UKFX

There are obviously a lot of games out there which get the recommended specs, INCREDIBLY WRONG. ARMA 2, of what little I played appeared to run quite well on my 6870 and i5-2500K, and I know that ARMA III is in Alpha and it's full of bugs but I was wondering if a dev could actually post the likelihood of as to whether or not a single 6870 is actually going to be enough to play Standard/High on release at a 1080p res? The recommended 7850 is, well, not that powerful, so it makes me wonder, did you guys put down that as a suggestion for the Alpha only, or for the game as a whole - when it's finally released in the future? The reason I ask this is because it encourages folks to purchase ARMA III Alpha but then when the game is released the recommendations could be drastically changed and those people who hit the initial recommendations are left wishing they chipped in towards a different game. Also, the 6870 is quite a bit more powerful than the 7850, so I was kind of hoping that the recommendation would give me a bit of hope for when the game comes out. My concern is that, though I was able to play ARMA 2 at 1080p on a mix of High / Very High settings, on Alpha I don't get very much FPS at all. This is of course expected (due to bugs) but it worried me about its actual release in future. ARMA games have been notorious for their lack of optimisations - some people getting blinding results whilst many others with seemingly good specs suffering horribly - drivers aside. For me, I'm hoping that when the game is actually released, I can at least play ARMA III at 1080p at 60FPS on Standard with 2xAA. I know the 6870 isn't that powerful but it's not terrible either and it's surprisingly good in the many games I play. Of course right now, regardless of settings in the Alpha, my CPU usage is only 40-50% so that's capping me at 30fps, so I'm not sure what to expect in future. Anyone else think it's reasonable a 6870 can handle Standard (medium) at 1080p/60fps? It's not too much to ask? (Note I have a Core i5-2500K, 8GB DDR3 1600Mhz) Thank you.

Okay, it was meh, looking around at things at a reasonably short range got me 40-50fps, distant stuff made the fps drop to around 26. Running and covering a short distance even when looking at 30° down (from looking directly horizontal - 90°) towards the ground made the thing stutter and drop frames like mad. I'll have to test again another time but to me it doesn't appear to have made any difference. ---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ---------- Thanks for letting me know BI P.R :)

I've tried 3, 2 and 1, but not 0. I'll give that a shot in a while and post back.

Doesn't explain why no modern CPU on the market is apparently adequate for the job. 6-7 year old Dual Cores are more appropriate for this game than an i5-2500K at 4Ghz? That makes zero sense to me. Out of curiosity, you two guys, what are your GPU_MaxFramesAhead and GPU_DetectedFramesAhead settings?

Will give this a try later, thanks for posting dude (and yes I noticed PP having a huge effect on ARMA 2). I'll try it with PP off and run settings similar to yours and see how it goes. Peace :)

Damn sorry BI P.R, I apologise, forgive me but how do you know that? A lot of games I play it simply says 99% GPU used in OpenHardwareMonitor but it has no effect on FPS even if I crank up AA, AF or anything like that even more. An also, when I see some games use 99%, or at least it says it does, the temps vary. Particularly demanding games will heat up the card significantly more, and yet easy games to run - even if it says 99% - leave the card nice n chilled as if not stressed. Please explain to me how this works then? Also, a 7750 recommended on their site? Please explain that, and also please show me where it says : "ignore our spec sheet completely, we put it there for lulz, instead you must go buy a server processor, overclock it, and get two 7990s in Crossfire to be able to run the game. I don't expect miracles with a 6870 OC, but I don't expect piss poor performance in future (after optimisation) at medium settings, which is what everyone says will most likely happen. Can you go tell BI to change their system spec page? They'll probably listen to you (mindless fanboy tag under your name - nice sig btw) How does ARMA 3 run on your i7 by the way, an your GTX560? I'm curious. GTX560 TI isn't exactly a dynamite card either. An the i7 makes no difference... unless ARMA 3 uses multi-threading? ---------- Post added at 14:34 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ---------- I just played for about 10 minutes and got flown across the map, fired at people, died, respawned, etc and this is what I have (with everything on medium except shadows which were on high): - View full image for easy viewing.

