Request for a "Minimum" requirements update

[oldbear 390]

Initial situation

 

At Arma3 launch, "Minimum" and "Recommended" configuration requirements have been published.

As far as we know players playing with a rig at the "Minimum" requirements level are still having issues with Campaign on Altis and while playing MP.
And it's so, despite the considerable progress done in terms of optimization since Alpha release in March 2013.
Today, as specifications for computers supporting A3 ports to Linux and MacOS have been released and some changes have been made in "Minimum" requirements for Windows.

From my point of view, it's time to have a look at Arma3 configuration requirements.

Here are my comments on hardware configurations for playing Arma3 and about the minimum to get in order to enjoy the game.

For the record, according to the Arma3 official website, the config were initially:

MINIMUM
OS: Windows Vista SP2 / Windows 7 SP1 (Apple OS not supported)
PROCESSOR: Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz / AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz
GRAPHICS: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT / ATI Radeon HD 3830 / Intel HD Graphics 4000
GPU MEMORY: 512 MB
DirectX 10
RAM: 2 GB
HARD DRIVE: 15 GB free space
AUDIO: DirectX -compatible on-board
OTHER: Internet connection and free Steam account to activate

RECOMMENDED
OS: Windows 7/8 (Apple OS not supported)
PROCESSOR: Intel Core i5-2300 / AMD Phenom II X4 940
GRAPHICS: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 / Radeon HD 7750 GPU AMD
MEMORY: 1 GB
DirectX 11
RAM: 4 GB
HARD DRIVE: 25 GB free space
AUDIO: DirectX-compatible soundcard
OTHER: Internet connection and free Steam account to activate

 

Today situation

There has been a first change late 2014 about the "Recommended" OS config from  Windows 7/8 to  Windows 7/8 64-bit.
With the release of ports on Linux and MacOS, two versions of the specifications have been published.
The hardware specs for the Apple OS are very specific, we will leave them aside yet.
Let's have a look at "Minimum" and "Recommended" configuration requirements for Linux :

MINIMUM
OS: any current 64bit Linux distribution (tested on Fedora 22, Ubuntu 14.04 and Mint 17.01)

PROCESSOR: Quad core CPU (Intel Core i5 2.4 GHz or better)
GRAPHICS: OpenGL 4.1 compliant GPU (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 440 or AMD HD 7470 or better)
GPU MEMORY: 1 GB
RAM: 8 GB HARD DRIVE: 20 GB free space

RECOMMENDED
OS: any current 64bit Linux distribution (tested on Fedora 22, Ubuntu 14.04 and Mint 17.01)

PROCESSOR: Intel Core i7 3.4 GHz or AMD FX-8350 4 GHz
GRAPHICS: OpenGL 4.1 compliant GPU (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 or AMD Radeon HD 7850 or better)
GPU MEMORY: 2 GB
RAM: 8 GB
HARD DRIVE: 25 GB free space

Several elements in "Minimum" requirements are obviously going in the direction of increasing the level of minimum required specifications:
- Using a 64bit OS
- Using a quad core 2.4 GHz in the form of an Intel Core i5 2.4 GHz or better
- Using 8GB RAM

For the graphics card, the specifications are a bit difficult to understand, the GTX 440 does not exist and the HD 7470 is a card with lower performances than cards previously suggested.
These lower specifications regarding graphics cards are more difficult to understand as in the same time in the "Minimum" requirements for Windows, 2 GPUs were added :

Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 / AMD Radeon HD 7750

These cards were already displayed as the specification "Recommended" for GPU!
Does it mean a Linux based rig must get more processing power but can afford less graphic computing? Strange.

 

Temporary conclusions

So I believe it's time to think about an "aggionamento" of configuration requirements based on more stable elements and rational  options

 

Edit 2016/07/30 : Title edited after Requirements update following Apex release

Edit 2020/09/03 :  incorrect character transcription corrected

[oldbear 390]

Last week, my Team Leader has updated his rig from Windows 7 to Windows 10 and since has never been able to get a stable experience of the game.

