will arma 3 use 8 cores

[dmoneymack 10]

i am planning on getting the fx 8350 since is has better performance than the i5 with applications that can use 8 threads and i was wondering if this game will use 8 cores or if it will only use 4 cores

[uber3999 10]

intel is stronger than amd in most situations... intel hasn't even released an 8 core(non server cpu) because amd's 8 core is weaker than intel's quad core and 6 core. 8 core is pretty much overkill.. unless you are video editing etc. a quad core with the hyper threading is the best right now imo.

But i do own a 3930k 6 core 12 threads and i've only seen battlefield use 80% of it. As of right now arma 3 only use's 1 core at about 70-75% while the other cores are about 20-30%. I overclocked my CPU to 4.5ghz in these slow cpu utilization applications the highest clock will beat more cores. My suggestion is to get intel with a good cooler get a 4-4.5 ghz clock out of it and you'll be fine. Also maybe a SSD? i know that helped with arma 2.

[Leon86 13]

see if you can find the answer here

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS

[dmoneymack 10]

thanks it did help they need to fix that i looked on youtube this guy had a 3930x and 2 gtx 680s in sli and got only 35fps u cant play a fps game with very low frames

---------- Post added at 21:28 ---------- Previous post was at 21:14 ----------

well a lot of newer games are said by a lot of people should b able to use 8 cores. plus 8 cores would be graet for me because i own a lot of simulators like xplane 10 and the makers say it will use every core, plus i use designing software so 8 cores wont b overkill for me i was just wondering how this game would use 8 cores.

are the game makers planning to fix that?

here it shows the 8350 beating intel in all the benchmarks except for Cinebench R10 32-Bit and the ones that test single threaded performance http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

[Sneakson 1]

Battlefield is pretty much the only game that uses as many cores as is possible nowadays.

[PuFu 4600]

intel is stronger than amd in most situations... intel hasn't even released an 8 core(non server cpu) because amd's 8 core is weaker than intel's quad core and 6 core. 8 core is pretty much overkill.. unless you are video editing etc. a quad core with the hyper threading is the best right now imo.

bang for buck, the 8530 is darn close to i7 when it comes to multi-threaded focused applications.

For gaming purposes, an i5 would suffice. But that said, for multi-media entry level workstation, the amd fx 8350 is way better choice.

(i have tested and compared the rigs in my signature, as well as a i7 3820 and i7 3930k i have at the office, with a 8350 driven rig we recently acquired from a non=gaming pov, the intel 4q/8t and the 8core amd are pretty darn close, while the price difference is pretty high)

Read what the OP desires from his rig.

i am planning on getting the fx 8350 since is has better performance than the i5 with applications that can use 8 threads and i was wondering if this game will use 8 cores or if it will only use 4 cores

it is a good CPU, really close to the i7 2600k i own on one of my hybrids rigs at home.

That said, Arma doesn't really scale all the way up to 8 cores/threads. Or it does, but not even close to what professional apps do. As previously said, frostbyte is the only engine out there that scales close to 100% on all cores/threads available.

[uber3999 10]

thanks it did help they need to fix that i looked on youtube this guy had a 3930x and 2 gtx 680s in sli and got only 35fps u cant play a fps game with very low frames

---------- Post added at 21:28 ---------- Previous post was at 21:14 ----------

well a lot of newer games are said by a lot of people should b able to use 8 cores. plus 8 cores would be graet for me because i own a lot of simulators like xplane 10 and the makers say it will use every core, plus i use designing software so 8 cores wont b overkill for me i was just wondering how this game would use 8 cores.

are the game makers planning to fix that?

here it shows the 8350 beating intel in all the benchmarks except for Cinebench R10 32-Bit and the ones that test single threaded performance http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

I find AMD usually wins or comes close to winning with benchmarks but with actual gameplay it doesn't seem to do so well. that's just what i've seen.

and i currently have a 3930k 4.5ghz and 2 670 ftw's sooo they have the same pcb as a 680. so i pretty much have 2 680's. i my fps ranges from 20-30-60-80. it really only drops under 30 if there are just way to many AI. My average is probably 40-50 but i have seen it peak at 80, again it all depends on the AI count and the mission from my experience. BUT my graphics cards are only ever peaked at 50% usage i've never seen them go above that. Average useage is about 20-30%

So raw speed will be best for this game right now get the highest clock you can. unless things change and the game uses the full power of what you have.