Ok this is getting ridiculous... Then please tell me why they put the most conservative of recommended requirements on their website, an then, please tell me why a CPU dependant game is inadequate when used with a reasonably decent processor clocked at 4Ghz? It's like all their stuff is contradictory, or randomly pulled out of a hat, and then I'm told that even though I meet the recommended requirements, that my system is not good enough and after this so called and probably unlikely optimisation in the future, that it probably won't really make any difference? Now I see why so many blab on the net about ARMA having such a horrid engine. ---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 ---------- I figured 100% was okay because I doubt the I/O thread would get saturated. It's the same way that if I run Prime95 I can still browse the Internet and listen to music at 100% usage. But if it uses 2 cores, then I'll only be content when I see those 2 cores being used 100% first. So far it's just 90% and 60ish.

Then in that case this game is poor. It should require a minimum Hex-Core CPU. 4 cores to run everything and 2 for A.I, be properly optimised/threaded and work. An yes, I was aware that my overall CPU usage was 70% (not the first time), but not any of the cores were maxed - see this from my earlier post: CPU Total - 52.7% Core 1 - 90.8% Core 2 - 63.1% Core 3 - 53.8% Core 4 - 62.1% And, it also doesn't explain why ancient dual cores perform better. The simple fact is, optimisation for quads is still laughably bad and if it isn't sorted, I doubt there are going to be that many people overclocking their quads to 5.2Ghz, simply because they have to make their essentially dual-core chips (within the game) more powerful to enable more efficacy over only 2 cores. Alpha indeed. But if they don't optimise CPU usage at any time they can refund me for misleading me purposely (yes, did anyone notice the recommended clock speeds and quad core cpu in the recommended specs?) I have patience. If the ARMA 3 takes a year to come out, I expect that to be a year of extreme optimisation, bug fixes and tweaking and nothing less. If this is supposed to be the next big thing in military simulation, then the least they can do is make it a cut above ARMA 2.

LOL WHAT? 7750? Well. I was getting 40-50fps on all Standard (Shadows High), FXAA Standard with my card on 970 / 1100 (MSI 1GB 6870) and that was when my 4Ghz i5-2500K was being used 62% (last time I played). I really would love to see what my machine can do when CPU utilisation is fixed. I'm becoming hopeful for all high settings. Assuming the game is optimised well for actual release and video drivers are good, I think I could get some solid frames. Early days yet, but ye, all standard is a bit too low for me, I tried it last game and things looked a bit bland. I'm not a graphic nut but I'd like solid FPS in combat with a mix of med/high. Lol 7750 - If they suggest that, then... well, 6870 should do a fine job assuming they don't go "AHAHHAAHHA in your face you have an AMD card, we <3 Nvidia".

Just to note, those results were on CoOp, not Wasteland like before. Also, running renderahead on 1 or 2 makes practically no difference although CPU usage was 75%. Average 40fps on a mix of high and standard, no AA. Occasional complete bog down to about 2-5fps. Card was operating at 970 / 1120 stable (no voltage changes, I don't do voltage OCs). Just have to wait for some updates to the Alpha so the i5-2500K can be used fully. Also, take note that this time around I used the extra launch parameters in Steam but it made no noticeable difference. Will await updates, since tweaking doesn't work at all. ---------- Post added at 09:57 ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 ---------- Just to note, those results were on CoOp, not Wasteland like before. Also, running renderahead on 1 or 2 makes practically no difference although CPU usage was 75%. Average 40fps on a mix of high and standard, no AA. Occasional complete bog down to about 2-5fps. Card was operating at 970 / 1120 stable (no voltage changes, I don't do voltage OCs). Just have to wait for some updates to the Alpha so the i5-2500K can be used fully. Also, take note that this time around I used the extra launch parameters in Steam but it made no noticeable difference. Will await updates, since tweaking doesn't work at all.

