if you use a smart mix of the settings you will achieve a level which you really can't tell the difference between that and a full ultra preset. shadow detail is probably the most useless fps dragging option. set it at medium and it looks almost the same as ultra but you gain a lot more fps. instead of using full blown AA turn it to x2. you really see a difference when you go from low shadows to medium and past that its pretty tough high will look a little better but between high / ultra is almost 100% the same. how much do you really focus in on shadows anyway when you play? if that shadow isn't quiet as dark but its still smooth and looks right does it really really matter? You also will notice a big difference from no AA to x2 and then not really a noticeable difference between 2 and 4 however you will run more fps with it on 2. x2 and x8 is slightly noticeable if your sitting still trying to see it, but then again how often are you doing that?
I run arma around 50+fps with a mixture like this using a r9 270x and i-3 3220. the 2 cards are nearly the same but your processor will get full use from yours so you will get even higher. that max viewing distance will adjust this some though because i have never turned it all the way up usually about 70% and it does slow it down a little the higher it goes. when you get everything set up put the detail levels to ultra and then adjust the other settings and look and what exactly they will give you in visuals and also how many fps they knock off. if the gain isn't enough to justify a large chunk of fps then so what its just not worth it and really it's something you probably won't even notice the next day. I see so many people get caught up things like i need to be able to max this game out 100% on full ultra settings even though i'm only using a 24" 1080p display. smaller screen will make the difference even less noticeable. I have my cpu going to a 47" 1080 tv and arma 3 looks phenomenal with a mixture like this.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram