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

[oldbear 390]

No,sorry, I am buying all the parts included in my test rigs.

Most of the time, the PC built and tested will go to family or friends as gifts.

So I have always RL usage and own budget management in mind ...

 

[3D_vet 29]

Oki, thanks. From reviews it seems is a bit above the 4560 (and 4620 a bit above 4600, no surprise),and quite a good performer for that range. Thx anyway.

[3D_vet 29]

Had the cash now for a new pc, but I believe I am going to wait (maybe October) ... It seems it's very soon incoming the X series of Sky and Kaby lake (but that would surely go past my budget), and at second half of Autumn, Coffee Lake, 8th gen, main stream with a six core , 12 threads in the i7 range (ideal for my needs). Prices to be similar to Kaby's... If that is true, for a work/gaming machine it'd worth the wait for me. Also Cannon Lake (too many lakes in little time, lol...) in 2018 (a bit too late for me). Supposedly this 8th gen (Coffee) is a 30% in performance, but I hardly believe any of these statements... All this sounds to me as a reaction to Ryzen, somehow...(from what i have read, specially in content creation(rendering...)/productivity fields that machine is having acceptance). Thinking of going AMD...not for that 12 cores threadripper thing (as also intel's core i9 will be out of my budget, too), as would neither go for an enthusiast cpu... -due to cost- but if that 8th gen 6 core i7 is really mainstream as announced or ryzen goes down in price once the other new cpus are released.. then, one of the two would be, I don't care if is intel or AMD. 6 cores at a nice price, decent performance (~ i7 main stream is fine for me, specially if reaching 4.2 ghz) 

[3D_vet 29]

It seems that for maximum performance in-game, is all about 7700k (as said often, for Arma 3 but also others very cpu dependent), 7600k or some other in the line. But for having a slightly decent game performance (maybe not so much in Arma3, but I am fine with even crappy performance, I'm used to play so) but really good performance -for people like me doing 2D/3D/video work (I guess there are modders around here), or even just playing and streaming, I don't do that, but I'm a heavy "multitasker"- the 8 cores Ryzen 7 1700 reveals as very interesting (that or wait the intel mainstream six cores 8th gen in autumn (I'd probably prefer that for safety, but...now), or even just grab the 3.6 Ryzen 5 1600x now...(six cores, 3.6GHz stock, 4GHz turbo, I believe. Seems more focused on games, as 1700 is more for work)). They are both, 1700 and 1600x, at good price, specially for 8 and 6 cores.  Way too many choices. Finally some competition back among the two brands. This can only be good for us.. And from my POV, is indeed better for intel, to push things a bit more...

[oldbear 390]

From my -gaming- point of view there are some major topics for the near future:

 

- Core i7-7740X [4 cores/ 8threads @ 4.3GHz - Turbo @ 4.5GHz] is to be released soon.

Question: how it will perform in Arma3 vs a Core i7-7700 K ?

Source about the -X serie : http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/06/16/intel-core-i9-7900x-and-x299-chipset-revie/1

 

- Ryzen R3 are to be released Q3

Question: how a  Ryzen R3 will perform in Arma3 vs a Kaby Lake Pentium ?

Source about R3 : http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-r7r5-and-r3-processor-line-up-listed.html

There are a lot of "imaginative informations" on the subject, but as someone said "you know nothing!".

 

[3D_vet 29]

Very interesting points... I read now some parts now of those articles... What I hadn't considered is purchase now a ryzen 7 or the 1600(x), and if Thredripper (or the  1800x) could be installed in a b350 or x370, do so a bit after released.... using the same board is a bit of less cost, and I didn't know it was going to be "only" 800 bucks or so...I mean, it's 16 cores, 32 threads (the wonders Blender Cycles would do with that) that must be a total beast... (not for gaming, but surely in that department should be decent, just for the brute force...)

 

I for one am not too interested in the lowest Ryzen gen.... Unless they have some surprise hidden. Too under powered, but yep, who knows... maybe they position a ryzen 3 at the right price and power.

 

I was seeing tho, yesterday, a certain inconvenience with Ryzen platform. Yes is great for a mixed focus (work/some gaming) , but does not allow that great thing of purchasing first the cpu and be for some months (only working) with an integrated card in the mobo/cpu, Then purchase  a 1060 or 1070. With ryzen you need to add to the first cash push a card, and even if a low one , is money all in one shot, and mostly I hate to throw money away, as a low end card is very hard to sell in second hand, in my experience at least.

