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

[Tankbuster 1746]

24 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

@Tankbuster

 

 

So if you want a little more FPS than now, right out of the box, my advice would be to directly buy G.Skill Trident Z 3600 MHz CL15, which you can simply plug in your motherboard, choose XMP profil in the BIOS and forget about RAM for a long time.

 

 

 

1

That's the sort of RAM overclocking I can do. Added that to my list, thank you. 🙂

[Tankbuster 1746]

At the moment, the motherboard chosen will be an Asus ROG STRIX Z390-E and the cooler will be a Corsair  H100i v2

So yes, I'm epxecting good overclocking performance for the CPU from them

[Groove_C 267]

@Tankbuster

In order to "properly" overclock particularly the i9-9900K, one would need a mainboard with a lot of VRMs. The more it has of them, the more equally current delivered to the CPU can be spread among them, with less current/heat per VRM.

 

Asus motherboards have (as always) the best BIOS, but they have worse VRM configuration, for Z390.

Less VRMs and as result, the ones available, heat much more, because of more current per VRM.

 

Gigabyte has the best motherboards, for Z390.

If you can live with their BIOS interface (vs. Asus well strucutred and almost self explanatory BIOS).

 

I myself have always bought Asus because of their BIOS and sofware/hardware features.

But not for Z390.

 

Aorus Master 280€

Aorus Ultra 250€

Aorus Pro 180€

Maximus XI Hero 300€

Strix-E 240€

 

Computeruniverse.net UK prices.

 

Strix-E has less VRMs than Aorus Ultra/Elite + the ones present are of a lower quality.

And Asus supplies a tiny turbo fan in order to somehow cope with VRMs' temps.

But a lot of RGB bling bling )))

It will do 5.0 GHz, but with lot of voltage, heat and noise.

 

Here's a screenshot of VRMs temps after 1 h Blend load with 1 120 mm fan blowind from the top directly on them.

It was only 1 h Blender, not even Prime95 or AIDA64.

[Tankbuster 1746]

I've always been an Asus or Gigabyte customer when it comes to motherboards. I like Gigabyte's Windows overclock software. The master is quite expensive, would the elite do?

RBG? Not interested in the slightest.

[Groove_C 267]

@Tankbuster

The Elite is a very very capable board, which still retains 12 VRMs and costs much less than Strix-E, if you don't mind the lack of integrated Wi-FI, bluetooth, USB 3.1 case front panel header, only 2 USB 3.1 at the back, only USB 3.0 case front panel header, slightly worse VRMs cooling and audio.

Otherwise, buying the Ultra is 100% more future proof. It costs the same as Strix-E, has same 12 VRMs as Elite, integrated Wi-Fi, bluetooth, USB 3.1 case front panel header (besides 3.0), 4 USB 3.1 at the back, slightly better VRMs cooling and audio.

 

Which case and cooler do you have now?

[Tankbuster 1746]

Case is corsair 300r. Cooler is corsair h80, so both will be replaced

[Groove_C 267]

@Tankbuster

Have found an amazing case, that costs "only" 124€, but has class leading cable management, full case length PSU shroud, 2x USB 3.0 + 1x USB 3.1 front panel connectors and can host 2x SSDs directly on the PSU shroud, 2 SSDs and 3 HDDs on its back.

1x140 mm rear, 3x140 mm top, 2x140 mm front and 2x140 bottom.

Available with tempered glass or simply closed.

Believe me - you won't find a better one, especially considering its price.

No cable "visible" or obstructing the air flow.

Don't skip - watch the whole video 🙂

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

18 hours ago, Tankbuster said:

to get performance out of Ryzen, there's a lot of intricate and expert level tweaking to be done.

 

Thats perfectly true for Intel based Systems also.

 

my favorite for ArmA3 is still the 2600x + 3600MHz CL15 Kombo. Thats very fast and ultra smooth gameplay for little money...

 

But if you're a fan of Intel, i understand that its not only about $ and frametimes.

[Groove_C 267]

@Tankbuster

Corsair H100i V2 is very old, has a frigile and very loud pump. And is equipped with 2x120mm fans, which is well undersized for an i9-9900K.

You should look for a 3x120mm AiO (360 mm).

 

Also make sure to check this!

