oldbear

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

In fact, I don't understand what you're looking for with this fps limitation. The main concern of Arma 3 players is to play above 30 FPS, if possible in the 45/50 FPS zone which is for me the playable zone. Whatever configuration I play today, i7 7700K / RX5700 or R5 3600X / RTX 2060, I never get 60 FPS stable in game the FPS display jumping continuously from 25 to 80. It happens that on some terrains like Stratis or Malden to briefly have a 120FPS jump while looking at the sea, but most of the time in combat on my Clan's dedicated server I have an average level of 35 FPS. As I am a mission maker, I do my best to ensure that none of my teammate has less than 30 FPS in game. Regarding a code to limit FPS, there was a developer code under Arma that you can find it the BI Community Wiki. These codes are mainly intended for development and testing, their use in game may prove to be counterproductive.

OK. I understand in this case the use of VSync, it is probably a side effect of the use of a widescreen. I have never had screen tearing while playing an Arma series game since the Iiyama Pro 17 " and Operation FlashPoint (now Arma: Cold War Assault). Considering the way the game engine works, I find it difficult to imagine how it would be possible to set a fixed level of FPS. Note : you are right about the FSAA x4, sorry.

Thanks! Can you, according to some Old Bear method ™ suggestions ...😎 - set down a bit in the 3200m/3500m range, the Global Visibility parameter, - disable Vsync in the "Display" section, - in the "AA & PP" use FXAA : X4 and PPAA: CMAA ... and tell us if it helps a bit ?

@Flaux82Great! So It seems I was over cautious... Could you send us screens from your Video parameters and do some runs with YAAB mission benchmark and give us your results ?

@Flaux82 I have been probably a bit overcautious in my previous answer as I found an interesting topic ou our forums : Arma 3 and 21:9 monitors I am still cautious because even if resolution is mainly a GPU job, in Arma* all render is depending on simulation. If nothing happens, the display is going to be perfect and very immersive, things will get complicated from the moment there is action. Although the RVEngine is multicore since Arma2: OA with some serious improvements with Render Time Scope for example, the game is still dependent on a single thread doing the game world simulation which will quickly get very busy in game. You have just to remember that 3440 x 1440 = 4 953 600 pixels will be processed by the simulation before being sent to rendering and then to display.

@Smokejumper Hi, welcome in our Armaverse 😎 Answer to the question about "max settings" is difficult. Arma3 because it is powered by an efficient but now outdated RVEngine shows limitations compared to current games. The first limitation is that the game is absolutely dependent on the frequency and efficiency of the CPU. To put it simply, to play here and now at the maximum level you need the fastest processor, an Intel CPU with a Turbo max at 5.30 GHz with all the consequences and drawbacks that go with it, in particular a special motherboard, a consumption and a very important temperature involved. If you opt for an AMD processor, you have several options in my opinion, either to play right away, choose an R7 3700X on a B550 motherboard 16 GB DDR4 3600MHz C16 or to have more choices wait until the release in October of the CPU with Zen3 architecture and choose the most suitable RAM. I have done a lot of tests playing Arma3 with a R5 3600X, whatever the GPU over the GTX 970 level, you can play in "Ultra" video quality. @FluffyPlays Welcome and sorry to hear that. I will suggest you ... - to disconnect all unnecessary connections, USB key, gamepad for example. - to disable any profile created in the Nvidia panel and use Arma3 parameters, - to create a new profile, use AutoDetection to get the BI parameters, - to shut off all so called "social media" and browsers then run a YAAB mission test-benchmark and show us your results using Standard bench parameters, here or there ... @Flaux82 Hi, welcome. Here I think 21: 9 is not the problem, on the other hand playing at 1440p on a wide screen with the current CPU / RAM / GPU combo can be difficult.

@a.schmied200 Welcome in our Forums 😎 Why going OFFTOPIC ? If you want to play Arma*, you can have a look at the dedicated Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications? topic. The latest entries on the topic give a good idea of what is best for playing Arma3, but in fact also for playing other games.

Do not use lower settings ! Your GTX 1660 allow you to play at the Video Quality the game must be played. The only parameter you can lower is General>Visibility>Overall because this parameter is 100% CPU. It defines for the processor the surface of the ground which will be calculated and will be used as base for rendering.

Well, getting a CPU having a 4.50 GHz Max Turbo is a move in the right direction. But it is with good reason that Groove_C tells you that, "the problem with laptops is mainly cooling, to maintain max advertised frequency". Getting a more powerful CPU means generating heat so you must think about "balance". I am not speaking of your friend bank account balance but about power used in game/heat generated and the way laptops are built. An Arma3 gaming laptop is not an extra thin object, it' a bit bulky due to the presence of an elaborate and efficient CPU cooling system, it' heavier and often more expensive. Very often, the thin sexiest laptops you can find even with high level CPUs have build in security to level down power consumption before a BSOD.

