Arma 3 CPU vs RAM performance comparison 1600-2133= up to 15% FPS gain

[St. Jimmy 272]

Yep PCI Express SSD would be nice to get. In two years the price has likely come down nicely though it isn't too bad currently. Too bad the slots usually get buried under the one card... The highest slot is maybe usable at least if the SSD is thin. At least that's the case with my MB and many others what I've watched.

[mattldempsey 10]

My understand is that to a certain extent, Arma like's fast ram.

Price/performance on DDR3 seems to peak around 2133 Cas9

 

I am looking to upgrade my system to DDR4 in the near future but I want the RAM to perform better than the above.

I guess I will have to wait a little as there doesnt seem to be any out at the moment.

 

15CAS/3000Mhz doesnt beat 9CAS/2133Mhz

Thus DDR3 is currently better for Arma..

[Housesparrow 8]

I have ordered new Sandy Bridge era ram sticks and will get them very soon. Not sure how I should test this, to see if there is an improvement. Feel free to give me some ideas for sensible ways to test the performance between the two sets of ram sticks for when playing Arma 3. I like to play Arma 3 Wasteland on the Esseker and the Chernarus map.

 

I have today:

Crucial Vengeance LP, 1.5V

2x8GB= 16GB

DDR3 PC12800

1600MHz 10-10-10-27-1T

 

I will upgrade to 

Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP, 1.35V/1.5V

4x8GB = 32GB

DDR3 PC12800

1600MHz 8-8-8-24-1T and overclock it

[Gruman 122]

Will be able to test out the skylake performance in a couple of days when the parts for the GF's new system arrive. I5 6600K and DDR4 3000MHz Ram and SSD. Will be interesting.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Will be able to test out the skylake performance in a couple of days when the parts for the GF's new system arrive. I5 6600K and DDR4 3000MHz Ram and SSD. Will be interesting.

Will you compare it to your old rig or something? In any case make it in benchmark test so other people can also test their performance and compare the results, for example Altis Benchmark mission is very common.

[Gruman 122]

I Will compare it to my current Haswell Rig (I7 4770K, DDR3 1600MHz) and adjust the clocks. I'm running two R9 290X in crossfire and she will get a GTX 970. They are pretty close if I disable Crossfire.

 

Will them show here. Probably arround next weekend, when my benchtable and all the parts arrive.

 

Altis Benchmark it is then.

[I give up 152]

My understand is that to a certain extent, Arma like's fast ram.

Price/performance on DDR3 seems to peak around 2133 Cas9

 

I am looking to upgrade my system to DDR4 in the near future but I want the RAM to perform better than the above.

I guess I will have to wait a little as there doesnt seem to be any out at the moment.

 

15CAS/3000Mhz doesnt beat 9CAS/2133Mhz

Thus DDR3 is currently better for Arma..

 

Not sure if you are correct when we speak about DDR4.

While with DDR3 is like you say, DDR4 is a completely new architecture where the bandwidth (data rate) gains a new relevance over latency.

When we speak about the current intel generation (Haswell), yes you are again correct since the memory controller of these CPUs does not support speeds (stable) above 2133 and also is not ready/ in matters of bandwidth to take advantage over high speeds because the memory controller (data rate) cant handle with it and by that there is point for DDR4.

With Skyllake is a completely new business, these CPUs besides having full support for higher speeds such 3200 Mhz, the bandwidth "pipeline" is increased in about 30% (comparing with Haswell), this combined with DDR4 architecture which is also focused in data rate with several improvements over DDR3, I believe there will be a real performance gain with Skylake/DDR4, in particular for a game like Arma 3.

[xon2 102]

yes girls.....give us some results plz..... Anyone happen to have a gsync/freesync monitor? Yeah, i guess the best way to test is with the stratis und altis benchmark maps from BI.

[pulstar 55]

I wonder if we take Arma's single-threaded AI code and dump it atop GTA V (a game with a massive map and tons of assets), will it perform as poorly as the RV engine?

Is it known which component of the engine benefits from better RAM?
 

[jumpinghubert 48]

I have ordered new Sandy Bridge era ram sticks and will get them very soon. Not sure how I should test this, to see if there is an improvement. Feel free to give me some ideas for sensible ways to test the performance between the two sets of ram sticks for when playing Arma 3. I like to play Arma 3 Wasteland on the Esseker and the Chernarus map.

