Tyl3r99 41 Posted June 11, 2016 hi all, first off sorry if its in wrong thread... its not exactly troubleshooting so i wasnt sure. but im sure mods can move it if need be. ive currently got a GTX690 4gb vram and thinking is there any other card more suitable for arma that aint going to cost near to a grand lol the 690 is a dual card basically x2 GTX680. as your all aware arma 3 is awful at SLI... its pointless. so what do people recommend? TIA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cosmic10r 2331 Posted June 11, 2016 I had the exact same card... it died about 3 months ago but I had it for 2.5 years and it worked great. I upgraded to a 970 and am essentially getting same fps on a single card with much less power draw. For games like division etc I immediately noticed a big difference in fps. You will more than likely get very little bang for your buck by upgrading that gpu if it's for more fps in arma. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jw custom 56 Posted June 11, 2016 Like you said, in arma a GTX690 is NOT eaqual to 2xGTX680. I'm still going with a GTX780 and it works just fine with arma and apex, but now you wanna upgrade and if you financial situation allows it you should go for 900+ serie card. Don't expect a huge FPS increase, rather expect same FPS just with higher settings! I don't know what CPU you have but thats where you can gain FPS, an SSD will give you smoothness(im never going back). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
froggyluv 2136 Posted June 11, 2016 Here what I dont get - I have a 760 4g and running a 4690k @4.4. I used to have a Titan but noticed like 2fps increase so I sold it. Yet I see these sites stating 30+fps difference for Arma with different cards yet the only time I see a difference is when I upgrade or overclock CPU. I'd upgrade to 1070 if I thought it would do anything but I kinda dont. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teabagginpeople 398 Posted June 11, 2016 I'd go with a 1070. It's a good step up. Apart from the lower power draw and heat /noise. You will be able to up some graphics and maintain a decent fps. Should be able to sell on the 690 recoup some cost. Wait for a few weeks for 1070 prices to settle. Then pick up a partner one with good cooling/noise and decent stock clock. If not already install arma on an ssd. They are reasonably priced nowadays. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyl3r99 41 Posted June 12, 2016 thanks guys for the input!! my CPU is a I7 3970x 3.5ghz with 4.0 boost and running arma 3 on 250gb SSD 16gb ram also. just used to be able to run arma 3 on ultra everything and now it seems to stutter a lot more than it used to. wondering if the card is on its way out as its over 3 years old. good old cyberpower systems ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cosmic10r 2331 Posted June 12, 2016 thanks guys for the input!! my CPU is a I7 3970x 3.5ghz with 4.0 boost and running arma 3 on 250gb SSD 16gb ram also. just used to be able to run arma 3 on ultra everything and now it seems to stutter a lot more than it used to. wondering if the card is on its way out as its over 3 years old. good old cyberpower systems ;) Ill admit that when i switched to the newer card I noticed an decrease in texture load times... likely the base clock of this card. The 690 was a great sledgehammer for graphics but there are some very nice swords out now... You may consider OCing that cpu... im running a 3930k at 4.4ghz on an all in one Corsair h100iGtx. Cpu isnt getting over 50C in Arma at that speed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rowdied 44 Posted June 13, 2016 tyl3r99, on 11 Jun 2016 - 06:54, said: hi all, first off sorry if its in wrong thread... its not exactly troubleshooting so i wasnt sure. but im sure mods can move it if need be. ive currently got a GTX690 4gb vram and thinking is there any other card more suitable for arma that aint going to cost near to a grand lol the 690 is a dual card basically x2 GTX680. as your all aware arma 3 is awful at SLI... its pointless. so what do people recommend? TIA I run Arma3 in SLI (works great for me) on 3 monitors and still average anywhere from min 25 to 80+ fps with all details at high minus post process and aa. VD is 8000m with object draw at 2500m. I have often thought about upgrading the video card but when the game is cpu bound more than anything, what's the point? See my sign for more details. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldbear 390 Posted June 13, 2016 I would advise to upgrade platform first. Even if now, Arma3 is more GPU demanding it' still a CPU dependent game. The i7-3970X was not built for gaming and was not running Arma3 on the fast track. Source : http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-4960x-4930k-4820k_6.html There is either the OC option or the Skylake migration. But you can stay on your original plan ... Playing Arma3, on this level CPU -more than average, I mean- you need now a rather good GPU but an Xtra high level is not need. So, from my point of view a GPU, the GTX 970 level will be a good choice. You will have to wait just a bit to see how the upcoming R9 480 is doing and how will do Nvidia counterstrike .... or get a GTX 970 with a nice rebate Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
