Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Able to MAX out BF3, Skyrim, and Arma 2?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 21, 2012 1:00:47 AM

Hello all, I am building a custom pc from iBuyPower.com.

This is what I have so far:

i5-3570k (there is not a difference from the i7-3770k when playing games, correct?)

10% Overclock (iBuyPower service)

EVGA GTX 670 4GB (chose 4gb as I read modded skyrim can go over the other 670 2gb limit)

ASUS ASUS P8Z77-V PRO Motherboard

8GB Kingston HyperX RAM
___________________________________________________________________

For cooling I have the stock 7 120mm fans that come with the Antec DF-85,

the Corsair Hydro H60 Liquid Cooling CPU System, with an extra Fan (iBuyPower bundle)

The PSU is a Thermaltake 850 Watt W0319RU model

___________________________________________________________________


So.. is this enough for running 1920x1080 resolution BF3, Skyrim, and Arma 2 MAX Settings? (I understand barely any computer can run Arma 2 at MAX settings, but does this setup get me High to Very High settings at 60fps?)

Thanks everyone!

More about : max bf3 skyrim arma

July 21, 2012 1:31:44 AM

This system should MAX nearly any game on the market ATM,
check out this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScQRQPypXs4 this person is running a similar gtx 570 and is maxing out ARMA 2. You will be fine with the i5, there is a difference compared to the i7 but is minimal and cost/performance would just not be worth it. I say go for it.
July 21, 2012 8:11:42 AM

Thanks for your reply!
Related resources
July 21, 2012 9:43:48 AM

This computer should handle most games at very high settings.

Most likely, the GTX 670 4GB will not hold any performance gains over the 2GB.

I would probably look into a different PSU and cooling myself, but it's not really a problem.

July 21, 2012 10:01:43 AM

I have that same GPU and CPU, I run BF3 on Ultra Graphics at 200 FPS. The card itself is a little OP for any game on the market, hence the reason I bought it. I do have 16GB of ram, but even with BF3 running, it never goes above 6gb. I didn't even OC, and it runs smooth as can be. I did, however, limit the FPS in BF3, because my GPU is too powerful for my monitor, and there's excessive screen tearing, and it was rather annoying. I just locked the FPS at 60, if you care to know the amount.

July 21, 2012 11:29:21 AM

There is no way a GTX 670 would average 200 FPS in BF3 at ultra graphics, more like average 60 at a standard 1080p.

Just limiting FPS does not remove tearing at all, VSync does.

With a GTX 670, you should disable MSAA in order to maintain above 60 FPS most of the time.
July 21, 2012 11:40:18 AM

Avaruz said:
There is no way a GTX 670 would average 200 FPS in BF3 at ultra graphics, more like average 60 at a standard 1080p.

Just limiting FPS does not remove tearing at all, VSync does.

With a GTX 670, you should disable MSAA in order to maintain above 60 FPS most of the time.


Perhaps you're thinking of a 570 (with regard to the MSAA bit). The 670 has enough speed and available VRAM to run 4x MSAA in most games without dropping fps below 60. The only exception to that would be something like Arkham City that was just coded poorly to begin with.

You're right about a 670 getting about 60 fps with 4x msaa and ultra settings at 1080 in BF3 though. 60 will be about the lowest fps and avg will be around 80 on most maps.

OP, there will always be games that you can't literally "max" with current hardware, even hardware as nice as your own. Examples would be Witcher 2, Arma 2 (if you max the number of units on the field), and there will be some games with mod-packs that make them too intense to literally max out and maintain 60 fps, although you would get better fps in those situations than most people.
July 21, 2012 2:04:20 PM

casualcolors said:
Perhaps you're thinking of a 570 (with regard to the MSAA bit). The 670 has enough speed and available VRAM to run 4x MSAA in most games without dropping fps below 60. The only exception to that would be something like Arkham City that was just coded poorly to begin with.

You're right about a 670 getting about 60 fps with 4x msaa and ultra settings at 1080 in BF3 though. 60 will be about the lowest fps and avg will be around 80 on most maps.


