Can I run ARMA 3??

[Adampaulso]

GTX 670
FX-4350
Benq GL2460
500gb 5400rpm hard drive
460w power supply
8gb ram 1600MHz
I want to play in 1080p, Can You Run It says I can but from videos ive seen of the game i dont have high hopes. Just wondering what settings i can play on for a locked 60fps?? Or am I better off getting Just Cause 3 cause I was also taking that into consideration.

 

[SkyWilson]

I play Arma 3 and it is a very well optimized game. It is also a more CPU intensive game rather then GPU. Either way, your specs exceed the recommended requirements for the game (CPU barely). You should have no problem whatsoever getting smooth as butter FPS on medium to high settings.

 

[spoofer2]

i dont know what planet skywilson is from, but arma is infamous for being really unoptimized. the game would probably be playable for you but even the highest end rigs cant manage more than 30 or 40fps in densely active scenes. this will most likely not change for a number of years until arma 4 comes out because it is to do with the engine.

 

[SkyWilson]

i dont know what planet skywilson is from, but arma is infamous for being really unoptimized. the game would probably be playable for you but even the highest end rigs cant manage more than 30 or 40fps in densely active scenes. this will most likely not change for a number of years until arma 4 comes out because it is to do with the engine.

What planet are you from? Game Debate rates a GTX 670 at 325% the recommended requirement for Arma III. I'm running a GTX 960 on a 6600k and I can max out and stay around 45 FPS. As far as optimization goes you're smoking crack, Arma III is smooth. Now DayZ on the other hand, is Behomia Interactives shit hole game with a terrible engine.

 

[spoofer2]

i dont know what planet skywilson is from, but arma is infamous for being really unoptimized. the game would probably be playable for you but even the highest end rigs cant manage more than 30 or 40fps in densely active scenes. this will most likely not change for a number of years until arma 4 comes out because it is to do with the engine.

What planet are you from? Game Debate rates a GTX 670 at 325% the recommended requirement for Arma III. I'm running a GTX 960 on a 6600k and I can max out and stay around 45 FPS. As far as optimization goes you're smoking crack, Arma III is smooth. Now DayZ on the other hand, is Behomia Interactives shit hole game with a terrible engine.

bro, im not even gonna waste my energy on this. all the op has to do is google it and he will find the answer

 

[SkyWilson]

What is there to argue? I have the game on steam and i play it on high settings with a GTX 960. Even my old GT 740 before that could achieve medium 1080P settings and run at 30-40 FPS. Any "Can i run this" site will say a GTX 670 + FX-4350 will run the game on high settings.Have you ever even played ARMA III?

 

[ema21del9]

What is there to argue? I have the game on steam and i play it on high settings with a GTX 960. Even my old GT 740 before that could achieve medium 1080P settings and run at 30-40 FPS. Any "Can i run this" site will say a GTX 670 + FX-4350 will run the game on high settings. Have you ever even played ARMA III?

I would really like to see that in action, I've seen myself high-end gaming PCs struggling to reach 40FPS in this game.

 

[SkyWilson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6p5p6tzAtM is a GTX 960 on Ultra settings averaging 40 FPS, never dipping below 35. High settings i achieve a stable 45-50, never dipping below 40. I could probably get a stable 60 FPS on my 960 + 6600k if i ran on medium settings. If you get bad FPS on ARMA you probably have a shitty CPU, its not a graphically demanding game.

 

[ema21del9]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6p5p6tzAtM is a GTX 960 on Ultra settings averaging 40 FPS, never dipping below 35. High settings i achieve a stable 45-50, never dipping below 40. I could probably get a stable 60 FPS on my 960 + 6600k if i ran on medium settings. If you get bad FPS on ARMA you probably have a shitty CPU, its not a graphically demanding game.

The specs in the video say CPU is an i5 4690k, the OP who started the thread has an AMD FX 4350, taking into account that this game is quite CPU-intensive I don't think he's going to be any close to that performance. Also notice in the video you provided the average FPS is 40, that isn't any close to 45-50 (average).

I don't think he's going to get more than 20 FPS with that CPU even with low settings.

 

[SkyWilson]

That video wasn't a comparison relating to his hardware. It was relating to your comment that you made saying you would like to see that in action. Now as far as 45-50 FPS average goes, i said i get 45-50 FPS while playing on HIGH settings and that guy in the video was getting 40 FPS average on ULTRA settings. A AMD FX-4350 is a good CPU, as far as performance comparision to a 4690k goes its just as good. The AMD is a year older, on a bigger node, uses more electricity, runs hotter and doesn't have integreated graphics otherwise it would probably have a higher rating. Other then that, the AMD has a higher base clock speed, higher turbo clock speed, more cache, and still exceeds the Recommended (Not Minimum) requirements of the ARMA III by 10-15%. The crunched numbers says the CPU can run high settings and so can a 670. 60 FPS frame lock? Probably not going to happen. But a stable FPS in the 40s that doesn't fluctuate much and has smooth gameplay? I think so.

