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

[Smart Games 76]

That’s what I thought.

After the summer I wanted to replace my graphics card anyway, then I get faster RAM and a slightly better cooler to clock the CPU a little higher.

 

With the RAM I had thought of this:

https://geizhals.de/teamgroup-t-force-xtreem-argb-dimm-kit-16gb-765441649354-a2192229.html

 

Expensive, but should be relatively future-proof.

If you know better options, I’d appreciate some information,

 

Jacob

[oldbear 390]

Your build can allow you to play in 1920x1080 but as Arma3 is oversensitive over memory frequency and management, I will suggest you to use 16 Go 3200 MHz C16 as a minimum.

Crucial Ballistix 16GB, DDR4-3600, CL16-18-18-38 @ 100 € will do the job.

I will also suggest to use default 64 bit client and enable Large Page Support in the Launcher Parameters.

The RX570 is a the limiting factor if you want to play over 1920x1080.

Getting around 45 FP is what you can expect playing in "High/Very High" with 3200/3500 Visibility.

 

Note-1 : As far as hardware is concerned, the "future proof" concept has a very limited lifespan 😟

Note-2 : From the strict point of Arma3 1080p gaming , a GPU the GTX 1660 level is more than enough to run along your i3, do not expect FPS gain with a RTX 2060 or a RX 5700.

Note- 3 : In order to play Arma3 over 1920x1080, you will need a better CPU/GPU combo. Here, the Z390 platform shows its limitations.

[Groove_C 267]

On 7/17/2020 at 12:04 PM, oldbear said:

Your build can allow you to play in 1920x1080

The RX570 is a the limiting factor if you want to play over 1920x1080.

Note-2 : From the strict point of Arma3 1080p gaming , a GPU the GTX 1660 level is more than enough to run along your i3,do not expect FPS gain with a RTX 2060 or a RX 5700.
Note- 3 : In order to play Arma3 over 1920x1080...

In his post with YAAB results you can actually see that his monitor resolution is not 1920x1080, but 3200x1800.

It's even higher than 2560x1440 (WQHD), where one needs at least a RTX 2060 Super with 8 GB vRAM for good FPS at visually pleasant video settings, not even talking about his 3200x1800 resolution.

And a GTX 1660 is something like a GTX 1070 (in this chart), but with less vRAM and just slightly less powerful.
And this chart is only for 1440p.

At 1800p performance difference is even bigger.

 

On 7/17/2020 at 12:04 PM, oldbear said:

Arma3 is oversensitive over memory frequency and management, I will suggest you to use 16 Go 3200 MHz C16 as a minimum.

Crucial Ballistix 16GB, DDR4-3600, CL16-18-18-38 @ 100 € will do the job.

In his last post (before your last post), you can see that he selected 3600 14-15-15 RAM and you recommend him 3200 CL16...

 

@Smart Games  between your 2666 MHz RAM and some decent 3600 16-16-16-36 or RAM with even lower timings, real in-game performance difference is big enough for you to feel it, even without FPS counter.

RAM with higher frequency and lower timings unleashes the CPU and the CPU unleashes the GPU in his turn, especially in CPU limit, per core or all cores, in games like Arma, Squad or Tarkov.

With something like 3600 16-16-16-36, min. FPS is higher and FPS dips are less frequent, thus FPS in general is more stable and the game feels much smoother to the eyes.

 

3600 MHz 14-15-15 RAM is a very good choice, as it has the best out of the box performance one can currently buy, but I think it's not worth the price premium over some good 3600 MHz 15-15-15-35 (G.Skill Trident Z F4-3600C15D-16GTZ) or 3600 MHz 16-16-16-36 (G.Skill Trident Z F4-3600C16D-16GTZR / F4-3600C16D-16GTZKW / F4-3600C16D-16GTZ), considering a too small real in-game performance difference.

Your RX570 is limiting you even more than your 2666 MHz RAM, at your 3200x1800 resolution. Since even at 2560x1440 its performance (in Arma) is not the best, at decent video settings.
With your 3200x1800 resolution, for Arma, I wouldn't buy anything less powerful than a RTX 2060 Super (8 GB vRAM).

For much more graphics intensive games than Arma, a RTX 2060 Super, considering your monitor resolution, might not even be enough to play at decent FPS at decent graphic settings.

