How important is Ram to Arma 3 performance

[NeuroFunker 11]

how come, my system commit ram usage is up to 8gb while playing arma, when physical memory to 6, while 2,4gb in idle?

[Punisher5555 0]

Get yourself some more RAM. 24GB - 32GB is best. Create yourself a 12GB RAMDISK. Copy the Addons folder to the RAMDISK. Change your Arma3 startup line to put the RAMDISK Addons first. -mod=<drive_letter>\Addons .

No more stutters. No more nothing. Play the game like it was meant to be.

Stop fooling around and just buy the RAM. Otherwise tell BIS to change the game to 64bit and then have some program system that loads .pbo's into RAM.

**Link to free RAMDISK program** http://www.softperfect.com/products/ramdisk/

[christianmo 10]

4 GB of RAM is way too little. Arma 3 is a 32-bit application so it can theoretically support up to 4 GB ram under ideal circumstances. In your situation RAM avalible to ARMA 3 is much lower, because of your OS and other programs using RAM as-well.

My advice would be to upgrade to 16 GB of ram, as it is relatively cheap.

Alternatively you could install 32 GB ram, and run Arma 3 on a RAM disk. I am not sure if the preformance gains are significant over a SSD.

Also you might consider overclocking your CPU.

---------- Post added at 19:59 ---------- Previous post was at 19:55 ----------

32-bit applications can't use more than 3GB of RAM.

That only true under the assumption that he is using a 32-bit OS. A 32-bit application on a 64-bit OS can use up to 4 GB.

[fred41 42]

... what many people not seems to know, arma is creating a large section object (memory mapped file API > 1.6 GB) in system memory.

It is used to cache a lot of big data and to reduce IO accesses (to large .pbo files).

This section object is not part of armas process address space, so arma could theoretical use up to 5.6GB of physical RAM, together with this section object (up to 4GB on 64bit OS, + 1.6GB section object).

Greets,

Fred41

[f2k sel 164]

I bought 16GB of ram about a year back and I forgot about it until last week when I installed it.

Before I installed the new ram I just made a note of my FPS and it was 45fps after installing the new ram it was 55fps.

However the second test was done with the newer build so it could be down to that.

I can also see a difference, previously when I would start a mission it woulds stutter a little and you would see textures loading.

This seems to be gone now.

I haven't see any difference in any other games.

[roshnak 41]

How much RAM did you have before you upgraded?

[Dwarden 1125]

I don't think you understand. Arma can not use more than 3GB of RAM. It does not matter how much faster RAM is than an SSD because Arma can't use more than 3GB of RAM. It doesn't matter if you have 32GB of RAM because Arma can't use more than 3GB of RAM. Arma is a 32-bit application. 32-bit applications can't use more than 3GB of RAM.

What you are experiencing is most likely a placebo.

Edit: Also, SSDs can absolutely reduce stutter in Arma 3. Since Arma doesn't load every object at once, you can experience stutter when moving into new areas and loading new objects.

ARMA is LAA aware 32bit application,

that means under 32bit OS it can directly address 2GB

that means under 64bit OS it can directly address 4GB

indirectly n GB http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/85-breaking-the-32-bit-barrier

and yes SSD is recommended to avoid lod popins and texture/object load i/o delays...

[dnk 13]

Well, I stand firmly corrected on the 3GB thing :P

I don't think SSD's can improve stutter, just load times. Once you play a game the cpu moves all files into your RAM because it has a faster access time I believe. At that point your SSD is not doing much unless you don't have enough RAM, in which case the cpu needs to get those files from the SSD. That would be where the stutters would come from. More RAM will fix the stutters unless the graphics settings are too much for your GPU. Try lowering your settings to make sure it's nor your gpu first.

Well, you can argue whatever you want, lots of SSD folks claim it totally fixes stutters. I'm buying one in the next week, I'll let you know also (and also more RAM, and a new GPU, fun week). I plan to do a pretty full performance writeup with all the components.

Get yourself some more RAM. 24GB - 32GB is best.

Yeah, just spend like $300? How does that actually compare to an SSD (which has way more storage space to boot) at $100?

[KingScuba 1]

Here's how arma utilizes your computer.

CPU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GPU >> RAM > HD (Only for initial loading really.)

The cpu is the main bottleneck since the bulk of the graphics, physics, and ai run from your CPU. If you can overclock yourself to 4.4ghz, you should be pushing pretty nice frames. Get 8 gb of ram, be happy for life. Don't bother getting over 16gb of ram, period, UNLESS you're doing something that REQUIRES IT (THIS IS PROFESSIONALS ONLY)

[NeuroFunker 11]

so saying 4gb ram are enough for arma is the bummer on x64 OS.

[f2k sel 164]

How much RAM did you have before you upgraded?

The upgrade was from 4GB to 16GB using win7 64bit.

