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

[oldbear 390]

Here the main fact is you get a i7 4790K on your rig, it' still one among the best CPUs to play Arma3.

The GTX 1080 Ti is helping for the overall performance level but here it's only a 2nd line item.

Lowering graphic settings with such a GPU is not a good plan, the main result being to get diminish graphical quality without much gain FPS wise.

 

[domokun 515]

12 hours ago, Venger__ said:

 

I see. So there's not much we can do about it now besides lowering graphical settings or upgrading our CPU? I believe my memory is running at default speeds of 1600mhz

That depends. What are you current video settings?

Yes, you might want to push that DDR3-1600.

It should do at least 1866 but don't forget that you'll need to raise VRAM to 1.65V.

[Venger__ 2]

 

On 5/1/2017 at 6:09 PM, oldbear said:

Here the main fact is you get a i7 4790K on your rig, it' still one among the best CPUs to play Arma3.

The GTX 1080 Ti is helping for the overall performance level but here it's only a 2nd line item.

Lowering graphic settings with such a GPU is not a good plan, the main result being to get diminish graphical quality without much gain FPS wise.

 

 

I also have a 4790K and a 1080 Ti and I can also attest that lowering graphics doesn't do that much performance wise. The settings that I've found that really have an affect on performance are visbility/draw distance and objects. Those 2 settings can make the difference of an average of around 30fps when they're on max, or around 70-80fps if I set both to around 40-50%.

 

Either way, it's a beautiful game, just not the best engine.

[lysan 17]

i7 4960X

GTX1080OC

32Gb 1866 RAM

 

Running 4K all on ultra, I get around 30 FPS, turning the graphics down will not give me a lot of FPS gain, unless I turn it so much down it start to look ugly.

[oldbear 390]

The i7 4960X is not well fit to give a high performance level in Arma3.

Have a look at this chart from XbitLabs review of the Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition

 

 

Even if now, after APEX release, GPU is a more important asset, in Arma3, FPS are still built up by the CPU.

 

The GTX 1080 is helping for the overall performance level but here it's only a 2nd line item.

Lowering graphic settings with such a GPU is not a good plan, the main result being to get diminish graphical quality without much gain FPS wise.

Getting 30 FPS when you run the game in 4K seems a rather good result.

[lysan 17]

20 hours ago, oldbear said:

The i7 4960X is not well fit to give a high performance level in Arma3.

Have a look at this chart from XbitLabs review of the Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition

 

 

Even if now, after APEX release, GPU is a more important asset, in Arma3, FPS are still built up by the CPU.

 

The GTX 1080 is helping for the overall performance level but here it's only a 2nd line item.

Lowering graphic settings with such a GPU is not a good plan, the main result being to get diminish graphical quality without much gain FPS wise.

Getting 30 FPS when you run the game in 4K seems a rather good result.

 

Ah ok, that is new to me, hey you learn everyday :D thanks.

 

On a side remark, is it because Arma can't use the extra cores or something else, I need this kind of CPU for my video renderings so can't change back to 4 cores.

will SLI help getting more FPS out, or will that be a pointless purchase.

[oldbear 390]

Yes of course, it's due to limited use of extra cores and overall very restrictive multithreading usage due to the rather old Virtual Reality engine design. Arma3 dev are very talented guys to make it works the way we have in game

 

Here is an other "evidence" ...

 

Source : Test • AMD X370 / RYZEN 7 & 5 from "Le Comptoir du Hardware" French site

 

 

On the 2nd question, let me say again that here, the GPU is only a 2nd line item.

From my point of view, a GTX 1080 SLI is a total overkill without FPS gain to be expected.

 

 

[lysan 17]

On 5/27/2017 at 2:02 PM, oldbear said:

Yes of course, it's due to limited use of extra cores and overall very restrictive multithreading usage due to the rather old Virtual Reality engine design. Arma3 dev are very talented guys to make it works the way we have in game

 

Here is an other "evidence" ...

 

Source : Test • AMD X370 / RYZEN 7 & 5 from "Le Comptoir du Hardware" French site

 

 

On the 2nd question, let me say again that here, the GPU is only a 2nd line item.

From my point of view, a GTX 1080 SLI is a total overkill without FPS gain to be expected.

 

 

 

Yes, I figure that this was the answer, just wanted to be sure. So right now 7700K or wait for an engine upgrade :)

[oldbear 390]

As far as I know the fast lane is to get an i7-7700K.

I know, I am playing it 

 

BI dev are working on their nextgen "Enfusion" game engine, but you can't expect an Arma3 game engine upgrade in the near future.

[eXpo 0]

Hey guys, 

 

I currently have an i5 760 @ 3.6ghz and an MSI 560ti.

 

Eventually I'm going to upgrade both my CPU and GPU but atm I can only afford to do one, which one would provide the most performance benefit? I'd either get a GTX 1060 or an i5 7600. 

 

Cheers. 

[oldbear 390]

Hi,

As said very often here, Arma3 is still a CPU dependent game even since  Visual Upgrade the impact of the GPU performances on overall rig performance has significantly increased.

It means that performance improvement will come with a more efficient and fast CPU.

 

So the best move is to upgrade the CPU ... but, you can't upgrade the CPU without upgrading the motherboard and the RAM as well.

On a 250 $/€ budget, you can't afford both an i5-7600, the related Socket 1151 motherboard and the needed 8 Gb DDR4 RAM.

 

Let's have a look at what you can get ...

- CPU : Pentium G-4620 or Intel i3-7100  ~ 110/120 $/€

- Mobo : B250 socket 1151 ~ 80/100 $/€

- RAM : 2x4 Go DDR4 2400Mhz ~ 800/100 $/€

 

[eXpo 0]

7 hours ago, oldbear said:

Hi,

As said very often here, Arma3 is still a CPU dependent game even since  Visual Upgrade the impact of the GPU performances on overall rig performance has significantly increased.

It means that performance improvement will come with a more efficient and fast CPU.

 

So the best move is to upgrade the CPU ... but, you can't upgrade the CPU without upgrading the motherboard and the RAM as well.

On a 250 $/€ budget, you can't afford both an i5-7600, the related Socket 1151 motherboard and the needed 8 Gb DDR4 RAM.

 

Let's have a look at what you can get ...

- CPU : Pentium G-4620 or Intel i3-7100  ~ 110/120 $/€

- Mobo : B250 socket 1151 ~ 80/100 $/€

- RAM : 2x4 Go DDR4 2400Mhz ~ 800/100 $/€

 

 

Thanks for your reply. 

 

I'm in a position where I can afford the i5-7600 + mobo and RAM, I just cannot afford to buy all of that and a new GPU at the same time. Plus I only really like spending around £200 on a new GPU. 

 

I'm guessing a new CPU will give me more performance than a new GPU. Also tempted to invest in an SSD as I don't currently have one of them either! 

[oldbear 390]

I understand that getting a brand new GTX 1060 is tempting.

The choice is yours, better graphic display or more FPS.

The only way to get  a better in-game Arma3 experience is to get a better CPU.

Of course a nice 250Go SSD for Windows 64bits and Arma3 will help a lot not on the FPS side but on game "feelings".

The SSD helps a lot to get rid of stuttering and texture clipping.

[eXpo 0]

4 hours ago, oldbear said:

I understand that getting a brand new GTX 1060 is tempting.

The choice is yours, better graphic display or more FPS.

The only way to get  a better in-game Arma3 experience is to get a better CPU.

Of course a nice 250Go SSD for Windows 64bits and Arma3 will help a lot not on the FPS side but on game "feelings".

The SSD helps a lot to get rid of stuttering and texture clipping.

 

Yeah, to be honest, I'm more concerned with performance rather than looks. I'd rather have the game looking average but run smoothly than have the graphics on high but stutter constantly (which is what I'm experiencing at the moment) so I guess a new CPU + SSD would help with that before I upgrade my GPU. 

[SimSimmaGas 0]

Hi,  i dont think my computer will run this but just wondered if you could let me know for sure, many thanks.

 

Processor
1 x AMD Athlon X4 880K 4.0GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) Quad Core CPU
Graphics Card
1 x NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB Graphics Card
Motherboard
1 x Gigabyte F2A78M-HD2 Motherboard
Memory/RAM
1 x 8GB 1600MHz DDR3 (1 x 8GB) Memory
Hard Drives
1 x 1TB SATA3 6Gbps Hard Drive   on windows 10 64bit

 

[oldbear 390]

Hi SimSimmaGas, welcome here!

