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

[domokun 515]

 

That's not the point ...

The GTX 950 2GB in this link :  http://pcpartpicker.com/list/s3B89W don't look from my point of view as the better choice.

As the GTX 1050 release is nearing, it will be a good idea to wait a bit or to hunt for an other option.

 

Note : here, in Europe, you can get a GTX 970 4Go for 240€ but the minimum for a custom GTX1060 6Go is 270€.

 

 

On what data do you judge that the GTX 950 will be a worse choice than a GTX 750?

As for comparing a GTX 970 (4 GB) and 1060 6GB, it's perhaps fairer to compare it with the 1060 3 GB (not the 6 GB).

1. as this chart suggests, even the 3GB 1060 will provide better performance than a 970

2. in Europe the GTX 1060 3 GB is already cheaper than the GTX 970 (€215)

3. the GTX 1060 draws less power and runs cooler than the GTX 970

So the GTX 1060 3GB is a better option than a GTX 970 on every aspect

[oldbear 390]

Once again that's not the point ... who is speaking about 1440p ?

 

One element is missing here : what is the display resolution our friend Pedro De Castro is going to use?

 

At the moment even if around 37% of players -along Steam figures- are using  a 1920 x 1080 monitor, most of the players are playing on lower resolution displays. With these lower resolutions the impact of the GPU on overall performances in game is lowered.

As an example on a 1440x900 display it means a 10 FPS variation between a GTX750Ti 2Go and a GTX 670OC 2Go on a i7-3770 based rig

[domokun 515]

Once again that's not the point ... who is speaking about 1440p ?

 

One element is missing here : what is the display resolution our friend Pedro De Castro is going to use?

 

At the moment even if around 37% of players -along Steam figures- are using  a 1920 x 1080 monitor, most of the players are playing on lower resolution displays. With these lower resolutions the impact of the GPU on overall performances in game is lowered.

As an example on a 1440x900 display it means a 10 FPS variation between a GTX750Ti 2Go and a GTX 670OC 2Go on a i7-3770 based rig

The graph I posted does include 1440p but foremost it includes 1080p (just like the 2 others I posted earlier).

I agree with you that OP will most likely be gaming at 1080p (the 720p resolutions from the Steam survey are mostly from laptops, rather than desktops).

Hence my use of 1080p has a reference point when it comes to recommending CPUs and GPUs.

Maybe the GTX 1050 will provide better value but until we get benchmarks of GTX 1050 in A3, this is pure speculation.

So until then, if OP wants to play A3 at 1080p with High-Ultra settings at high (40-60) framerates, then the GTX 1060 seems to be the most cost-effective GPU.

[oldbear 390]

Yes, I agree. That's why  after having giving my GTX 970 Mini [too noisy] to my son , briefly tested an RX 480 [disappointing], I have get a custom Gainward GTX 1060 6Go. In game, it seems there are no more limitation on most advanced Lighting settings and full support for a high end CPU.

 

It seems that after having totally missed the impact of graphics card not only on game visual aspect but also on game overall experience, BI guys had changed their mind. As I have often written, some official previous CPU and GPU requirements, such as the Radeon HD 7750 for "Recommended" configuration, seems to be "a bad joke".

[Pedro De Castro 0]

Ok so this is my final build: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Pedrodecastro/saved/LKVnQ7 is it ok?

[domokun 515]

Nope because:

- only 2 GB of RAM (you need 4 min, 8 better)

- i5-6500 is kinda slow

- i5-6500  won't overclock

- mobo based on H170M chipset can't overclock

- the D92 CPU cooler isn't great (CM Hyper Evo 212 is better & cheaper) & unnecessary(every i5-6500 comes with one included)

I know that an 6600k + GTX 1060 will run Arma 3 x2 to x3 faster than this build and it would only cost you $90 more.

Since your build already costs $835, this reprsents 10% increase in budget for 100-200% increase in performance.

I've re-built part of your build to prove this

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/rLkTM8

[FaZe Booce 0]

Win7

amd fx 4100 3,6 ghz

asus HD7750 http://www.asus.com/Graphics_Cards/HD77501GD5/

8 gb RAM

How well will it run?

 

what type of GPU do you have?

