forteh

Apologies for bumping this thread but would like to contribute :) I just upgraded my ram from 8gb crucial ddr3 1600 (10-10-10-28 I think so nothing special) to 16gb teamgroup vulcan ddr3 2133 (11-11-11-31) and have also experienced considerable increases in benchmark framerates. Running i5 2500k@4.6ghz / gtx660 / ssd / win7 pro. Arma settings are all very high with 2500 view & 1500 object distance on 1080p. Average fps has jumped from 61 to 73 fps, almost 20% increase! GPU load is 70-80% so I should be able to up some settings should I want to. Not had a chance to test it in MP yet but fps at the start of the Huntersix mission has gone from around 23 to around 33 which holds in line with the benchmark results for SP play; around 10fps increase which is pretty huge for arma3.

It's not overclocked, should be fine :)

Should point out at this point that the 4720HQ only turbo boosts to 3.6ghz, that only happens with a single core operating, as soon as any other cores are utilised the speed drops off to 3.5ghz for 2 cores active and 3.4ghz for 3-4 cores active. Basically it will run at 3.4ghz when playing arma3. Should run it pretty well though :)

The view distance is causing the cpu to bottleneck the gpu. Drop the view distance to 1000 and see what the fps is, playing around with the graphics settings will now have more of an effect. Get them set to how you want (recommend starting on high settings as a base line and adjust each to see how it affects performance) and then increase the view distance until fps starts dropping dramatically. Object distance is also cpu limiting so keep that as low as you can - it's a balancing act of hire far you need to be able to see and the level of detail that you need to be able to see it at. The speed of the cpu will always be the limiting factor and will drag everything down to its level when the simulation is running heavily.

Don't think so, I think it's only if you have multiple axes bound to one control. That happens with the thrustmaster warthog if you don't disconnect one of the throttles when setting the controls it effectively halves the values. It's the x52 a split throttle? edit: it's worth checking to see if any rotaries or sliders are bound to collective down as well as they are also analogue inputs.

Have you got reduce collective bound to the same throttle axis as well? Also check that no other devices are bound to reduce collective; I understand that if you have two things bound to the same axis arma takes the input from both together so effectively halves the range of motion if only one device is used if that makes sense.

Installing arma on an ssd will alleviate that bottleneck and should stop the temporary slow downs; added bonus in that it will load much faster :) I've got a 120gb ssd that I use for Windows and arma exclusively.

You need to bind both positive and negative on the axis. Arma3 uses 50% travel as the axis zero (it sees the analogue cyclic control as an axis rather than a slider) so that when the throttle is in the middle position the cyclic will be neutral producing a hover (given suitable conditions). Just for information, the bumping of old threads is frowned upon and you should have created a new thread to ask the question :)

Don't worry if the k series i5 you buy is only at 3.2ghz or so, with a good motherboard and psu it will overclock to the 4.2+ ghz that arma runs well at :)

A k series i5 with a decent motherboard to suit so you can overclock it :) A second generation i5 2500k runs it just fine once overclocked to 4.5ghz .

Not really, it's going to struggle an all fronts :(

I think you'll run high/very high graphics without a problem, probably even ultra on a lot of settings. Because the cpu is going to be the bottleneck for the gpu increasing the graphical quality doesn't effect the cpu capped fps. As said before, tone down the cpu dependant settings and you should get on pretty well with that spec; you may find that increasing the cpu dependant settings won't negatively affect performance, you will find out the happy medium when it's running.

Now don't hold it against me when it runs like a dog :D

The only cpu upgrade over the 4th gen i7 would be for a faster one, I don't think it would make a significant difference though as you're limited with power and heat in a laptop package. If you can get the gtx860 with the 4th gen i7 then you shouldn't have any issues with graphics quality, about the only setting you might have to turn down would be view distance :)

If you position the throttle at maximum, clear the bind for increase collective, and then pull the throttle to minimum it should bind it as you want. I believe the fixed wing throttle is a separate bind.

The 4th gen i7 will run it better, it's still a slow clock speed but is a true quad core so won't bog down so much. Certainly the better of the two processors you've listed AA is antialiasing, basically the gpu super samples the edges to smooth out the jaggies; it makes it look nicer but can cause a performance hit on slower gpus. Arma handles two types of AA, hardware and software, the hardware gives better quality but with greater performance hit, the software doesn't look as good but takes less resources. You can combine both together to give best quality if the gpu is fast enough.

Can't really comment on isp/connection choice and the effect on the game, I guess as long as you have low enough ping and stable connection connection it should be fine. I'm in the UK and use eclipse internet (a small business oriented isp) with a 40mbit fibre to the cabinet (fibre to the local distribution box then copper wires into my house - fortunately the cabinet is 10 yards from my house so get good connection speeds) and typically get 12-20ms ping to UK/EU servers. I can't say that I recall ever experiencing lag but I do tend to play on servers that I know I get good connection to.

It will probably play, I wouldn't expect it to be pulling decent fps on higher resolution and settings. The game doesn't need a powerful gpu but I suspect the 7570 is holding the rest of the machine back.

Upgrade the gpu and that should play it pretty well, if you aim for a gtx660 or above then it should be able to pull high - very high settings. The cpu will limit it slightly but without the ability to overclock it there's not a lot you can do about it.

Switching to an ssd will help prevent stuttering in game but it won't increase fps. I think the gpu should be ok, won't run maximum settings but should be good for high with AA turned down. The main problem is the cpu, it just isn't very fast and it's only got two cores. Granted arma3 only heavily uses 1 core but it will happily use 40% of the other three on a quad core. I think that it will get overwhelmed very quickly and drag the fps down with it.

It may run ok but it's a 2.4ghz dual core processor and the hard drive is slow, I think you'll struggle to get decent frame rates.

I recently upgraded from an i5 750 @ 4.2 to an i5 2500k @ 4.6 and there was around 30-40% increase in performance; this is coupled with a gtx660. The benchmark average framerate jumped from 48 to 68 for the same settings which allowed me to push view distances up and retain decent fps. At 1080p I use very high settings, 4x fsaa & fxaa ultra, all blurs off, ambient occlusion off, 3500 view and 2000 object distances. Sandybridge performs much better than lynnfield in arma3, I would image there isn't a great deal between of performance difference between the 2500k and the 4790k. Compared to the 760 though it makes a big difference. By the time I had sold my old board and cpu the upgrade cost me 50 quid :)

You would do much better sourcing a second hand i5 2500k and motherboard for the same cost, the performance will be far better. Also an older 6xx series GeForce will probably handle arma3 a little better for less money. Also I would look at getting a 120gb minimum ssd for Windows and arma, it doesn't increase fps but loading and streaming textures is far quicker which results in a much smoother game. If you're building a machine specifically to play arma, be sensible and don't buy new unless you have pots of cash to throw away. It runs best on the fastest clocked Intel quad core you can afford and any gpu from a gtx660 upwards will play it on high/very high settings without a problem.

Perhaps it was just a random wobbly that caused Windows to page arma3 lots, glad it's sorted though :)

Was this sp or mp that it seems ok with now? Could be linked to server hardware slow down if sp is now ok, another thought windows wasn't updating was it?