 

Your computer will run the game, but don't expect too high level FPS.

The "culprit" is the Athlon X4 880K, this CPU was sold as a gaming oriented, but it's in fact an APU [A8/A10] with inactive/disabled IGPU.

 

The GTX 1050Ti 4GB will help with overall average gaming experience while played on "High".

Be advised not to lower your presets to "Low" with the hope to get more FPS.

In this game, it's not working that way ...

 

The 1 x 8GB 1600MHz DDR3 on one slot is not correct because here, you are missing the "dual channel" effect.

On a Gigabyte F2A78M-HD2 motherboard, you must populate the 2 memory slots with 2 identical RAM modules.

Arma3 being quite sensitive on memory management, it's a needed update.

 

On the storage side, my suggestion will be to add a 250/256 SSD for Windows and Arma3 in order to get rid of stuttering and texture clipping.

[SimSimmaGas 0]

12 minutes ago, oldbear said:

Hi SimSimmaGas, welcome here!

 

Your computer will run the game, but don't expect too high level FPS.

The "culprit" is the Athlon X4 880K, this CPU was sold as a gaming oriented, but it's in fact an APU [A8/A10] with inactive/disabled IGPU.

 

The GTX 1050Ti 4GB will help with overall average gaming experience while played on "High".

Be advised not to lower your presets to "Low" with the hope to get more FPS.

In this game, it's not working that way ...

 

The 1 x 8GB 1600MHz DDR3 on one slot is not correct because here, you are missing the "dual channel" effect.

On a Gigabyte F2A78M-HD2 motherboard, you must populate the 2 memory slots with 2 identical RAM modules.

Arma3 being quite sensitive on memory management, it's a needed update.

 

On the storage side, my suggestion will be to add a 250/256 SSD for Windows and Arma3 in order to get rid of stuttering and texture clipping.

Thanks for the detailed reply, I ordered this pc last week it's coming Friday I copied and paste the specs which they sent me in a email. Is the ram incorrect then? Sorry not technically great. Also is it worth me purchasing arma 3 with my specs? What sort of frame rate would I be looking at? Thanks again. 

[oldbear 390]

Well, it's a bit strange to ask for an advice after having ordered the rig

The RAM is NOT correct.

It's always worth to purchase Arma3, but with this rig, you will get a mixed feeling about the game experience, sorry.

Expect average 30 FPS in game.

[SimSimmaGas 0]

5 hours ago, oldbear said:

Well, it's a bit strange to ask for an advice after having ordered the rig

The RAM is NOT correct.

It's always worth to purchase Arma3, but with this rig, you will get a mixed feeling about the game experience, sorry.

Expect average 30 FPS in game.

As far as I knew the ram was all fine as this buy was a pc bundle order and supposed to be ready straight out the box? 

 

I'll give then a call this morning And see what they say unless it's listed wrong.

 

this is what I found about it on there website-

 

Specification:

Capacity: 8GB

Type: 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM

Speed: DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)

Cas Latency: 11

Timing: 11-11-11-28

Voltage: 1.5V

Heat Spreader: Yes

[Carlos Patrick 0]

a Asus h110m-k Ddr4 é boa para roda o Arma3

 

[oldbear 390]

I Google Translate your post from Portuguese to our common required lingo here and get a funny "the Asus h110m-k Ddr4 is good for wheel the Arma3".

Is it a question ?

[3D_vet 29]

" para roda "  I'm from Spain, some of it sounds familiar (all comes from latin...) :) (even if it might be Brazilian) . I believe it means 'to run' . Roda , similar to "rodar" (like "to roll"). To play the game, that is.   "  The Asus h110m-k Ddr4 is good to run Arma 3 ? " , is probably the exact translation.

