pr0ph3tswe

yeah i think that's what he was saying about MSAA :) just that most gfx can't handle 8x without losing a lot of fps also in response to vram, i played arma 3 just fine in ultra settings with my old gtx670 with 2gb vram in 1440p, afaik you only need a lot more if you play on several monitor setups or beyond 1440p etc

i agree about antialiasing in general, was mostly pointing it out as the default ultra preset puts it on 8x (at least for me) i play with 3k view distance, standard or high object and terrain quality, 4x fsaa and everything else on ultra with 35-55+ fps online on sa-matra wasteland :)

this, might want to know what you talk about before calling people stupid next time :D OP might want to include his ingame settings though as some of them can drop fps quite a lot, mostly view distance and FSAA on his system

find a better server to play on, or look into your settings

not unless they have upped their settings a lot or run a worse gpu if we're speaking sandybridge or newer

OC your cpu or swap to intel for fps boost, that's about what you can do other than lowering view distance and terrain/object distance to low

object and terrain quality are quite cpu heavy as well

adding arma3.exe to exclude list in eset smart security or nod32 also works, happened to me too try lowering smaa to 2 or 4x and see if that works?

yeah i agree with that setup, it's quite good also OP should really think about getting intel as arma runs a lot better (at least in MP) on it

like i said, you can get intel cpu + mobo for 300usd, so won't go above what he wanted to spend buying amd cpu just for arma is really stupid at this point as the upgrade won't be worth the money at all. he might as well just stick with his current setup then

true, but that card should still handle the game on medium gpu heavy stuff with no aa without any issues, but yeah, he should save up for both cpu/mobo and a gpu

i5 4670k + motherboard is probably the best upgrade you can do for arma if you have ddr3 ram already, should be around 300 USD or if you can find the 3570k cheaper it's only around 10% slower, also why no ssd?

tried disabling sli? installed chipset drivers etc? and you say bad fps or lose visual quality, what kind of fps do you get if you lower settings a bit? as in turn FSAA down to 4x, leave everything else on ultra and tweak view distance a bit

sa-matras wasteland for altis runs just fine, with plenty of people playing

im only playing on sa-matra wasteland nowdays, usually around 40-45 fps with drops and spikes ofc, but at least it's playable, imo :)

amd cards do just fine, not sure where you get your info from http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page3.html

those tests are also only accurate in singelplayer sadly

i've never ever said 10-11 fps, look at the posts before you reply with quotes, heck even the post you quoted mentions double that fps :rolleyes: and obviously you care as you decided to post, if you don't want people to be misinformed, provide some data for them to review as running "just fine" can mean anything

first of all, do some testing, like i did, provide us with real evidence to prove me wrong, as far as i can see im the only one who actually posted screenshots showing fps in heavier areas and multiplayer second of all, fx-8350 is 171.6€ where i live, intel i5 4570k is 184.7€ intel motherboards range from 43€ and up, amd motherboards go for 33€ or more so if you buy the cheapets motherboard with either of those cpus you save what, 25 euro? which is great, means you can eat like 3 pizzas, or do some calculations and realize you might save that during the course of your intel cpus life, if we're going to go that far :D third of all, i never said you can't run arma 3 on amd cpus, i also never said you can't run it smooth on amd cpu, the fps people are getting just shows that intel is faster for arma, quite a lot faster. and as far as bottlenecks go, maybe, i ran my fx-8350 with a asus crosshair V formula-z, zotac 670 amp!, 16gb 1600mhz ddr 3 which isn't the best ram ever but it deffo wouldn't have given me 10-20 fps extra by upgrading, win 8 on a crucial m4 64gb ssd and arma 3 on a corsair force 3 120gb ssd, latest bios, firmwares and drivers. also having said this, i loved that amd system, it ran everything great and smooth, except arma multiplayer, singelplayer was fine, editor fps was around 80 on the airfield in similar settings to what i used in the other post, just lower view distance if you only play arma 3 singelplayer you're fine with either but i wouldn't go with amd for multiplayer unless you're fine with 30-35 avg fps, and when i say average i mean spikes to 40's and dips to as low as 20 in some places

considering it was on a slightly slower amd cpu, the a10 right? i'm not sure it would beat a 5ghz i5/i7, would have been nice to see some benchmarks :D

i would bet my left nut that no amd cpu to this day (liquid nitrogen oc's not included!) will run arma as good or better in multiplayer. intel yes, as the extreme cpus are quite a lot faster :)

as i don't have access to your missions i tested with 2 of the default missions, editor and 49 player sa-matra wasteland altis server. first of all, the settings i play with, http://imgur.com/a/kjpVv res: 1080p, v-sync disabled, 100 fov. pc specs in signature heli showcase, http://imgur.com/a/HaBT7#1 armed assault showcase: http://imgur.com/a/UMC8y#0 35 fps was the lowest i noticed in that showcase editor, on top of hospital overlooking Kavala: http://imgur.com/a/KYEKO sa-matra wasteland, 49 players, uk # 4 (maybe? goldfish memory :D), http://imgur.com/a/NztGl#0 fps in multiplayer is 35-60 depending on area etc and last, ArmA3Mark altis run, http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=19801, http://i.imgur.com/HMC6adh.jpg and as a reply to your youtube video i ran around stratis in the editor as well, same settings etc, http://imgur.com/a/oQFew#2 while you're right about peoples badly set up pc's and bad mission coding amd is slower in arma as well, im really sad i didn't do more indepth testing when i had my fx-8350 as it would have been interesting for everyone to see the difference :) last one, decided to do one with 1500 (second pic is 3k view distance) view distance to give you an idea about the difference, http://imgur.com/a/MI1Ol#2

i have plenty of arma vids/past recordings showing fps on my twitch channel, which is in my profile :) also ChrisB, is that singel or multiplayer? actually i realize it's quite hard to see what fps im getting as my stream quality is lacking due to upload speed :p i can do whatever test you want me to do, just let me know what/where etc

no difference in fps at all for me

what kind of fps were you getting then? :)