I need your opinion

Solution
The third one is the most powerful, I wouldn't go with the first one at least because the 760 isn't strong enough to handle ARMA 3 on full ultra. What you may want to think about doing though is going with either a 780 or R9 280X instead of a 770 though. This may seem strange, especially coming from a 770 owner, however ARMA 3 uses huge maps and requires massive expanses of textures to be loaded into the GPU's memory at once, taking up a lot of VRAM. That's why a card with 3GB VRAM could possibly benefit in this situation. And no, a 4GB GTX 770 won't make any difference either, the 770 uses a 256-bit memory bus interface, which severly limits the memory bandwidth capabilities, essentially making the 4GB model perform exactly the same as...

apcs13

Honorable
Oct 2, 2013
960
0
11,360
The third one is the most powerful, I wouldn't go with the first one at least because the 760 isn't strong enough to handle ARMA 3 on full ultra. What you may want to think about doing though is going with either a 780 or R9 280X instead of a 770 though. This may seem strange, especially coming from a 770 owner, however ARMA 3 uses huge maps and requires massive expanses of textures to be loaded into the GPU's memory at once, taking up a lot of VRAM. That's why a card with 3GB VRAM could possibly benefit in this situation. And no, a 4GB GTX 770 won't make any difference either, the 770 uses a 256-bit memory bus interface, which severly limits the memory bandwidth capabilities, essentially making the 4GB model perform exactly the same as the 2GB model.

If you can't spring for a 780 without lowering the CPU?, don't do it. A really strong CPU is most important for ARMA, and the 4790K is especially great because you can overclock the crap out of it for even stronger performance.

Build 3 is probably the best bet.
 
Solution