HOME 
what do you get with the benchmark scenario's? (bench 1 and e08,dont run 2, it's ridiculous) and what are your settings (click advanced button and make a screenshot, might be fastest).Originally Posted by rhinohumper
what do you get with the benchmark scenario's? (bench 1 and e08,dont run 2, it's ridiculous) and what are your settings (click advanced button and make a screenshot, might be fastest).
Arma 3 is a twitchshooter
Needs more rainbow six 1-3
I can recommend to use a ssd (128 GByte available far under 100 € now). It made my Arma-Gaming go from good to very good ... :-) though I have old specs (below).
Before we were forced to use "just another datacollecting and advertising imposing machine on users machine like steam" my signature went like this for many, many years:
"There was once a dark age when players were herded like cattle down rigid gaming paths - and Bohemia Interactive Studios were the Che Guevara types who set them free."Watch n' listen: Thank you, Bohemia for fascinating games since 2001. Engine: Win8 32-Bit on AMD64 6000 X2 (2 x 3100 MHz) * NVidia 9600 GT 1024 MByte * 1920 x 1080 pixels * 27'' TFT * RAM 3 GByte - it all works very smooth especially because of SSD!
Hey. I was hoping you guys can help me out. My system specs are below, and ofc i cant run the game properly. But i was thinking if i upgrade my cpu it can be playable. what do you think? i really don't care about the graphics, i just want a steady fps. is it possible?
ASUS K50AB laptop
CPU: AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core QL-65 2.1Ghz
RAM: 3 GB
Video Card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4570
Win 7 32bit
I doubt there are any cpus for that laptop that would make the game smoother for u. You pretty much have to buy a new rig, a desktop kind. Arma is not laptop friendly.
Last edited by Atkins; Jun 11 2012 at 05:45.
Yeah, an Athlon X2 2.1 GHz dual-core mobile processor is way too slow for this game.
Not sure what your upgrade options are but you'd want to be looking at a 2.8 GHz+ quad-core for this game.
Core i7 920 @ 3.995 GHz, HT off
12 GB OCZ DDR3-1600
GTX 680
2x Intel X25-M 80 GB SSD
Windows 7 Pro x64
ArmA2/OA Settings:
1920x1080 w/ View Distance at ~3600
Video Memory at Default
MSAA Very High, AToC=0, SMAA Ultra
Post Processing at Very Low
All other settings at Very High
If i can fly around utes usually having around 60 fps on all max settings, including view distance, does that mean anything?
utes is very small, viewdistance doesnt really mean anything if all the game has to show is extra sea.
try it on chernarus.
So I'm only averaging mid 30s on pretty highest with aa turned off, v sync off, terrain detail off, background programs off,
I have a 560 ti geforce,
I 5 2500 k oc 4.5 ghz,
Asus Z 68 mother board
Windows 7 64 bit operating system,
Ssd drive
1 tarabyte hard drive
16 gig ram 1333 ddr
Corsair 700 watt power supply
10 fans including 3 120mm fans
For some reason when a lot happens on game frames dip, I'm sick of trying to figure it out. Machine is running cool, I have msi afterburner running and my machine is running only 120 degrees which is super cool and my frame counter is hitting low 30s, want to run in mid 60s highest setting, so I'm curious, gpu upgrade time to 680 or CPU upgrade to I7 2600k? But from my understanding, there are no games out right now that use more than 3 to 4 cores. Any advice would be great. Thanks.
navy198523: it sounds like you've already applied a few optimisations. Check these tried and tested tweaks:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthrea...66#post2081466
@navy
With more action fps decrease, thats normal. CPU is fine, i'd buy a 680 or AMD anything. But 60 fps always is a tough number.
Second on the list should be a SSD, a small and cheap 60GB is fine for ArmA.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________
ASUS P8P67 - Corei5-2500K @4000 - Mugen 2B - 8GB Ri.jawsX CL8 - GTX570 Phantom - OCZ Vertex SSD - Syncm. 2443BW - beQuiet DPP 650W - Win7 Pro 64bit
Reply With Quote