Hi Gardner95x, welcome in our Armaverse 😎 A laptop based on "an i5-9300h and a GTX 1650 with 8gb RAM and a SSD" will allow your mate to play Arma3. Arma3 is still "CPU dependent", it means that first of all, you must try to get the fastest/efficient CPU you can allow. In this case, the i5-9300h [4 cores/8 threads running at 4.10 GHz on Max Turbo] is not a bad candidate. The GTX 1650 will follow and allow displaying the game in "High/Very High" quality. The 8 GB of RAM is a bit low, 16 GB would be better. A SSD is a must-have. With Arma 3 a decent framerate, it's above 30 FPS, this laptop should allow it in my opinion

Updated suggested "Minimum" requirements in "APEX Standard" Based upon what I had post on JeuxVideo.com Arma3 Forums [edit 16 January 2020] A Recommended Minimum config to the "APEX Standard" must allow playing at a good level of FPS, regularly above 30 FPS with a graphic quality in "Very High" and a visibility of 3000 to 3500m. This level of performance can be achieved in 1080p with a config based upon ... CPU: Ryzen R5 2600 /i3 9100 RAM: 16 GB (2x8 GB) 3000 MHz Graphics card: RX 570 / GTX 1650 SSD: 500 GB (Windows + Arma3) Of course it's a bit more than the "Minimum" allowing to run the game over 20 FPS based on ... OS Windows 10 64-bit PROCESSOR Intel Pentium Gold G5400 / AMD Ryzen3 1300X GRAPHICS NVIDIA GT 1030 / AMD RX550 RAM 8 GB HARD DRIVE 50 GB free space, SSD / Hybrid HDD / SSHD storage From my point of view, this game must be played over 30 FPS in order to be enjoyable !

Memory speed not so important but it matters à lot ! With an i5-10600K/ASUS TUF Gaming Z490 Plus, you can use almost almost the same 16 GB (2x8 GB) 3600 MHz C16 you can plan to use on an AM4 MoBo, such as G.Skill TridentZ or Ballistix Black. Likewise, the ventilation of the PC case will matter as much with this Intel CPU as with an AMD CPU for slightly different reasons. This generation heats up a lot as shown by the Intel Core i5-10600K Review - All You Need for Gaming at TechPowerUp.

Yes, Lisa Su confirms that Zen 3 CPUs are on track to launch in 2020, but she doesn't tell us anything abou the availability of the 4000 series CPUs in Zen3 with architectural improvements and in particular L3 management. What we can be pretty sure is that the first processors to benefit from these improvements and the first to be announced and released will be the EPYC processors as indicated in the news on TechPowerUp. A launch at the end of the year can be a paper launch with twists and turns during the last quarter of 2020, a release in small quantities at the very end of the year, availability in the first quarter of 2021 and accessibility at a correct price at the end. 1st half of the year.

Hi, opus132, welcome in our Armaverse 😎 We know nothing about future performance of upcoming Zen3 desktop CPU. But what I can say is that Arma3 doesn't need a 60 FPS holy grail to be fully playable and enjoyable. I experienced a performance jump between the R5 2600 and the R5 3600X which I both tested. My current advice would be to upgrade to an R7 3700X here and now. It will always be time in 2021/2022 to upgrade to a possibly more efficient CPU. We are the powerless spectators of a game of poker between Intel, AMD and Nvidia. We must not be prisoners of their deadlines, especially since playing a game that is now old, we can accept to play it with its qualities and its issues.

OK, I will suggest waiting a bit before spending your money !

If you want higher PFs level, you need a CPU running over 5 GHz, meaning an Intel last generation one. Playing an AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and using an average Visibility > Overall set at 3200 m with Visibility > Objects set automatically at 1826 m you wil play in the 45/50 FPS range with up and down from 20 FPS to over 120FPS [on Malden!] If you want higher PFP level, you need a CPU running over 5 GHz, meaning an Intel last generation one. The gain In Arma* in switching from the Intel i3-8300to AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is around 10% In Arma3, you will never get better FPS with a GPU upgrade because due to RealVirtuality Engine limitations the game is still CPU dependent. Of course, you can play Arma3 on a 27" 1440p with a working RX 5700XT In fact, if I understand the situation correctly, you are not experiencing game issues but a big disappointment after an expensive upgrade.

From my point of view it's OK. Can you tell us what exactly are the problems you are getting playing Arma3 ? Could you tell us if all is right when you are playing other games ? I personally had a lot of problems with an RX 5700 and I ended up making it work since March with the last drivers without touching any of the "settings" offered by AMD.

