R9 390 Vs R9 390X in Arma 3?

[gimpymoo 10]

About to purchase a replacement for my 6970 2GB and am wondering if "bang for buck" is a factor, would Arma 3 utilise a 390x to give a worthwhile advantage over a 390?

 

Thanks.

[Not_Oliver 16]

No, the 390x will only give you 2-4 more fps maybe.

[cosmic10r 2326]

Be careful... generally the gpu is not the limiting factor unless yours is ancient.. I remember in oa, I upgraded my 6750 to a gigabyte 7970 and got literally 0 fps difference. ... sad day that was

[gimpymoo 10]

I am aware the game is CPU bound (I have a 4770k at stock).

 

Any ideas what I should expect to gain from a 6970 to a 390? If anything at all?

[cosmic10r 2326]

http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/
https://m.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/1xwidi/i_am_deciding_what_gpu_to_get_to_play_arma_3_well/

The bottom link he upgraded from a 4950 or something to a 770 and got little fps difference...

If your case can support it you may get more bang for your buck getting a H100i for your processor and over clocking it. I was able to sustain 4.4 ghz with the h100

In the techspot one they use your processor and OC it

[calin_banc 19]

I am aware the game is CPU bound (I have a 4770k at stock).

 

Any ideas what I should expect to gain from a 6970 to a 390? If anything at all?

Higher FPS in areas such as forests, smoke, etc., pretty much the same where the CPU is holding you back. Up that processor to about 4.5Ghz. But more than anything will allow you to play with higher gfx settings (draw distance for objects and their quality not included).

[froggyluv 2130]

 This game is ALL cpu bound - I once went from a 7970 to a Titan and had little to no increase so went back to a 760. On the other hand my Sabretooth mobo died which had allowed me to overclock to 4.5 safely and have been using a backupboard which wont overclock my 2500k at all -running at stock 3.3 and THAT was a huge loss. Very noticeable how far I can push larger battles especially with mods running alongside. Now Im just too lazy to replace mobo :/

[St. Jimmy 272]

I am aware the game is CPU bound (I have a 4770k at stock).

 

Any ideas what I should expect to gain from a 6970 to a 390? If anything at all?

You can go for higher AA, SSAO etc. without fps drop and some high density vegetation can run better. Don't expect any general fps rise.

[I give up 152]

390 and 390X are the same GPU.

What happens while QA verfications some GPUs do no meet the standards in matters of speed, stability, etc required for a specific classifcation so they are classified under a lower category where the operations are stable at the announced performance That's when a 390X becomes a 390, means that the user with a slight overclock can easily turn one 390 in to one 390X.

[clawhammer 10]

The realy question is, what do you want to play except A3. Both cards will fit to this game.

[calin_banc 19]

I have an AMD A10-6800k oc'd to 4.7Ghz, r7 260x 2gb, 8gb RAM & have similar (sometimes worse) fps on a3 but people I play with that have intel cpus claim they get 45-60 :(  I came to the conclusion that arma doesnt like AMD cpus, so is that a false assumption?

 

Yes, it favors Intel, because it's faster in single threaded operations. RV 4 or whatever version of the engine Arma 3 uses, is poorly threaded and so on.

 

 

There is no game engine that uses more than 4 cores and all games based on DirectX 11 are stuck at one core, that's a DX11 limitation. Also for Intel users with HyperThreaded CPUs I can assure that they perform better with every game having HT disabled.

The issue with AMD "8 cores" is that they are really weak.

 

Wrong, DX11 uses one core for render only, you can actually multithread your engine as much as you want when it comes to AI, physics, etc. Here are 2 quick examples in Crysis 3 and The Witcher 3.

 

http://imgur.com/TTIMtDu

 

https://youtu.be/Rutk9ErhKG4?t=2m17s

 

 

If you check out Crysis 3, they've benchmarked a level with grass, that uses real physics calculation for interactions between the blades of the grass and wind or whatever goes through them (characters, objects, explosions, etc.) In that case a FX8350 is on par with the older I7 Sandy Bridge (2600k). Of course if you benchmark a scene where there is not much going on, Intel will pull ahead because they ARE faster in single thread, even those "older" ones.