 

He was playing on an old yet rather robust PC

• - Intel Core i7 920 2.67GHz
• - ASUSTeK Computer INC. P6T Rev 1.xx
• - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
• - 18Go DDR3

After some various experiments and researches it appears that the X58 chipset is no more supported by Intel for a while and is probably one of the cause instability in game [40 FPS at start, 10 FPS after a few minutes in MP].

Of course, it's an interesting example of some kind of "backward-planned obsolescence" by design from main hardware and operating system makers.

 

The point is that displaying a "minimum hardware configuration" for Arma3 featuring now obsolete pieces of hardware is a bit unfair for players/consumers without much money.

It's unfair, for these hardware parts allow the game to "run" but in most case will not enable the players to have a "gaming" experience.

It's also unfair because those rigs will become increasingly difficult to tweak without platform update releases.

[semiconductor 309]

As far as we know players playing with a rig at the "Minimum" requirements level are still having issues with Campaign on Altis and while playing MP.

...and that's why these requirements called "Minimum", not "Recommended". ;)

[oldbear 390]

Yep, my statement was a bit too kind when I had said "players playing with a rig at the "Minimum" requirements level are still having issues with Campaign on Altis and while playing MP."

 

So, to be more clear, in fact you can't "play" Arma3 on a "Minimum"requirements based rig, because even if you get a running game, you can't "play" it.

From my point of view, there is some hidden meaning signifying enjoyment in "play", at 15 FPS on "Low" it's looks more like a punishment.

[oldbear 390]

Updated  "Minimum"  system requirements suggestion :

MINIMUM

OS: Windows 10 64-bit
CPU: Intel Pentium G-4500 or AMD Athlon x4 860K
GPU: NVIDIA GT 740 or AMD R5 250 or Intel HD Graphics 530
GPU : 1 GB
DirectX®: 12
RAM: 8 GB
HDD: 30 GB free space
AUDIO : DirectX® compatible on-board
OTHER : Internet connection and free Steam account to activate

 

[Tankbuster 1746]

You're right, oldbear and this thread is long overdue. This game is unplayable in any real sense on a machine that meets minimum specifications.

[FoxFort 341]

A3 is CPU hungry game, which means at least 3Ghz per core, should be enough. What works in SP will not work in MP with Dual Core 2.4ghz. GPU is not important as CPU here, so having SLI with best of NVIDIA or ATI doesn't mean much. Also minimum for SP and MP are different.

I have PC with i3-2120 which is dual core with 3.30ghz, GeForce 730v3 2 GB VRAM and 4GB of RAM, this is a good example of minimum for both SP and MP.
Also I have laptop AMD A4-5000 quad core 1.5 Ghz, ATI HD8570M 1GB VRAM and 8GB of RAM. You can forget about playing A3 MP with this one. (Yet BF3 and FarCry4 runs good).

From my experience, the minimum for both SP and MP:

CPU - Dual core 2.8+ GHz

GPU - in price range of around 90€ with 1GB VRAM.

RAM - At least 4 GB RAM.

 

This would be somekind of minimum for both SP and MP. The current official minimum would be good only for SP.

[oldbear 390]

@ FoxFort : my main concern is about young people with not much €/£/$ trying to play my most preferred game on rigs unable to allow a gaming experience.

 

Of course the game is "running" on an AMD Athlon II x2 250 @ 3.00 GHz or an Intel Core2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4 GHz 

I have done a lot of tests myself with those CPUs such as this one :  Arma3 'Minimum' specifications or …is Arma 3 playable on my Athlon II x2 250 / GTS 450 DDR3

 

Currently, I am testing an Intel Pentium G4500 and that's why I have suggested this CPU as reference for an updated minimum.

It appears Arma3 is playable on this Pentium G4500 without using a discrete graphic card.

 

My previous "Minimum Recommended" CPU was the Intel i3-4130, having been disappointed by Intel Pentium G3850 repeated crashes under heavy load in game.

[FoxFort 341]

"my main concern is about young people with not much €/£/$", then you put minimum Pentium G4500 which is a beast dual core 3,50Ghz with average price of 100$. That doesn't go well with your theory about minimal and price cheaper.
 

To summarise:

Minimal for both SP and MP (MP far from a full 64 server).

