CPU cores

[cotoi 1]

I recently get a new 3750K. My question is if Arma 3 is optimizerd for 4, 6 or 8 core CPU? At this moment I got only 4 and I want to know if I need more because I want to use Arma 3 at it's full potential. Tnx.

p.s.

if it is made for 16 core f..k it I don't have that kind of money for a CPU :D

[white 1]

I recently get a new 3750K. My question is if Arma 3 is optimizerd for 4, 6 or 8 core CPU? At this moment I got only 4 and I want to know if I need more because I want to use Arma 3 at it's full potential. Tnx.

p.s.

if it is made for 16 core f..k it I don't have that kind of money for a CPU :D

arma is able to use more cores but it mainly uses 2 cores max. you can test it by disabling the extra cores and get no loss in fps.

what drives the game is the first core running the games major thread, and its also what bottlenecks other cores/gpu.

[Leon86 13]

3570K is a good choice for arma 3

[dnk 13]

2-4 cores is what the game currently works well with - 6/8 should be fine, but don't expect extra performance from the extra cores. GHz will be important, so aim for 3GHz+. A newer i5/i7 would be best. AMDs supposedly have more issues than Intels. The devs may hammer out some of the thread issues by final release, though, so by then the 6/8 cores might be of more use. Probably a 4-core will suit you well enough anyway if it's fairly new and fast enough.

I'm using a 3350P, and it runs fine CPU-wise (usually around 50%), though the GPU is another story... That i5 is a really good budget buy if you have a dedicated GPU, which I assume you do, and it can be upgraded to a better Ivy down the road, too, if in a couple years you find it wanting.

[EDcase 87]

I have an i7 2600k at 4Ghz and I just tested -cpuCount=4 and =2

I got better fps when set to 2 :butbut:

FPS was a bit more erratic (going up and down a bit more) but it was higher overall and peaked about 10fps higher than I got on 4

Will keep testing to make sure its not placebo effect...

NOTE: ARMA will NOT benefit from more than 4 cores and may actually run a bit worse.

Edited April 17, 2013 by EDcase

[sproyd 2]

I have an i7 2600k at 4Ghz and I just tested -cpuCount=4 and =2

I got better fps when set to 2 :butbut:

FPS was a bit more erratic (going up and down a bit more) but it was higher overall and peaked about 10fps higher than I got on 4

ARMA will NOT benefit from more than 4 cores and may actually run a bit worse.

dafuq?

[EDcase 87]

Probably since its not optimized yet. (Optimizing comes at the end when everything is working properly)

Update:

Well, it definitely helps for me to use -cpuCount=2

Tested on several missions

Edited April 17, 2013 by EDcase

[MasterDon 10]

I wish for Arma III's CPU performance to improve over time regardless

[BrandonJFlowe 10]

I recently get a new 3750K. My question is if Arma 3 is optimizerd for 4, 6 or 8 core CPU? At this moment I got only 4 and I want to know if I need more because I want to use Arma 3 at it's full potential. Tnx.

p.s.

if it is made for 16 core f..k it I don't have that kind of money for a CPU :D

Minimum:

OS:Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 SP1

Processor:Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz

Memory:2 GB RAM

Graphics:NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT or AMD Radeon HD 3830 or Intel HD Graphics 4000 with 512 MB VRAM

DirectX®:10

Hard Drive:10 GB HD space

Sound:DirectX®-compatible

Recommended:

OS:Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 SP1

Processor:Intel Core i5-2300 or AMD Phenom II X4 940 or better

Memory:4 GB RAM

Graphics:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 or AMD Radeon HD 7750 with 1 GB VRAM or better

DirectX®:11

Hard Drive:20 GB HD space

Sound:DirectX®-compatible

[Ghillie 10]

I recently get a new 3750K. My question is if Arma 3 is optimizerd for 4, 6 or 8 core CPU? At this moment I got only 4 and I want to know if I need more because I want to use Arma 3 at it's full potential. Tnx.

p.s.

if it is made for 16 core f..k it I don't have that kind of money for a CPU :D

16 core processors are made specifically for server builds, not gaming.

And a quad core processor is the minimum recommended requirement for the game.

So anything in the AMD FX series (4100+) should run it fine.

Intel i5 series at least.

[white 1]

check this cpu chart:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Alpha/test/arma%203%20proz%20h.jpg (124 kB)

an i3 dual core going head to head with an i7 2600k.

that shows how many cores the game uses.

[cotoi 1]

check this cpu chart:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Alpha/test/arma%203%20proz%20h.jpg (124 kB)

an i3 dual core going head to head with an i7 2600k.

that shows how many cores the game uses.

did you ever take a sec to look at that link 18 fps min vs 28min, and 28 vs 43? it you get 1.5 to 1.7 times better fps (that is 50-60% better with i7) and you call that head to head?

[xXxatrush1987 10]

i think he mean the new i3 3xxx series and not the very old i3 3xx series.

i would recommend to look at this chart here as it better show what your cpu will perform like:

http://i.imgur.com/R9KuQPR.jpg

best cpu for arma will be the one after broadwell, with ddr4, as arma loves bandwith since arma 1.

[white 1]

i think he mean the new i3 3xxx series and not the very old i3 3xx series.

exactly.

did you ever take a sec to look at that link 18 fps min vs 28min, and 28 vs 43? it you get 1.5 to 1.7 times better fps (that is 50-60% better with i7) and you call that head to head?

of course cpu design makes a difference, but pay more attention next time before posting.