[stealth2668 12]

I don't think you understand. Arma can not use more than 3GB of RAM. It does not matter how much faster RAM is than an SSD because Arma can't use more than 3GB of RAM. It doesn't matter if you have 32GB of RAM because Arma can't use more than 3GB of RAM. Arma is a 32-bit application. 32-bit applications can't use more than 3GB of RAM.

What you are experiencing is most likely a placebo.

Edit: Also, SSDs can absolutely reduce stutter in Arma 3. Since Arma doesn't load every object at once, you can experience stutter when moving into new areas and loading new objects.

I think it's you that doesn't understand. If arma 3 uses up 3 GB of RAM do you think your total RAM usage is 3GB? No, because your OS and steam uses RAM aswell. If you only have 4 GB, then Arma and OS will be "competing" for that RAM. With just steam and this internet window open, I'm using 1.5 GB RAM. 3 + 1.5 = 4.5GB. It's not a placebo, It's not a coincidence that the day I upgrade to 8GB of RAM ALL my stuttering stopped. It's because I needed more RAM

EDIT: SSD's have little to no effect on gameplay. You will get WAY better performance/cost ratio with more RAM than an SSD assuming your aren't using an ancient HDD. I was using a SATA II with my upgraded RAM and it ran flawlessly before I upgraded my HDD and got a new CPU. Don't suggest OP go out and buy an SSD for a few hundred bucks when it's not worth it.

That's why I said "unless you are running a whole bunch of applications in the background" in a previous post.

your OS, steam and VAC are not "a whole bunch of applications" 2 of those are kind of mandatory and the other isn't really RAM heavy...

---------- Post added at 20:35 ---------- Previous post was at 20:26 ----------

4 GB of RAM is way too little. Arma 3 is a 32-bit application so it can theoretically support up to 4 GB ram under ideal circumstances. In your situation RAM avalible to ARMA 3 is much lower, because of your OS and other programs using RAM as-well.

My advice would be to upgrade to 16 GB of ram, as it is relatively cheap.

Alternatively you could install 32 GB ram, and run Arma 3 on a RAM disk. I am not sure if the preformance gains are significant over a SSD.

Also you might consider overclocking your CPU.

---------- Post added at 19:59 ---------- Previous post was at 19:55 ----------

That only true under the assumption that he is using a 32-bit OS. A 32-bit application on a 64-bit OS can use up to 4 GB.

Also this ^. I don't see why anyone would use the 32-bit version when windows comes with both versions. It's almost ALWAYS better to go 64-bit because there's backwards compatibility anyways.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Stealth2668

[roshnak 41]

Here's how arma utilizes your computer.

CPU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GPU >> RAM > HD (Only for initial loading really.)

This is mostly right, but your HD is used more than you think. Everything isn't loaded at once in Arma. It's a streaming engine, so it loads on demand.

SSD's have little to no effect on gameplay. You will get WAY better performance/cost ratio with more RAM than an SSD assuming your aren't using an ancient HDD. I was using a SATA II with my upgraded RAM and it ran flawlessly before I upgraded my HDD and got a new CPU. Don't suggest OP go out and buy an SSD for a few hundred bucks when it's not worth it.

Ugh, this is such a stupid argument. The simple fact is that you are overemphasizing the role RAM plays in Arma. The answer to the question "How important is RAM to Arma 3 performance?" is "Not very." Four more gigabytes of RAM will not necessarily solve the OP's problem.

You are also de-emphasizing the role that the hard drive plays in Arma. An SSD is significantly faster than an HDD and, unlike many other games, Arma accesses your hard drive quite often. Every time a new kind of tree or rock loads, every time a new kind of house or a soldier wearing a different uniform or carrying a different gun loads, your hard drive is accessed.

Stop saying that an additional 4 GB of RAM will solve the OP's problem when you know literally nothing about his or her system other than that he or she has 4 GB of RAM. Also your math on RAM usage does not add up to 8 GB.

P.S. You keep mentioning Steam and VAC; how much RAM do you think those applications cost?

[KingScuba 1]

This is mostly right, but your HD is used more than you think. Everything isn't loaded at once in Arma. It's a streaming engine, so it loads on demand.

I will give you that. things do load on demand, but the difference you'll experience framerate wise should be negligible if you're using a 7200rpm hdd, and that how I ranked everything. CPU is the main thing that drives fps, while RAM and SSD's have the smallest impact.

If the OP clocked himself to 4.2 ghz, he'd notice a DRASTIC increase in fps (I'm willing to bet at least 10, 20 mebe)

Edited January 22, 2014 by KingScuba

[stealth2668 12]

This is mostly right, but your HD is used more than you think. Everything isn't loaded at once in Arma. It's a streaming engine, so it loads on demand.