 

In The Witcher 3 you have the i3 being very good in simple scenery, but once once you get to the city where you have lots of AI (CDPR actually bother to multithread that), i3 falls behind even FX6xxx with frame times going all over and the FX8350 keeps up with the newer i5 very well (quite a nice show for such an old and cheaper CPU).

 

Theoretically, if Bohemia will actually multithread their engine properly with the implementation of DX12 (including AI, sim and so on), AMD should do good enough. Realistically I'd say they'll do well with the render (which means a theoretically 10x jump in the render performance as shown in that DX12 test) taking it to a level where you're no longer limited by object details and draw distance, but still fall behind in the multithreaded aspects of the AI, sim, server side, etc. 

 

 

TL;DR: If I could, I would wait for DX12 and Zen from AMD (which boosts a 40 or 45% jump over current models), if you're looking to upgrade the CPU. At least there should be some competition and lower prices. For the GPU, a R390 is ok, even a R290 should do quite well (after all, r390 is a r290 with some higher clocks), if you find a decent implementation (Sapphire are the best) and there is a fast enough CPU in the system.

[I give up 152]

Yes, it favors Intel, because it's faster in single threaded operations. RV 4 or whatever version of the engine Arma 3 uses, is poorly threaded and so on.

 

 

 

Wrong, DX11 uses one core for render only, you can actually multithread your engine as much as you want when it comes to AI, physics, etc. Here are 2 quick examples in Crysis 3 and The Witcher 3.

 

 

Oh really? And for what do you need DirectX 11 besides rendering?

Do you think that the called "issues" about CPU vs Usage/Performance are related with AI? Wrong mate, are related with rendering due to constraints of DX11.

You can imagine what the operation concept of DX11 can do to a game with the architecture that  Arma 3 has?

 

Read mate, its oversimplified.

http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/460524/DirectX_11_vs_DirectX_12_oversimplified

 

DirectX 11: Your CPU communicates to the GPU 1 core to 1 core at a time.   It is still a big boost over DirectX 9 where only 1 dedicated thread was allowed to talk to the GPU but it’s still only scratching the surface.

 

Meanwhile, your PC might have 4, 8 or  more CPU cores on it. And exactly 1 of them at a time can talk to the GPU.

 

[calin_banc 19]

The AI, the simulation as a whole, everything is a problem in ArmA 3, because it was never design to actually work very well in accordance with the goal of the game. Fan base covered them all these years and went with it: "oh, you don't need 60fps, 30 is plenty; no one does this, so Bohemia gets a free pass", etc. You name it, an excuse was found.

 

You don't think AI is a problem? Just chose some settings that give you... let's say 60fps while you're in Kavala. Then put about 20,40,60 and so on, soldiers fight each other near you. Add some vehicle to the mix and enjoy cinematic experience soon enough. You can do the same with the scenarios, the combine arms works quite well to prove this.

 

I know the article, I've posted that waaaay back. Yes, that's the word, only one core talks to the video card - the render part of the engine, when it comes to the graphics. Yes, you have the same dynamic fluid simulation in DX10.1 as shown in Stalker Clear Sky that nVIDIA boosts with the PhysX (although it was never used, just like other features of DX11.x), it also handles the sound and perhaps some other stuff (i/o). Dx is mainly known however for the graphics side.

 

DX12 alone won't fix the AI problem, the server side issues, the simulation, etc. Hopefully we'll at least be able to play with draw distance turned all the way up (of course, a "fix" 64 bit exe wouldn't hurt since RAM is cheap, but whatever).

[I give up 152]

Mate, you cant compare Arma with some other games like Crysis or Witcher, Arma is what it is. People need to understand that.

About Combined Arms I dont have issues with it, stable 60 fps.

The vídeo looks a bit blurry because I am playing at 1920×1200, but because some bright minds decided that 1920x1080 is the "full HD" I am forced to record at 1920x1080 for Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NikB-hoJbgM

Understand Arma, learn what it is and adapt your hardware to it. The guy who have made miracles died long a go.