CPU - Dual Core with 2.8ghz or optimal 3.0 ghz. Usually in price range around 80$/70€ (Again having faster CPU with much more Ghz is a must for ArmA 3)

GPU - It doesn't matter Nvidia or ATI, 1GB VRAM, but in price range of 80$/70€ (this now low-middle level range GPU).

RAM - 4GB RAM. 

For today's optimal minimum: 90€ CPU and 90€ GPU. That is not me forcing some of my whishes that is A3, sorry eveyone, but I didn't made A3, BIS did.

But if you do have 90€ CPU and 90€ GPU (new one's not used ones) you can enjoy BF4 without problem on full 64 server but for A3 that setup is a joke.

[oldbear 390]

I must say that you need a powerful  "Dual Core CPU" in order to play Arma3, of course, you can "run" on the cheap AMD Athlon II x2 250 @ 3.00 GHz, but the game experience is depressing.

Saying "Dual Core with 2.8ghz or optimal 3.0 ghz" is not enough because with an AMD A6-6400K Black Edition 2 cores @ 3.9 GHz you will not get the high level expected performances due to CPU architecture.

Saying 4GB RAM is not true, because since Altis island and full Campaign release, you need 8 GB and a 64-bit Windows OS to play.

 

Here I don't ask for a BF4 configuration requirements update, I just want people getting the right rig for a game needing a rather high level CPU to be played.

I am rather active on French forums about Arma3, I promote there a special "méthode de l'Ours" in order to help people to get all the juice from a juicy piece of a game.

What I am saying here is based on some disappointed comments and posts by young people having a rig allowing them to play other games but unable to get a good gaming experience with Arma3.

 

I want some help from the game designer and editor in order to give all people wanting to play this splendid game a "splendid experience" at the lower possible price.

[FoxFort 341]

You have lost me, now you are talking about right rig for game. You now are NOT talking about "my main concern is about young people with not much €/£/$". When you say that, for me, it meant invest minimal amount of money for some A3 experience or in other words. The chepeast you can build PC and play A3 on low - medium detailes with stable 30FPS.

Maybe I misunderstand you.

If your point was about making optimal minimum gaming rig to play A3 without looking too much on cost of parts price is a different thing.
I compared A3 with BF4 for a good reason, a price reason. When comes to gaming rig, what you need to play A3 on ~medium detailes, with stable ~30FPS in MP with 32 players, will give you high settings on MP 64 players in BF4. To play BF4 on high and full 64 server needs a good gaming rig. That means optimal minimum for A3 is a generally a good gaming rig overall, that is not cheap. 

Again if you were thinking about optimal minimum, I apologize I didn't understand you at first. I understood you were talking about minimum you can invest to play A3 with stable FPS.

[oldbear 390]

Lost, why? Of course here I was speaking about Arma3 ... "what else?"

 

@ FoxFort : my main concern is about young people with not much €/£/$ trying to play my most preferred game on rigs unable to allow a gaming experience.

 

Yes, this post is about "optimal minimum", what I called in my previous posts and comments "Minimum Recommended".

I am not looking for "stable FPS" because in PC games it's a bit like a Holy Grail quest ...

[ineptaphid 6413]

i'm not going to post revised specs, as the posts above have done a good job of that. However, I think a couple of things should be mentioned. One is the obvious thing that Arma is far more CPU intensive-most people know that . To illustrate it-I switched from a GTX760 to a GTX 980 and really do not see much change at all. i can run a few things a little higher, but in terms of view distance etc, it makes vitually no difference.

 

The other thing that is rarely mentioned, is the huge difference switching from a HDD to an SSD will make. When I did this I instantly noticed an improvement of over 10 fps-and far less of the stuttering that can occur when, for examply looking through scopes. Ths is a thing I feel should be included in the recommended spaec as an SSD really does give a surprisingly large boost.

[FoxFort 341]

First of all I totally agree that official minimum is not enough even for a low and basic A3 experience.

You got me lost with saying that for the players who don't have much of money for more appropriate PC for A3 and then giving 8GB RAM and a really good CPU.
I was talking about bare minimum, you were giving more optimal minimum. 

I finished all episodes with my 4GB of RAM, it was not a perfect experience but it was playabe with 4GB so it's possible. For a minimum.

