# DarkXess :
i5 is working fine for me, the i5-4690K in fact, no problems at all. They say that AMD isnt the way to go for gaming so the FX cards I would not recommend. If you want decent graphics then got for a GTX card maybe something like a 960, 970, or 980 should do you just fine for playing A3.
Welcome to Armaholic 
I have no reason to buy Nvidia, considering the 390 is slightly less than a 970 and has wayyyyy more horsepower. Physx is a joke as well. Nvidia also has worse drivers at this point in time. (Yay Radeon crimson) HD 7950 is more than enough to max all the games I have at 1080p. (Gta, bf4. arma 3 has massive cpu caused gpu bottleneck, gpu gets 30% usage, still gets 30fps. By myself (solo altis, editor) I can get 70-120+ fps ultra, which shows gpu is bottlenecked by my CPU and that's specifically why I made the topic regarding the cpu...)
Note : I reread what you said; people that say amd isn't for gaming are fanboys... Come on, in most games, fx-8350 gets at most 10fps less than 4790k, and the fx is from 2011, the i7 from 2014. Obviously the fx is gonna show age. I only consider intel cpu's because I do a lot of heavy work, like animation and mapping. I need a little more horsepower for some things.
Besides, Nvidia always comes out with something new after AMD catches up again. 290 is about the same as a 970, but performs slightly worse, and AMD gets talked shit about. The 290 was 780 competitor. 390 is 970 competitor and it stomps on 970... Fanboys just love to cry about everything to make the other company look worse. Cpuboss and gpuboss consist of these people.
Did you really just call Radeons an FX? I'm not sure if you're confused or know that little about the company. No disrespect, just saying.