 

I tested my overclocked ram in the signatur with maxxmem2, its a free and small programm mesures write and read speed (bandwidth) of ram in short tests: http://www.chip.de/downloads/MaxxMEM2_57286205.html

 

Please take a look into the results in this thread, 2400er ram is more recommended to get better fps in arma3. But wasteland and esseker depends more on serverspeed.

[Housesparrow 8]

I can understand that Arma 3 is mostly dependent on server performance, presumably with the server having to coordinate the data that flow between the player's computers.

 

So I think I mentioned over here, that I bought four the new DDR3 ram sticks, with good latency numbers, and I also managed to overclock the ram from 1600MHz, to 2133MHz (ca. 33% increase). Using SuperPi, the overall improvement on performance in SuperPI was a measly 3+ % compared to my old 16GB ram, and 2.4% when compared to default settings on the new ram.    :D

 

I have no idea how it performs with Arma 3 yet.

 

* Oops, I meant to write 2133 and not really 1233

[St. Jimmy 272]

I can understand that Arma 3 is mostly dependent on server performance, presumably with the server having to coordinate the data that flow between the player's computers.

 

So I think I mentioned over here, that I bought four the new DDR3 ram sticks, with good latency numbers, and I also managed to overclock the ram from 1600MHz, to 1233MHz (ca. 33% increase). Using SuperPi, the overall improvement on performance in SuperPI was a measly 3+ % compared to my old 16GB ram, and 2.4% when compared to default settings on the new ram.   :D

 

I have no idea how it performs with Arma 3 yet.

So you've now CL8 2133MHz? I assume you meant 2133 and not 1233 :D It should give you nice increase especially if you've OCd CPU. CL10 1600 -> CL8 2133 should give ~10% incrrease in Arma 3 fps.

[Housesparrow 8]

"So you've now CL8 2133MHz? "

 

No, for having ram running at 2133MHz, the timings had to be relaxed, currently 10-10-10-27.

[jumpinghubert 48]

 

 

I will upgrade to 

Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP, 1.35V/1.5V

4x8GB = 32GB

DDR3 PC12800

1600MHz 8-8-8-24-1T and overclock it

You bought them? If not, 2400er is a better choice. I was able to push my old 1600er ram to 2000. With my 2400er @ 2666 11-13-13-35 I get better results in superpi, maxxmem2 and arma3 (helo´s altis bench for example).

[FAILIX 32]

You bought them? If not, 2400er is a better choice. I was able to push my old 1600er ram to 2000. With my 2400er @ 2666 11-13-13-35 I get better results in superpi, maxxmem2 and arma3 (helo´s altis bench for example).

 

Hey JumpingHubert,

i just saw that you have an i5-3570k as well. 

I currently have my i5-3570k overclocked to 4.4GHz on an ASUS P8Z77-v mainboard with 16GB of Corsair 1600 RAM. 

I am also wondering if it would make sense to exchange my 16GB of 1600er RAM for 8GB of 2400er RAM since i've never utilized those 16GB.

At how much voltage are you running your RAM, since the 2400er patriot  RAMs should be running on 1.65V.

Is that still ok for the i5 and the mainboard, voltage wise?

[jumpinghubert 48]

Hi, I raised the voltage to 1.75v (I think thats the 24h-maximum for 2400er and my mainboard) to get the 2666mhz stable. Heat is the main problem so you have to cool all relevant things down with extra fans etc. All at your own risk.

[Gruman 122]

Z170 and 6600K test needs to wait another week. Got the Motherboard, got the CPU, Got the SSD, the GTX970 would have been ready for pickup but the RAM wasnt available yet. Should come next week :S

[pd3 25]

I have noticed a small bit of performance gain, especially when my machine is not being pushed to it's limit in terms of on-screen activity, total entities, etc.

Even then, I do notice the game does not get bogged down as easily, kudos to the team for improving optimization.

[xon2 102]

@pd3 Did you build a new system, or did u just upgrade your ram?

 

....''Even then, I do notice the game does not get bogged down as easily, kudos to the team for improving optimization.''.....that is what i am really interested in. Did you mean your minimum fps don't drop as deep anymore in demanding missions? I think max fps are not as important as keeping the game at least above 25fps. How much is the minimum fps difference?

