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

[oldbear 390]

@ DenyWilCo : you can also wait a bit eat some pasta and potatoes during Winter and get one brand new Kabylake i5-7600K [probably @ 3.8 GHz and Turbo Max @ 4.2 GHz] in Spring.

Intel doing the mild OC'ing for us being good ...

No need to change anything on the rest of the planned config.

Waiting is also some gamble on DDR4 price with the hope of lower price after Xmas.

[Horus 83]

@DenyWilCo If you wait for Zen you might have for ćevape (kebabs)    http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/french-magazing-posts-engineering-sample-amd-ryzen-processor-benchmarks.html

[john5220 0]

I have observed that the Arma 3 benchmarks state that the core i5 4460 and i3 4150 have IDENTICAL performance.

 

So I am going to assume the 4170 core i3 that I have is even better and thus does not need to go any higher. So why then do I get 20 FPS in fight scenes on 80 player KOTH servers?

 

I have a GTX 1070 and a SSD etc

[oldbear 390]

@ John5220 : Most of the benchmarks are SP things not MP.

When you are playing MP many factors are involved , so let me quote my own post about this :

 

- Factors related to Arma * Real Virtuality Engine itself

•     The RV Engine was not designed for massive MP with servers up to 60 players. Its special design created 10 years ago to have the simulation in MP as precise as possible with a lot less load is the cause that a significant part of the resources is devoted to the synchronization with the server.
•     The IA in Arma is extremely sophisticated, probably one of the best in the market, its resources costs are very high especially in MP.

- External factors that do not depend on Arma *

•     The use during a game session of resources consuming programs [CPU, RAM, Network], such as  browsers [Firefox, Edge, Chrome etc ...], such as the so-called social things[ Facebook, Twitter etc ...) as well as Skype and even Overwolf. To play Arma3 in MP, only launch Arma3 and the comm software [TeamSpeak, Mumble or equivalent].
•     Your own connection, wall connectors, DSL filter, cable, box, connection to the box.  A poor quality shared WiFi connection can kill your server sync
•     Hosting and connection to server. A Pro Host service hosting the Arma3 server on a dedicated state of the art machine [CPU,RAM and Disk] connected to Internet by cable or optical fiber will necessarily have better performances than a server "House" hosted on a makeshift server on home rig  with an DSL connection even at a good level due to of the asymmetrical connection.
•     The objects, scripts and other mods more or less tinkered added to islands and missions. When a "Mod" builds a city on Stratis Airport, do not be surprised to have FPS on the crappy level. It is this last point that is making some  "* -life" or other popular Mods servers FPS killers.

 

[domokun 515]

On 12/29/2016 at 7:21 AM, john5220 said:

I have observed that the Arma 3 benchmarks state that the core i5 4460 and i3 4150 have IDENTICAL performance.

 

So I am going to assume the 4170 core i3 that I have is even better and thus does not need to go any higher. So why then do I get 20 FPS in fight scenes on 80 player KOTH servers?

 

I have a GTX 1070 and a SSD etc

What benchmarks are these?

Because although a fast dual-core like the 4170 @ 3.7 GHz will deliver prolly deliver higher performance than a mid-range quad core like a 4460 @ 3.2 Ghz, your GTX 1070 must be severely bottlenecked by your dual core @ 3.7.

So if you're looking for higher performance, replace that 4170 with a 6600k and overclock her as even on air she'll do 4.3 defo, 4.4 easy, 4.5 prolly, 4.6 maybe and 4.7 if you're lucky.

However, check your mobo as only Z170 chipsets can overclock K series CPUs. 

[flonoen 10]

About to upgrade my GPU, going for either rx480 8gb or gtx 1060 6gb, any of these more suited than the other for Arma? Will I be able to use triple 1080p monitors at decent framerate with this setup? Only online, so 30+fps is decent. Cpu is 2500k.

[domokun 515]

37 minutes ago, flonoen said:

About to upgrade my GPU, going for either rx480 8gb or gtx 1060 6gb, any of these more suited than the other for Arma? Will I be able to use triple 1080p monitors at decent framerate with this setup? Only online, so 30+fps is decent. Cpu is 2500k.

A GTX1060 is a better card than a RX480 for most games. This is particularly true for Arma. Also I suggest that you get the 6GB model (instead of the 3GB), particularly as you plan on running triple-screen.

Finally, if it isn't already, I strongly suggest overclocking your 2500k

[flonoen 10]

Thank you, I will be getting the 6gb version, yes. 2500k is not oc'ed, should I get a better cooler for this?

[domokun 515]

34 minutes ago, flonoen said:

Thank you, I will be getting the 6gb version, yes. 2500k is not oc'ed, should I get a better cooler for this?