 

[Tankbuster 1746]

Interesting opinions on fans/AIO in or out. I watched another video (some French fella, can't remember his name) who said that with a non blower GPU, (like mine is) you should have the AIO as an intake and all the other fans on exhaust. That's the opposite of what this guy is saying. He doesn't seem to factor the GPU blower / open-fan type into his results. I think his GPU is a open-fan type, so his results do contradict what I saw yesterday.

 

I have to say, my gut instinct is to have all the case fans on intake and exhaust through the AIO, especially if it's a large (more than 120mm) radiator.

[Groove_C 267]

@Tankbuster

The thing is that the AiO should always be mounted as exhaust.

Because a non-blower GPU already exhausts enough hot air inside of your case and you shouldn't add even more of it.

This is clear.

But what the guy in this video says is that the AiO should be mounted as exhaust anywhere, exept the top.

Why?

Because the rear fan and the top ones are the closest ones to the VRMs and thus can focus the airflow exactly on the VRMs.

If you mount your AiO as exhaust, but in the top, it won't affect the CPU temp at all, but VRMs will be much much hotter, because fans mounted in the front are to far from the VRMs and the airflow is getting dissipated throughout its way.

 

One should check the length of AiO hoses depending on the length of the case.

[Tankbuster 1746]

Yes, none of these chaps factor or mention the VRMs.

BTW, I took my computers outside  for their 6 monthly clean the other day. I have a nice mains powered air blower and it shifted a lot of dust. Took 8c off the cpu temperature!

[Valken 622]

I recommend ASROCK. I used to use ASUS, and when costs went crazy, I look at the high end ASROCK with 5 year warranties... Never looked back.

 

I do recommend the OC MB due to the superior VRM components and less of the RGB fluff. I just turn on my PC and use it. 

[Tankbuster 1746]

I'm not yet convinced with Asrock, though I'm certainly with you regarding RGB. Fluff is how I'd describe this pointless trend if I was feeling polite.

[Groove_C 267]

On 3/31/2019 at 12:44 PM, Valken said:

I recommend ASROCK. I used to use ASUS, and when costs went crazy, I look at the high end ASROCK with 5 year warranties... Never looked back.

You should compare components every generation of Intel chipsets.

For Z390, ASRock Taichi Ultimate costs same as Asus Maximus XI Hero, has less features and is even worse temperature wise than Asus.

So for Z390 only Gigabyte.

 

One can add as many hardware/software features as one wishes, but if the CPU frequency throttles not even because of its temp, but because of VRMs temp...

 

@Tankbuster

In YAAB, the difference between i9-9900K @ 5.0 GHz and my i7-4790K @ 4.8 GHz appears to be less than 10 FPS.

But I assure you, that YAAB isn't and indicator.

There are around 40 bots, a few vehicles and the view distance is limited.

I'm 100% sure, that if you were to add much more bots, vehicles and increase view distance, the gap would only increase.

And if one was to test in such conditions, the i7-4790K would have saged much more.

[Lee77uk 0]

Hey guys.. decided to pull the trigger and try out Arma 3 on my Acer Predator Helios 300.. i5 8300H, gtx 1060 6 GB, 16GB ram.. I see that playing with the settings can really improve the fps.. had a look on youtube/steam.. so have a general idea of what to change.. anyone got a video or link they’d recommend I watch?

[Valken 622]

I believe ultra is possible on the 1060 GTX but your cpu will be holding you back so lower your draw distance to 1000 for objects and then terrain if need be to keep up good FPS to start. Then tweak it out ideally at the best quality possible.

[oldbear 390]

Well ..., I will suggest The Old Bear method ™ 😎

 

@ Valken : "Ultra" as global parameter, is not really usable to tune the game. It has not the same meaning in Arma3 and in BF.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by oldbear
I am not really a bear, but feeling like an old one now

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

@Kris In your other thread, you mentioned that you were looking at getting an i9 and that you mostly play Arma 3. If you have loads of money that you would just as equally set on fire, then ignore the following.

What you are suggesting is the equivalent of buying a supertanker because you like to go fishing. OK, maybe not an exact comparison, but overkill nonetheless. When we look at price vs performance (specifically with regards to Arma) you would be better off with something less pricey. If we compare the i9 to the latest i3 for example, that's $524 for an i9-9900K vs $129 for an i3-8530K (not to mention mobo cost).

When you look at one of the latest YAAB (Yet Another Arma Benchmark(s)) for example, the performance difference of their predecessors isn' far off (especially considering the cost). The one thing we don't want to see people do is to break the bank for very limited gains. 