First you say I am wrong, then you say I'm right?

No, I know what I am talking about. An average of 60 FPS means it goes even lower from time to time, which can be considered annoying.

The 570 would get you about 40 FPS average.
July 21, 2012 2:10:42 PM

Avaruz said:
First you say I am wrong, then you say I'm right?

No, I know what I am talking about. An average of 60 FPS means it goes even lower from time to time, which can be considered annoying.

The 570 would get you about 40 FPS average.


I specified that you were only wrong about one bit, and clarified that the rest of your post was accurate and that I agreed with it so that someone wouldn't read my reply and jump to the conclusion that your entire post was wrong (because it wasn't).

I also specified directly that solely in regard to the part of your post that referred to MSAA in the most obtuse manner, that what you said would be true if you were talking about a 570 instead of a 670, since the 570 only has 1.28gb VRAM and that does actually limit how many games you can implement 4x MSAA in. The same doesn't apply to the 670 which has an adequate amount of VRAM. So when you say "a 570 would get 40 fps", since I wasn't pointing to any game in particular and neither were you in your first post, 40 fps in what?

Ironically, I was very clear in my response to your post to help it retain relevance in all the points where it was correct, in the fear that someone coming here for help would read a slightly negative response to you and write you off entirely. In the end, the only person with a severe lack of reading comprehension was you, apparently.
July 21, 2012 2:18:35 PM

The GPU known as GTX 570 would give you 40 FPS average in the game Battlefield 3, at the highest graphical settings allowed by in-game settings, with a monitor set to the resolution of 1920x1080.

What I mean to say is that if I were so unfortunate to own a GTX 670 GPU, I would disable MSAA, in order to maintain above 60 FPS most of the time, which would allow me to use VSync and avoid tearing. An average of 60 FPS in not the same as minimum 60 FPS.
July 21, 2012 2:27:36 PM

Avaruz said:
The GPU known as GTX 570 would give you 40 FPS average in the game Battlefield 3, at the highest graphical settings allowed by in-game settings, with a monitor set to the resolution of 1920x1080.

What I mean to say is that if I were so unfortunate to own a GTX 670 GPU, I would disable MSAA, in order to maintain above 60 FPS most of the time, which would allow me to use VSync and avoid tearing. An average of 60 FPS in not the same as minimum 60 FPS.


There wouldn't be any reason to disable MSAA entirely at 1920x1080 with a 670 in any title currently on the market though. I can appreciate your lust for 60 fps because I'm the same way, and so is everyone else on this forum who contributes regularly, but the 670 has the speed and enough VRAM to hold 60 fps in Battlefield 3 for instance, with ultra settings and 4x MSAA. To reflect on the 570, even it is fast enough technically to achieve that feat, but it suffers from the standard 1.28gb VRAM (where Battlefield 3 with 4x MSAA uses about 1.5-1.65 gb of VRAM under the most intense situations). In other words, the logic behind what you're saying is right, but it doesn't apply to the 670 specifically since that card is actually fast enough and has enough physical memory to run the same games with 4x MSAA that a 680 would. The things that are off-limits to the 670 (things like Witcher 2 ubersampling as an example) are also off-limits to every other single-gpu card on the market at the moment.


Just to make it more clear: when you say "if I were unfortunate enough to own a 670", the same circumstances that would drive a 670 under 60 fps will do the same to a 680 and a 7970. In other words, you're saying that you have a 690, 590, 6990, or an sli setup of 570/6970 or better cards. If you do that's great, but that also constitutes less than 1% of the PC gaming community and still wouldn't validate your critique of the 670 which is legitimately wrong.
July 21, 2012 2:37:49 PM

You are still not listening. It will AVERAGE 60 FPS, but will drop below half the time.
July 21, 2012 3:31:26 PM

Avaruz said:
You are still not listening. It will AVERAGE 60 FPS, but will drop below half the time.