[oldbear 390]

@ Faze Booce : why do you dig up this 3 years old post ? ... with a strange question :unsure:

[Mack. 59]

Just out of interest, assuming no GPU / memory bottleneck what is the difference FPS wise between an overclocked i5 6600k and an overclocked i7 6700K:

 

a) at the same clock speed?

 

b) at max overclock?

 

 

Thanks

 

 

Mack

[domokun 515]

Just out of interest, assuming no GPU / memory bottleneck what is the difference FPS wise between an overclocked i5 6600k and an overclocked i7 6700K:

 

a) at the same clock speed?

 

B) at max overclock?

 

 

Thanks

 

 

Mack

None what so ever as the only difference between i5 and i7 is that i7 support 4 more threads via hyper-threading. But since Arma 3 (like most games) doesn't support hyper-threading, there's no difference.

So in short, if you want value for money get yourself a 6600k and overclock her.

She'll no 4.2 GHz no sweat, 4.3 easily, 4.4 prolly, 4.5 maybe & 4.6 if you're lucky.

[ceeeb 147]

None what so ever as the only difference between i5 and i7 is that i7 support 4 more threads via hyper-threading. But since Arma 3 (like most games) doesn't support hyper-threading, there's no difference.

So in short, if you want value for money get yourself a 6600k and overclock her.

She'll no 4.2 GHz no sweat, 4.3 easily, 4.4 prolly, 4.5 maybe & 4.6 if you're lucky.

 

There's also difference in L3 cache: 6700k has 8MB, 6600k as 6MB. The best measure I can find of the general performance difference due to different L3 cache is 2% (source, non-skylake cpus). L3 may be more important in Arma 3, as its performance is heavily affected by memory performance.

6700k is also likely to reach higher overclock (4.77 GHz vs 4.54 GHz average, using water cooler).

[domokun 515]

There's also difference in L3 cache: 6700k has 8MB, 6600k as 6MB. The best measure I can find of the general performance difference due to different L3 cache is 2% (source, non-skylake cpus). L3 may be more important in Arma 3, as its performance is heavily affected by memory performance.

6700k is also likely to reach higher overclock (4.77 GHz vs 4.54 GHz average, using water cooler).

Excellent points.

So if money was no object, the 6700k will prolly provide better performance than a 6600k.

However the huge (50%) difference in price ($330 vs $230) and minor difference (<5%) in performance explains why the 6600k is by far the most cost-effective of the 2, i.e. the $100 you save can buy considerably more performance, e.g. 480 GB SDD, upgrade from GTX 1060 to 1070, etc.

[oldbear 390]

I believe that since Arma* has really switched to multicore with Arma2:OA things has move a lot.
At start, BI has been very conservative about extra-cores usage and management.
Since Arma3, I believe the situation is more fluid with some progress but also setbacks.

Last year, a minimum test config based on a Pentium G 3258 (2 cores/2threads) was crashing as soon as the load of the core reaches 100%.

Giving the nature of errors shown on the logs, a fellow IT engineer tell me that something was wrong with multi-core management.

Today, the same rig is playable even with a 100% CPU load.

You can have some experience of limited hyper-threading implementation in Arma3 with an Intel i3 of the last generations (i3 4130 ..., i3 6100 ...)

You can see a balanced usage of the 4 threads on the 2 cores while playing.

I agree with the observation that in Arma3, overall performances are heavily affected by memory performance.
Probably one of the explanations of Arma3 extra performances of Broadwell i7-5775C is the presence of the 128MB of on-package L4 cache.

[Mack. 59]

Thanks for all the replies. Due to moving I've delayed my purchase again. 

 

I understand the limitations of the non K overclocked CPU's but is anyone actually running one an I5 6400 or 6500?

[oldbear 390]

Nope, on this side, running "only" i5-4590,i7-4970/i7-4970K from previous generation for gaming

And so far only i3-6100/Pentium G-4500 from Skylake.

I will wait until i7-7700K release before building a new gaming rig.

 

But ATM, the i5-6600K is probably the best CPU you can get for playing, overclocking in sight or not.

[5150Panda 0]

i run this game on a AMD ATHLON 2 X2 215 dual core cpu that runs at 2.7mhz and a evga gtx 550 ti with 1gb of ddr5 vram and is overclocked and my game runs at a constint 30 fps and my cpu came out in 2009

[oldbear 390]

@ 5150Panda : I had tested Arma3 on my own AMD ATHLON 2 X2 250 based rig and I believe that telling you can play a "... constint 30 fps" is just a joke.

