Arma 3: Most demanding game ever!?!?

coughs · 11 Aug 2012 at 23:13

Hey,

What do you think the system requirements are for ARMA 3?

I got told that it's a next generation game and our current cpu, gpu wouldn't be able to handle it at 1080p?

Thanks

~>Dg<~ · 11 Aug 2012 at 23:15

Spenty · 11 Aug 2012 at 23:16

~>Dg<~ said:
ban

garsands · 11 Aug 2012 at 23:20

System requirements
Operating system: Windows 7 / Vista
Processor: Intel Core i5 or AMD Athlon Phenom X4 or faster
Memory: 2 GB
Video card: Nvidia Geforce GTX 260 or ATI Radeon HD 5770 with Shader Model 3 and 896 MB VRAM, or faster
DVD: Dual Layer compatible
Hard disk: 15 GB free space
Other: DirectX® 10

http://www.bistudio.com/english/games/arma3

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18276729&highlight=arma

LOAM · 11 Aug 2012 at 23:22

I don't care so long as when you run it no longer sounds like you're being followed by dobbin the invisible donkey.

MissileMoose · 11 Aug 2012 at 23:37

The E3 showcase machines were running with GTX 580s and i5 2500k CPUs.

weyland yutani · 11 Aug 2012 at 23:42

System requirements: Skynet

Daichin · 12 Aug 2012 at 00:10

I don't think we'll need whole new not yet released components in our computers for it if I'm totally honest.

In fact I don't think most people on this forum would have any trouble running it at all.

A 5770 is quite a bit for minimum requirements though.

Devlish · 12 Aug 2012 at 00:15

Like i said in the GC section, im mulling an nvidia card to run the physx whilst letting a 7970 take the rest of the strain. And even then I don't expect to have a smooth experience - any use of previous arma engines will tell you you can run it fine on with min specs with everything set to low but only God and his quad angel-cooled universe creators could run it at very high with all the bells and whistles.

silversurfer · 12 Aug 2012 at 01:21

Its the CPU you should worry about, graphics required as minimum will probably be similar to any game now. Nehalem and four cores or more and maybe 6 or 8 gb for all that spammy AI they put into their maps

Spenty · 12 Aug 2012 at 01:33

It seems developers are paid to make games struggle on even expensive hardware so users go out and buy the top of the range stuff. Bad console ports and unoptimized game engines are a **** take from developers tbh. They should fix this stuff before release.

simpletom · 12 Aug 2012 at 01:49

Spenty said:
It seems developers are paid to make games struggle on even expensive hardware so users go out and buy the top of the range stuff. Bad console ports and unoptimized game engines are a **** take from developers tbh. They should fix this stuff before release.

Uh, this is BIS, they never fix anything fully!

I admire them to a point but their software is often an exercise in frustration.

nlr · 12 Aug 2012 at 10:35

Think it will be playable with a 3570k + GTX 670?

HangTime · 12 Aug 2012 at 10:52

^^The irony is the game is made by a studio that develops primarily for PC, so their games certainly aren't "bad console ports".

Past experience tells us you will need a monster CPU for this game but to be fair by the time it comes out most serious PC gamers will probably have a quadcore, the only ones who might struggle are those who have a slow clockspeed at stock and don't overclock. Of course, to get genuinely top performance (rather than merely OK) I'd suggest you'll want to be running Sandy/Ivy in excess of 5ghz.

silversurfer · 12 Aug 2012 at 11:26

nlr said:
Think it will be playable with a 3570k + GTX 670?

Yes who are they going to sell it to if it did not. cray gamer numbers are limited unfortunately

Tibbz2 · 12 Aug 2012 at 13:11

nlr said:
Think it will be playable with a 3570k + GTX 670?

Of course, anything with a i5/phenom x4 and a 5770 will run it.

Spenty said:
It seems developers are paid to make games struggle on even expensive hardware so users go out and buy the top of the range stuff. Bad console ports and unoptimized game engines are a **** take from developers tbh. They should fix this stuff before release.

Thing is this is for PC, and it has a right to use so much power if you see what the game needs to calculate while playing.

nlr · 12 Aug 2012 at 13:27

silversurfer said:
Yes who are they going to sell it to if it did not. cray gamer numbers are limited unfortunately

Tibbz2 said:
Of course, anything with a i5/phenom x4 and a 5770 will run it.

What sort of hardware would someone need to max it completely at 720p/1080p?

Tibbz2 · 12 Aug 2012 at 13:51

nlr said:
What sort of hardware would someone need to max it completely at 720p/1080p?

Nobody knows yet I shouldn't think. Something very high end though. I can't even max out ArmA II at a playable framerate.

Spenty · 12 Aug 2012 at 13:52

HangTime said:
^^The irony is the game is made by a studio that develops primarily for PC, so their games certainly aren't "bad console ports".

Past experience tells us you will need a monster CPU for this game but to be fair by the time it comes out most serious PC gamers will probably have a quadcore, the only ones who might struggle are those who have a slow clockspeed at stock and don't overclock. Of course, to get genuinely top performance (rather than merely OK) I'd suggest you'll want to be running Sandy/Ivy in excess of 5ghz.

I wasn't specifically speaking about BIS though so get of your high horse.

Spenty · 12 Aug 2012 at 13:55

Tibbz2 said:
Thing is this is for PC, and it has a right to use so much power if you see what the game needs to calculate while playing.

The fact is the engine is still horribly optimized. The level of graphics isn't great and I really doubt the calculations are that high. The game doesn't even use all 4 cores (even with the startup parameter that tells it to use 4 cores) and puts more pressure on my GPU than CPU so I think calculations is out of the window.