 

Yet though, if I get some sudden high cash gig or sth, after seeing tests in one of those articles, seems that a very round solution for almost everything is indeed the Ryzen 1800x. Even the article writer concludes a bit that is a good solution for its value, if I got it right. If you see the tests graphs, the 1800x is a tough contender, if you think about the performance/price ratio (not total absolute power). And a cpu for 900 or 800 bucks ( i9 has been priced aggressively cheap, imo, for what it would have been expected in that range with Intel, maybe is something to thank AMD for, I guess. ) . And yep, seems the infos intel is dropping now are not about improvised platforms, just it might be giving more anticipation to the news and release times than it was planned. My 2 cents: the AMD move is good for both platform users. (ie, some price reduction and anticipation in Intel )

 

Yet though, I'm curious.. coffee lake is just some months away, (maybe October/November?)... Wouldn't be more interesting the coffee lake architecture and its mainstream price for a six core? (of course, not if single threaded wouldn't reach 4.2-4.5 in stock, for games, i guess.). But yep, you said near future :)  (August, I think). I'm reading that indeed the 7740x (btw, 112 W TDP instead of 91W of 7700k) is thought to replace the 7700k. Also, that thanks to ryzen, it could be same price than 7700k, (or slightly higher), and, interestingly, reduce at same time the 7700k price ! This would be interesting for me, as I am always about the price/performance ratio.

 

Am I reading it wrongly, or the 7740X mother board needs to be new, and more expensive ? (not sure if refers to base ram). And seems it has not integrated graphics (digging it at Intel's page...disadvantage -in my view, and for enterprise environments (seats)- I guess, compared to the 7700k). Ouch, nevermind, I was thinking all the time in -k not -x (Skylake-X). That range never had integrated graphics and is a more expensive and different mobo, i guess is a way to make the hardcore mainstream user to jump into the pro platform, to fight back ryzen. Anyway, ryzen, -X, 8th gen or next year's cannon lake, will all require a new board, so...

 

Not sure how reliable is the source, but seems the 7740X might come at 339$. If that's true, is a really good price. Source.

And really, i dunno if I can trust the source, as my interest there would be in the six core, but how come can that price just 389$ ? Is Ryzen having such impact?  :o

To me that one would be a sweet spot in many ways. (not for hardcore gaming). Core i7-7800X (3.5GHz), 6 cores/12 threads, $389

If an old 5820k (but first hand, still in stocks) costs right now quite more... I don't understand. Maybe is to compensate the cost of a new mobo as they want these gamers moving to the new platform (X299 ?), again, thanks to Ryzen... It seems you can pre order any of the -X series in 2 days from now....
 

I really don't understand Intel's strategy.  They have a new technology, let me paste the freaking new name, Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 and they don't put it in any cpu till 599$ and up, the 7820x (3.6 stock). WHY. I mean, turbo's benefit is mostly for gamers, why not putting it in the 7740x, would be a definite direct punch to AMD. It seems this new tech allows to have two, not just one core running at max clock.IMO that might be a real game changer, if I understood it well.

 

 

[oldbear 390]

No, the Threadripper CPUs are going to need a special socket such as shown on this X399 moBo pic:

 

 

 

A Threadripper CPU is a MCM (multi-chip module) adding 2 Summit Ridge :

 

 

[Kevo1243 0]

Hey there,

 

I've just recently become interested in PC gaming and I have a very basic laptop/tablet. I found PUBG and loved it but my computer just can't handle it. I was wondering if I'd be able to play Arma 3. I have a Surface Pro with the following specs:

Windows 10 64 bit

Intel Core i5-6300u CPU @ 2.40GHz 2.50 GHz

4.00 GB RAM

 

I know this computer isn't meant for gaming and is very basic but I have been able to play several games on it so I am hoping Arma 3 might work.

[oldbear 390]

Hi, Kevo1243, welcome!

You are right this Surface Pro  is not for gaming.

I think you can run Arma3 and have some fun doing solo on 3D Editor but playing it (meaning enjoying the game in MP) is an other story.

The hardware is matching the "Minimum" requirements, but ...

- since APEX, Arma3 is more demanding on graphics, you can play on the integrated HD Graphics 520 on "Low" while disabling all the AA&PP section,

- FPS in Arma3 are directly related to processor frequency and efficiency. The  Intel Core i5-6300u is efficient but built for low power usage, so you will get limitations.

* Global view distance must be limited around 1000m

* risk of triggering overheating security his high as this game is CPU demanding and will try to hold the highest frequency.

- 4 Go is OK with Windows 10 64 bit, but Arma3 being over sensitive to memory amount and frequency, 8Go of affordable RAM will be better.

- Arma3 is also HD demanding ... you need the more efficient and fast storage system you can get, here an SSD is mandatory.

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by oldbear
English is not my mother tongue

[3D_vet 29]

I am able to play quite well planet side 2 (but I know deeply the game, that counts, too)  with an arcane i7 860 1st gen. It has 8gb and only 2.8 ghz stock, 3.46 non overclocked - I don't overclock my machines, neither want to do that. I use the machine mostly for work, but am an avid gamer since decades, when I have time.

 

Arma 3 is _certainly_ cpu demanding (the engine does very crazy -good- things, too), I have seen.  Still, same trick that served me to play WELL Planetside 2, which was unplayable with total stalls every 5 to ten seconds, total stop of some seconds each time, to fluid enough for a mixed tactic and cqc game (not full time cqc, as that would be a bit worse). Doing same trick in Arma 3, and lowering many settings, configuring things the best I could, I was able to play multiplayer (didn't go to certain servers and  playing modes that are more demanding, tho), have my frags even being quite newbie in this game. So...My point here is that there is definitely a personal threshold also. Probably this has quite less influence in Arma 3, as it eats quite some power, there's strong physical  limits, but some of us can stand less fluidity , maybe for being very used to it and using tricks in fps gaming from other games. I guess for an average minimally decent experience you need to stick to the hardware bare minimums mentioned in this thread. I just happen to be weird in some stuff, and setting the two exes in low cpu priority (with a task manager alternative) in Planetside 2 am happy with what it allows me for very long hours of playing without any sort of issue (before it was more crashy, too...now... never) in planetside 2, and mostly do SOME playing in Arma 3. I was able to play regularly multiplayer games, etc. But my main interest in Arma 3 is editing, -whenever I get the free time for that!- so, is not a main issue.  If anything, I'm missing a new card as is actually needed for several high polygon count modeling new software, for shaders editing, etc. But I'd be just fine even with a 1050 ti 4 GB (ideally 1060) . Pretty much decided to go for Ryzen soon, for non gaming reasons, which are more important to me. That unless Intel's new mainstream in October , 6 cores, if they don't delay that, turns out to be an outstanding machine at low price. Even so, I render I huge lot in my day to day, so, 2 cores, 4 threads more is a world of difference in rendering time, which is crucial to me (and also, will be able to work while I render), so, surely gonna be finally the ryzen. I might change my opinion around 400 times till October, tho, lol....

 

The cpu priority trick leads me to think that maybe the engine is counting on functionality or performance which is not a problem in modern cpus (of high clocks, of course, too), but that leaves my poor i7 860 without even power enough for the OS underneath. So, limiting that, and playing in low-mid game settings in ps2, I can tell you, a quite good experience, but just in my case.(very low performance/perception experience threshold in gaming). In arma 3, well, I could play. The issue, if there was one, was lack of playing experience in the specific game, but after a pair of months got the basic hang of it, the  machine was not a problem. I guess once you get more deep into the game, you need more.

 

Surface Pro was my heading for a portable drawing machine (and then was the iPad Pro, better for that, but still ... discarded it, too), but too small screen for drawing for my taste, and the pen has certain jitter. There's averaging and stabilization that fix that in some softwares, but often you need to draw with that off.... But is a great sketching platform.... And overall, not low powered. I don't see you mentioning the version - 1, 3, 4... - but latest ones are having a SSD disk, so, that's a good thing for general use (I dislike when there's not also a regular HD in the machine, for many reasons). And yep, low in ram, slow in cpu for gaming -imo- and the card, not enough power for 3D. But hey, am playing with sth very crappy and old, depends in your personal threshold and how you configure, things in th egame, the O. System, the machine in general, the quality of each hardware piece, even. Mostly in the personal threshold I mentioned, but that's only a very personal opinion of myself (and almost 100% not aplicable to Arma 3, but definitely yep to an enough high count of other games, specially for a non hardcore gaming. Or hardcore if can deal with it, maybe my case)... To play as most people want to play, I'd say might be impossible.

