Low End PC Performance?

[kraygkrg]

I was curious to know if this would be playable with my PC's specs (listed below). Anyone else with a lower end computer with comparable specs play this game? If so how does it run for you?

i5-4690K 3.50 GHz
16 GB RAM DDR3
XFX R9 280X
Gigabyte Z97 Motherboard
Samsung EVO

[Rivfader]

had similar spec but with a RX 570 8gb and it was not enjoyable, your gpu is not compatible with the game.

[kraygkrg]

Damn, figured as much. Thanks for the info!

[† Bayonetta †]

Even good specs on high settings have their issues problems, with that in mind its a no go.

[Aqueox]

Originally posted by † Bayonetta †:

Even good specs on high settings have their issues problems, with that in mind its a no go.

Yeah. I'm on a 4090 and on 4k, you can't max everything out and have a solid 80+ fps experience. Game just hasn't prioritized optimization, which is fine. It's a test bed first, a game last.

[Rick James Bish]

Running a 4090 and i7 13700k with resolution of 3840x1600.

Everything maxed, including both draw distances, but with AA @ 2X and Enviromental @ Medium, I maintain over 95, typically 110 plus.

I found the AA and Environmental seem to have the most impact on frame rate. I have not analyzed, but in regular game play I do not notice anything different than having those two settings turned up, other than the drastic loss of FPS. Those two settings are worth looking at if you want to pick up significant FPS.

Based off CPU utilization, they have room for improvement.

[thedude182]

If your aim is to keep FPS above 60+ AND have the game decent looking, you might think of these gpu specs.

I use a RTX4060 currently and play on 1440p as its my monitors native resolution. However i need to do more concessions in the game settings to make that work smooth. Yes it is possible, but suboptimal graphics a bit if you always want 60+ fps.

Based on my own results as those of my friends, i am thinking of these minimum specs for running the game nicely;

For 1080p on mid/high settings you'll need at least a RTX4060 (RTX 3060 also works).
For 1440p on mid/high youll need at least a RTX4070
For Ultra HD (4k) you'll need at least a RTX4080

Hardware AA, (Object) Shadows, View Distance and Environment are the real FPS eaters you can turn down to medium/off. The rest is pretty much all high/ultra without problems for mentioned GPU's. I don't know which are AMD's models that are compareable to mentioned RTX cards, but you can google that easily.

[Aqueox]

Originally posted by Rick James Bish:

Running a 4090 and i7 13700k with resolution of 3840x1600.

Everything maxed, including both draw distances, but with AA @ 2X and Enviromental @ Medium, I maintain over 95, typically 110 plus.

I found the AA and Environmental seem to have the most impact on frame rate. I have not analyzed, but in regular game play I do not notice anything different than having those two settings turned up, other than the drastic loss of FPS. Those two settings are worth looking at if you want to pick up significant FPS.

Based off CPU utilization, they have room for improvement.

Grass and Contact Shadows have a not insignifcant amount of FPS hit as well. I find that turning grass to medium and CS off is perfectly fine, I don't find myself missing it.

[RedBoy]

On a Ryzen 5700x ,32 gigs ram and a 4070 ti on a 1440p resolution
If I look at the grass I get around 100 fps, the moment there is a decent fight going on I tank to 30 fps on official servers sometimes even bellow that.
Used to have a 3060 before that and the median framerate was around 20-25 on 1440p and around 30 fps on fhd

a mid range pc is not cutting it for this game unless you are playing in the sandbox solo and don't mind the low performance.

[stburr91]

Originally posted by RedBoy:

On a Ryzen 5700x ,32 gigs ram and a 4070 ti on a 1440p resolution
If I look at the grass I get around 100 fps, the moment there is a decent fight going on I tank to 30 fps on official servers sometimes even bellow that.
Used to have a 3060 before that and the median framerate was around 20-25 on 1440p and around 30 fps on fhd

a mid range pc is not cutting it for this game unless you are playing in the sandbox solo and don't mind the low performance.

Yes, you get all the people saying how much better the fps is in reforger than A3, but in reality, it's not much better, despite having many less features to draw on resources.

[areudeadyet]

I must say that Arma Reforger have better framerate than Arma 3 on my old machine (1660super with 6Gb). On 1080p. Its nowhere near stable frames, but with some tweaking, i run between 30fps (in bases with a lot of buildings) to 60fps in open fields and similar places.
Now, there is a slider in video settings to lower resolution that is a mistery to me. It make your game so pixelated with lowest settings, but framerate jump maybe by 20-30fps only...

[RedBoy]

Originally posted by stburr91:

Originally posted by RedBoy:

On a Ryzen 5700x ,32 gigs ram and a 4070 ti on a 1440p resolution
If I look at the grass I get around 100 fps, the moment there is a decent fight going on I tank to 30 fps on official servers sometimes even bellow that.
Used to have a 3060 before that and the median framerate was around 20-25 on 1440p and around 30 fps on fhd

a mid range pc is not cutting it for this game unless you are playing in the sandbox solo and don't mind the low performance.

Yes, you get all the people saying how much better the fps is in reforger than A3, but in reality, it's not much better, despite having many less features to draw on resources.

To be fair the visuals are much nicer.
Arma 3's visuals straight up cause headaches.

[Frag]

Overclock that CPU as high as it can go and throw in slightly better GPU. Played on this for years. It's better now but still was fun before.

[💤 r4zz4r]

im late, but im on rx 550 4gb 32 gbs ddr3 i5 3470 3.2ghz, its unbelievably awful even on lowest res, res scale, and graphics lol. save money and upgrade, or skip this game

[Olaf]

Originally posted by 💤 r4zz4r:

im late, but im on rx 550 4gb 32 gbs ddr3 i5 3470 3.2ghz, its unbelievably awful even on lowest res, res scale, and graphics lol. save money and upgrade, or skip this game

ddr3? jesus man, ram is cheap same with motherboards, you can get a decent gpu for a good price as well and a decent cpu as well for that matter, im sure your pc can't handle most games on the market

[Burning Bridges]

Originally posted by Olaf:

Originally posted by 💤 r4zz4r:

im late, but im on rx 550 4gb 32 gbs ddr3 i5 3470 3.2ghz, its unbelievably awful even on lowest res, res scale, and graphics lol. save money and upgrade, or skip this game

ddr3? jesus man, ram is cheap same with motherboards, you can get a decent gpu for a good price as well and a decent cpu as well for that matter, im sure your pc can't handle most games on the market

A PC with DDR3 can still run most games fine

I just tried with an i7-4790K and 32 GB DDR3 and it runs ok. Not stellar (50 fps but a bit jerky) but considering the state of the game the upgrade can still wait until full release