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

[domokun 515]

@gorog81 Fastest gaming CPU = Intel i9-9900k @ €500 + HSF

Best value CPU = AMD's Ryzen 5 3600X @ €250

e.g. Intel's i9-9700k costs costs 80% more than AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X but is only 11% faster @ 1080p

 

Conclusion: buy Ryzen 3600X @ €250, 2x 8GB DDR4-3200 RAM @ €90, B450 Max Motherboard @ €120 & 480 GB SSD @ €50.

Later, when you have more funds, replace your 1050 with Radeon RX 580 @ €170.

[oldbear 390]

+1 for domokun.

 

From my point of view, the R7 3700X is not the best choice in order to play Arma3.

The R5 3600X is having the same 4.4 GHz boost speed and it's a rather good choice.

I am currently testing it on my bench with Arma3 in mind [what else ...?] and you can have a look at some experiment on French CanardPC Arma3 dedicated treads, here "Jouer à Arma3 avec un AMD R5 2000/3000 : Armaverse Battleship."

With budget in mind, you can start  with a solid platform MoBo+RAM+SSD and a Ryzen 2600 taking advantage of sales.

The GTX 1050 is OK well over the minimum for Video Quality in order to get an enjoyable 1080p display.

[gorog81 0]

Thanks for all answers Gentlemens!

I'm not playing online, just singleplayer with some mods, for example RHS, CUP, ACE and Achilles for Zeus.

The Ryzen 5 3600x have a very good price in my country.

Is that enough for masybe 40-50 FPS in 1920x1080 resolution in singleplayer with this mods?

 

[oldbear 390]

As I had said ...

The R5 3600X is having the same 4.4 GHz boost speed and it's a rather good choice. I am currently testing it on my bench with Arma3 in mind [what else ...?] and you can have a look at some experiment on French CanardPC Arma3 dedicated treads, here "Jouer à Arma3 avec un AMD R5 2000/3000 : Armaverse Battleship."

 

Testing platform set up :

CPU : R5 3600X

MoBo : ASUS TUF B450M-Pro Gaming

RAM : Corsair Vengeance LP 16GB (2x8GB) 3200 MHz C16

GPU : RX 570 4 GB

 

YAAB testing results :

 

YAAB (Yet Another Arma Benchmark) is a CPU heavy test mission featuring AI fighting performance, bullets, and explosions and giving a rather good overview of the FPS level you can expect in game in SP.

 

Note about "Custom" :

The Custom is my own Arma3 in-game setting based on the Bear Method ™, 😎
So ... for the Video settings:
- Quality: Ultra (except the PiP in Standard) and Visibility> General  = 3200m (Clan dedicated server setting for testing in MP)
- SynchroV: Disabled
- AA & PT:
* Bloom, Blur Radial, Blur Rotation, Depth of Field to zero (I am myopic since ... and I can't stand the blur!)
* Refine the filter set to 100 (ditto)
* FSAA = 4
* PPAA = CMAA

 

Note about  "Ryzen 3000" RAM:

Currently testing G.Skill TridentZ NEO @ 3600 MHz C16 looking for the "sweet spot".

With updated BIOS and this RAM, it seems that there is an average 3/5 FPS gain in game, still under investigation!

[gorog81 0]

Thank you for your hard work Sir!

I try the YAAB in my current config and i can get hardly 2(!) FPS even the lowest setting. It's awkward. But I can play with 20-25 FPS in a 10v10 firefight in Zeus.

That 40 FPS is more than enough for me. Absolutly.

A plan to buy RAM from G.Skill. Maybe the Ripjaws V kit with 16 GB and 3200 MHz.

 

[Groove_C 267]

Ripjaws is same as Trident Z. You just don't pay for "sexy" aluminum body and no RGB blingbling.

16 GB is ok.

[oldbear 390]

No  Ripjaws is not the same as G.Skill TridentZ NEO @ 3600 MHz C16, because NEO is special for Ryzen 3000, have a look at the timings.