 

I think what really might help with fps might be those new adaptive sync monotors (gysnc/freesync). You don't get more fps, but what you get is smoother gameplay. Did anybody here try such a monitor with arma 3?

[pd3 25]

@pd3 Did you build a new system, or did u just upgrade your ram?

 

....''Even then, I do notice the game does not get bogged down as easily, kudos to the team for improving optimization.''.....that is what i am really interested in. Did you mean your minimum fps don't drop as deep anymore in demanding missions? I think max fps are not as important as keeping the game at least above 25fps. How much is the minimum fps difference?

 

I think what really might help with fps might be those new adaptive sync monotors (gysnc/freesync). You don't get more fps, but what you get is smoother gameplay. Did anybody here try such a monitor with arma 3?

Are you shilling for nvidia or something? 

You seem to post a lot about Gsync.

Anyhow, no, I have not upgraded my computer at all, it's getting pretty old, I may put in some faster ram at a later time, but it's a pretty modest machine all things considered.

[xon2 102]

haha not really. As you see, i mention gsync/freesync equally. Although i personally lean towards freesync, because its based on an open standard and not this proprietary nvidia crap, i mention gsync before freesync cause they introduced the concept first, if i am not mistaken. Its my second post towards that issue. Unfortunately nobody here seems to have such a monitor or wants to share his/her experience. 

[R3vo 2652]

haha not really. As you see, i mention gsync/freesync equally. Although i personally lean towards freesync, because its based on an open standard and not this proprietary nvidia crap, i mention gsync before freesync cause they introduced the concept first, if i am not mistaken. Its my second post towards that issue. Unfortunately nobody here seems to have such a monitor or wants to share his/her experience. 

 

 

Problem about both technologies at the current time is, that their fps range is very small.

If I remember correctly freeSync starts working at 35 fps. That's not really helpful for Arma.

 

Here are some examples:

 

Acer XG270HU 27″ 2560×1440 40-144Hz TN $499

BenQ XL2730Z 27″ 2560×1440 40-144Hz TN $599

LG Electronics 34UM67 34″ 2560×1080 48-75Hz IPS $649

LG Electronics 29UM67 29″ 2560×1080 48-75Hz IPS $449

 

 

In addition it seems that the fps range also depends on the monitor model, and I guess if you want to have a large range you would need a large purse.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

@pd3 Did you build a new system, or did u just upgrade your ram?

 

....''Even then, I do notice the game does not get bogged down as easily, kudos to the team for improving optimization.''.....that is what i am really interested in. Did you mean your minimum fps don't drop as deep anymore in demanding missions? I think max fps are not as important as keeping the game at least above 25fps. How much is the minimum fps difference?

 

I think what really might help with fps might be those new adaptive sync monotors (gysnc/freesync). You don't get more fps, but what you get is smoother gameplay. Did anybody here try such a monitor with arma 3?

 

I have a 144Hz Screen and there is no difference compared to my old 60Hz Screen

[mac1 1]

reading this thread with interest as am just spec-ing up my new PC which will be based on a 6700 i7 - I have 2 questions as I will use to play ARMA3 as well as

a few other games:

 

 

1)My 2 choices for memory are below - assuming from the thread the 16gb 3000 memory should give me the better performance on ARMA3?

16GB (2x8GB) Corsair DDR4 Vengeance LPX Black, 3000MHz, CAS 15-17-17-35, 1.35V

32GB (2x16GB) Corsair DDR4 Vengeance LPX Black, 2666MHz, CAS 16-18-18-35, 1.2V

2)For the GPU will likely go for x2 980ti in SLI mainly because I will be using it with a 4k monitor - but just wondering if I will get much performance gain from the SLI in ARMA3 or if there is even an SLI profile for the game?

[xon2 102]

i have tested arma 3 with 2x7870s (i had a second one laying around for some time)....and i definately had way more stuttering when i zoomend in than with one card. Since Arma 3 would certainly not challenge one 980ti, even in 4k i guess, i think you do'll better without the second card active. But you wouldn'd buy a second card for arma only i guess. You'll find out soon enought whether it runs smoothly with two cards.

 

Concerning the adativesync monitors. You are absolutely correct, freesync works above 40fps only at the moment, gysnc above 30. So its not really relevant for arma right now. If the technology improved fps above 20....then we might actually find it usefull for arma i think.