[_WARHAWK_ 2]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G 3.60GHz Quad Core with Sunflower Mobo

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB

32GB (29GB usable) Crucial Ballistix DDR4-2666MHz 1.2V UDIMM PC4-21300 DRAM CAS Latency 16 (16-18-18-38)

Onn Surf Monitor HDMI at 1920x1080 1080P 59MHz

 

For some reason only getting 10 to 15 FPS. 

 

Ran YAAB on low, medium and Ultra settings...did not get more than 25 FPS. 

[Gunter Severloh 4063]

3 hours ago, _WARHAWK_ said:

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G 3.60GHz Quad Core with Sunflower Mobo

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB

32GB (29GB usable) Crucial Ballistix DDR4-2666MHz 1.2V UDIMM PC4-21300 DRAM CAS Latency 16 (16-18-18-38)

Onn Surf Monitor HDMI at 1920x1080 1080P 59MHz

 

For some reason only getting 10 to 15 FPS. 

 

Ran YAAB on low, medium and Ultra settings...did not get more than 25 FPS. 

Arma3 on an SSD?

View settings set to what?

What are you playing for that fps solos, coop or both, on your own machine or a public server?

These points effect how your game plays, lots of explosions, objects, many AI, and so forth effect overall performance.

If you were to upgrade the cpu it would make a big difference however I think a combination of your cpu, ram and gpu is what lowers the overall performance.

 

Not to brag just giving an example,

im running i7-700k 4.20ghz

Ram - 32gb DDR4 clocked at 3600mhz

Gpu - Nvidia GTX 1080 8gb

1000watt psu

Arma3 is on its own SSD, OS is on an SSD, storage and other games on own SSD.

View settings set to 2000m graphics maxed and average 55-120fps depending on mission, and map.

 

i think your ram is a bit low, 3000, 3002 at minimum for the freq.

Cpu could be at least a 4.0 or better graphics which are ok could use an upgrade.

Ideally you should be getting about 35+ with your setup but theres something else preventing that, eg mission, and or settings.

[oldbear 390]

@Groove_C Please stay close to reality, the figures you offer are benchmark figures and in no way reflect the reality of the performance obtained in game.
It is for this reason that for players the use of this imperfect but absolutely necessary tool that is YAAB allows us all to return to the reality of the game environment.

 

@ _WARHAWK_ : welcome😎

I agree with Gunter Severloh about the RAM frequency.

Because of the ways a Ryzen CPU works, here, you must get 3000MHz DDR4, and so far, you don't need more than 16 GB in order to play Arma3.

Here the GTX 1050 Ti can be a limiting factor when the 90% GPU usage is overshoot when you try to use "Ultra" video quality for example

But before you try to think about any hardware modification, it can be a help to have a look at The Old Bear method ™

 

 

 

 

[Groove_C 267]

@oldbear actually I'm pretty realistic there. Don't forget his resolution and that he also might be playing other games than Arma at that resolution.

You proposed him a GPU (GTX 1660) that would have been better than what he has, but would still have limited him, because of 3200x1800 resolution, even in Arma.

Also he wrote about RAM he's planning to buy and the choice was very very good and you told him to buy RAM that would have been once again, slightly better than what he has now, but still would have limited him.

 

Your advises are corrrect, yes, but for 1080p, not 1800p.

[oldbear 390]

@_WARHAWK_ here is a glimpse on my own experiences with a Ryzen 3 2200G + RX570 + 16 GB DDR4 @ 1080p

 

 

 

[Gunter Severloh 4063]

This was Warhawk's post, hes using Alive mod, i believe aside his specs is something with Alive that he created:

https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/230064-arma-3-fps-in-alive/

 

[Smart Games 76]

@oldbear, @Groove_C

I am not playing at 1800p but at 1080p.. just upscaled the resolution for testing. 

 

I like your discussion, but now I don't really know what to do. 

As I said, I am going to play at 1920x1080.

Can I expect FPS gains from upgrading my CPU or my GPU?

 

I prepared two options, what's the way to go? N°1 is a little bit cheaper. 