But from my point of view, the basic Corsair Vengeance LP 16GB (2x8GB) 3200 MHz C16 is not so far from the "sweet spot", stable and a lot cheaper 😏

Have a close look to RAM QVL list for your mother board in order to prevent unpleasant surprises.

 

Edit : FPS gain with 3600 MHz is lower than expected. After multiple runs ... Ultra and Standard + 1,5 FPS  😒

It will not be worth it.

[Groove_C 267]

Not at CL16. Yes.

[oldbear 390]

@gorog81 If you are looking for G.Skill RAM, I will suggest, as an alternative,  to look after references successfully used by sites in their review of the R5 3600/R5 3600X.

It may seem like an excess of precaution but it's my own experiences in my Ryzen tests that tend me to be over cautious despite BIOS evolutions. As an example ...

G.Skill Flare X Series 16 Go (2x 8 Go) DDR4 3200 MHz CL14 ->  https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-3600/4.html

 

 

[Tankbuster 1746]

1 hour ago, oldbear said:

@gorog81 If you are looking for G.Skill RAM, I will suggest, as an alternative,  to look after references successfully used by sites in their review of the R5 3600/R5 3600X.

It may seem like an excess of precaution but it's my own experiences in my Ryzen tests that tend me to be over cautious despite BIOS evolutions. As an example ...

G.Skill Flare X Series 16 Go (2x 8 Go) DDR4 3200 MHz CL14 ->  https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-3600/4.html

 

 

It looks like good RAM. It's price though ...  US$ 280

[oldbear 390]

@Tankbuster As previously said, it was an example, giving a hint about where to look at ...

 

Here and now in the EU, you cant get it at 160€ , but that was not my point.

On the G.Skill site you can have a look at the Flare X (For AMD) serie  and, more precisely G.Skill Flare X Series 16 Go (2x 8 Go) DDR4 3200 MHz products.

You can also see, that it comes with Cl 14 and Cl 16 CAS latency, G.Skill Flare X Series 16 Go (2x 8 Go) DDR4 3200 MHz C16 is a lot cheaper and as it's built for AMD, you can get the list of compatible MoBo by clicking on the QVL tab.

[Horus 83]

ATM you can buy 3200 CL14 2x8GB kit from ~130€ and up https://geizhals.de/?cat=ramddr3&xf=15903_DDR4~253_8192~254_3200~256_2x~4276_14&asuch=&bpmin=&bpmax=&v=e&hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=uk&plz=&dist=&mail=&sort=p&togglecountry=set

Find Samsung B-Die DDR 4 memory kits on Amazon, Newegg and many more -> https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/

 

[Groove_C 267]

@Belanglos

 

Your problem is related to only 8 GB of RAM, in the first place.

I now have 32 GB RAM and launching only ArmA (no other apps open) and not even navigating to any of its menus/options, I already have 8 GB of RAM full.

And I suppose you not only have only 8 GB RAM but it's not even 2000 MHz DDR3, more likely 1333/1600/1866 MHz.

RAM cleaner is a very very bad idea, because it only causes even more stutter.

vRAM, RAM and paging file are there in order to be able to have as much 3D models, textures and sounds loaded from the disk to all of them, so when something is needed, it's already in the memory.

Constantly cleaning RAM requires all the stuff to be requested/loaded each time again and again from the disk, which is much much slower than RAM and RAM being much much much slower than vRAM.

 

So RAM quantity is your main problem, but not the only.

Even when I've played ArmA 2, which was 32 bit and also ArmA 3, which also was 32 bit (until March 2017), I already had 16 GB RAM and playing like 6 or more hours in multiplayer, I received a message that was saying, that my RAM was full and I needed to close some apps or close ArmA.

 

Looking at how much RAM the .exe file consumes is wrong.

This only tells you how much RAM is used for the game to run.

Because the game also caches really a lot of stuff and the longer you play the bigger the cache, which has nothing to do with the amount of RMA used by .exe file of the game.

