Ultra settings @ 60fps

[Shrugg]

I am currently playing Arma 3 with an i3-6100 and no GPU. I can get 25-30 fps on low settings. If i reduce the view distance, i can get a few more fps.

I'd love to play at absolute maximum video settings, but I am on a budget. I'd be willing to play at 30-40 fps at full ultra with at least 1080p.

I am using an asrock z170 pro4 mobo, so i know i can use multiple gpu's (if i can fit them. I'll have to research this. If you already know, feel free to save me time.)

Would i get better graphics performance by using two cheaper GPU's or one GPU that costs as much or just a bit more than the two cheaper combined?

To summarize, I want help for two things.

Option 1. Ultra video settings @ <40 fps @ 1080p

Option 2. Ultra video settings @ 60+ fps @ 1080p (if it doesn't cost much more)

My build includes:
i3 6100
asrock z170 pro4
8gb ram
no GPU

Without replacing anything, what GPU(s) do I need to achieve Option 1 / Option 2?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Gam3r01]

You arent going to get those settings on Arma with an i3, it wont happen.
A single GPU is almost always better than two weaker options (there are exceptions, but this does not seem to be one of them).

 

[Chugalug_]

Chances are if you are going to get a good graphics card that can achieve that framerate it will be heavily bottlenecked by the i3 CPU in select triple A titles like GTA V, so you really need to get an i5 if you want to get ultra 40-60fps in those bigger games.
So in my opinion if you want stability it is well worth it to sell that i3 and grab an i5 6500.

A card with the power around that of the 970 is the max I would recommend, lest you be throwing away money.
Also what RAM modules do you have?
You might want to consider upgrading to 16GB in the near future, as that is quickly becoming the recommended spec.

 

[treewithahat]

It's usually better to buy one single GPU. If you can spend around $400, I would wait for the GTX 1070 to release. This will definitely get you to 60+ FPS. If not, I would still wait for them to come out as current GPUs will get much cheaper. An R9 390 or 970 will also get you to about 60+ FPS, maybe knocking down a few of the advanced settings. If these are still too expensive, an R9 380 or GTX 960 4gb will probably get you about 40 FPS. Just wait for the release of the new GPUs by nVidia to make a decision.

 

[treewithahat]

And I also agree with the I3 answers, you should probably upgrade that to a Skylake I5, as you already have a compatible motherboard.

 

[SkyNetRising]

 

[Chugalug_]

It's usually better to buy one single GPU. If you can spend around $400, I would wait for the GTX 1070 to release. This will definitely get you to 60+ FPS. If not, I would still wait for them to come out as current GPUs will get much cheaper. An R9 390 or 970 will also get you to about 60+ FPS, maybe knocking down a few of the advanced settings. If these are still too expensive, an R9 380 or GTX 960 4gb will probably get you about 40 FPS. Just wait for the release of the new GPUs by nVidia to make a decision.

And I also agree with the I3 answers, you should probably upgrade that to a Skylake I5, as you already have a compatible motherboard.

The CPU will bottleneck most all of these cards except for the 680.
Don't bother posting statistics that aren't relevant in terms of compatibility, better to post stuff the OP can actually use in their rig!
Keep in mind Arma 3 is a very CPU intensive game, relying less on the graphics card which is shown in these results.
This further pushes my point of upgrading to an i5 instead of getting a graphics card which is not going to be fully utilized.

 

[Chugalug_]

It's usually better to buy one single GPU. If you can spend around $400, I would wait for the GTX 1070 to release. This will definitely get you to 60+ FPS. If not, I would still wait for them to come out as current GPUs will get much cheaper. An R9 390 or 970 will also get you to about 60+ FPS, maybe knocking down a few of the advanced settings. If these are still too expensive, an R9 380 or GTX 960 4gb will probably get you about 40 FPS. Just wait for the release of the new GPUs by nVidia to make a decision.

And I also agree with the I3 answers, you should probably upgrade that to a Skylake I5, as you already have a compatible motherboard.

No point wasting money on a 1070 when you're only going to get 40% out of it given the previously mentioned CPU bottleneck.
Better to get a second hand 960 or 970 which won't be affected by the CPU limitations and will still be within the OPs price range.

 

[SkyNetRising]

The CPU will bottleneck most all of these cards except for the 680.
Don't bother posting statistics that aren't relevant in terms of compatibility, better to post stuff the OP can actually use in their rig!

Really? i3-6100 will do just fine.

 

[Karadjgne]

Arma3 is trixy. It's not what most would consider a well optimized game engine. With HT enabled that 6100 will hold its own against the slower i5 6500 in any game heavily single threaded. That's not the issue. The game engine is. You are not the first to run into Arma3 fps issues and you won't be the last. It takes something along the lines of a 980ti to get good fps there on ultra settings,even at 1080p, which would seriously stretch both your budget and the 6100's capabilities.

Honestly,settle for medium-high on a gtx970/r9 390 and call it a day.

 

[Chugalug_]

The CPU will bottleneck most all of these cards except for the 680.
Don't bother posting statistics that aren't relevant in terms of compatibility, better to post stuff the OP can actually use in their rig!

Really? i3-6100 will do just fine.

The 970 is bottlenecked by a little bit, but can be stressed a lot in more graphically intensive games, throttling performance.
The 290x should be fine at stock speeds, but given it is overclocked, which it is kind of notorious for, it will still provide a bit of an issue for the i3.
So all in all a 970/390 power is about what I would recommend if OP is not upgrading to i5.