The lowest fps that I saw in BF3 multiplayer on my friend's 670 rig (with an i7 920 cpu) with ultra settings and 4x msaa was 56 fps on Caspian, for a span of less than 10 seconds. I've listened to you, but my experience with the actual hardware indicates that you're just wrong. And to expand further on that, like I said before the options that are off limits to a 670 (as in your fps will drop to an unsuitable degree of sustained fps below 60) are the same options that will have the same effect regardless of single-gpu video card, for the time being.

You seem to be adopting the Bill O'Reilly mode of discussion where the louder and more often you say something, the more valid it somehow becomes.
July 21, 2012 4:58:31 PM

Ok... so as long as I can get min 50 fps on Battlefield 3 Ultra, 1920x1080 with MSAAx4
I will be happy..

But for Arma 2 ? Can I run at high settings with good fps?
July 21, 2012 5:12:27 PM

StefanSS123 said:
Ok... so as long as I can get min 50 fps on Battlefield 3 Ultra, 1920x1080 with MSAAx4
I will be happy..

But for Arma 2 ? Can I run at high settings with good fps?


When this forum tested Arma 2, the deciding factor was actually how many units were in play. Worth noting is that with a high number of units and the game maxed out, the game ran slower than Witcher 2 when that game was fully maxed, making it officially the most demanding video game when all things are said and done. So, under most circumstances Arma 2 should run fine regardless of graphics setting (its graphics engine isn't remarkable in the first place), but the game is capable of generating situations where no amount of hardware will run it sufficiently. With the game made as demanding as possible by the tester, he managed to average 19 fps on an i7-2600k/ati 7970.

That's what you should bear in mind regarding Arma.
July 21, 2012 9:52:34 PM

I have a very similar system and whoever said you can max BF3 with over 200fps is insane.

In BF3 @ 1920x1080 with all settings Max, expect 55-65 fps average.

There will be drops down to around 45-50 on some maps, in some areas - Im talking really specific areas such as looking over Strike at Karkand from high point (or any non vanilla map), or deep in the forest on Caspian Border.

If you're like me and staying at 60fps is paramount then go for High settings instead of Ultra, but still use 4xMSAA. The difference in quality isnt noticeable, but the difference in fps is.
July 21, 2012 10:01:32 PM

Gallarian said:
I have a very similar system and whoever said you can max BF3 with over 200fps is insane.

In BF3 @ 1920x1080 with all settings Max, expect 55-65 fps average.

There will be drops down to around 45-50 on some maps, in some areas - Im talking really specific areas such as looking over Strike at Karkand from high point (or any non vanilla map), or deep in the forest on Caspian Border.

If you're like me and staying at 60fps is paramount then go for High settings instead of Ultra, but still use 4xMSAA. The difference in quality isnt noticeable, but the difference in fps is.


Maybe he meant 200 fps in the locker room on Metro or something. Terrible way to measure fps, but you can get fps about that high in some of the areas with incredibly short and narrow draw distances.
July 21, 2012 10:08:13 PM

casualcolors said:
Maybe he meant 200 fps in the locker room on Metro or something. Terrible way to measure fps, but you can get fps about that high in some of the areas with incredibly short and narrow draw distances.


Aye, figured as much. I realise those frames are possible, but when people quote FPS figures, you expect them to be averages - seems unfair to get some ones hopes up about expected performance, only for them to feel disappointed when they run it.
July 21, 2012 10:21:22 PM

Gallarian said:
Aye, figured as much. I realise those frames are possible, but when people quote FPS figures, you expect them to be averages - seems unfair to get some ones hopes up about expected performance, only for them to feel disappointed when they run it.


Yeah. Really, it would be best if people quoted minimums, since that's what people really care about when they're asking about what performance to expect.
August 19, 2012 7:15:34 AM

Well guys, if you ever wanted an update. I got my pc, but I decided to build it myself.

Battlefield 3 on Ultra 1920x1080 averages 75 fps.

However, Arma II on Very High averages around 35 fps in cities, and a bit higher in the woods with less units.