I give up 152 Posted June 13, 2016 hi all, first off sorry if its in wrong thread... its not exactly troubleshooting so i wasnt sure. but im sure mods can move it if need be. ive currently got a GTX690 4gb vram and thinking is there any other card more suitable for arma that aint going to cost near to a grand lol the 690 is a dual card basically x2 GTX680. as your all aware arma 3 is awful at SLI... its pointless. so what do people recommend? TIA Yes, you are correct. SLI or CrossfireX configurations have some issues with Arma 3. The performance is not even close from what should be. About a new GPU, if I was you I would wait for the new RX 480 from AMD. Finally (it seems) one gpu from AMD is giving a fair fight to Nvidia in matters of DX11 and for a considerable lower price, http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/radeon-rx-480-2016may31.aspx http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11263084 http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-radeon-rx-480-3dmark-11-performance-benchmark-surfaces.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Valken 622 Posted July 25, 2016 Hi Guys, I'm also looking at upgrading. Tanoa is really killing my GPUs (AMD 6950 unlocked in CFX) with only 2GB of vram on ultra settings. :D I think a better bet would be a 1070 GTX vs 480 in CFX: The most important metrics to me are the minimum and average. As long as those 2 numbers are very close, it should super smooth. A 1070 is roughly = to 2x 480 yet there are no CFX issues with other games. I would like to justify a 1080 or faster card but the price vs performance difference is not worth it for ARMA 3 (25-30% more cost for 20% more FPS - look at minimums). So hopefully the next AMD R490 may be closer to 1080 GTX performance for a better value. For those who did upgrade to a 480, 1070 or 1080, I would like to see some benchmark numbers but so far, this was the only review I could find with any ARMA 3 numbers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4600 Posted July 25, 2016 i can't give you a proper benchmark, but i did upgrade from a 780Ti to a gtx1070 and i am really happy with the choice i made. FPS is in the 50+ range (campaign for instance), never dropping below high 30s. Rest of PC is a i7 2600k @4Ghz, 16gb ram, SSD (OS, not the game as well) etc. Running Arma on ultra with a couple to high on a ultra-wide dell 3440x1440 curved monitor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
St. Jimmy 272 Posted July 26, 2016 Tanoa likes faster GPU. If you want to run AA etc goodies, even GTX 970 bottlenecks in forest if you try to achieve 60fps. That's @1080p. 1070/980Ti and faster are GPUs that likely very rarely bottlenecks in Tanoa @1080p/60fps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
domokun 515 Posted July 26, 2016 I'd suggest to get a GTX 1060, rather than get a GTX 970, as 1060 offers: + higher (+14%) performance (72/63 fps @ 1080p on Ultra) + lower (-18%) power (195/240W) = lower temps = lower noise - slightly higher price currently ($350) than GTX 970 ($280-300) but that should soon (within a few weeks) drop to it's MSRP ($300) as availability improves I also recommend overclocking your CPU as high as she'll got on air. If you want big (20+% overclock), then you'll prolly need an after-market HSF to keep your CPU cool (below 80°C). This is prolly the best value HSF at the moment as it's cheap ($25) & effective: http://pcpartpicker.com/product/hmtCmG/cooler-master-cpu-cooler-rr212e20pkr2 I wouldn't bother with the expense and hassle of water-cooling (better of saving those pennies for other upgrades). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-Itchy- 14 Posted July 26, 2016 ... so what do people recommend? TIA Well, BI recommends a GTX 660 so I guess you're fine. It's BI after all... http://store.steampowered.com/app/107410/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EDcase 87 Posted July 26, 2016 I just upgraded from a GTX580 to GTX780 and I can set graphics a bit higher but viewdistance and number of enemies is still dependent on CPU so I wouldn't go too crazy with the GPU unless you upgrade the CPU as well. The GTX780 is a good match for an i7-2600k running at 4gHz Up to 50fps in demo missions. (4k viewdistance, not all set to Ultra but looks good to me ;)) (Multiplayer is more dependent on your bandwidth and server power) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikiforos 450 Posted July 28, 2016 Don't really get it why people pay lots of money to upgrade GPU's when game is depending almost 100% on CPU. Lots of discussions over the years, people buy expensive GPU's and then complain why the game still runs badly although they have GTX 970 or GTX 980.. :rolleyes: 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4600 Posted July 28, 2016 Don't really get it why people pay lots of money to upgrade GPU's when game is depending almost 100% on CPU. Lots of discussions over the years, people buy expensive GPU's and then complain why the game still runs badly although they have GTX 970 or GTX 980.. :rolleyes: people who upgrade their GPU's (myself included) don't do it only for the sake of arma... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