 

Even in 2014, when I had my GTX Titan with its 6 GB vRAM, ArmA 3 32 bit at 1080p ultra was already using 3.7 GB vRAM.

So your 3.5 GB vRAM were already a limiting factor back then.

 

Since ArmA 3 is 64 bit (March 2017), I can tell you, that after playing more than 5-6 hours without reconnect to a server or game restart, I could observe like 25 GB RAM of 32 GB, 8 GB of 8 GB vRAM (GTX 1070 Ti) and more than 30 GB paging file, while playing on Altis PvE without any mods with 30 players.

I know one guy, who has 16 GB vRAM (Radeon VII) and he has seen more than 9 GB vRAM usage at 1080p. I don't affirm that so much is really used, but it's at least reserved.

I also have used GTX 970, with its only 3.5 GB vRAM (+ 512 MB very very slow vRAM). Its performance is very similar to a GTX 1060 6 GB, but with a lot more freezes/stutters, because of only 3.5 GB vRAM.

 

Only launching the game, already more than 2 GB vRAM are used.

When playing a little bit in multiplayer, your 3.5 GB vRAM are quickly full, which already starts to cause some micro-stutter (despite good/high FPS), because older stuff is being moved from vRAM to a much much slower RAM to free some vRAM for new stuff, that needs to be loaded to the the vRAM.

And this happens non-stop, because your vRAM is limiting.

BUT!

You also have RAM problem already when starting the game, not even speaking about running the game for several hours.

So data is also moved from RAM to paging file, which is a lot slower than RAM itself, which causes even more micro-stutter (despite good/high FPS).

 

And just so you know, you can't really disable paging file in Windows 10.

Because even if you disable or limit paging file size in the settings, which by the way are the left overs from Windows 7 user interface, when you check the paging file usage/size with MSI afterburner or with HWiNFO, when you're playing, you will see, that the usage is fluctuating and increasing over time.

And one shouldn't disable or limit the size of the paging file, because there are apps/games that need it to exist, because it's how a lot of apps/games are programmed.

You should always leave it in automatic management, so when certain disk capacity is needed, it's accessible, so the app/game doesn't crash.

Also always having like 20% of disk capacity left for moving files or paging file needs is crucial.

 

You need at least 16 GB RAM and also, if possible at least 6 GB vRAM.

Because over time, hardware level needed for a fluid experience in ArmA has increased. A lot when ArmA 3 switched to 64 bit.

 

command -maxMem= in order to limit the RAM usage isn't doing anything. Just so you know.

 

FPS only tells you how fast a game runs, but not how fluid.

For good fluidity of a game (not only ArmA), one needs enough vRAM, RAM, paging file, SSD and cores/threads.

 

One can have like 120 FPS with 2-4 5GHz cores, but it will lag/stutter, because of low vRAM, low RAM, low paging file, no SSD, not enough cores/threads.

One can play with 40 FPS and experience a much more fluid gameplay, with 6 GB vRAM, 16 GB RAM, auto paging file management, SSD and 4/8 cores/threads.

One can experience even more fluid gameplay with 8 GB vRAM and more, with more than 16 GB RAM, 6-8/12-16 cores/threads. Despite having not even half of FPS one would like.

 

And remember! vRAM, RAM and paging file are there, to keep the info loaded for faster access and less lag/stutter.

Cleaning it, defies the purpose of having it and its certain size/amount.

And also don't compare ArmA to most of other games. Since ArmA is a pure PC game, not a console port. Which if it would have been one, could run much smoother/faster, because consoles are much weaker and console ports, like GTA or Witcher are programmed with this in mind.

If you look at Tarkov or Squad, same problems as with ArmA can be observed, despite them being newer and having better/newer engines.

[Tankbuster 1746]

I sometimes don't agree with my brother Groove_C, but here he is right. Something else to consider, especially when stutter is observed when shooting is to make sure the audio system is up to the job - drivers, hardware etc.

[Belanglos 1]

Thank you for the in depth reply.

 

Seems like it's finally time to retire my current rig. 

