Hobostryke

ArmA 3 System Requirements

884 posts in this topic

(If there is already a thread like this out there, please redirect me; I could not find one)

The only reason I am making this is because I would like to know more specifically the CPU requirements for ArmA 3. I know it requires an Athlon Phenom X4 for at least minimum, which I have an Athlon II X4 630 at ~3.0 GHz. The problem is that the System Requirements Lab says I am not able to run ArmA 3 with this. Will I be able to with my current CPU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(If there is already a thread like this out there, please redirect me; I could not find one)

The only reason I am making this is because I would like to know more specifically the CPU requirements for ArmA 3. I know it requires an Athlon Phenom X4 for at least minimum, which I have an Athlon II X4 630 at ~3.0 GHz. The problem is that the System Requirements Lab says I am not able to run ArmA 3 with this. Will I be able to with my current CPU?

The System Requirements Lab is just a database based on information from the Internet - it can't be considered as reliable source on the game which even not on the horizon of completion yet.

The good news for you, and all of us, is that member of our russian ARMA-community who was on Gamescom'2011 stated that presentation PC was just a Core i5 3.33GHz with 8Gb of RAM and GTX480 video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one, and i mean not even the devs, would be able to give you specifics for a game set to be released 1 year from now, where a lot of features are WIP(DX11), no properly implemented (RTT) and so forth. It is gonna take at least another 8 months before some conclusions could be drawn.

patience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Grillob3

I cannot tell if that is sarcasm since it doesn't travel so well through the interwebs but as PuFu said, nobody knows yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm currently on AMD 965 3.4Ghz X4... I can feel it struggling with ArmA II at times.

Gonna have to get something new for ArmA III, I reckon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But will arma 3 be way heavier than arma 2 on our pcs?

You can assume that, yes. Especially on the GPU side of things, since A3 will be DX10/DX11.

But if BIS gets the engine to use all the cores/threads of the curent generation CPUs, it might lower the CPU strain (on the other hand dated CPUs and GPUs might not work even to the A2 levels, while newer hardware should be used better by the engine....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off ARMA3 topic, I think if your computer can handle BF3 very well, then ARMA3 is a piece of cake. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BF3 is a console game and is built for 7 years old hardware first and foremost. So handling BF3 well means nothing when talking about ArmA3

There is no AI in BF3 and graphics side is quite outdated even when talking about PC version. Besides the game takes place in corridors - can't even compare.

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BF3 is a console game and is built for 7 years old hardware first and foremost. So handling BF3 well means nothing when talking about ArmA3

There is no AI in BF3 and graphics side is quite outdated even when talking about PC version. Besides the game takes place in corridors - can't even compare.

I think you're talking about CoD there, pal.

BF3, or at least BF2, had some pretty huge-ass maps. Not compared to Arma, but still pretty big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a comparison was made with ArmA no?

Battlefield's 2kmx2km and ArmA3's 20kmx20km (and that's only a landmass, ignoring stuff like detailed sea bottom) are two different scales (in fact that's 100 times different)

So I really fail to see how handling BF3 well is any indication of how much more demanding ArmA3 would handle on the same PC (don't forget - it also has complex AI routines and every destruction done at any point of the huge map stays like that forever, even grass being pushed down by anyone translates over network - and in BF3 foliage doesn't seem to interact with players in any way).

If anything my "worst case scenario FPS calculator" is ArmA2 FPS / 1.5 = ArmA3 FPS

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the other hand BF3 lighting engine is lighting years ahead of BIS...even without day cycles...so is the particle and gfx effects. Destruction, while the scale is smaller, is a also advanced.

And while all this pushes the GFX card a lot more than the CPU, the game can scale up to 8 cores/threads, which is something i have never seen A2 do properly.

anyhow, you can't really compare the two either way.

Edited by PuFu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you will apply a color correction with the ridiculous amount of contrast to ArmA2 plus an ugly blue/green-ish tint its lightning engine will become just as "advanced" as BF3's (and Crysis 2's and CoD's for that matter)

http://i29.fastpic.ru/big/2011/0927/a1/4ca6c23a855b67e76e5f63e5642bf6a1.jpg

(also here's ArmA2 screenshot - compare the amount of detail http://i1208.photobucket.com/albums/cc379/comradekraze/ArmA%20II/arma2oa2011-09-1202-41-29-91.jpg, as a bonus quick and dirty shoop http://i1208.photobucket.com/albums/cc379/comradekraze/ArmA%20II/aa2oapp3-1.jpg - wow how "advanced" lighting suddenly started to look )

the game can scale up to 8 cores/threads, which is something i have never seen A2 do properly.