I'm just worried guys, that is all. I don't like buying things I really want to play only for them to be released and it sucks. I know optimisation will come but not all people benefit, I just hope I'm one of those people that gain a benefit from using a 6870. Anyway, I was playing on a mix of Standard/High/Very high, no AA, FXAA Standard, 1080p and interestingly in many areas it ran smooth-ish. Minimum 30, maximum 55fps. I'd say it averaged about 42. Combat was doable. However, after a short while performance plummeted and regardless of settings changes things because really choppy. Even when I had reasonable frames, there were times that the FPS would collapse to 0-5fps. Render Distance was around 2200, Object around 1300 I believe. Shadows at the default 100. My Processor was used to a maximum of 72% this time instead of 82%. There must be a very specific combination of settings to get the right hit but it appears that the benefit doesn't last for some reason. Also, the fallback to dodgy frames was probably my 4GHz 2500K dropping back down to its usual utilisation of 52%, which is usually does when playing the game. There is hope, but again I hope I don't end up one of those folks who finds this so called optimisation leading to the expensive cards or the mega old cards getting boosts but the one in the middle getting bugger all, or even worse performance. Fingers crossed. Will be nice to see what the next update brings. Oh no wait - TOTALLY forgot. I know why my FPS improved. I changed the GPUFramesRenderedAhead from 1000 (wtf?) to 3. Apparently changing both those renderahead options to one creates benefit to some people. Why did they set it to 1000? Perhaps this is causing the CPU to wait up hence it only uses 52% and that when I changed the GPUrenderahead to 3 it bumped (at least for a short while) to 72%? I'll try 2 and 1 on both later. At the moment both renderahead settings are set to 3.

What the F? A 4870? I had one of those years ago. You got those frames with that card on THOSE settings? :| I don't understand :| I'd of thought 4Ghz on the i5-2500K is okay. Of course they need to patch it because I can't properly test yet because my CPU is only used 52% in game. Hmm. This is interesting.

I didn't actually notice that guy claim that with an old CPU and a 550ti, if that is true, and along with Bohemia's Recommended Specs for running ARMA 3 with a 7850, then assuming it is optimised that Medium settings 60fps I hope for should be easy to reach. Maybe I can have a good blend of medium/high and some AA with a comfortable 45-50fps average. Do note I am running my 2500K at 4Ghz but I could push it on air a bit higher. Not going to mess with voltages though. I still know what will end up happening though. My luck, along with many other peoples' will probably end up running out and we draw the short straw, end up with awful performance and horrid optimisation for our cards / CPUs or something like that. :( I just hope this isn't the case. Long way off yet. Got my eye on you BI. Don't let us folks down.

Shame to have a mega expensive card like that a Phenom II. But yes, I already expected the game to run like crap, but the main point to all this was to call it up and point out the recommended requirements and whether the game will run well on what they said would be enough when the game is finally released. Now considering it says 1GB VRAM and 7850, the 6870 not being that far behind, all I want or should I say would like to expect is some smooth FPS on medium settings. I won't go into the whole blah blah boycott stuff but if the game is released say a year from now and it runs at 30fps on my card, I'll be pretty damn annoyed.

I see. Again, the reason for this thread is the super conservative Recommended Requirements, and the history of the lack of optimisation on the finished products of ARMA games. Now I'm hoping, when the game is somewhat optimised, that those Recommended Requirements remain the same and that the 6870 can be taken advantage of. Afterall, the game does recommend 1GB VRAM as well. Sometimes it seems, developers will put unnecessary and innacurate Recommended Requirements for the sake of luring other folk in, under a false hope that they will be able to play the game at reasonable settings. Now I'm not criticising the game or its developers but asking for a smooth ride on medium settings after the other things they've stated is hardly asking for much. Basically, I'm just wanting to the enjoy the game based on what they've said when the product is final (I don't mind so much now), and not be lied to. I've wasted a lot of money in the past on deceit and it's quite annoying to be honest. All I hope for is some smooth FPS in combat with some average settings. It's all about the gameplay to me, graphics are secondary to my interests (unless of course there is a massive advantage with high graphical options, then I'll either avoid the game altogether because my system isn't up to par or I'll upgrade if it's a small price to pay). :)

I'm a bit confused as to how this will help me. :| Anyway, once they sort it so my 2500K is used fully (4Ghz), then I can worry about the 6870. After checking prices yesterday and weighing the pros and cons, the 7850 really isn't a leap far enough to warrant an upgrade. Especially when it involves me selling my 6870 and then spending some just to get it. Overall it won't equate to a big enough bump in FPS to even be worth the hassle. 6870 > 7870, now that's different. Hell, my Corsair Silent Power M (34 AMP Single 12v Rail) could handle a 7870, but that's pushing it and it's a bit of a concern for a game which may or may not be optimised even if I do upgrade. Besides, I just spent £32 on Fire Emblem Awakening haha ;D Hopefully CPU stuff will be fixed in an update soon and then I can properly test it.