Again playabe bare minimum (not slideshow FPS):

- OS: Win 7 SP1 64bit
- CPU: Dual Core 2.8+ Ghz (Forget about Sempron/Celeron type of CPUs)
- GPU: ~70€ 1GB RAM. (Maybe a really powerfull old 512MB could be enough)
- RAM: 4GB (6GB preferred for minimum).

When compared to current official:
- OS: Win 7 SP1
- CPU: Dual-Core 2.4 GHz
- GPU: 512 MB
- RAM: 2 GB.

Your optimal minimum is more expensive, but also better results:
- OS: Win 10 (Win 7 is better overall)
- CPU: Dual Core 3.5 GHZ
- GPU: ~90€ 1GB
- RAM: 8GB

Also your optimal minimum is a really good gaming rig, not perfect, but really good which is also more expensive.

[bars91 956]

Before getting a beast PC, I used to "run" A3 on a 2ghz i7, geforce 525m, 4gb ram DELL Inspiron.

 

If you a poor-ass student (like i was at the time) you HAVE to compromise.

There's no perfect solution to this - either spend 800+euro on a rig to surpass metal gear that runs A3 maxed,  or 15fps on minimal settings is the name of the game  :ph34r:

[oldbear 390]

@ bars91 : I will make some comments not directly related with your post but on a more more global perspective  B)

 

First about "... "run" A3 on a 2ghz i7, ..." of course Arma3 is playable on a laptop but you must take care not to fall in marketing traps.

As an example have a look at the sexy A*** X***LX-DB** Gaming Laptop build around an Intel Core i7-5500U.

This "U" tagged CPU is built with power consumption limitation by design and is "PDT-down configurable" meaning the OEM can lower down the power consumption to 7.5 W

So called Core i7-5500U is in fact 2.4 GHz a dual core/4 threads CPU with 3 GHz Turbo if possible.

That mean that with Arma3 the overall performances of this laptop are going to be more or less on par with an i3-4130 desktop CPU if it don't start throttling.

 

Second about  " ...15fps on minimal settings is the name of the game."

In Arma3, at the moment, the minimal setting you must take care of is "Global Visibility" because there is a direct link between CPU performances/FPS and this setting.

 

@ ineptafid : I disagree with the statement about FPS gains with a SSD.

 

After more than 400 Arma3Mark - Stratis missions test runs with over 10 various SSDs and a lot of fast HDDs on different rigs build, I can say that there is no measurable FPS gain with a SSD

But indeed, the gaming experience is a lot better !

You are quite right about stuttering, the game is running so smoothly that you have a better subjective gaming experience.

[oldbear 390]

 Intel Pentium G4500/GTX 750Ti config  still on the bench ... a 12 hours on 4vs1 - testing mission on 1.58 and a 24 hrs run of the same  mission.

The test config is working like a clockwork with a nearly 100% load on the 2 cores getting 20/30 FPS in my test mission*.

 

Nevertheless, I am still wondering about the Intel Pentium G4500 as the right choice for "Minimum Recommended".

Recently, I have read lot of alarming news about new games unable to be played on Dual Core CPU.

As in this Intel Pentium G4400 review on PC Games Hardware.de site

 

*[ado] coop 8 4vs1 Test

This test mission is involving a lot of AIs groups fighting each others with infinite spawn on Pyrgos.

FIA [manpower cap=50] vs AAF [manpower cap=200] with [setViewDistance 2500; setTerrainGrid 40;] as in-built parameters.

One FIA group is playable, the mission was initially built as a MP mission and is still playable in MP and SP as well.

[Jackal326 1181]

Nevertheless, I am still wondering about the Intel Pentium G4500 as the right choice for "Minimum Recommended".

Recently, I have read lot of alarming news about new games unable to be played on Dual Core CPU.

The minimum requirements are listed as those suitable to run ArmA, not "other games". Who cares how well the CPU runs these "other games" so long as it can (just about) run ArmA?

Minimum requirements are by no means a "buy a computer with this specification to barely run this game" list, they're more of a "if your system isn't of this specification, or equivalent, then your rig can't run this game" list. Anyone that treats minimum spec as a shopping list for a rig to run a specific game is an idiot - thats what recommended spec is for.

[oldbear 390]

In fact my concern is only about playing Arma3 ... what else?