Consoles have only 2 cores, man. Considering that the only difference between PC port and console versions lies in crispier textures I fail to see how additional 6 cores can help anything.

I mean BF3 has no AI and there are no physical remnants from destructions

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Pufu was talking about multi directional lighting metalcraze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you will apply a color correction with the ridiculous amount of contrast to ArmA2 plus an ugly blue/green-ish tint its lightning engine will become just as "advanced" as BF3's (and Crysis 2's and CoD's for that matter)

http://i29.fastpic.ru/big/2011/0927/a1/4ca6c23a855b67e76e5f63e5642bf6a1.jpg

(also here's ArmA2 screenshot - compare the amount of detail http://i1208.photobucket.com/albums/cc379/comradekraze/ArmA%20II/arma2oa2011-09-1202-41-29-91.jpg, as a bonus quick and dirty shoop http://i1208.photobucket.com/albums/cc379/comradekraze/ArmA%20II/aa2oapp3-1.jpg - wow how "advanced" lighting suddenly started to look )

you should really learn to read...i was talking about lighting engine, not post process and color/gamma/contrast correction(s)....

J-sn5F_byu8

Consoles have only 2 cores, man. Considering that the only difference between PC port and console versions lies in crispier textures I fail to see how additional 6 cores can help anything.

I mean BF3 has no AI and there are no physical remnants from destructions

frostbyte is a game multi-platform game engine. I don't care about consoles no more than the next guy. Have a read (tnx to bangtail):

Originally Posted by Johann Anderrson, Rendering Architect at DICE

There will be two versions of the Frostbite Engine: Version 1.x is used for Battlefield: Bad Company 1, Battlefield 1943 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. It supports Xbox 360, PS3 and DirectX 10. DICE is working on the Frostbite 2 engine at the moment that will support DirectX 10.1 and DirectX 11 as well. DICE is very proud of the parallelized engine since 2-8 parallel threads are supported for using full capacity of a Core i7 e.g.."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've been already putting some money aside....plan to get 6850 vapor-x, new system fans and push the oc to the max. arma3's gonna eat the gpu alive, plus if it gets to dx11 the 128bit gpu will have some tough time...not to mention AA enabled:soldier:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your ArmA2 OA runs at (at least) 40 fps+ on high or max details, it should run ArmA3 without choke on a one level down settings (med or high)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your ArmA2 OA runs at (at least) 40 fps+ on high or max details, it should run ArmA3 without choke on a one level down settings (med or high)

And you base this assumption on ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I would be able to run the game at medium graphics with my rig . At least I hope :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not an assumption :)

Wait are you saying you know this because you have worked with BI on Arma 3 or because you just know alot of stuff about the RV engine. (Did the graphics settings work this way in the transition from A1 to A2?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you should really learn to read...i was talking about lighting engine, not post process and color/gamma/contrast correction(s)....

There is none of that RT radiosity in BF3. The only other thing BF3 has that RV lacked is point light sources which if I'm not wrong will not be an issue since Take On.

frostbyte is a game multi-platform game engine. I don't care about consoles no more than the next guy. Have a read (tnx to bangtail):

Multiplatform engines are always developed for the weakest platform (PS3, X360) first with the stuff for the most powerful one (PC) being applied as an afterthought.

That's why BF3 looks so outdated, although DICE tries their best to hide that through a ridiculous contrast and stupid lens flares everywhere just like CryTek did to hide Crysis 2 looking considerably worse than 4 years old PC exclusive Crysis 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is none of that RT radiosity in BF3. The only other thing BF3 has that RV lacked is point light sources which if I'm not wrong will not be an issue since Take On.

Obviously. RT radiosity is something than even professional grade rendering software don't offer in viewport, or if available, it take a huge amount of CPU/GPU power just to display one still.

And regarding Take on, yes, you are wrong. I don't know about A3, i surely hope there is something done to improve the lighting/shadow system...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously. RT radiosity is something than even professional grade rendering software don't offer in viewport, or if available, it take a huge amount of CPU/GPU power just to display one still.

Yes. But it helps the marketing, eh?

And regarding Take on, yes, you are wrong.

Didn't one of the screenshots show yellow lights on one of the choppers or was it just a reflection?

Also VBS2 got a lighting system upgrade completely with point lights and multiple city lights instead of 8 max - I don't see why BIS wouldn't implement that at least in ArmA3 (would've been pretty sweet for vehicle interiors and indoors)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.