Welcome to Forum world where everyone makes assumptions. Regarding the card, I think I must have got it mixed up with something else. It's not a 60fps or bust attitude, it's a post some accurate recommended system requirements for once thread. 7850 or not, the 6870 is hardly that far behind and what the hell is up with that Skyrim benchmark? :| does 120 more pixels vertically really equate to a 40fps drop? :\ (I use Vsync on Skyrim). Also, it's not as if the 7850 when compared with the 6870 is like comparing the 7850 with a 3xxx series, is it? Also, about the 2500K, I'd assume if it were used properly by ARMA III, then I'd benefit from sticking my system on 4GHz for all cores? By the way, it's not much I know but my card is at 950 / 1125, not the stock 900 / 1050. ---------- Post added at 11:41 ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 ---------- I can't properly gauge anything yet because my CPU at at 3.5/3.7 (Intel Turbo Boost - dependant on core usage, therefore not all cores are at 3.7), isn't properly being utilised. Until it is, if I overclock it (which I have done many times before but reverted back since I never needed the OC), then I'll go back to 4GHz on all cores. Simples. ARMA 3 is indeed greater looking but they may as well of just got straight to the point and said "Recommended System Requirements - 7970" - Again, I know it's early days, so perhaps the 6870 won't have to run the game on ultra low just to obtain 7 fps, or something ridiculous like that. ---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 ---------- Just overclocked to 4Ghz. Lowered card OC to 940 / 1120 - Ran ARMA III for a bit, ran around for 5 minutes, I had standard on, all standard, except shadows low, and PiP low. I had a max FPS of 50, an a minimum of 29. Estimate of average 33. Checked OHM, CPU max usage throughout the entire thing was 52.7% CPU Fan (886RPM - Has a max of 1300 RPM I believe - Alpenfohn Matterhorn Pure + MX4) CPU Total - 52.7% Core 1 - 90.8% Core 2 - 63.1% Core 3 - 53.8% Core 4 - 62.1% CPU Package Temp: 47.0°c GPU Core: 940Mhz GPU Memory: 1120Mhz GPU Core Temp: 61°c (Max 105 I believe). GPU Core 99.0% GPU Fan 1846 RPM / 53% The overclock certainly helped. If I had 100% of my CPU available for use it seems promising.

Obviously it's Alpha, so with my 2500K and my OC'd 6870, I expect god awful performance. However, the reason I posted was because I feared that given the history of ARMA games and their extreme lack of optimisation for the final product, that a year from now or whenever the game is out, it'll still run like a 1 legged Dog with a wheel for a foot. 7850 recommended anyone? 6870 eats it up. I'm not asking for much, I'm just hoping that I can play on Standard with 2xAA and some solid FPS above 50+ (in combat scenarios). The ridiculously conservative recommendation they put down is a concern, an if it seems to be just for the sake of Alpha and not later on, then that's incredibly misleading because it doesn't say anywhere on that Steam page, that I can see, that those system requirements are for Alpha only. I know it's a long way off before release, but I just don't want to be left behind after their own suggestions. It'll be like "Let's cater to the rich folk" or those who recently bought a PC! It kind of reminds me of video drivers from both Nvidia and AMD, new card comes out, it's like "let's get max performance for that instead" and then everything else is pretty much minimized in driver optimisation for those who had a previous generation of card. I just hope it doesn't end up being a waste of money. Right now, may I just mention that my CPU utilisation in the game is only around 50%, so that's capping my FPS at around 30, so I can't actually play Alpha properly until that is sorted. (Oh, an that 30 isn't solid either, hence it being unplayable).

Hmm. Then their super dooper ultra mega, insanely inaccurate Recommended Requirements and claims that "if you can Run ARMA II then ARMA III will run one setting lower" is just a random piece of bull spurted out at random with not a shred of research or faith in their development to have any essence of truth? I mean, I know exactly not to trust these suggestions 100% (like the requirements) but did they not think or measure anything up AT ALL? Ever? 28fps? with a 480? An their suggesting a 7850? Have you seen the differences between the 7850 and 6870? I know the 6870 isn't powerful but it craps on the 7850. I'd assumed this time around they wouldn't just add pretty FX over the top of ARMA 2 and say, ZOMG A BRAND NEWWW GAMEEEE. But it appears to me, so far, (I know it's early days), that this is just a repaint of the same, unoptimised, unfriendly, poor engine. There are still people out there with beast rigs who can't play ARMA II. If I can't run 1080p at Standard at 60FPS, I'm going to be very disappointed.

Bumpidy bump. 1GB 6870 run Standard at 1080p/60fps on official release?