@RAGP13 My in-game video settings, based on The Bear Method ™, short version : 1°GENERAL Quality: Ultra except Particles sets to High and PiP in Standard* Visibility > Overall set at 3200 m (identical to our dedicated clan server parameter)** Lighting : HDR = Standard, Dynamic Light & Water Reflections = Very High. 2°DISPLAY SynchroV: Disabled 3° AA&PT: - Postprocesses Bloom, Radial Blur, Rotation Blur, Depth of Field down to zero*** Sharpen the filter = 100 *** - Antialiasing FSAA = 4 PPAA = CMAA * Never set Shadow, Particles in Low. ** This value for Overall parameter used for i7-7700K and R5 3600X based rigs as well. *** I've been myopic since ... and I can't stand blur!

For Arma 3, there is no miracle to be expected from Renoir APUs regardless of the hype surrounding some architectural improvements. It is still Zen2 in 7 nm, the operating frequency and the boost frequency are identical to what we have with the desktop 3000 serie. What to really expect are changes made with the 4000 series desktop CPUs in Zen3.

@RAGP13 I will not start a discussion about YAAB results from other rigs. YAAB is "In short: About 2.5 minutes long scripted intro for measuring your average FPS. Emphasis on AI fighting performance, bullets, and explosions.", it's not really a benchmark, however, it gives the player a good idea of what to expect in game. There are large and many variations in FPS level due to the handling of the AI and the environment around the camera. Frankly, a Ryzen 3000 isn't the best option for having the highest possible level of FPS in Arma3. The reason is simple, because of the architecture of the RVEngine, a now obsolete engine, there is an absolute dependence on the frequency and efficiency of the CPU, the best option is probably an Intel i9-9900K slightly OCed running over 5.0 GHz. But you have got an AMD RYZEN 5 3600, a rather good efficient and versatile mid range asset. We must try to use it at best : 1° in the launcher, as you are using Windows 10 64, let by default the 64-bit client and Enable Large Page Support. 2°in game do not use Presets, but tweak parameters one by one. Always remember that the Overall Visibility parameter is not a video parameter, but a 100% CPU parameter. Use this Visibility parameter to adjust the CPU load and therefore the FPS level. You can also help the CPU by associating it with fast memory close to the sweet spot designated by AMD with the release of Ryzen 3000. There is a real interest in using 3600 MHz DDR4 such as the Trident Z Neo 16GB (2x8GB) 3600MHz CL16-16-16-36.

I am getting the same score playing a RX 5700 or a RTX 2060, but the GTX 970 is just behind. The only difference with the GTX 970 is that it runs at 70/98% howling like a turbo in Ultra, the RX 5700 or the RTX 2060, are quite quiet running with a 40/60% load. Over the "GTX 1060 6GB limit" there are not much differences between GPU Nevertheless, from my point of view, Nvidia GPUs today are just better than AMD's, it has nothing to do with hidden PhysX secrete operation on CPU, they are just plain better. With the R5 3600/GTX 1650 rig I had built for one of my grandsons for late Xmas, I was getting ... ... out of the box, just DDR4 XMP switch on and CPO allowed. Here are the configuration details : AMD RYZEN 5 3600 Gigabyte GA-B450I AORUS PRO WIFI Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) 3200MHz C16 Inno3D GTX 1650 Compact SAMSUNG 970 EVO Plus NVMe M.2 500GB Samsung SSD Interne 860 EVO 2.5" (500 Go) Corsair TX550M 80PLUS Gold Windows 10 Pro The only special feature in this config is that I replaced the cooler delivered as standard by an AMD Wraith Prism bought as a spare part.

Playing at 40 FPS on "Ultra" settings in YAAB is OK with a Ryzen 5 3600. As long as the graphics card does not create a bottleneck, a GTX 970 being the minimum, whatever the graphics card, performance will be relatively limited, because of the maximum boost frequency of the R5 3600. Here what I am getting with my AMD test rig ... Arma* engine is displaying a very large terrain area. The General Visibility parameter is a 100% CPU parameter. It defines the area that will be calculated and render by the CPU before being sent to be displayed. Please have look at the Old Bear method ™ 😎

@Groove_C Thanks for the tips but I had nothing to change in BIOS and Windows Parameters ... and I am still @4.4/4.5 MHz, but that's not a "problem". I'm no more interested in overclocking than in delid, I'm happy with the way my gaming rig allows me to play Arma3 every day and I don't see any reason to bother with changes that ultimately does not concern me. This allows me to share my experience with noobs and late converts to gaming in Arma in the most basic way possible. I understand that for some this is a subject of interest and even passion, in the same way that over 50 years ago I spent a lot of time polishing pistons and adjusting valves, but now I prefer spending my time in mission editing and video gaming 😎.

@Groove_C CPU is always running @ 4.5 GHz on 4 cores after an error on my part, in fact, I did not wish to have this setting but despite all my manipulations, I was not able to return to standard 4.2GHz/4.5 GHz Turbo. It works well like that without overheating, so I stopped fighting the ASUS MoBo/BIOS tricks.