Video Card Poll

[zecele 211]

How does that compare to when you play on an Arma2 wasteland server?

I don't play Arma 2 Wasteland so i wouldn't know but i assume it would be fine.

[zecele 211]

The thing is, the people it doesn't run well for are the people that will be posting so you won't be reading hundreds of posts of people telling you that it runs just fine for them. Anyhoo, I can only say it as I see it, for me personally it runs far better and my friends report the same. I have read the issues many others have had though so I know it's not great for everyone. I hope they carry on optimising as they continue to build the game.

Part of the alpha process is to record player experiences/performance issues and address those as they move forward. Arma 3 is always going to be a very demanding game I just hope they manage to get everyone having a good consistent experience by the time it's fully released.

My main point is that for a game that is being built for pc gamers they really need too work on optimizing their games even if it is in alpha thats not really any excuse. Arma 3 should be in beta soon so i will wait for improvement.

[aussiebobby 82]

Ive got a HD6850 oc to about 6870 performance so no.

But as others have said, with the Arma/dayz engines CPU is far more important than GPU.

Iv just been doing some benchmarks and I used a 6850( MSI R6850) and a GT 630 and two cpu's.

I used the GT630 2gig($63 AU) with a FX8350 and a run through cherno...store, fire station,hospital ect

Frames: 23387 - Time: 677262ms - Avg: 34.532 -

phenom 955 BE OC 3.8 GT630

Frames: 8757 - Time: 369021ms - Avg: 18.730 -

CPU makes a big difference here

phenom 955 BE OC 3.6 and 6850 and run through Electro same as above but got into a AI/bot gun fight

Frames: 80035 - Time: 1743202ms - Avg: 45.913 - Min: 5 - Max: 64

Ill put the 6850 in the FX8350 and see how it goes tomorrow,

Edited June 3, 2013 by AussieBobby

[DazTroyer 227]

Shadows, grass and foliage dissappear at around 50m so it won't have a massive effect on gameplay imo, the number of guys I've killed because they think their hidden in the grass, lol. I started playing with a gtx 560ti 448 and could play on high settings, i now have a gtx 680 and there isn't a massive leap in frame rate or graphics, the Arma 2 engine just isn't optimized enough. To many players worry as it is about being able to play DayZ without setting higher min settings, you will just scare them off and lower the player base.

[diddums 3760]

I'm running a 2500k @ stock, 8gb 1600mhz, and a 2gb 6950 with all the shader goodness unlocked. Sometimes I clock the nuts off of it but even at standard clocks, I get at least 40fps on very high. I usually turn the game down to high when in Cherno and whatnot, just to keep it fluid.

I just don't understand it, there are people playing with rigs that would piss all over mine, yet their FPS is so much lower.

[zecele 211]

Also word of advise would be to run ramdisk with DayZ gives a good performance increase.

[Mos1ey 6301]

'Cheating with low graphics settings'

You'd think it wasn't available to everyone.

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

My main point is that for a game that is being built for pc gamers they really need too work on optimizing their games even if it is in alpha thats not really any excuse. Arma 3 should be in beta soon so i will wait for improvement.

I agree. I remember seeing one of the Arma 3 devs being interviewed a while ago and he said optimisation is one of their top priorities, whether they can pull it off or not is another matter though.

I do think being in alpha is a half decent excuse/reason for some of the issues they've had so far though regarding optimisation, that's one of the very reasons for having an alpha/beta period, to optimise the game. It's their own engine and is being developed constantly, alpha testing is an important part of that process because it's the only way to get feedback from players running many different set-ups, when you take part in an alpha test you accept that the game is still in heavy development. Without that the issues can't be noted/addressed.

If the game makes it to full release and it's still badly optimised for many then that would be a shame and it would also mean their reputation of not optimising very well will continue, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Fraggle

[Ivanuvo (DayZ) 117]

Cheating with low graphics settings isn't really limited to people with bad setups. I personally own a 650 Ti, and run Arma 2 fine at the highest settings, but I could set them all to the lowest if I really wanted to. GTX 660 seems a bit of a high standard in my opinion, you could still run it fine with slightly lower quality cards.

My card is admittedly relatively close to the 660, but you don't need the 660 to run Arma 2 well. 30 FPS is a bit on the low side for that card though, isn't it?

[m.cab 83]

Got a GTX 450 (~110,- €) and i am perfectly able to play with very good settings.

I hope this doesnt sound arrogant but if you cant affort a hundred bucks for a video card you should not play games on PC... :|

And btw the people who put their settings to that super minimum "cheat-settings" abuse game mechanics and just SUCK!

Edited June 4, 2013 by m.cab

[zecele 211]

Cheating with low graphics settings isn't really limited to people with bad setups. I personally own a 650 Ti, and run Arma 2 fine at the highest settings, but I could set them all to the lowest if I really wanted to. GTX 660 seems a bit of a high standard in my opinion, you could still run it fine with slightly lower quality cards.

My card is admittedly relatively close to the 660, but you don't need the 660 to run Arma 2 well. 30 FPS is a bit on the low side for that card though, isn't it?

With a gtx 660 on DayZ with Ramdisk i easily get 50-60 fps out in the woods etc and 40 in cities. Though i have a GTX 660 Twin Frozr 2GB which is pretty much the best GTX 660 available and is pretty close to a 660 TI. If i upgraded to a gtx 660 ti i would only see like a 3 fps difference.

[nixxel 0]

I just started playing DayZ this past week and its one of the best gaming experiences I've had, in fact i'm kind of embarrased how many hours i've put in already...