 

I guess he wants to know if that's enough mobo to mount his pc for Arma 3. I know *WAY* less than oldbear or anyone here, but you can attach an i7 7700k (or a 7600k) to it.  BUT... and old h110 might not be able to have the 7700k (if bios is not updated), a cpu which seems to be great for Arma3, unless it clearly says in the description of the mobo that supports kabylake (for example), as these mother boards are old, and require a bios update to work with a kabylake cpu. Also, ram will be limited to 2133, not 2400 (seems it depends in the model and brand...) like you can get in kabylake.  I'd go for a cheap b250, as I'm guessing price is quite  a concern, and would be less of a gamble, so. And put there some decent ram, and an average card, so I guess it could work. Probably people would advice better mother boards (I only do so when I really need a specific feature (or features) that is limited in whatever the mobo), though (for exampe, for that thing of the SSDs and other matters). h110 I believe it has limitation in dunno what story about pci lanes (for me, would be a bigger concern the max 32 gb, for my type of work)...among many other things, i dug that in its day, but can't remember.... I don't "store" all those infos, as my main PC usage is work (freelancer), rarely have time for gaming (sigh...) and even an old pc can do for this. Just the 7700k and 16 ram of whatever type would be a many x times faster jump in performance from what I have now. But this game seems to be quite a machine extreme stress test, even ram speed seems critical. I guess the advantage is you all are getting wonderful machines, so in other tasks your pc is gonna fly, heh.

 

I guess you (carlos) can use google translator to get this back to Portuguese/Brazilian easily (even while G. translator needs yet a revamp from its roots to be any useful...)

 

Or better, wait till another one, which really knows something about this :D, replies you about that mother board  :D

[oldbear 390]

I am not an English speaker, and nevertheless use the common lingo used used here, trying not no be too far from the "English" language  we must used here along forums rules.

As I am not a moderator, I was trying to tell to our new friend to try to use our dialect.

 

I agree with what 3D_vet has explained.

 

Nevertheless, I will get on other ways.

 

First, I am still looking for what I call the "Minimum Recommendable" configuration in order, not to only run Arma3, but also really play and enjoyed the game, I had test different builds.

On this thread ...Playing Arma 3 with a Pentium ...  you can get a look at my last -successful- attempt to build a PC allowing to play Arma3 on a budget.

 

Second, if you are stuck on the Asus h110m-k Ddr4 whatever are the reasons, you must know that you can build an Arma3 playable PC on it.

But as 3D_vet has explained there are limitations.

Without BIOS update, there are some CPUs usage limitations and due to limited RAM slots amount there are some RAM limitations.

On a budget, in this case, the "Minimum Recommendable" CPU is an Intel i3-6100 [2 cores/4 threads @ 3.70 GHz]*

Whatever is the budget, due to high RAM price, 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4 2400 are needed.

 

* Here, the Pentium G-4500 is not an option, even if you are on a budget. You can have a look at my own test on CanardPC forums (in French).

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by oldbear
Link added

[3D_vet 29]

Oldbear, extremely interesting that about the pentiums. I often get asked configs for general usage and "some gaming" (ie, games way less demanding than Arma 3) , and I had a very strong suspicion that the Pentium G4560  was quite a good buy.  As it comes dirty cheap in my region, but allows to have it in a modern mobo to update in a second extra budget situation... you know, people with little income (or better said, not able to justify much more in that) ask me for this : A way to purchase sth so that they can upgrade some months later as they can make some savings, just not too much at one time. I gave this advice , exactly this recently to a cousin: Buy a modern but inexpensive mobo, mount a g4560, maybe one year later (or in several months) upgrade to sth else (i5, etc). As it was one of those cases where they needed urgently a pc, extremely limited in budget, but had to have one, and were expecting to have more cash a bunch of months later... Seems I gave a good advice (no idea yet if  they've gone already for an i5, my advice was to do so and try and sell fast in second hand markets the 4560 once purchased the i5) . To be fair, though logic was telling me that from specs the 4560 was to be a better cpu, I had not much clue on how would the 4500 or 4400 or etc (and specially interesting to compare as well with an i3 in the low range) would perform in comparison...

 

Doing a lot of rendering, compress/decompressing and video editing myself, I would not pick this cpu(4560) (neither anything less than an i7, as I base the purchases in work needs), but for general office apps, browsing and casual gaming, it seems a good bet in the very low cost.

[3D_vet 29]

I'm curious, Oldbear...Have you tested the pentium 4600 ?