Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications?

[forteh 11]

Some more questions from me I'm afraid!

My cpu is now running at 4.51Ghz stable and within temperature limits. I have 8Gb of bog standard crucial 1333 running at 1230Mhz on a 6:1 divider @ 9-9-9-24 1.5v. I have a 2x2Gb kit of corsair xms3 1600 that will run the same timings but at the higher frequency - would I do better to invest in another 2x2Gb pair and run a memory divider of 4 to give a ram speed of 1640Mhz (assuming it will stand the 40Mhz overclock). Will there be any noticeable difference in arma?

I have picked up a gtx660 for £65, whilst it's not a 660ti or 670 which I ideally wanted, it fits better with my psu (an old ocz modstream from 2004/5 that only has 28A on the 12v) and it should be a considerable increase over my 260!

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

The card is most definitely the problem.

Get a gtx 970 you will be good to go. Gigabyte one if you can.

Or a r9 290 "with a decent cooling preferable the gigabyte or the sapphire tripple x )

Make sure your PSU has a six and 8 pin PCI express power connections.

With a 290 you will need a good 500 w min.

The gtx 970 uses way less juice and the better option all around. Just giving you both in case AMD is your preference.

And also that your case can fit which ever cars you choose.

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:12 ----------

If that is a pre built pc for 1300 with that card. Really bf value.

---------- Post added at 23:15 ---------- Previous post was at 23:14 ----------

Ignore last seen it is your actual rig.

[extracrispi 64]

The card is most definitely the problem.

Get a gtx 970 you will be good to go. Gigabyte one if you can.

Or a r9 290 "with a decent cooling preferable the gigabyte or the sapphire tripple x )

Make sure your PSU has a six and 8 pin PCI express power connections.

With a 290 you will need a good 500 w min.

The gtx 970 uses way less juice and the better option all around. Just giving you both in case AMD is your preference.

And also that your case can fit which ever cars you choose.

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:12 ----------

If that is a pre built pc for 1300 with that card. Really bf value.

---------- Post added at 23:15 ---------- Previous post was at 23:14 ----------

Ignore last seen it is your actual rig.

Where do I find infor on my PSU?

Also, does the GTX 970 work with a 600 Watts - Standard 80 Plus Certified Power Supply?

---------- Post added at 03:42 ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 ----------

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:12 ----------

If that is a pre built pc for 1300 with that card. Really bf value.

---------- Post added at 23:15 ---------- Previous post was at 23:14 ----------

Ignore last seen it is your actual rig.

I actually got it for around $1,400

[shx 11]

they say in the future this type of RAM will be the dominant.

While it's undoubtable, that DDR4 will become the future's dominant RAM, we're talking about a future some 2-3 years out (especially for gamers). The first consumer DIMMs (non-ECC, for which you'd need a expensive Xeon) are expected for December, stable clocks above 2133 are probably still a year out. If money has at least some significance for you, don't go for a DDR4-based system right now.

Do I need to add a audio card to enjoy this surround system properly?

Probably. Internal sound chips tend to be low quality.

[Valken 622]

im conflicted, as i wasted money on the gtx 970 and having seen not much improvement,

No you did not. You just need a better cpu to push the GPU to the max.

I'm thinking about new cpu, ideally the 4790k but then new cpus with socket 2011-v3 are out and motherboards which support DDR4 memory type. they say in the future this type of RAM will be the dominant. The new motherboard will eventually replace the LGA 1150 one as well. what is your suggestion. getting the new motherboard means getting rid of my RAM as well, and the motherboard alone costs $400, while the cpu costs pretty much the same as 4790k. when you total it, we're talking about $1000 upgade, where as if i were to go with LGA 1150 motherboard, about $ 530 total.

I would get the 4790K, a good solid MB and ram over the x99 system just for Arma 3. The most obvious reason is that ARMA 3 will not use all the cpu cores EFFECTIVELY.

The biggest restriction is really cpu speed.

The AI runs only on 1 thread. You need the fastest possible core and effeciently to keep the rest of the game from slowing. Then its up to GPU speed, RAM and how fast you can load the map and assets as it streams (GET SSD OR more ram for a big ramdisk )

You can OC a quad core MORE than you can for a 6-8 core.

Plus the extra money for the x99 MB and DDR4 ram is not worth it right now.

You will literally feel no difference between a 4790K and 6 or 8 core X99 system with the same cpu speed, amount of RAM and GPU.

I would spend the savings on a FAST and bigger SSD instead.

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

Where do I find infor on my PSU?

Also, does the GTX 970 work with a 600 Watts - Standard 80 Plus Certified Power Supply?

---------- Post added at 03:42 ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 ----------

I actually got it for around $1,400

Google images for a PCI express power connection. Open your rig and look for these. You need a six and 8 pin. Or it will have 2 8 pin with detachable 2 pins. Same thing.

600 will well cover a 970. They are made extremely power efficient.

[killerwhale 1]

No you did not. You just need a better cpu to push the GPU to the max.

My other games can use my GPU to the max, 98% GPU usage for Cliff of dovers while Arma 3 uses 20-40% only so i dont think i can do anything for Arma 3.

[shx 11]

My other games can use my GPU to the max, 98% GPU usage for Cliff of dovers while Arma 3 uses 20-40% only so i dont think i can do anything for Arma 3.

ARMA 3 is just extremely good at hitting the CPU bottleneck AMD advertises Mantle for. ARMA 3 is perfectly able to max out a K2 - provided you've got the right CPU.

[Valken 622]

My other games can use my GPU to the max, 98% GPU usage for Cliff of dovers while Arma 3 uses 20-40% only so i dont think i can do anything for Arma 3.

Its the way the ARMA engine has been coded. Its not too bad, but is not great because its an old engine that has been upgraded to multicore, not a fresh new engine with multicore, multigpu scaling designed in mind. Or it feels like an old engine with updated graphics engine due to the way it runs the scripts and AI.

The scripting is mainly what slows the game down since the AI thread runs only on a single thread or core. So you need to OC your cpu to the max you can to get the most out of the engine.

If you join a server, your would get good performance until server cpu slows down due to tons of AI. So your 970 is a great buy and performer.

The best upgrade I made for ARMA2/ARMA3 was getting this HASWELL cpu 4790K. Next was more ram and a SSD.

[Thatdutchidiot 10]

I'm running the following machine:

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0ghz

GPU: SAPPHIRE HD 7870 GHz Edition OC 2GB

RAM: Corsair Vengeance 1600-8GB

Motherboard: Asrock 970 extreme3

HDD: Seagate Desktop HDD 1TB 7200 RPM

The game suggests to use ultra and after tweaking it while in editor, I get a nice 60 ~ 80 fps (depending on location). However, if I jump online, the best I can hope for is 20 fps max in a low populated server. A wasteland server for instance only gives me 5 fps outside of cities.

What would be the best settings to squeeze out the best fps? I've been messing around, but haven't found a solution to get the fps stable on multiplayer. Or am I just SOL?

[forteh 11]

Posting to report back on the results of my recent tweaks and fps increases :)

Machine spec: -

i3 530 @ 4.51Ghz (215 x 19)

12GB DDR3 1600 @ 1720 (1.5v 11-11-11-28)

GTX 660 2GB (stock clocks)

1TB Seagate SSHD

Arma 3 settings

1920x1080

Texture = Very High

Terrain = Very High

Objects = Very High

Shadow = Very High

Particles = High

Cloud = High

PIP = Standard

HDR = Standard

Dynamic Lights = High

View Distance = 2200

Object = 1500

Shadow = 100

Bloom/Blur/DoF etc = 0

AO = Disabled

Caustics = On

FSAA = 2x

ATOC = Disabled

PPAA = FXAA High

AF = High

Command Line

-name=Ed -maxmem=8192 -malloc=tbbmalloc -maxvram=2048 -world=empty -nosplash -nologs -nofilepatching -skipintro -enableht

CpuCount and EXthreads were autodetected as 2 and 3 (the i3 is an HT dual core).