Anyway, I'm running a gtx560 non-ti and trying to work with the settings to find a good balance between visuals and performance. Overall my settings are mostly set to 'normal' some 'high', but i'm wanting to purchase a new card this month.

i'm trying to decide between 660ti or 7950. Any suggestions or recommendations would be appreciated.

[colekern 1364]

If the real virtuality engine actually used your computers full capability ot would a lot better, but it doesn't, it only uses about 40%.

[reidloS doG 38]

I had a PC that used a AMD Athlon X4 630 and Radeon HD 4890, with 1200x800 (not exactly the ratio, but I can't remember off the top of my head) and I received a consistent 30-40+ frame rate. Only went below 30 FPS with recording.

The settings were default high.

I do not support minimum graphic settings. At long distances it doesn't matter at all if you have "very high" or "low" settings, it still looks like crap. I always get the feeling that close combat happens with two people knowing it is happening. Because of the large view distance, far away battles take place a lot.

Edited June 3, 2013 by reidloS doG

[Cap'n (DayZ) 1827]

I got a 7870 Tahiti, and I've overclocked the hell out of it to where I'm getting better performance than a stock 7950. And I paid 50 bucks less :) And I think the only settings that should be locked is foliage, and it should be locked at low/normal.

[Cap'n (DayZ) 1827]

I just started playing DayZ this past week and its one of the best gaming experiences I've had, in fact i'm kind of embarrased how many hours i've put in already...

Anyway, I'm running a gtx560 non-ti and trying to work with the settings to find a good balance between visuals and performance. Overall my settings are mostly set to 'normal' some 'high', but i'm wanting to purchase a new card this month.

i'm trying to decide between 660ti or 7950. Any suggestions or recommendations would be appreciated.

7950, cheaper and near equal performance. And you can overclock it to where its better than a 660 Ti(Nvidia cards are locked).

[Death_Dealer 3155]

Upgrading from a 660 to a 660 Ti is not worth the extra money imo.

You won't get much out of it.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Death Dealer

[simfreek@hotmail.com 48]

Another reason for why I put that link up, is for those who are thinking of an upgrade, can look at how the stats are and decide if dropping the money is worth what ever gain they are getting.

I don't agree with locking graphics settings. My own gaming rig is a 2008 rig. Core 2 Duo, on an socket that was discontinued a year later. So no more upgrade option. I'm at the point I need to buy a new system. But right now, the dropping of a grand for a new CPU, MOBO and RAM isn't in my budget right now. So I still am using the rig. It does pretty desent. I have the HD 6870 becuase the HD 4870 (just released at the time of construction) fried while playing DayZ... in the middle of electro.

I bought the 6870 for 80 bucks off Ebay. It was used when I bought it but the vendor had a very good reputation with a return policy. At the time of buying it, it was worth 215 on the market. Right now that same card brand new is worth about USD 190.00 ish. When I build the new rig, I will be content with the 6870 for a couple of more years.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Theonis

[aussiebobby 82]

FX8350 and 6850 vsync off, run through cherno and AI/bot gun fight

Frames: 145366 - Time: 2770188ms - Avg: 52.475 - Min: 1 - Max: 64

Xfire 6850s next

I dont know why some are having problems with is game as with the AMD phenom 955 and 6850 is a low end cheap rig,but runs the game at an playable level.

I do have a 120 gig SSD,and being so small you tend to keep it tidy,and that might be the problem with some are having, 500GB of junk on their pc

[fluxley 2228]

FX8350 and 6850 vsync off, run through cherno and AI/bot gun fight

Frames: 145366 - Time: 2770188ms - Avg: 52.475 - Min: 1 - Max: 64

Xfire 6850s next

I dont know why some are having problems with is game as with the AMD phenom 955 and 6850 is a low end cheap rig,but runs the game at an playable level.

I do have a 120 gig SSD,and being so small you tend to keep it tidy,and that might be the problem with some are having, 500GB of junk on their pc

I think the ssd probably plays a big role, I've read arma accesses the hard drive a lot when loading up textures

,

With a fx4100 o.c to 4.2ghz, an msi R6850 and 12gb 1600mhz ram i was lucky to get an average of 25-30 frames running through cherno or elektro.

But i only have a standard 7200rpm hard drive. pretty sure thats where the bottle neck was.

need to try ramdisk one of these days.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Fluxley

[s4pphire 45]

It doesn't take a 660+ to run the game at decent settings so this poll is completely useless. I've seen the game run perfectly fine on 5850s which cost less than 100 on Ebay as long as it's coupled with a CPU that wasn't harvested from a WWII battlefield.

It's really simple; lock the important settings such as grass, trees and player view distance (everything beyond is cosmetic so it's fine as it is at 1000, although slightly higher wouldn't hurt). In most cases this whole low settings crap is merely an excuse to get an advantage.

[dgeesio 1034]

simple matter is it wont be forced .

why because it would effect sales dramatically and thats why .

regardless of all the lalala people money wins everything.

so forcing people to play at certain settings doesnt happen in any game. game companies are struggling even on the very biggest games . so you think they are gunna risk there product not selling even more haha have a word with yourselves :lol:

[mzltv 2281]

Does your video card meet or exceed a GTX660 benchmark?

Yes.

[aussiestig 681]

If you change ATOC from disable to "All Tree's and Grass", you won't lose any more than a frame or 2. I personally think they need to pick a tree and grass setting, and enforce it. The performance gain of putting it on 0 is almost non-existent, and I feel like the game would benefit 10x more from having proper tree's, rather than 1-2 extra FPS.

Edited June 4, 2013 by AussieStig

[leviski 2152]

I have a gtx 670 so I'm going to assume its better than the 660........

Edit: I don't agree with forced settings at all by the way

I too have a GTX 670