 

[Adampaulso]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6p5p6tzAtM is a GTX 960 on Ultra settings averaging 40 FPS, never dipping below 35. High settings i achieve a stable 45-50, never dipping below 40. I could probably get a stable 60 FPS on my 960 + 6600k if i ran on medium settings. If you get bad FPS on ARMA you probably have a shitty CPU, its not a graphically demanding game.

The specs in the video say CPU is an i5 4690k, the OP who started the thread has an AMD FX 4350, taking into account that this game is quite CPU-intensive I don't think he's going to be any close to that performance. Also notice in the video you provided the average FPS is 40, that isn't any close to 45-50 (average).

I don't think he's going to get more than 20 FPS with that CPU even with low settings.

No more than 20!??!!?!?!?!?!?! WAT

 

[ema21del9]

That video wasn't a comparison relating to his hardware. It was relating to your comment that you made saying you would like to see that in action. Now as far as 45-50 FPS average goes, i said i get 45-50 FPS while playing on HIGH settings and that guy in the video was getting 40 FPS average on ULTRA settings. A AMD FX-4350 is a good CPU, as far as performance comparision to a 4690k goes its just as good. The AMD is a year older, on a bigger node, uses more electricity, runs hotter and doesn't have integreated graphics otherwise it would probably have a higher rating. Other then that, the AMD has a higher base clock speed, higher turbo clock speed, more cache, and still exceeds the Recommended (Not Minimum) requirements of the ARMA III by 10-15%. The crunched numbers says the CPU can run high settings and so can a 670. 60 FPS frame lock? Probably not going to happen. But a stable FPS in the 40s that doesn't fluctuate much and has smooth gameplay? I think so.

What do you mean by that? That i5 beats ANY AMD processor available today, what are you talking about? for games what you care about is per-core performance and AMD isn't even close to Intel CPUs.

 

[SkyWilson]

Look at a side by side comparision of the two. http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=2104&pid2=1140&compare=core-i5-4690k-3-5ghz-vs-fx-8350 the I-5 has a 6% higher rating and i would guarantee its because it has integrated graphics. look at the performance of the AMD FX-4350, its a higher end AMD gaming CPU. Its close enough in comparison if the 4690k can get a average of 40 FPS on ultra I'm sure the 4350 isn't 20 FPS and its relatively close.

 

[ema21del9]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6p5p6tzAtM is a GTX 960 on Ultra settings averaging 40 FPS, never dipping below 35. High settings i achieve a stable 45-50, never dipping below 40. I could probably get a stable 60 FPS on my 960 + 6600k if i ran on medium settings. If you get bad FPS on ARMA you probably have a shitty CPU, its not a graphically demanding game.

The specs in the video say CPU is an i5 4690k, the OP who started the thread has an AMD FX 4350, taking into account that this game is quite CPU-intensive I don't think he's going to be any close to that performance. Also notice in the video you provided the average FPS is 40, that isn't any close to 45-50 (average).

I don't think he's going to get more than 20 FPS with that CPU even with low settings.

No more than 20!??!!?!?!?!?!?! WAT

Look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcmZJ7yx3FE

 

[Adampaulso]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6p5p6tzAtM is a GTX 960 on Ultra settings averaging 40 FPS, never dipping below 35. High settings i achieve a stable 45-50, never dipping below 40. I could probably get a stable 60 FPS on my 960 + 6600k if i ran on medium settings. If you get bad FPS on ARMA you probably have a shitty CPU, its not a graphically demanding game.

The specs in the video say CPU is an i5 4690k, the OP who started the thread has an AMD FX 4350, taking into account that this game is quite CPU-intensive I don't think he's going to be any close to that performance. Also notice in the video you provided the average FPS is 40, that isn't any close to 45-50 (average).

I don't think he's going to get more than 20 FPS with that CPU even with low settings.

No more than 20!??!!?!?!?!?!?! WAT

Look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcmZJ7yx3FE

Read the first comment, quote
"why tha heck did you turn up viewrange so high thats bullshit noone does that, turn it down to 2000m, theres almost no difference but it stops lagging imediately.
And turn AA on cause it won affect anything in Arma 3 cause the gpu is about 50% of its load only"

 

[SkyWilson]

Yeah no shit, its like hes trying to get the worst FPS possible on decent hardware.
I stand corrected I was comparing the wrong AMD CPU to the intel. The 4350 still meets the rec system requirements. You're not going to get 60 FPS, But I still think it will be north of 30 FPS and run smooth. I've always maintained a stable FPS so the fact it doesn't fluctuate still provides me with a enjoyable gaming experience. I'm not saying I don't think the human eye detects the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. But i think what makes a game unbearable to play is frames that are unstable that can fluctuate 15 frames up or down in a split second. That's what I notice while gaming. For the overall question though, you might be better off with Just Cause 3 over Arma III if you are shooting for which will perform better.

 

[rgd1101]

Please keep on topic and watch your language