You can get a look at my own short review here

Of course, the game is "running" on such a rig but "playing" is an other story

From my point of view, it's the main problem with "Minimum" requirement level.

The GTX 550Ti is helping to play in "Standard" without extra stress on the CPU.

You can get an average 25 FPS in SP with limited General Visibility but Arma3 is not really playable in MP over 20 FPS even after switching off most of Lighting and AA&PP options.

[militant_mind 10]

kind of computer illiterate.  looking at pcs to run this game.  will these specs run it??

 

New DDR4 ram, 8 gigs (G Skill Ripjaws) 2400mhz 

New intel i5 6400 (quad core skylake) Can overclock to 4.5 GHZ 

New psu EVGA 600 watt (bronze certified) 

New Gigabyte motherboard Z170M-D3H (Skylake) 
 

Gigabyte R9 270 2GB video card  

128 gb SSD (Crucial) 

500 GB seagate 7200rpm hard drive. 

[oldbear 390]

@ militant_mind : with an "i5 6400/R9 270/8 Go" based rig, you not only "run" the game, but also "play" it.

My only suggestion will be to get a 250 Go SSD, because it's better to get Arma3 on the SSD along Windows.

A 128 Gb SSD will be a bit overcrowded if you play with great and ... large Mods such as CUP or The Unsung.

[feiercrack 12]

I like to build a new Rig.

My old one was an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T on an Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P with 8GB Corsair DDR3-1600, Sapphire Vapor-X Radeon R9 280X Tri-X OC, 3GB, and a Samsung 840 EVO SSD played on an LED 40" HD TV via 16MBit/s Line

 

New Rig should be: 2011-3 i7 6800k, Asus X99 Gaming, Asus RoG Strix 1080 Advanced, 32GB Corsair DDR4-3000 LPX Venegance, Samsung M.2 950 Pro SSD 512GB + Samsung 850 Evo SSD 1TB, 34" Asus PG348Q Monitor which comes with G-Sync and 100Hz Ultrawide 21:9 now via 200MBit/s Line

 

With my old System i got around 60 FPS in Campaign and 35 FPS on Exile Server with medium to full settings

 

Any suggestions?

 

Thanx :D

[oldbear 390]

If this rig is only for gaming, the Intel i7-6800K is not the best choice, the Intel i7-6700K is better.

I must add, that for gaming purpose, the upcoming Intel i7-7700K on a Z270 platform will be a nice challenger.

 

 

source : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/946-6/performances-jeux-3d.html

 

Of course if you need the 6 cores/12 threads for your pro needs it's an other story.

[feiercrack 12]

@oldbear

 

thanks for response.

 

the new i7 7700k will be released end of this year, and the z270 maybe spring 2017, and that update will be more to the feature set rather than performance...

And i cant wait that long ;-)

 

in the performance test, the 6800k runs only with standard clocks, 3.40-3.60 Ghz. i like to OC it up to 4.0-4.4 Ghz. Then it should be close to the 6700k with 4.0-4.2 Ghz?

 

btw i like to play games, mainly. like Arma 3, GTAV, Prepar3d, FSX, Falcon BMS, DCS-Digital Combat Simulator, Battlefield 4 + 1, Assetto Corsa, GoW4 and the Division,

 

and also upcoming VR Titles via HTC Vive.

 

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks :D

[oldbear 390]

Well ... after having played so many years with the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T, my own feeling is it's worth it to wait 6 more months.

Even if the performance gain over i7-6700K will be small,  the overall gain for the whole platform must be taken into account.

And that's the reason why I am waiting to update from i7-4790/Z87.

 

Of course, if you feel that there is an emergency, nothing I can say will matter ;) 

As I am not a OCing fan I can say nothing about it.

My own Team mates doing that kind of operations are telling that with last generations CPU and games ...,the gain is not so great.

Even with CPU dependent games such as Arma or DCS, it seems that the combo of a powerful GPU and a high level stable CPU/MoBo/SSD platform is a winner.

[elnod 0]

I manage to run it with onboard graphics from an i3 :^)

 

Horrible FPS but at least I can play it

[Vass. 14]

hahaha you poor thing , its a pretty CPU intensive game , save up for an i7 and you'll be laughing