I am extremely frusutrated with Arma II's performance. Several online benchmarks I have read stated you would receive 50fps minimum w/ Arma II and this card, which is not my case.

Skyrim I haven't tried yet.
August 19, 2012 11:32:16 AM

StefanSS123 said:
Well guys, if you ever wanted an update. I got my pc, but I decided to build it myself.

Battlefield 3 on Ultra 1920x1080 averages 75 fps.

However, Arma II on Very High averages around 35 fps in cities, and a bit higher in the woods with less units.

I am extremely frusutrated with Arma II's performance. Several online benchmarks I have read stated you would receive 50fps minimum w/ Arma II and this card, which is not my case.

Skyrim I haven't tried yet.


Vanilla ARMA II or DAYZ? I get lower performance with DAYZ as do many people. Even with Vanilla ARMA II people cant really state FPS numbers as its very very dependent on the session in play at the time.
August 19, 2012 6:08:03 PM

Vanilla Arma II in the battle for cherno, is now from 27fps to 34 fps. When turning rapidly in some cases the frame rate drops to 17 fps for a brief second.

DayZ in cities like Elektro (haven't been in cherno) gets me an avg. of about 32 fps.

And just tested skyrim, 60 fps all the way through, highest settings with a bunch of mods.
August 19, 2012 6:19:48 PM

That sounds right for ARMA II
August 19, 2012 6:21:39 PM

What do you get? Since I see you have the 670 as well.
August 19, 2012 6:41:19 PM

Depends entirely on the amount of units in play medium busy server for DayZ in elektro around the 30 mark when maxed out

I hate low FPS so I tend to play any game with lowered settings to avoid any dips. I play BF3 at medium lol
August 19, 2012 6:42:10 PM

Strange. I average 75 fps on BF3 ultra 1920x1080...

Unless you are playing at a different setting?
August 19, 2012 6:50:49 PM

I have a 670 too and to stay above 60fps at all time, I play BF3 on High + 4xMSAA, but turn off Ambient Occlusion.

August 19, 2012 6:52:44 PM

StefanSS123 said:
Strange. I average 75 fps on BF3 ultra 1920x1080...

Unless you are playing at a different setting?


average but go on a b2k map or a cq map that is really hectic and see all the tiny dips (they drive me nuts and I know its irrational), that plus whatever i have running on other monitor
August 19, 2012 6:53:52 PM

wr6133, you should be able to max out bf3 and get great frame rates for bf3 with the 670. It would be a pain to spend $400 on a gpu to play bf3 at medium Lol.

Arma II, whatever. Arma III is coming out soon, which will hopefully be better optimized, and DayZ is going standalone. If my stupid teamates enjoy standing in the middle of the street while a sniper is shooting at them, they can go ahead and do that. But I won't be playing Arma II again.
August 19, 2012 6:56:25 PM

StefanSS123 said:
wr6133, you should be able to max out bf3 and get great frame rates for bf3 with the 670. It would be a pain to spend $400 on a gpu to play bf3 at medium Lol.

Arma II, whatever. Arma III is coming out soon, which will hopefully be better optimized, and DayZ is going standalone. If my stupid teamates enjoy standing in the middle of the street while a sniper is shooting at them, they can go ahead and do that. But I won't be playing Arma II again.


your one of many to tell me this but i rage at dips so rather run it lower.... I turn down MW3 too lol

EDIT* even my wife wonders why i spent £300 for games to look almost same as on a 550ti
August 20, 2012 12:10:07 AM

wr6133 said:
your one of many to tell me this but i rage at dips so rather run it lower.... I turn down MW3 too lol

EDIT* even my wife wonders why i spent £300 for games to look almost same as on a 550ti


You have a 670 and turn down MW3? Are you running 120hz and trying to keep 120 fps?
August 20, 2012 8:09:16 AM

no 60Hz

MW3 I know is crazy as maxed out it gets well over 60 FPS call me eccentric maybe I got used to it lowered from when I had a crap card, I also play this sometimes on the wifes machine that still has a crap card so its a case of keeping it the same for familiarity partly.