Running CBA, TPW Mods and Landtex as the main mods that affect fps.

I was really struggling to get the fps up regardless of what settings and after much testing I am now achieving nice stable 30+ fps with gains of up to 30% in places. Note that this is mostly testing through SP campaign and editor, I don't play much MP at the moment so can't comment on that; this is mainly to get it running as best I possibly can.

Things that made a big difference.

Increasing RAM frequency - Previously I had a 4.5Ghz OC with 22x205 multi (1640Mhz DDR), dropping the multi to 19 and pushing the ram up to 1720Mhz made a couple of fps difference on the altis benchmark.

Setting a RAMdisk - I installed 2x4GB sticks on my second channel and used RAMDrive lite to create a 4GB cache with a bunch of pbos with symbolic links using this guide. I loaded the following .PBOs onto the RAMdrive: -

map_altis (plus all PBOs named map_altis_****)

map_stratis (plus all PBOs named map_stratis_****)

map_data

plants_f

roads_f

rocks_f

signs_f

structures_f_data

structures_f_households

structures_f_ind

structures_f_wrecks

This comes to 3.87GB which works nicely with the free 4GB ramdisk.

Loading is much faster, LOD pop out is minimal if not eliminated and it is generally much smoother. I don't know if this benefit will be seen if running from an SSD but hey I don't have one so can't comment!

Fred41's Gimme Moar Frames - This gave me 2-3 fps more on the benchmark, not a massive increase but still 8-10%.

A lot of this is probably just common knowledge but for me it has made it infinitely more playable whilst pushing graphics settings up far higher than I expected it would run. Whilst it hasn't made massive increases on the benchmark score (up from 32 to 38fps) it has made it much smoother and consistent in game. In the survive campaign at Camp Maxwell (at night time just before the Tipping Point mission) I would typically get 20 fps, I now get 30-32fps solid - a very positive result. Loading the editor and bombing round in a littlebird I have gone from 25-30 up to 40-45 fps.

I hope this post is useful for someone :D

[sethz 10]

Do you know whats better for supersampling? A pair of r9 290 which is pretty cheap or two gtx 970? I'm wondering because crossfire scales better in arma3 around various benches than sli.

Or is a single gtx 970 enough in 3840x2160 on ultra?

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Or is a single gtx 970 enough in 3840x2160 on ultra?

#1: Hahahahahahaha, this made my week. Thank you.

#2: adjusting Downsampling Resolution isn´t that easy on an AMD GFX, so far i know an extra tool is needed for this, on NVidia Cards u just need to confirm which Ratio the Downsampling u want to have (WHQL Forceware 344.48 enables this)

[R3vo 2654]

Do you know whats better for supersampling? A pair of r9 290 which is pretty cheap or two gtx 970? I'm wondering because crossfire scales better in arma3 around various benches than sli.

Or is a single gtx 970 enough in 3840x2160 on ultra?

Is there a reason for you to got SLI or Crossfire? I would always prefer one highend card against 2 lower end cards. If I were you, I would go with a 980.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

I use since 12 years always Multi-GPU in my systems. A 970GTX Sli is faster than a single 980GTX but not until higher Resolutions (2560x1600) + maximized Details (AA+AF) All Resolutions below this the single 980GTX is faster than 970SLI. In Games like Crysis 3 or Metro you can clearly see the advantage of a Multi GPU Machine over a Single Card when playing with maximum details.

But upgrading only for Arma is worthless, you wont get enjoyable frames, even not with 4 980GTX in QuadSli. For other Games, yes. For Arma, no.

[forteh 11]

Are there any comparisons of benchmarks between 1st gen core (i5/i7) chips and later gens? How do the earlier chips handle with 2.5Gt/s compared to 5Gt/s of later ones?

Having overclocked my i3 to 4.62Ghz I am wondering if I could do better with a xeon/i5 with 8mb l3 cache. My work machine (i7 4770k @ 4.2) pulls higher fps with a much slower gpu, the main differences are it's got twice as much l3 cache (8 vs 4) and Gt/s bandwidth (5vs2.5).

If I get an i5/xeon I am confident of getting it up to 4Ghz and the 8mb cache will help but will it still bottleneck due to the same Gt/s bandwidth as my current i3? I don't want to buy a new cpu if it isn't going to improve fps greatly.

In the altis benchmark I get around 36fps, 1080p all settings very high, 2500 view, 1500 objects, 100 shadow, 2xmsaa, fxaa ultra. Blur is all disabled. Lowest fps is around 27, highest around 50.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

You wont reckognize major fps increasement, no matter what you buy and how the OC is. You can have 10Ghz, it doesnt matter. It´s simply impossible to boost frames cause the Engine isnt optimized for such steps. And the Altis Benchmark is in my opinion not really the best choice to check and compare results. In a MP Game the Benchmarked results are totaly different to the real ingame frames you will reach then.

And please forget such words like "Improve fps greatly on Arma3".

Check the Internet for further comments about Performance in Arma3, its a neverending Story ^^

[forteh 11]

You don't think that by going up to a true quad core with 8mb cache it will improve matters? As I said, my work machine pulls about 20% more fps with a slower gpu (1Gb quadro2000 3D workstation card) but that is a 4770k.

If I'm unlikely to see the increase with a 1st gen i7/xeon as I do with a 4th gen then I won't bother with upgrading the cpu, however it would be nice if someone has recorded the performance on the 1st gen chips :)

[killerwhale 1]

i just upgraded from i7 930 to i7 4790k and it is a big improvement, my minimum fps (what really matters) went from 20s to 30s with view distance of 3800

[forteh 11]

i just upgraded from i7 930 to i7 4790k and it is a big improvement, my minimum fps (what really matters) went from 20s to 30s with view distance of 3800

Thanks for the feedback, had you overclocked the the 930, are the two chips at comparable speeds?

The 930 has 8mb L3 and 4.8GT/s compared to the 8mb and 2.5GT/s of the processors I am considering, the 4790k has 8mb and 5GT/s although the clock speed is far higher stock. A comparison of your chip speeds would be great :)

[Tsark 12]

Hi folks, i recently performed a massive upgrade on my computer, yet the game still isn' t as fluid as i thought that it would be. By taking a quick glance at this thread a few weeks ago i' ve seen some talk about an arma3 benchmark, and i assumed that it would be one of the scenarios in the game, but i can' t find it.

Can anybody tell me what was that benchmark that you guys were talking about?

Thanks in advance.

[R3vo 2654]

Hi folks, i recently performed a massive upgrade on my computer, yet the game still isn' t as fluid as i thought that it would be. By taking a quick glance at this thread a few weeks ago i' ve seen some talk about an arma3 benchmark, and i assumed that it would be one of the scenarios in the game, but i can' t find it.

Can anybody tell me what was that benchmark that you guys were talking about?

Thanks in advance.

I assume they talked about these http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151794-ArmA3Mark-Benchmark-your-ArmA-3 benchmarks

[Tsark 12]

Thanks for the tip, i will try that right away.

[killerwhale 1]

Thanks for the feedback, had you overclocked the the 930, are the two chips at comparable speeds?

The 930 has 8mb L3 and 4.8GT/s compared to the 8mb and 2.5GT/s of the processors I am considering, the 4790k has 8mb and 5GT/s although the clock speed is far higher stock. A comparison of your chip speeds would be great :)

Hi Forteh, yes the i7 930 was overclocked to 4.1 GHz and still the 4790k beats it. my fps with i7 930 was 20-60, with the 4790k it is between 30-70. The important thing here is your lowest fps and when it hits the 20s, the game is nearly unplayable.

[forteh 11]

Well comparatively speaking my 4770k@4.2 at work pulls about 20 fps minimum more than my i3, if I only gain 10 fps minimum more then that is sufficient for me.

I've just picked up an i5 750 for 36 quid, I will plonk that in and clock it up to 4+. From what I've read, the i5 will match the performance of the i7 (HT aside but with 4 cores arma3 doesn't need HT) so here's hoping it pumps the min fps up from my current 25 with the i3 :)