[domokun 515]

These 2 images also put Ryzen performance perspective

[Tankbuster 1746]

I wonder how the i5 8400 would have done if it had the 3400 memory?

also, bear in mind the AMD part is overclocked. Although it's not specified, the i5 doesn't seem to be.

[Groove_C 267]

@Tankbuster

@FallujahMedic -FM-

@domokun

 

I hate TechSpot ArmA 3 benchmarks, because no mention of scenario used (location/number of buildings, AI and vehicles) and how many passes.

As I've already stated before, with increased view distance and number of AI/vehicles, the gap is more significant between lower clocked and with less threads CPUs + lower clocked and with higher latencies RAM.

Even YAAB is far from being representative with its 40 bots, <10 vehicles and reduced view distance. Not even close to the multiplayer experience.

 

150€ r5 2600 @ stock 3.8 GHz boost all 6C/12T and 16 MB L3 cache would have been hands down a much better buy than:

160€ i3-8350K with only 4 cores and 8 MB L3 cache

200€ i5-8400 locked @ only max 3.8 GHz boost/OC all 6 cores and only 9 MB L3 cache

260€ i5-9600K with same 6 cores and 9 MB L3 cache, despite its +5.0 GHz OC (i5-8600K @ stock is clocked lower than i5-9600K and gets relatively hot, because of the "toothpaste" vs. solder)

r5 2600 paired to 2x8 GB 3200 MHz CL14, mid range mobo and air cooler (not much heat despite 12 nm, because max 4.2 GHz) and you'd have been very very well equipped for A3, streaming/recording/editing and rendering.

+ M.2 SSD and max GTX 1660Ti/RTX2060 for 1080p/1440p.

 

FPS wouldn't have been as high as with an i5-9600K, i7-9700K or i9-9900K @ 5.0-5.2 GHz + 4000 MHz CL17, but again, we're talking about may be 10 FPS avg., in singleplayer.

Don't forget about a very good mobo (i9-9900K case), very good 280/360 mm AiO cooler (i9-9900K case) and 4000 MHz CL17 RAM.

 

I personally wouldn't buy a 4-6 cores i3/i5 anymore - no future.

If I was to buy something from Intel some time ago, it wouldn't have been anything lower than the i7-9700K, which at least has 8 true cores (and 12 MB L3 cache), which ArmA likes better than 6 cores + Hyper-Threading from the i7-8700K.

Thanks to solder, "only" 8 cores and no Hyper-Threading, it remains cooler* than 12 threads from the i7-8700K with its toothpaste and cooler than 16 threads from the i9-9900K. Or can simply be clocked higher. (* if i7-8700K is not delidded)

 

With Ryzen 3XXX release rapidly approaching, I would avoid buying anything from AMD/Intel at all.

At even higher clocks and with even more L3 cache it will be a very very hard time for Intel to justify the cost of their CPUs, especially with even less than 10 FPS avg., in singleplayer, requiring more expensive mobos because of to many threads for 14 nm 4 years old process and more expensive/exotic cooling.

Buying AMD now would be a fail/facepalm, because of higher default clocks/OC, better memory controller and more L3 cache for Ryzen 3XXX.

And also the price for Ryzen 2XXX is not as low as it will be at/after Ryzen 3XXX release.

If your current PC has already managed to somehow run ArmA 3 for some time, then waiting a few months more won't change anything.

 

In Q2 2020 Intel will add 2C/4T more on "same" 14 nm process (Comet Lake), pushing people to buy even more expensive mobos and >360 mm custom water cooling 😉

The only "interesting" CPU of that time could be a 10C i7 (w/o Hyper-Threading), which could probably be cooled at human temps (slightly lower than 8C/16T i9-9900K).

 

By the time (2021-2022) Intel will finally release their first 10/7 nm CPUs with PCI-E 5.0 and may be DDR5, AMD will release their further improved Ryzen 4XXX (even higher CPU and memory frequency).

 

So going from 32/22/14 nm 4C/8T or 6C/12T to 8C/16T 100% requires it to be in 7 nm.

This way one can buy a normal mobo, continue to use a high end 100% reliable air cooler and still achieve decent temps and clocks.

 

By the way, very soon, Noctua will release a updated version of their top air cooler NH-D15, with 1 heatpipe more and 30% more cooling surface area + 140 mm version of their latest NF-A12x25 fan.