Yes it would be wiser. I suggest the Hyper 212 Evo from CoolMaster as it's surprisingly effective, highly-compatible and relatively cheap:

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/hmtCmG/cooler-master-cpu-cooler-rr212e20pkr2

[flonoen 10]

Bought a new cooler, Corsair H55 as it was on sale, and spent a couple of extra moneys on a gtx 1070 :)

[Jnr4817 215]

On 12/21/2016 at 4:31 AM, seeplay said:

Hello every one. can anyone help me?

I Played Arma 3 since its release on the GTX 580.
It was always good. After the recent updates graphics Single player and multiplayer is always 45-70 FPS at Tanoa 32-40fps in the jungle.

A few days ago I have put GTX 780 TI instead of the old GTX 580.
This gave the FPS boost in the single everywhere fps 70-150, 50-80 in the jungle.

Then I go to the server where it is always spend time. And we will see 25-30 fps, and the change does not affective ...
Who encountered such as treated?

Other computer hardware:
i5 3470 on 4.20 g
16 Gig of RAM  1800 g
SSD
W10-64 bit

 

Seeplay,

 

What are your graphic settings, parameters, etc to get the 70-150 boost, 50-80 in the jungle. I am only seeing about 60fps.

 

My Specs

I7-4770k 3.5ghz, plan to OC 4.2

MSI z87 G45

32gig ram

GTX 780 TI

SSD 850 EVO

 

Thanks

 

[domokun 515]

14 hours ago, flonoen said:

Bought a new cooler, Corsair H55 as it was on sale, and spent a couple of extra moneys on a gtx 1070 :)

Do you have an SSD? If not, you'll see more performance improvements than the upgrade from 1060 to 1070.

[flonoen 10]

Already have a SSD, and run my OS and Arma from this disc. Will SSD give fps boost though? I thought it was mostly loading that was reduced.

[domokun 515]

22 minutes ago, flonoen said:

Already have a SSD, and run my OS and Arma from this disc. Will SSD give fps boost though? I thought it was mostly loading that was reduced.

You're right: there's no boost per se. Instead you should encounter fewers lags due to micro-stutters caused by suddenly loading huge amounts of data, i.e. gameplay smoother.

If you've got the cash to spare, consider a TrackIR Pro 5. While it's no substitute to full VR, it offers the biggest leap in immersion this side of €900.

[flonoen 10]

Already have a delan clip :)

[Basler 0]

Hey guys i have a question i wanted to upgrade my PC im using right now an Intel Core i5 4570 CPu 3.20 GHz 3.20 GHz

i was looking for a new CPU and i dont know if this http://amzn.to/2iAxaDJ or this http://amzn.to/2jiAQMm is better what do u guys think?

Its my first Post on this Forum :D 

[domokun 515]

6 hours ago, Basler said:

Hey guys i have a question i wanted to upgrade my PC im using right now an Intel Core i5 4570 CPu 3.20 GHz 3.20 GHz

i was looking for a new CPU and i dont know if this http://amzn.to/2iAxaDJ or this http://amzn.to/2jiAQMm is better what do u guys think?

Its my first Post on this Forum :D 

If better means faster, then the i7-7700k is better than the i7-7600k because it's 5% faster.

However, the i7-7700k is also 15% (€50) more expensive than the i7-7600k, so I'd argue that's worse value for money.

However be warned that your i5-4570 is running on a motherboard with a LGA1150 socket.

Both the  i7-7700k and i7-7600k require a different socket, the LGA1151.

This would mean having to get a new motherboard and also, new RAM (DDR4 to replace your DDR3).

As you can see moving to either of these 2 i7 is major upgrade.

So perhaps it would be better for you to consider an i7-4790k.

Not only would that allow you to keep your motherboard, but it would also your RAM.

But to get the most out of a K series processor, you need to be able to overclock it.

Only motherboards with a Z97 chipset can overclock LGA1150 CPUs .

So check your motherboard's chipset.

And while you're at it, check the speed of your RAM too.

[3D_vet 29]

I will be soon buying (btw, being gaming by far not the first concern) an i7 6700k (i7 as I do a lot of 3D rendering and a little bit of video editing, and am a heavy multi tasker). If it weren't for the pricing (cpu + mother board platform more expensive in the low range), I'd rather go with a 10 core (5820k, 6800k or,  lol, 6950x...)  or more. Aren't you people worried about those comments/experiences/tests of the 7700k getting way over heated (even in small load, so can imagine in high...) in comparison to a 6700k ? if weren't for that, I'd go for the 7700k, mostly for the 4k video thing. Although not sure if you would have that anyway with a good card like the 1060... I might be wrong, but I also fear a cpu with problems with heating might have a not so long durability.

[domokun 515]

13 minutes ago, 3D_vet said:

I will be soon buying (btw, being gaming by far not the first concern) an i7 6700k (i7 as I do a lot of 3D rendering and a little bit of video editing, and am a heavy multi tasker). If it weren't for the pricing (cpu + mother board platform more expensive in the low range), I'd rather go with a 10 core (5820k, 6800k or,  lol, 6950x...)  or more. Aren't you people worried about those comments/experiences/tests of the 7700k getting way over heated (even in small load, so can imagine in high...) in comparison to a 6700k ? if weren't for that, I'd go for the 7700k, mostly for the 4k video thing. Although not sure if you would have that anyway with a good card like the 1060... I might be wrong, but I also fear a cpu with problems with heating might have a not so long durability.