 

1) 

CPU: i5-10600KF

RAM: 16Gb Patriot Viper Steel 4400 cl19-19-19-39

GPU: RX 570 8Gb

(+new mobo, +new cpu cooler) 

 

2)

CPU: i3-9350KF

RAM: 16Gb G. Skill Trident Z Neo 3600 cl14-15-15-35

GPU: RX 5700XT 8Gb

(+new cpu cooler) 

 

Thanks 🙂

 

 

 

[Gunter Severloh 4063]

47 minutes ago, Smart Games said:

Can I expect FPS gains from upgrading my CPU or my GPU?

I7 or better imo, wasting your time with anything lower then an I7

Yes CPU all the way because arma3 is a cpu demanding game, better gpu will help but if you can only get one thing

let it be the cpu!

 

On another note add to your ram, max out the space your mobo can handle and up the frequency to no less then 3000mhz.

Also put the game on SSD alone, OS on SSD.

GPU imo Gtx 1080 or better.

[oldbear 390]

Well ...

1 hour ago, Smart Games said:

Can I expect FPS gains from upgrading my CPU or my GPU? 

Arma3 being still CPU dependent you can only expect FPS gain from the CPU reaching the highest frequency on 2/4 cores.

So back to your set up ...

CPU: i3 9350KF @4.8GHz
MoBo: AsRock Z390 Phantom Gaming 4S
GPU: MSI RX570 ARMOR MK2 OC [Stock] 8GB
RAM: 16 GB (8x2) HyperX Predator @2666-13-15-15-35
SSD: Intenso 120GB

... I will suggest again to get an affordable DDR4 kit such as the Crucial Ballistix 16GB, DDR4-3600, CL16-18-18-38, as said consider 16 Go 3200 MHz C16 as the minimum.

I will suggest also to get a better GPU such as the GTX 1660 as a minimum, you will gain nothing in Arma3 playing a RX 5700 or a RTX 2060.

From my own tests on CanardPC french Arma3 forum :

• R5 3600X-RTX2060-32GB_3200-Standard 53,80
• R5 3600X-RTX2060-32GB_3200-Ultra 42,92
• R5 3600X-GTX970-32GB_3200-Standard 55,32
• R5 3600X-GTX970-32GB_3200-Ultra 42,55

However, as future games will use ray-tracing more and more, there are 2 options: buy an "inexpensive" RTX 2060 or wait for the release of future generation NVIDIA and AMD cards at the end of the summer to make some good deal.

ATM, I find AMD cards are trailing behind in games. My own experiences with the Radeon drivers for the RX 5700 make me very careful, I had waited 8 months before getting a stable GPU.

Nevertheless, I am still eagerly waiting for AMD RDNA 2 upcoming GPU and featuring RT.

 

The 1° option ... (+new Z490 mobo, +new Intel CPU 10000+ new cooler) is not so cheap and is a dead end, because of upcoming changes announced/released Q4 2020/Q1 2021.

 

 

[Groove_C 267]

@Smart Games specifically for Arma 3, giving it more than 4 cores/threads, won't help you with FPS at all.

Don't know if Arma is the main game for you or you play also other games.

At 1080p, in Arma 3, a GTX 1660 Super/Ti will deliver max possible FPS, at ultra video settings, provided you have RAM and CPU that aren't limiting.

Can't tell you anything about GTX 1660 Super/Ti in other games than Arma.

 

As @oldbear already said, AMD GPUs shouldn't be considered because of numerous problems with drivers that still aren't solved.

It's a never ending story. I've also had several generations of ATI/AMD GPUs, always hoping/waiting for real fixes/improvements that never came or something was fixed and other problems appeared. So I switched to nVidia, for a price premium, unfortunately.

But at least nVidia always works and even if there is something wrong, it gets quickly fixed.

 

It's actually really unfortunate, since AMD GPUs hardware is very powerful and advanced, especially for the price.

But who cares, if it doesn't always work correctly, not always stable/reliable.

Also don't forget nVidia's super efficient and good visual quality video codec to record gameplay using the GPU.

 

3600 MHz 14-15-15-35 RAM is actually better than 4400 MHz 19-19-19-39 RAM out of the box, when speaking about combo of frequency and timings.

3600 MHz 14-15-15-35 RAM can also be OC 'ed to 4400 MHz with very very tight timings.

Anyways, both kits are very good, out of the box.

Just keep in mind, that 4400 MHz kit might not boot/work at specified specs, like at all, since for this combo of frequency and timings to work, you would need a better motherboard and a more expensive CPU, like an i7, that has a stronger memory controller than your i3.