domokun 515 Posted July 28, 2016 Don't really get it why people pay lots of money to upgrade GPU's when game is depending almost 100% on CPU. Lots of discussions over the years, people buy expensive GPU's and then complain why the game still runs badly although they have GTX 970 or GTX 980.. :rolleyes: Maybe its also because many people think that graphics in a game are governed the the graphics card /s. Seriously, its a lot easier to pull out a GPU and insert another, than it is to rip out all the rest (disks, gpu, memory, CPU, sound card?) just to change the motherboard, e.g. switching from AMD's Piledriver to Intel's Ivy Bridge or Sky Lake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brightcandle 114 Posted July 28, 2016 My experience is that SLI works pretty well in the game actually. I could max out 2x 970's on both Altis and Tanoa, the game is GPU limited given decent AA settings inside of the forests, its still CPU limited outside of the forests of course but you can be limited to 75 fps with a lot of trees on screen with 2x 970's. So I think personally the current ideal Arma machine to get mostly ~60 fps in moderate multiplayer (sub 30 players) is a Skylake 6700k and a 1080. 2x 1070 is probably for Arma's sake a lot faster and around the same price but its obviously less good in other games. One thing I did notice however going from 2x 970's to a single 1080 was a sizeable reduction in input latency, Arma 3 has quite high latency and on dual cards its very noticeable but a single card is quite a bit snappier. But the game scales well with SLI and that higher FPS in the places where SLI helps is nice also. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
St. Jimmy 272 Posted July 28, 2016 Don't really get it why people pay lots of money to upgrade GPU's when game is depending almost 100% on CPU. Lots of discussions over the years, people buy expensive GPU's and then complain why the game still runs badly although they have GTX 970 or GTX 980.. :rolleyes: Because higher resolution and higher AA requires faster GPU. I'm already limited to 50fps by the GPU in Tanoa forest when I run 1080p, x4 AA and stuff and 60fps would be the optimal that I like to see. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
clawhammer 10 Posted July 29, 2016 From my expierience you can max out this game with a Geforce GTX 770 on 1080p. The new 10X0 cards are only intresting if you want to run arma in 4k. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scotg 204 Posted November 27, 2016 So I'm just now looking into another GTX780Ti to link. I mostly only play/edit/mod Arma3, and sometimes minesweeper LOL! Seriously though, I also use Photoshop, 3DS Max, Object Builder, Arma 3, and play music - often all at the same time. What I had read elsewhere was that having two cards, SLI or not, can have one card dedicated to physx while the remainder of its "power" and the other card are dedicated to graphics. I've also been reading, in these forums, how Arma3 depends mostly on CPU (I suppose in a more typical running only Arma 3 at 1920x1080 scenario), so I'm thinking if that's true about a 2nd GPU processing physx then could there be a legit benefit there? GPU/CPU tech with A3 is all kind of new to me, so please no biting my head off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
domokun 515 Posted November 27, 2016 So I'm just now looking into another GTX780Ti to link. I mostly only play/edit/mod Arma3, and sometimes minesweeper LOL! Seriously though, I also use Photoshop, 3DS Max, Object Builder, Arma 3, and play music - often all at the same time. What I had read elsewhere was that having two cards, SLI or not, can have one card dedicated to physx while the remainder of its "power" and the other card are dedicated to graphics. I've also been reading, in these forums, how Arma3 depends mostly on CPU (I suppose in a more typical running only Arma 3 at 1920x1080 scenario), so I'm thinking if that's true about a 2nd GPU processing physx then could there be a legit benefit there? GPU/CPU tech with A3 is all kind of new to me, so please no biting my head off. What are the specs for the rest of your system? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites