today, so I'll say what I wanted to say in this thread. This thread deals mostly with highly generic questions like "Will my PC run Arma 3?" to which most responses are generally "Not on ultra; try low and play around with settings until you get a decent frame rate." In short, it's incredibly unhelpful for anyone seeking/searching for SPECIFIC advice to a SPECIFIC question - such as the one I asked earlier. Thankfully, the responses are out there - just not in here (or at least not in an easy to find place). Perhaps there are one or two nuggets buried deep in the 165 pages of one liner Q&A that seems to define this thread, but that's not very helpful. Who the heck is going to scroll through 165 pages. I didn't - instead I posted a question (after first checking that it wasn't answered in the first several pages of this thread), and 5 or so responses in I was pointed to a helpful website with a SPECIFIC response to my SPECIFIC question. THAT's what makes a good forum and community.

---------- Post added at 23:24 ---------- Previous post was at 23:15 ----------

i5 2320

7770 1gb DDR5

8gb ddr3 ram

Playing at 1600x900, do you think I can run it with 60+ fps out of big cities and above 30 in cities?

You'll need to be more specific w/ regards to your set up (what's the clock speed of your processor, for example) and what settings you'd like to run. Arma has a TON of things you can tweak to improve FPS. I run a i5 3570K w/ a stable OC @ 4.5GHz, a Titan GPU, 16GB RAM and a 240GB SSD - and I get somewhere around 30-40 FPS in multiplayer with 30-40 folks (i.e. other players) running around. It sometimes dips to high 20s, and sometimes gets into the 50 range, but 30-40 is about normal. My view distance is set to 3,000M and object draw distance to 1,500M. Most other settings are on ultra, except for things like ground texture, HDR and clouds which I set to somewhere between high and low). Bottom line - even with a quad core 4.5GHz and Titan I'm getting pretty darn low FPS on settings that I find aesthetically pleasing. I haven't tried setting everything to low to see what sort of results I'd get - pointless for me as I'd never run the game like that.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Harry_Flashman