Ugh, this is such a stupid argument. The simple fact is that you are overemphasizing the role RAM plays in Arma. The answer to the question "How important is RAM to Arma 3 performance?" is "Not very." Four more gigabytes of RAM will not necessarily solve the OP's problem.

You are also de-emphasizing the role that the hard drive plays in Arma. An SSD is significantly faster than an HDD and, unlike many other games, Arma accesses your hard drive quite often. Every time a new kind of tree or rock loads, every time a new kind of house or a soldier wearing a different uniform or carrying a different gun loads, your hard drive is accessed.

Stop saying that an additional 4 GB of RAM will solve the OP's problem when you know literally nothing about his or her system other than that he or she has 4 GB of RAM. Also your math on RAM usage does not add up to 8 GB.

P.S. You keep mentioning Steam and VAC; how much RAM do you think those applications cost?

LOL, stupid argument? You're the one saying he should go and dish out big bucks on an SSD to fix his stuttering problems. A 7200 RPM HDD is just fine to load trees if the game needs to... I'm not saying more RAM is guaranteed to fix his fps issues, but it fixed mine which is SOLID proof that more RAM is the best solution to try first before an SSD. I never said that the RAM usage WILL BE 8GB, go out and try to find 2 stick of RAM that add up to about 5.3GB or whatever OP needs (you need to determine that for HIS system too), good luck with that. I say 8GB because obviously it's the next increment after 4GB (duh) and you don't know exactly how much he needs; 4.7? 5.3, 6.4?

You keep saying that an SSD is faster than a HDD but RAM is still faster than an SSD. 8 GB RAM + my 7200RPM HDD = no stutters for me so chances are that OP will have the same performance boost as me with added RAM.

OP already has an SSD, so what would a second one do? Judging from his specs, RAM is the only bottleneck if he overclocks his cpu.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Stealth2668

[NeuroFunker 11]

yeah, very "wise" to tell someone to get something more costy, when there is something cheap that could be enough for first time.

[daze23 1]

the variation in performance is so great within the engine itself, that benchmarks are somewhat meaningless. a unit could get stuck somewhere and not enter the fight, an explosion occurs a few seconds after/before on the next benchmark, etc, etc. 1 to 5 percent difference is basically no difference in terms of fluidity.

this is very true. the exact same scenario can play out very differently every time you run it

[kklownboy 43]

More RAM better. Windows Likes more RAM. kinda Duh.

[daze23 1]

More RAM better. Windows Likes more RAM. kinda Duh.

well at some point it won't benefit the game at all. that seems to be part of the overall question here

[dnk 13]

Let's also note that an SSD has other benefits. Like, you can put your OS and regularly used programs on it and get lightning load and startup times. And map/game loading times for Arma, of course. A 120GB SSD is about the same price as 8GB of 1600/C9 RAM, give or take a tenner, so the question is: which will give the most benefit?

Since apparently I'm wrong on the 3GB thing, and assuming your RAM is considerably slower than 1600/9, I'm thinking now that the RAM would be better, but the SSD more useful in general computing.

[roshnak 41]

well at some point it won't benefit the game at all. that seems to be part of the overall question here

This is the thing that I have been trying to say.

Since apparently I'm wrong on the 3GB thing, and assuming your RAM is considerably slower than 1600/9, I'm thinking now that the RAM would be better, but the SSD more useful in general computing.

Potentially. It's also important to note that neither option will do much to improve general performance in the game, just reduce the little hiccups when new objects load.

[stealth2668 12]

^ It did A lot for me. Like I said, I had huge stuttering when flying and things had to load in the distance. With more RAM it's literally all gone. Not having enough RAM will bring any game to it's knees no matter your specs but once you have enough, there's no additional benefit. My point is he probably doesn't have enough which is in fact cause of serious performance issues.

[Punisher5555 0]

Like I said before. Get the RAM for a RAMDISK. SSD can't even compare. Play the game like it was meant to be.

Speedtest video:

[KingScuba 1]

Like I said before. Get the RAM for a RAMDISK. SSD can't even compare. Play the game like it was meant to be.

Speedtest video:

That's adorable. you have 32gb of ram. You've taken overkill and smashed it in the face. I stand firm on 8gb for a solid experience, 16 for overkill, and 32 should only be used by professionals. Your solution is only available to people who have at least 16gb of ram, which the op doesn't need. He NEEDS to oc his machine and get 8gb of ram.

[SavageCDN 231]

wow...

If you are running as a client an SSD will improve your FPS vs a sata drive. Full Stop.

If you are running as a server an SSD won't do much (unless you are running multiple instances).

As someone mentioned Arma streams the content from your drive during play so any way of speeding that up will help. RAMDISK is the best solution athough I have never tried it myself.

With regards to RAM.. I have Win 7 32bit with 4GB, i7 920 stock, and an SSD drive. Average FPS? 30-40