pr0ph3tswe

i prefer doing some research first :) then buying whatever gives me the best performance for the money, which was a 2500k at the time. then i've tested 2600k, fx-8350, asus g75 and a phenom 2 x6 1100t because i like to try different things :p

i notice no difference in performance between my i5 2500k and my old 2600k, except when streaming without stream card

overclocking his cpu will help little, buying titan will help if he HAS to play with everything on ultra, but he can play on ultra with cards that are half as expensive, upgrading to i5 or i7 intel cpus will help more and be way cheaper than a titan

wait for new cards and look at the 7970's or the gtx670 imo

i recall one of the nvidia devs saying something about arma 3, not sure if it was for a current driver or not though. end of the day if you have a decent enough card you won't notice much difference in fps from a driver update as arma is highly cpu bound you can always try one of the new drivers and see, im using 331.40 without any issues on the gpu side of things (gtx670)

in multiplayer? because my fx-8350 @ 4.8ghz didn't even average 40 fps in mp

what are the specs of those worse computers? but yeah sadly you should expect low fps from that cpu, maybe not as low as 20, but still not a lot more either

30 fps seems fine with that setup imo, specially considering you run with high object and terrain quality that both take a lot of cpu power

what everyone has been saying already, plus if you are going to upgrade, buy intel cpu for arma as it runs quite bad on amd cpus in general

can highly recommend the 7970 and gtx670 just stay away from nvidia gtx cards with 4gb vram as none of them except the very high end cards can utilize that amount due to slow memory bus etc

using latest betas, no issues, however sweetfx and win 8.1 does not work with arma 3 at all atm or well, i do have issues, but not related to drivers as far as i can tell, ever since latest patch my game seem to pause for a micro second every second or two, which makes it completely unplayable :/

i trade hardware a lot because i like to try different brands etc to see how they perform with the games i currently play, i don't have the fx-8350 anymore because arma performance was very low with it, sadly, because the system itself was very good, quick and responsive, even compared to intel systems. also ever since the latest patch i'm having serious problems with arma 3 multiplayer, very bad fps drops and unstable fps. so any tests now would give a wrong picture also just to clarify, all fps numbers im talking about are multiplayer on wasteland servers, as i don't play singelplayer at all. i can do tests for you with the system in my signature if you want though, in a specific mission or in the editor, i can stream this so you can see fps numbers yourself :)

the only reason you notice higher fps with cores disabled is due to the extra overclock though, not because arma can't use more than 4 cores, because it can afaik i've done testing with a fx-8350 and i5 2500k, i7 2600k myself, in multiplayer, because in singelplayer fps was so good it doesn't matter, even still the fps difference between 4.8ghz fx-8350 and 4.8ghz 2500k was way more than 6-7 i believe you that you never drop below 94 fps in editor, but do you really play in the editor? :D i only play arma multiplayer and there amd cpus are too slow unless you're fine with average 30 fps and there is no competition between amd and intel in arma, intel is faster, people should realize this by now arma 2 was playable for all my friends with phenom 2 x4's as well, but rarely with more than 30 fps, usally below, which is why most of them doesn't play arma 3 :/

you can get the same effect with a fxaa/smaa injector, like sweetfx, http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=376265

anti aliasing is done on the gpu, so if it's powerful enough to handle 2-4x or even 8x without dropping too much fps then by all means go for it :D games look so much better with it on, fxaa/smaa i'd put on high or more on any fairly modern gpu as they aren't as heavy as FSAA, just a preference if you like the sharpening filter that comes with the ingame FXAA or if you like the SMAA without sharpening

no, hence the slightly :p also it's a different socket, fm 2 vs am 3/+ so you'd need a new motherboard as well, then you'd be even better off with intel as buying am3+ for arma is really bad :)

4gb vram on a 760 is just a waste of money as the memory bus isn't fast enough to handle all that vram. besides 2gb vram is fine for arma 3 with ultra textures, 2 or 4x FSAA and FXAA so far

first of all it's not one of the faster amd cpus as far as i know, you'd be slightly better off with a 8350, second of all intel is quite a lot faster in arma because of how the cpu is constructed, more calculations per second and so on :)

disabling cores doesn't do anything for amd in arma, you can as well run a 8 core fx-8350 in 4.8ghz and still get bad fps because it's not as fast as the sandy/ivy/whatever bridge cpus, while it's true amd cpu's run most games fine they won't run all games fine sadly older sandy bridge cpu's still run arma way better than any amd cpu atm

cpu is too slow to get decent fps.. badly coded missions doesn't help but still doesn't change the fact about cpu power

try to start from arma 3 exe in steam directory and see if you get a error msg then

your cpu isn't great for arma, ram and gfx is good try lower view distance even more, to around 1k, lower terrain and object quality to low

wait for amd to release the new cards, and if you want to get away cheap buy a 7950 or a 7970 when they go down in price a bit more :) both those cards will handle arma 3 fine, as long as you have a decent cpu

not in multiplayer i've played with both 8350 oc'd to 4.8ghz and 2500k and 2600k @ 4.8ghz, night and day.