[Tankbuster 1746]

The only trick you need involves a credit card. :)

[3D_vet 29]

haha....not really... I have the money, I just prioritize and prefer to dedicate it to things that humanly reward me and others more..... while the machine still works, at least....

[oldbear 390]

I will test soon a full AMD build based on Ryzen3 1300X / RX 550.

I am still looking for "Recommendable Minimum" for Arma3.

I will share results on forums.

[Groove_C 267]

27.07.2017

 

LGA 1151 & LGA 2011-3 - DDR4 2400 MHz (16-16-16-36 1N)

AM4 - DDR4-2666 MHz (16-16-16-36 1N)

AM4 OC - DDR4-3200 MHz (16-16-16-36 1N)

 

Zotac GeForce GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme

 

2× SSD Crucial M500 960 GB

 

Windows 10 Anniversary Update (1703, version 15063.296)

nVidia GeForce 378.92

 

Helicopters Showcase 1080p @ Ultra

[Groove_C 267]

05.07.2017

 

LGA 1151 & LGA 2011-3 - DDR4 2400 MHz (16-16-16-36 1N)

AM4 & LGA 2066 - DDR4-2666 MHz (16-16-16-36 1N)

AM4 OC - DDR4-3200 MHz (16-16-16-36 1N)

 

Zotac GeForce GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme

 

2× SSD Crucial M500 960 GB

 

Windows 10 Anniversary Update (1703, version 15063.296)

nVidia GeForce 378.92

 

Helicopters Showcase 1080p @ Ultra

[Groove_C 267]

21.03.2017

 

No Windows 10 Ryzen Update (end April 2017)

No AGESA 1.0.0.6 Ryzen Update (end May 2017)

 

AM3+, LGA 1155, LGA 1150 & LGA 2011 - DDR3 1600 MHz (9-10-9-24 1N)

LGA 1151 & LGA 2011-3 - DDR4 2400 MHz (15-16-16-36 2N)

AM4 - DDR4 2666 MHz (16-16-16-36 1N)

 

Zotac GeForce GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme

 

2× SSD Crucial M500 960 GB

 

Windows 10 Anniversary Update (1607)

nVidia GeForce 376.33

 

Helicopters Showcase 1080p @ Ultra

[oldbear 390]

So far, before BIOS update and using 2133 Mhz DDR4, the Ryzen3 1300X / RX 550 platform seems to allow playing Arma3, on "High" video quality, with 2200 m Visibility well over 30 FPS. Getting 31 FPS with "Standard" on YAAB.

 

Building up a test rig based on AMD Ryzen is not as easy as it was when I build the previous Intel Pentium G-4560 /GTX 750Ti based one, Bios to be updated, RAM must be on compatibility list.

 

Not to speak about other factors such as this very hot weather in Southern Europe, over 40°C outside, 28/30° C inside this bear den  ...

 

[lysan 17]

What would be the best PC config to play arma in 4K? no budget limit.

 

Must reach 60FPS or higher. 

[daytrader 33]

5 minutes ago, lysan said:

What would be the best PC config to play arma in 4K? no budget limit.

 

Must reach 60FPS or higher. 

Would like to know this also.

[domokun 515]

21 hours ago, lysan said:

What would be the best PC config to play arma in 4K? no budget limit.

 

Must reach 60FPS or higher. 

i7-7700k @ 4.7+ GHz (will require massive HSF or WC)

16 GB DDR4-3000+

nVidia GTX 1080 TI

240+ GB SSD

 

My only remark is that SLI is prolly overkill, i.e. a single GTX 1080 TI should push 60+ fps 4K  

 

Source: my research from 9 months ago

Source: Hardware Unboxed's benchmarks are almost a year old and used an i7-6700k @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR4-3000 + GTX 1080 SLI

Video: 

 

[lysan 17]

15 hours ago, domokun said:

i7-7700k @ 4.7+ GHz (will require massive HSF or WC)

16 GB DDR4-3000+

nVidia GTX 1080 TI

240+ GB SSD

 

My only remark is that SLI is prolly overkill, i.e. a single GTX 1080 TI should push 60+ fps 4K  

 

Source: my research from 9 months ago

Source: Hardware Unboxed's benchmarks are almost a year old and used an i7-6700k @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR4-3000 + GTX 1080 SLI

Video: 

 

What MoBo would you recommend? and power supply? 

[domokun 515]

2 minutes ago, lysan said:

What MoBo would you recommend? and power supply? 

Mobo = any quality (mid-range = $130-180) z170/z270, e.g. MSI Z270 GAMING M3, Asus Z170-A

PSU = quality, >550W & 80+ Gold Efficiency, e.g. SeaSonic SSR-650RM, Corsair CS650M

[Groove_C 267]

But this counts only for single-player where all AIs are working on your computer and there are not many of them.

 

If you play multiplayer, there are generally more AIs than in single and servers that are hosting missions are often enough not that speedy like our PCs.

Of course there are PvP servers without any AIs, but still on PCs with not that speedy CPU's and RAM.

 

There are also servers that host the mission on one PC and AIs of the mission are running on an other PC so it can give a great FPS boost, but still on PCs with not that speedy CPU's and RAM.

 

So your PC specs are very important of course, but server specs are not less important if not even more because of the mission being hosted there with plenty of AIs.

 

Ideal case is a server with highly overclocked CPU + speedy RAM with AIs calculated on an other PC that is as well highly overclocked and a mission that is very optimized regarding scripts.

 

Imagine you playing with your i7-7700K @ 4.8 GHz + 32 GB DDR4 3600 MHz RAM + SSD on a server with not very well scripted mission with lots of AIs being calculated on the same server as the mission itself and with hardware like Intel Xeon 4th generation @ 3.5 GHz + 16 GB DDR3 1600 MHz RAM + HDD RAID 7.200 rpm.

 

Because servers' hardware is not changed as often as yours and hardware expenses have to be paid off before next foreseeable hardware upgrade.

 

What do you think how your FPS will be like?

[domokun 515]

2 minutes ago, groove_c said:

But this counts only for single-player where all AIs are working on your computer and there are not many of them.

 

If you play multiplayer, there are generally more AIs than in single and servers that are hosting missions are often enough not that speedy like our PCs.

Of course there are PvP servers without any AIs, but still on PCs with not that speedy CPU's and RAM.

 

There are also servers that host the mission on one PC and AIs of the mission are running on an other PC so it can give a great FPS boost, but still on PCs with not that speedy CPU's and RAM.

 

So your PC specs are very important of course, but server specs are not less important if not even more because of the mission being hosted there with plenty of AIs.

 

Ideal case is a server with highly overclocked CPU + speedy RAM with AIs calculated on an other PC that is as well highly overclocked and a mission that is very optimized regarding scripts.

 

Imagine you playing with your i7-7700K @ 4.8 GHz + 32 GB DDR4 3600 MHz RAM + SSD on a server with not very well scripted misison with lots of AIs being calculated on the same server as the mission itself and with hardware like Intel Xeon 4th generation @ 3.5 GHz + 16 GB DDR3 1600 MHz RAM + HDD RAID 7.200 rpm.

What do you think how your FPS will be like?

Lower?

Obviously performance in SP will always be higher than in MP

But given that OP didn't specify SP or MP, I guessed he meant SP

Because no-one will get 60fps in 4K in Arma 3 in MP for many years, maybe ever.

But you're right, playing MP on dedicated servers and in efficiently-designed missions (not too many scripts, mod or players) will always help.

[lysan 17]

45 minutes ago, domokun said:

Lower?

Obviously performance in SP will always be higher than in MP

But given that OP didn't specify SP or MP, I guessed he meant SP

Because no-one will get 60fps in 4K in Arma 3 in MP for many years, maybe ever.

But you're right, playing MP on dedicated servers and in efficiently-designed missions (not too many scripts, mod or players) will always help.

I wanted to know the best system for Arma 3 SP/MP, however as I understand it, if you get the most efficient system for SP, you're also well equipped for MP.

 

The server side of things is not much I as a player can do much about anyway :)