[calin_banc 19]

Why can't you compare to other games? The set a goal and accomplished it showing it can be done. Continuing to find excuses won't improve the game.

 

Yeah, I'll adjust the hardware by ordering a 10GHz Dual Core from Intel. :)

[froggyluv 2130]

 Never played The Witcher 3 but in Crysis the FPS that holds 60 is the official game no? Not plunking down AI in the editor. Whats hard to compare is that Arma is almost more like a platform than a game so it does make it hard to compare. The official campaign FPS vs KOTH FPS vs myNutty1500AiSandboxMission etc Now comparing a game like Warband in which you can adjust battle size of AI in the Official Campaign -from 10 to 1000- and yes, FPS results vary wildly.

 

A concern is when developers make hitting that magical, and when considering sandbox game, elusive, FPS number absolute at the expense of all else. Most of the great shooters, tac shooters from the early 2000's have now 'streamlined away' the sandbox type features as well as clamped down on free roaming AI in favor of either just pvp or controlled missions. Do you remember the lofty goals of OFP DR with supposed revolutionary AI that was to compete with Arma - ambition couldnt match FPS goals so player tethers of 100m were instituted alongside a 64 entity count for all missions. Even still some praised that at least it was better streamlined and polished than Arma -and thats scary to an old gamer like myself.

 

Im all for forward progress in terms of optimal thread distribution and potential 64 bit exe, but not to the elimination of potentially fps dampening features that I like to jack around with.

[calin_banc 19]

Again, let's avoid the excuses, there are none at this point. :)

 

All are games, all are sold for profit (even those "Free 2 Play"). This is not a game made by some enthusiasts given for free, with their permission for everyone to play it, modify it, go wild. It is a series, a "modus operandi" that is going on for years and years. I'm not talking about underwhelming performance with mods, their own vanilla content shows perfectly all the problems: performance, AI, user interface, MP (performance, server browser, etc.), gameplay and probably more.

 

At this point what you want, performance wise, for ArmA 3 is: the fastest/core CPU that also overclocks that you can buy, 8/16GB RAM (the fastest the better) and then some to have a RAM disk. If not, then go for a SSD. A middle end GPU is just ok, no need to go wild - will be just money thrown down the pipe.

 

PS: It grinds my gears more, mostly because I REALLY like the genre and all it seems like a huge wasted potential for something truly great! :(

[St. Jimmy 272]

Just imagine if Arma would actually run like any other game. Would there even be any other game then when this game alone can do big stuff without performance cost? If the game would be constant smooth 40-60fps where CPU/GPU are used fully, I wouldn't even consider buying and playing any other game when Arma can scale things 10x more compared to anything else.

Though that would be wonderful because then CoD and BF needed to be very good FPS games.

[mamasan8 11]

 

390 vs 390x

 

I went from GTX760 to an AMD 290x, no fps difference at all. In every other game it was pretty much doubled (serious CPU bootleneck in Arma3).

So don't buy GPU for Arma 3, buy one for other games.

 

I'm totally with calin_banc.

Everything is still 32-bit, nothing is multithreaded.

[en3x 209]

 

390 vs 390x

 

I went from GTX760 to an AMD 290x, no fps difference at all. In every other game it was pretty much doubled (serious CPU bootleneck in Arma3).

So don't buy GPU for Arma 3, buy one for other games.

 

I'm totally with calin_banc.

Everything is still 32-bit, nothing is multithreaded.

 

Except AI pathfinding.That is multi threaded.

[the_noob 88]

Arma is almost more like a platform than a game

 

Well said. I also believe that ArmA is not simply a game but more a development platform. The only downside is that BI won't allow us to access the source code but I can understand why they don't want that. Also, for all it's shortcommings (which, btw, can be ironed out - follow VBS development and you'll likely agree), the Real Virtuality engine is easily the most flexible non open source engine I have seen. Almost all game/simulation concepts are doable on this engine.

[spanishsurfer 58]

Spend your cash on cooling down your tower and OC your CPU as much as you can. You'll get better FPS in arma then upgrading your video card.