pr0ph3tswe

can tell you that a second 970 won't do you much good in arma unless you play in 4k even without benchmark :) other games it rocks in though

upgraded to 16gb 2666mhz ram and asus rog swift same settings but no sweetfx, 100 sharpness and 2560x1440 gave me 52 fps on altis bench, guess i need to squeeze some more out of the cpu :D

i had to up vcore to 1.36v, if you do play around with it make sure you have proper cooling :)

4790k will give you more fps in arma due to clock speeds over the 5820k unless the cache makes up for it i think, also keep in mind 4790k is clocked 500mhz higher by default without boost over 4770k so you'll see another few fps there

sounds about right, my mp fps is higher but i also run cpu at 4.6ghz

pretty sure you'd gain a few fps by lowering FSAA to 4x as well

you should have done some research.. even first generation sandy bridge i5 runs arma better than that cpu if you have enough gpu power to handle the game ocing the gpu won't make any difference as it's cpu limited

what ingame settings are you using? singel gpus handle the game just fine unless you go all out 8x AA depending on what gpu obviously if you're using very high view range and terrain/object detail your amd cpu will hold you back, quite a bit

altis: 51 fps ultra 1080p 3000, 1750, 200 view distance vsync off 8xAA,, AF ultra FXAA ultra 50 sharpness, 20 bloom, all the blur stuff off sweetfx enabled specs in sig

whatever you do stay away from 27" monitors below 1440p, the pixels will stab you in the eyes til they bleed ;) seriously though anything below 1440p on 27" will be a lot more pixelated than on 24", it's very noticable

sa-matra wasteland runs between 40 and 60 (capped) fps for me with system in signature, depending on the area im in, can post video or stream if people are interested in proof

can't say anything about the gpu, but it should be fine unless there are some driver problems i don't know about. rest of the pc is good, you'll be able to run the game decent, specially if you overclock cpu and ram

arma quite heavy on the cpu and intel will run the game better, specially in multiplayer, that being said your graphics card is quite outdated as well so im not sure what i would upgrade in your position :S maybe save up for a while and grab a new intel cpu, motherboard and a gpu?

that system looks good, stay away from amd for arma as the fps difference is quite big to the advantage of intel, 270x is a decent gpu specially for 1080p gaming. i've never seen that psu brand though and not sure how good it actually is, you might be better off grabbing a lower watt corsair psu or any other well known brands :) if you want a slightly more powerful gpu you can change out for a gtx760, but that will put you over 800€ by 10-20 euro or so

shame there's no real way of benchmarking this in multiplayer, at least for sp there's arma3mark im not saying 8350 will run the game badly, back when i had one i got 35fps average on stratis wasteland with one oc'd to 4.8ghz, which will probably be slightly higher now with more mature game and mission files, if you're fine with numbers like that then go ahead and grab a 8350 or better as it is a great system in general, just not superawesome for arma or other games that are very heavy on cpu :) what i am saying is intel will do it a lot better, for example my old i5 2500k @ 4.8ghz averaged 45 fps on altis wasteland, 4770k @ 4.5ghz is closer to 50 fps average. if he would upgrade dumping another 50-70 euro on a motherboard for intel might be a good idea, but then again it might not :D

those numbers look normal with your cpu, sadly you'd have to go with intel cpu to get those numbers up, upgrading the cpu alone to another amd cpu isn't worth it as fps is still quite low on the faster amd cpus compared to intel :/

you don't need a 4770k to play arma fine though, you can get away fine with a used 2500k + mobo for example, or any i5 sandybridge or later

while you're somewhat right you're also wrong, fx-8xxx vs i5 and i7 2/3/4 series the intel will perform better even on a shitty server even though performance will be lower than on a good server, i tried it in alpha when i still had my fx-8350 and a i5 2500k

1ghz on 4770k is more than possible without de-lidding but takes some luck, like with everything when it comes to overclocking, heck my 4770k runs at 4.5ghz. 2600k isn't magically going to oc better, i've had 2 and they "only" oc'd to 4.5 and 4.6ghz while oc'ing isn't the solution to world hunger it's a decent free performance boost, even if you sport a stock cooler in some cases as long as you're careful

before correcting people you should make sure you're correct yourself, physics in arma is done on cpu, even if you have nvidia graphics

lower view distance a lot, put object and terrain quality to low, 2x fsaa and fxaa should be doable in 1080p

lower view distance to 1-1.5k and object distance even further, object and terrain quality on low for multiplayer to get slightly higher fps, sadly amd cpu's are not great for arma

both directx and opengl will add "closer to metal" coding features in the future, so who knows what might happen

i averaged 50ish fps on sa-matra wasteland 60 man servers, haven't played in a few weeks now but guessing performance is still about the same, while 60+ fps is way smooth 45-50 is fine in arma imo

you could always try to lower MSAA to 2x as well as it's the most taxing AA of the two