[Smart Games 76]

Don't forget the monitor.

[Firebird-B4L 51]

What's currently the best gaming PC for Arma 3?

[oldbear 390]

If you play in 1080p, probably something like ...

- i7 9700k /Z390

- DDR4 16GB (2x8)  3200 MHz C14

- NVMe 500 GB/1TB SSD

- RX 590/GTX 1660Ti

 

But, you can play on a budget at a rather good level on ...

 

- Ryzen 5 3600X/B450

- DDR4 16GB (2x8)  3600 MHz C16

- NVMe 500 GB/1TB SSD

- RX 590/GTX 1660Ti

 

 

[Groove_C 267]

I wouldn't buy anything with less than 12 threads and with less than 8 GB vRAM.

No future for only 8 cores/threads and 6 GB vRAM.

 

Ryzen 5 3600, Ryzen 7 3700X or i9-9900K.

RX 590 Sapphire Nitro+, RX 5700 Red Devil, RX 5700 XT Red Devil and RX 5700 XT Sapphire Nitro+.

[Firebird-B4L 51]

Based on all the benches and tests run, what is currently the best if you're willing to spend the extra dough?  I play a lot of Arma 3.

[oldbear 390]

Here and now, the fastest 8 cores you can get as a base  ...

 

Source :  Test • Intel Z390 / Core i9-9900K / i7-9700K / i5-9600K

 

Intel Core i9-9900K with 5.00 GHz Max Turbo Frequency.

Under load, playing Arma3, you will get 2 cores @ 5.00 GHz and the others running from 4.7 to 4.9 GHz.

Powerful and efficient Noctua NH-D15 CPU Cooler usage recommended.

[Firebird-B4L 51]

Thanks oldbear for the information.  Anything new on the horizon I might wait for?

[Groove_C 267]

@Firebird-B4L

Do you play any other games besides ArmA or is ArmA the main reason for your upgrade?

 

If I were you, I certainly wouldn't upgrade only based on what is best for ArmA 3 only, since the next ArmA is only few years away and other interesting games might appear any time.

So your build must be "future proof", in some way.

 

only 6 or 8 cores threads are already easily fully loaded by current games, not even speaking about future games and even future ArmA.

So why bother to buy hardware that is fully utilized already today and has no headroom.

It would be wise to upgrade to at least 6/12 cores/threads, if on budget or ideally to 8/16 cores/threads, if money is not a problem.

Also graphic cards. AMD now has good performance and price GPUs, but drivers are still not on the same level as NVIDIA.

So I wouldn't buy anything lower than RTX 2070 Super. It's 25% more expensive than RX 5700 XT for like 10% better performance. But drivers stability and support is still better.

 

Next ArmA 100% will have higher graphics requirements, so why not anticipate as much as possible, in order to avoid additional expenses for new GPU or new CPU or not being able to play at good level of graphics or performance, because you decided to go on budget some time ago and must invest again, because of this.

 

Be smart, don't buy twice, if possible. Or at least make your next partial or full upgrade happen as late as possible.

 

i9-9900K would be the best choice for titles like ArmA, Squad and Tarkov, since it has the highest performance per core of all available processors and also has enough cores/threads in order to have some headroom for the future.

Noctua NH-D15S air cooler is the best option to cool it with no maintenance or worries, compared to all sexy and shiny bling bling cheep All in One water coolers, that are sold for a lot of money for now reason.

Don't be victim of marketing and "social pressure" from other users that won't understand why you didn't buy an AiO water cooler, which is "better", because in reality it isn't.

[Groove_C 267]

I have found only one site (techpowerup), that tests CPU coolers on a +- modern CPU (i7-8700K 6/12 cores/threads) with good enough overclock (4.8 GHz) and at "real" voltage (1.3V).

Expect +- same temp for i9-9900K (if also 4.8 GHz 1.3 V) as for i7-8700K, because it's heat spreader is soldered rather than with toothpaste, which decreases the temp by +- 15°C, but these 15°C lost are regained again with additional 2/4 cores/threads of i9-9900K.