Last year, I was already looking for some "Minimal Recommended" requirements.
I had bought on purpose an 'Anniversary' Pentium G-3258 and run a lot of tests.
At first, I was getting rather good results on Arma3Mark

I was able to play in SP and MP as well at a level near the i3-4130 previously tested
But I have never been able to run my test mission on Pyrgos.

 

The test config went on crashing after less than a minute with 100% 2cores load.
I have done many attempts with various hardware changes on GPU and RAM.
Something was wrong with Arma3 build and/or Windows 7-64bits and/or Pentium G-3258.

 

By the way I have redone tests with this built [no more used as a game rig, but it's out of topic ...] this year after switching to Windows 10 and with updated Arma3 build

Without getting a crash ... so why the concern?

From my point of view with a dual core under constant 100% CPU load, the situation is at risk.

 

Have a look at Minimum CPU requirements officially released for Linux : Quad core CPU (Intel Core i5 2.4 GHz or better)  and for MacOS : Quad core processor (Intel Core i5 4570S, Intel Core i5 4570R)

 

Tanoa terrain is going to be a huge challenge for a dual core a bit as Altis had been for my "Minimum" rigs.

Core 2 Duo E6600/HD 48700 and Athlon II x2 250/GTS 450 had never been able to cope with Altis terrain needs.

[FoxFort 341]

Oldbear, what is your minimum, I mean what type of SP mission or COOP mission, how many players in MP? 

[oldbear 390]

@  FoxFort : I have nothing to say about my own gaming needs, I know quite well what I need to play Arma 3 with the Clan ADO, my gaming team

 

This topic is all about of the need of an official "aggionamento" of configuration requirements based on more stable elements, rational options and updated data than what have been released so far.

[kklownboy 43]

Listen to the oldbear, he growls wisdom

[FoxFort 341]

Why are you complicated, on a simple question about on what type of scenarions you test(more specific), you reply with philosophy about you and this topic. Hakuna matata, I was not attacking you.

[oldbear 390]

Let's go back to official "Minimum" CPU and GPU requirements for Linux

 

PROCESSOR: Quad core CPU (Intel Core i5 2.4 GHz or better)
GRAPHICS: OpenGL 4.1 compliant GPU (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 440 or AMD HD 7470 or better)

 

I have already stated that "... for the graphics card, the specifications are a bit difficult to understand, the GTX 440 does not exist and the HD 7470 is a card with lower performances than cards previously suggested."

Let say that GTX 440 is a typo and the targeted GPU is a GT 440, a card with lower performances than the ex-queen of the hill, the GeForce 8800 GT given as a minimum in official "Minimum" for Windows.

The HD 7470 is basically a re-brand of HD 6450 and a low-level entry GPU far behind the GT 440 in terms of graphic performances.

 

Being curious about the Intel Core i5 2.4 GHz, I had a look on data sheets and it seems that there is one Intel i5 desktop CPU @ 2.4 GHz base frequency, the i5-750S, a depressing high priced low powered processor.

I must add that this i5-750S -suggested a "Minimum" for Linux- being the lowest clocked of all i5 is probably on par with Phenom II X4 940 Arma3 performances wise

This Phenom II X4 940  being suggested as "Recommended" for Windows, that's quite confusing.

[oldbear 390]

My feelings are 1.60 and Visual Upgrade are opening a new front on the need for a requirements update.

From what I can see from every day multiple runs on my 3 working rigs of Arma3Mark is that FPS level have been negatively impacted.

It seems that the GPU performance level is having a greater role and that now "Overall Visibility" is no more a 100% CPU parameter.

 

I need confirmations of such hypothesis and will be glad to share results on this subject.

 

From an other topic on the forums and showing results obtained in very special conditions [custom Arma2 terrain played with CUP "before" and "after" Arma3 and CUP updates]

 

Tropicali* ruins at Zendir crossing after apocalypse 1.60 release.

 

 

Sun rising over Tropicali at Zendir crossing this very morning

 

 

 

* [ADO]Tropicali continuous terrain is an Arma2 terrain based upon [ADO] Tropica island just finished the day Arma3 Alpha was released and never released publicly ... but played in my Clan with CUP (thanks to CUP Team works).