Unless you try extreme overclocks (i.e. past 4.6 GHz or higher) any i7-6700k or i7-7700k will run hot under load (60-80°C) but well within their maximum authorised temperature (TJ Max) of 105° C.

In fact, provided you don't touch the voltage they should run even cooler 55-70°C.

Bear in mind that both the i7-6700k and i7-7700k have TDP of 91 W which, while higher than most other i7 and i5, is much cooler than their AMD counterparts and 35% cooler than those 10-core i7 you mentioned (5820/6800/6950k have a TDP of 140W).

Even a $30 HSF like CM 212 Evo can keep an i7-6700k < 80° C under load.

A GTX 1060 is better card than a R480X if you want to keep your temps as low as possible. Just ensure you get the 6GB version (not the 3GB).

[3D_vet 29]

Yes, the 1060 is in my radar, totally. And the 6gb super useful for Blender Cycles rendering, is just way less time wating for renders. I just got worried with some comments/tests I read, and the tests in tomshardware were not the worst I read... They managed to put it at 100+ ºC, but yep, in a very extreme test. Ok, I might risk it and go then for a 7700k... I wasn't going to overclock, anyway. I am only worried in very heavy load situations of that cpu but without having it overclocked. The tomshardware article :  http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-i7-7700-i5-7600k-i5-7600,4870-8.html

From a comment from an admin of ExtremePC, an article about i7 7700k :  "I will tell you this: I did observe a modestly higher temperature on the 7700K compared to the 6700K."   https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/241950-intels-core-i7-7700k-reviewed-kaby-lake-debuts-desktop

 

It seems is all about using thermal paste instead of solder, whatever the heck that means  xD  (yeah, not an overclocker :D )  "Intel’s decision to use thermal paste instead of solder to connect the 7700K’s heat spreader to the die has resulted in poor overall thermal conductivity"  

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by 3D_vet
Added details.

[3D_vet 29]

In my area, as I want to buy locally, the difference is 52 euros. (~55 $ ). So, is kind of significant for a cpu that deals a bit worse with the temps and with a 10% performance gain. But still, if it streams well at 4k, that's definitely a considerable improvement. I'd be using a dedicated card (hopefully 1060), though, but perhaps this cpu is better prepared for working with images and video...Just something I suspect, based on nothing solid.

 

Edit: Anyway, I believe I'll finally go for the i7 7700k.

Edited January 17, 2017 by 3D_vet

[domokun 515]

15 hours ago, 3D_vet said:

In my area, as I want to buy locally, the difference is 52 euros. (~55 $ ). So, is kind of significant for a cpu that deals a bit worse with the temps and with a 10% performance gain. But still, if it streams well at 4k, that's definitely a considerable improvement. I'd be using a dedicated card (hopefully 1060), though, but perhaps this cpu is better prepared for working with images and video...Just something I suspect, based on nothing solid.

 

Edit: Anyway, I believe I'll finally go for the i7 7700k.

If there's that much difference, then it sounds like that the i7-6700k is better value for money.

 

[CDT Dragos 0]

Hey I'm really confused if someone could clear this out it would be great. I'm currently using a amd a8-7600 and I'm getting around 30 give or take on low settings aa off 720p. I was thinking of getting a AMD athlon x4 760k would this help as arma 3 is very cpu dependant ?? 

[Greenfist 1863]

9 minutes ago, SGT. Dragos said:

Hey I'm really confused if someone could clear this out it would be great. I'm currently using a amd a8-7600 and I'm getting around 30 give or take on low settings aa off 720p. I was thinking of getting a AMD athlon x4 760k would this help as arma 3 is very cpu dependant ?? 

760k seems to be worse than your current cpu.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2311&cmp[]=1997

[oldbear 390]

Basically, all these Athlon II x4 on FM2 socket are A8 / 10 APUs whose IGPU part is inactive.
From data sheet I know that Athlon II x4760K and some Richland APUs based on second generation Bulldozer micro-architecture such as A10-6800K and A10 7600 are sharing most of their specs.

So these Athlon II x4 are showing the qualities and defects of these AMD APUs.
For office jobs and some heavily multithreaded tasks it's a good basis.

It does not perform on Arma3 at the expected level because of the poor overall efficiency of the architecture of the processor despite it's high speed.

 

 

Source [in French]  : http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/articles/cpu-mobo-ram/29352-test-intel-z170-et-core-i5-6600k-i7-6700k.html?start=14

Some references :
Http://www.anandtech.com/show/10436/amd-carrizo-tested-generational-deep-dive-athlon-x4-845/20