BF3 at ultra with X4AA see's dips down to 54/55 FPS now I know to most people thats ok but I get picky as hell so I dropped to high settings, I then found if recording I was again getting occasional dips so I dropped it to medium when I was recording. Now constantly flicking between the 2 settings is a pain in the ass, as theres little visual difference to differentiate them I just leave it sat on medium.

Only games I max out are RTS, MMO and RPG types FPS games I just go for high FPS (no dips under 60). Maybe if Piledriver offers a CPU that wouldn't bottleneck an SLi setup (don't have alot of faith in this) I will SLi early next year then I will run BF3 on high ;) 

August 20, 2012 11:05:13 AM

Im with wr6133 - Im an absolute 60fps freak.

If my games dip below 60fps by even 1-2fps, I immediately notice and go looking for the reason why. I just cannot stand it.

GTX 670 + BF3 + Ultra + 4xMSAA + HBAO = Frequent FPS dips, so its just not for me.

High+4xMSAA = 60fps 98% of the time, so thats what I play at. It looks pretty much the same, with the only noticebale difference in AO (but Im not too fond of it anyway, the shadows that form around players and weapons look stupid)
August 20, 2012 7:29:12 PM

wr6133 said:
no 60Hz

MW3 I know is crazy as maxed out it gets well over 60 FPS call me eccentric maybe I got used to it lowered from when I had a crap card, I also play this sometimes on the wifes machine that still has a crap card so its a case of keeping it the same for familiarity partly.

BF3 at ultra with X4AA see's dips down to 54/55 FPS now I know to most people thats ok but I get picky as hell so I dropped to high settings, I then found if recording I was again getting occasional dips so I dropped it to medium when I was recording. Now constantly flicking between the 2 settings is a pain in the ass, as theres little visual difference to differentiate them I just leave it sat on medium.

Only games I max out are RTS, MMO and RPG types FPS games I just go for high FPS (no dips under 60). Maybe if Piledriver offers a CPU that wouldn't bottleneck an SLi setup (don't have alot of faith in this) I will SLi early next year then I will run BF3 on high ;) 


I'm in the same boat as you, in that I detest anything less than 60 fps. For me I guess the meta game is perfecting my settings and tweaks to get me on that fringe where my lowest fps is 61 lol.
August 20, 2012 11:33:35 PM

First of all.... 4gb is useless on pretty much every game.. I have a 2Gb 670 and i never hit above 1.8 gigs used (BF3 hit that)... the i5 will perform better than the i7 in games since hyperthreading somehow makes games perform slightly worse but I have the 3770k and i dont notice any lag in games... also to add to the debate way above about BF3 and the FPS I easily average 80 FPS in BF3....
August 21, 2012 12:14:25 AM

fallen_glory said:
First of all.... 4gb is useless on pretty much every game.. I have a 2Gb 670 and i never hit above 1.8 gigs used (BF3 hit that)... the i5 will perform better than the i7 in games since hyperthreading somehow makes games perform slightly worse but I have the 3770k and i dont notice any lag in games... also to add to the debate way above about BF3 and the FPS I easily average 80 FPS in BF3....


The reason hyperthreaded CPU's perform (very minimally) lower in some gaming benchmarks is because of the heat generated by hyperthreading. Disable it, and it's a comparably clocked i5 essentially.
August 21, 2012 1:51:12 PM

fallen_glory said:
First of all.... 4gb is useless on pretty much every game.. I have a 2Gb 670 and i never hit above 1.8 gigs used (BF3 hit that)... the i5 will perform better than the i7 in games since hyperthreading somehow makes games perform slightly worse but I have the 3770k and i dont notice any lag in games... also to add to the debate way above about BF3 and the FPS I easily average 80 FPS in BF3....



So you average 80, but do you get drops to around 50 on some maps?

That debate isnt about average fps, its whether to use settings that will eradicate any drop below 60fps or not.
!