 

280/360 mm AiOs can outperform the currently available NH-D15 by few degrees, only if one lets their pumps and fans spin at max rpms, which is much more audible than NH-D15 + much less reliable and can cost twice the price and/or more.

In AiOs' reviews, where one sees AiOs outperforming the NH-D15 by more than that or simply performing at very reasonably good temps, programs run "briefly" with CPUs at often conservative voltages and frequencies , which doesn't give the liquid the time/possibility to heat to the temp at which it will stabilize and not heat any higher than this and then they take measurements (like guru3d.com).

Also note that one never sees in AiOs' tests CPUs with 6C/12T and/or 8C/16T (clocked to at least 4.8 GHz), but always 4C/8T CPUs.

Not only such comparisons are unfair vs. air coolers, but are simply fake/misleading, because temps that people see in such comparisons have nothing common with real temps that users will face after gaming/rendering/streaming for like 1 h or more.

Based on such comparisons, people then buy 280/360 mm Corsair AiOs and then wonder why they need such high voltages for their i9-9900K in quest for 5.0 GHz and why temps are 80/90+ °C in stress/stability tests.

AiOs' liquid needs much higher loads if one wishes to spend much less time testing or at least 30-45 mins to show its real temp at lower loads, whereas an air cooler reaches its max temps in like 5 minutes.

 

Here are 2 runs (just 30 mins) at only 4.6/4.7 GHz and still only 4C/8T, but at least at 1.3/1.35 V, which show much more realistic results (vs. other well know sites with significantly shorter runs @ like 4.2-4.4 GHz @ 1.2-1.25 V)

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

Nice post @Groove_C but I think you missed the point. He's thinking of buying an i9 for Arma. That is literally burning money. As many of you know, I still play on i5 3570k and I still run multiple VM's for my research work. From Kaby Lake onwards, the overclocked i3 is more than capable of running Arma at near i9 performance and an i5 is even closer, often times for more than half the cost. My main point (without delving into the technical bits) is that an i9 is too much, costs too much, and wont perform as well as expected. "My car has 1,000 HP and can do 0-100 in 2 seconds flat... Hey dude, this is a dirt road, your car can't even clear the curb let alone the potholes.." 

[oldbear 390]

+1

The right question is what is the best tool affordable to do the job.

That's why I keep my current rig*  as it is, even if I'm sometimes tempted by some upgrade.

PC #1 : i7-7700/GTX 1060 6Go/16 Go DDR4 3200/SSD M.2 500Go [OS] + SSD M.2 500Go [Arma3]

 

From my point of view, it is a balanced all-terrains truck, no need to spend more until BI has improved this road 😎

[Tankbuster 1746]

25 minutes ago, FallujahMedic -FM- said:

Nice post @Groove_C but I think you missed the point. He's thinking of buying an i9 for Arma. That is literally burning money. As many of you know, I still play on i5 3570k and I still run multiple VM's for my research work. From Kaby Lake onwards, the overclocked i3 is more than capable of running Arma at near i9 performance and an i5 is even closer, often times for more than half the cost. My main point (without delving into the technical bits) is that an i9 is too much, costs too much, and wont perform as well as expected. "My car has 1,000 HP and can do 0-100 in 2 seconds flat... Hey dude, this is a dirt road, your car can't even clear the curb let alone the potholes.." 

Not thinking. Am doing it right now. 🙂

You are oversimplifying it. Yes, right now and probably never, the 9900k doesn't sit at a good place in the price/performance curve. But buying one, I am getting the best and, the z390 motherboard is, as far as we can, future proofing. I run, as you'll find out in the next few days (cue mysterious music) do a lot of development that includes running the game server on the same machine, plus a bunch of other stuff.

The new i3 are fantastic, it's true. My dedicated server (here under my desk) is a i3-6100 and it's fantastic for running my game server and the networking and media serving stuff around the house. Would I put in in an A3 gaming machine? Of course not, despite that fact it's in a wonderful place on the aforementioned price/performance curve. 

Obviously, Domokun is going to remind me that the Ryzen is even better placed on that curve, and I know it's irrational, but I will not be taking his advice. I still maintain there's too much tweaking to be done to get the best out of them.

Although neither your analogy nor my continuation of it is perfect, the road might be dirt here, but it's *probably* going to be smooth tarmac in the next few years and Mrs Tank only allows a new PC every 5 years.