Solved

Can this system run BF4 and Arma 3 on Ultra if not High settings?

My specs are

CPU: FX 6300 @ 3.5Ghz

GPU: msi gaming series GTX 770 2GB

RAM: 1866Mhz 8Gb

HDD: Seagate 1TB
16 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about system run bf4 arma ultra high settings
  1. Surely u can run on Ultra
  2. High for sure, ultra at times. I have similar setup and played on ultra for a while bug got big spikes up and down, found high to be ideal for most fluid play.
  3. What frames should i expect? On multiplayer and singleplayer?
  4. idk, high surely 60+ and no dips below 60 (which is the important part)
  5. Im launching game now so will be able to tell you shortly
  6. campaign mode, full screen 1080x1920, high settings across the board. frames average 100, low to 80 high to 120.
    graphics switched to ultra average 66, low 45 high 75.

    Those are somewhere on a middle level, not tooo much going on, which is why you can see once things start getting crazy how ultra settings being low at 45 on minimal can easily dip to below 30 or 20 when crazy stuff goes on
  7. Screen still set to ultra, on multi player im averaging 30 fps, easy dips below 20, high is 45.

    Ill try high in a second.

    Sorry, match ended going to need another min.

    New match, ultra average 70, dips to 55, tops to 75

    Now high, average 95, high up to 120, dips down to 60.
  8. that's on 8350 at 5.0ghz, evga 770 sc (sli is disabled for this run and water temps around 36c so sli is disabled (water jumps to 40-45 when sli), running off hhd if that matters (hhd raid 0 3x3tb)
  9. Best answer
    Also note, this is just a quick launch. I didn't just play for hours and take averages, I launched campaign, ran around for 2 min and shot stuff. Took avg numbers from what I saw. Some maps are a lot more demanding than others. And for multiplayer, really didn't get all into battle, just ran around, launched a few rockets at choppers. SO you minimals could easily drop lower. Which is why I recommend playing on high. On my 1080p 23' screen high and ultra, just about the same thing anyway. I always go performance over quality anyways.
  10. But i have a 6300 and a GTX 770, is this for BF4 or QArma 3?
  11. Fishikaint said:
    But i have a 6300 and a GTX 770, is this for BF4 or QArma 3?


    Sorry, should've specified this is BF4. I don't have Arma 3. Plus I rarely play BF4 which is why I had to actually launch game to get you some numbers.

    I have a 8350 and dual gtx 770's. I disabled sli profile so only ran one 770. Yes mine is higher cpu than yours. But its still pretty close, given 6 vs 8 core and we share the same graphics card it is/should be pretty close.

    I gave playable ultra quality frames, but will stress that it does dip quite a bit, and makes for less than ideal gameplay. Since when its heavy graphics load like when your actually in the middle of big firefight, then things get glitch. Not the time of play id want to be less than 100%. Yet when running around its more than fine, yet again idk when im running its more like when im dying or killing that I want high numbers. haha.

    But i'd recommend high settings, which is also what I play, and still looks great. As said, im more performance than quality.

    Arma, I have no clue. But don't see why you couldn't get high settings out of that.

    You've, from what I can see, have a great budget setup. Next things I would consider if that were my build: #1 256gb ssd, it just speeds everything up, wont help gaming but anything/everything else like night and day ($100-130). #2 get like a corsair H 100i/105/110 and overclock your chip, you should be able to get 4.0/4.2 on stock volts maybe 4.4ghz. I wouldn't recommend going crazy as then you need more volts means more heat and more wear and tear. ($80-100). After that, nothings worthwhile performance to budget. So play for a good 2-4-6 years (don't know what the future holds), and when its time to upgrade, just start new. As gpu would be first thing to upgrade (years down the road) and im guessing whatever you upgraded to would be limited by your cpu. In which you'd be better off new mobo and cpu since im sure a 8350 will be same boat as yours and get whatever you can afford then. But that's all years from now. SSD and better cooler, maybe a better case if you don't like yours. But those are just worthwhile upgrades when/if you get a chance (not a necessity, but you'll love ssd performance, and overclocked cpu wil get better single core performance and probably net 5-20 fps more). Everything you've got is golden, those are just my tweaks I would do if/when.

    Hope this helps.
  12. I was thinking in 2 years I would upgrade to a FX-8350 or get a new case, new motherboard, and get the FX-9590, and maybe get 2 GTX 770s in sli, with the CPU bieng watercooled and overclocked to about 5.0Ghz. Is this a reasonable upgrade? or Would it be better to just do a new build
  13. In two years the 8350 will be a joke. And the 9590 is just an overclocked 8350 which is an overclocked 8320. Right now for single core items theyre really limited compared to even last gen intel i5. Multi core is better but then even last gens i7 can take it. In two years with intel having broadwell and devils canyon, i cant imagine amd sitting pretty. Plus im sure you would need a new motherboard for 8350 or 9590, in which case id say go intel. Unless amd releases something new and great, i wouldnt count on 'upgrading' in two years to a 4 year old amd technology. Also, in 2 years yes the 770 will probably be reaching that age, and a second would help if you power supply can handle two, otherwise im sure by then a new $300 gpu would run those newer games at same settings as a 770. Plus with 2 years, im sure new technology will be alot better. I'd say keep yours until it doesnt play how you want it, then just look forward to building a new pc. Theres always something newer and better coming so upgrading to old technology isnt the best move as its a move backward instead of forward. And at same note, theres always something better and newer, so dont upgrade unless your unhappy with performance. A 6300 and gtx 770 is far from being unable for high/ultra right now, im sure youve got years until high isnt playable, then depending on your budget, play on medium or build a new one.
  14. Why was your frames so low? I have the same set up and I run everything ultra with 4x AA and dont drop below 80 even in the most intense fights...
  15. Also the fx 8350 will only get better in the upcoming years when AAA titles and other's utilize all of the cores on the processor.. Where do you get you're information from?
  16. Skrillex24 said:
    Also the fx 8350 will only get better in the upcoming years when AAA titles and other's utilize all of the cores on the processor.. Where do you get you're information from?


    why are my frames what they are? Idk, going by any benchmarks done theyre right where they should be.

    As far as 8350 getting better. No, its really only going to stay where it is now. Unless you overclock the chip nothings going to get better about it. Games will use more cores, yes they might. But amd cores are weak, and in two years, i'd bet 8350 games well below an i3. as of now, most games a haswell i3 beats out 8350.

    Don't get me wrong, im not dissing the fx, I have one and render with it which is why I chose it. Got mine up to 5.0 stable and with good voltage. Up to 5.2 with crazy volts and horrible heat as well. But in two years, why would you 'upgrade' from a 6300 to a 8350? even now I wouldn't upgrade. In two years devils canyon will be out and will smoke the fx.
Ask a new question

Read More

Systems