Edit: also PIP kills like 15-20 fps i usually disable that. but everything else is on ultra

Edited July 15, 2013 by uber3999

[Leon86 13]

frostbyte is the only engine out there that scales close to 100% on all cores/threads available.

it doesn't. cpu use may be close to 100% all the time, but in multiplayer a sixcore will not perform 50% better, more like 35%. still impressive of course.

[PuFu 4600]

it doesn't. cpu use may be close to 100% all the time, but in multiplayer a sixcore will not perform 50% better, more like 35%. still impressive of course.

My bad, 100% is indeed a deliberate exaggeration on my part to underline a point. Thus, I stand correct for factual reasons.

Even so, no matter of the multi-threaded application, my i7 4ghz 6c/12t is not 50% faster than my i7 4ghz 4c/8t cpu.

Your 35% translates in 70% efficiency, which is, as you said, still quite impresive

[ric 1]

8 cores? no...but ARMA4 will ;)

[PuFu 4600]

8 cores? no...but ARMA4 will ;)

...that's a maybe, especially if by that time 16 cores might be the norm

[ric 1]

...that's a maybe, especially if by that time 16 cores might be the norm

did you see the wink? ;) all kidding aside, i don't care if it uses 8 core but arma4 for had better use 4 effectively :)

[St. Jimmy 272]

I remember that 8 core AMD is pretty close in games to i7 2600K or i5 2500K and it's cheaper but Arma can be different story.

I'm interested if someone has benchmark between those in Arma.

[Valken 622]

Here is an article of AMD vs Intel Processors in BF3 which can use up to 8 threads:

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-ehd-game-test-gpu.html

And the same site testing GPU and CPU in ARMA3:

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-alpha-test-gpu.html

You need at least a 4.9 GHZ Quad core and 690 or 6990 to run at high settings @ 60 FPS consistently.

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

ArmA 3 has trouble using even four cores effectively, so no it will not take full advantage of eight.

[Colonel-ONeill 11]

I agree, most of the time it runs on 1 core

[KingScuba 1]

a lot of games and programs don't even take advantage of 4 core yet, much less 6 and 8 core....

[simon1279 52]

8 cores aren't supposed for gaming, there's no one game actually that uses 6 or 8 cores, also if you have a quad core with intel HT technology enabled, it's better to disable it in the BIOS, to prevent microstuttering wich can happens in almost every game, 4 cores is more than enough for gaming today

[WalkerDown 1]

More cores = better .. especially if your games struggles because of poor CPU power. Arma is one of those few games that would benefit of using multiple cores.. but unfortunately the very old engine doesn't even uses efficiently two of them. I would be satisfied already to see 4 cores used efficiently.... maybe ArmA4.. or ArmA5.. or 6... maybe they'll hire more coders one day.

[liquidpinky 11]

Can have A3 running fine on all 12 cores here, although they are hardly all being pushed much.

[chrisb 196]

Must admit it uses my 4 cores pretty well, not as well as A2 did however, not sure why that is, perhaps because A2 had so much optimizing done, over the years. But it runs really well, so far.

[gossamersolid 155]

thanks it did help they need to fix that i looked on youtube this guy had a 3930x and 2 gtx 680s in sli and got only 35fps u cant play a fps game with very low frames

He's playing Wasteland, notorious for poor performance. Missions that people play in ArmA have a huge effect on their framerate.

EDIT: I'm not defending the lack of CPU scalability, I'm merely saying you can get a much better framerate than that with less hardware than that.

Edited July 24, 2013 by GossamerSolid

[ric 1]

I play on a dom server that is well run, i get 40-60 FPS on default (what ever arma3 chose when i installed game, high,ultra FXAA 8...etc) although tress will drop my FPS in to the low 20's :(

[Leon86 13]

trees are very heavy on the gpu, especially with antialiasing and atoc, one of the rare cases where arma can be gpu limited :)