Not like other sites, which test only with (by now old) 4/8 cores/threads CPUs, that don't generate a lot of heat, are not highly overclocked and voltage is most of the time sub 1.3V.

And even on this site, stress test duration was limited to only 15 mins, because of time constraints, which doesn't let the water attain it's max temp, after which it won't heat up anymore, which certainly needs more than just 15 mins of stress testing.

Whereas an air cooler, after 15 mins of stress testing reaches its max temp and won't heat up anymore.

But their results are the closest to the reality I could find.

 

Here one can clearly see, that Noctua NH-D15S air cooler (89 °C/42 dBA) is only 2 °C/1 dBA behind the best AiO water cooler Alphacool Eisbaer Extreme 280 mm (87 °C/41 dBA) (serviceable/replaceable pump, CPU block, radiator, liquid, hoses).

Alphacool Eisbaer Extreme 280 mm is 3x more expensive than Noctua NH-D15S.

 

360 mm Corsair H150i PRO is only 1 °C better than Noctua NH-D15S, but 1 dBA louder, more than 2x more expensive, needs more space, not serviceable + mix of aluminum with copper.

360 mm EK MLC Phoenix is only 5 °C better than Noctua NH-D15S, but whopping 9 dBA louder + even more expensive than Corsair H150i PRO.

280 mm Corsair H115i Platinum is only 3 °C better than Noctua NH-D15S, but whopping 8 dBA louder, 2x more expensive, not serviceable + mix of aluminum with copper.

 

If one decreases AiO water coolers fans speed to achieve the same noise level as generated by Noctua NH-D15S, they will even lose against it )))))))))

 

 

By the way, 1-2 dBA difference is clearly audible. It's not like just 1-2 °C difference.

And don't forget, that Noctua fans have a very pleasant sound signature.

Because it's also important not only how audible fans are, but also how they sound.

 

Other AiO water coolers, that are only 3-5 °C better than Noctua NH-D15S can achieve this only by making their fans spin very very fast and with much more noise.

+ most of them are not serviceable, in order to clean the pump and CPU block fins from all the gunk, which appears because of high liquid temp and mixing of copper with aluminum and can make it fail and/or make it difficult for the liquid to circulate.

+ most of them don't have the possibility to add/replace liquid, as it evaporates over time, due to the temp (even if the system is closed/sealed), making air appear in the system and thus making it even hotter and the pump can run almost dry and fail or get damaged.

+ most of them, for manufacturing costs purpose, have aluminum radiators, but copper CPU blocks, which makes aluminum react very badly with copper (galvanic corrosion).

 

Not even speaking about possible pump failure, causing possible CPU death, if options that make the PC shut down at a certain temp are not enabled/available.

Or possible leaks, that can kill your GPU and/or motherboard.

 

I prefer Noctua NH-D15S instead of Noctua NH-D15, because of its asymmetric construction, so there is more compatibility with GPUs in the first PCI-E slot and it also has only one central fan, instead of 2, so it's even more compatible with RAM and PC cases and despite only 1 fan, it's only 1 °C behind Noctua NH-D15 with 2 fans.

Noctua has the best and the most durable/secure mounting system on the market and the best RAM compatibility, despite/considering its size.

RAM modules such as G.Skill Trident Z or Corsair Dominator Platinum can be inserted or removed, without removing the cooler!

[oldbear 390]

My own positioning for the hardware is based on the "here and now" moto.

You get what you need when you need it ! 

Of course active watch and forward-looking for upcoming hardware is needed but to base one's own action on distant hardware/game projects is counterproductive in my opinion.

 

Next Intel Core 10th Gen desktop CPU is allegedly upcoming with a 5.2 GHz Turbo, but we know nothing about socket and chipset ... and release date!

 

To set up a high end Arma3 gaming rig I will add 32 GB of 3200 MHz DDR 4, a 1To NVMe M.2 SSD, a 800/850W PSU and a RTX 2070 Super [allowing to play in 1440p] 🤑