 

So I would go with 3600 14-15-15-35 as it will work simply by selecting XMP profil in the BIOS and out of the box, it will give you more FPS than 4400 CL19, that you would need to have better mobo and CPU + also tinker a lot.

 

As conclusion, buy better RAM (if 3200 MHz, nothing with timings higher than 14-14-14-34 and if 3600 MHz, nothing with timings higher than 16-16-16-36), better GPU and keep your current CPU and change the cooler to a Noctua NH-D15S to further OC it or to lower temp and voltage for current frequency.

Because no more expensive with more cores/threads CPU will raise the FPS, in A3. So no point in changing it, now.

 

Good RAM, GPU and cooler can always be later transfered to a new CPU and motherboard. We don't know when exactly next Arma will be released, but it certainly and finally will use CPUs more than A3 and thus 4 cores will start to limit, to a certain extent.

 

You also have current gen Intel CPU that's more than enough to deliver highest possible FPS, in A3, provided you have RAM and GPU that aren't limiting anything.

So it makes no sense to upgrade from 9th gen Intel with Z390 to 10th gen Intel with Z490.

Provided you buy mentioned RAM and GPU, you actually can keep your build until next Arma gets released and see if you need to upgrade anything.

[Valken 622]

I wanted to add my 2 cents before deflation but I have to agree with Groove C.

 

I went through 3 systems for ARMA (ARMA 1, ARMA 2CO to ARMA 3) and the biggest boost for me was going to the highest IPC Intel CPU, with the lowest latency RAM with the highest frequency and an Nvidia GPU.

 

My setup now:

Intel I7-4790K @ 4.5 GHZ

Same RAM as Groove C 

Nvidia 1060 3GB. I play at 1080p on an HDTV in the living room.

OS Windows 7 on 256GB SSD

ARMA 2 and 3 with mods on a separate 1TB SSD.

 

With no mods and online, I get well over 30 FPS ~ 40-60 FPS most of the time even with both CUP and RHS mods.

 

Tanoa I get 40-50 FPS. This is noticeable with the high poly trees and houses. So getting a 1660 Super or 1070 would be a good idea. I do not have the Contact DLC so do not know how that performs.

 

I play escape a lot so the sessions are long ~ 1-3 hours average. We hit 4-5 hours a few times on huge maps like Chernarus or Altis.

 

In SP, with a ton of mods ACE, Blastcore, Dynasound, Smarter Tanks, Real Tanks, and some sound mods, I get really good FPS until a firefight with over 30 AI and more than 2 tanks blowup. The ACE cookoff and medical affects kills FPS at that moment. 

 

That is not even using all 4 cores on my CPU so if there was a SP Headclient mod using at least one core, that may have helped.

 

You can actually speed up ARMA negligibly by copying the larger game PBOs or EBOs to RAM and running it off that. It removes most of the popups. Worked incredible for ARMA 2 before I got the SSD. 

 

But since ARMA 3 is so huge now, ~ 50 GB, better to put the game files onto a SSD due to costs unless you have 96 GB of RAM. 

 

Bottomline, get the RAM and SSD first as you need that to maximize the CPU efficiency.

 

You can run ARMA at lower video settings until you get a GPU to run ARMA and other games you want at max quality.

I run everything on Ultra except for Shadows, Skies and Water at normal and get smooth play.

[Groove_C 267]

@Valken I'm actually using an i7-5775C (128 MB L4 cache) 4.1/3.8 GHz core/cache now on my Z97 board with my 2400 CL10 RAM.

I still have my i7-4790K 5.0/4.4 GHz core/cache, but not using it anymore.

FPS is slightly higher on i7-5775C and it heats less and consumes less as well (delidded).

[cb65 86]

Hi all,

I've saved enough money and I'm ready to buy a new Nvidia graphics card for my new PC build, either a 2070 super or a 2080 super and was wondering if anyone could tell me if the $300.00 price difference between the two is worth the performance difference between the 2070 super and the 2080 super.

 

Cheers.

[oldbear 390]

@cb65 From my point of view, there are at least 2 possible answers to the question ...

- to play Arma3, it is not necessary to have such a powerful card, a GTX 1060 6GB or its current equivalent is perfect in order to play in 1080p. You will need a GTX 1070 or its current equivalent to display the game in 1440p, such as a GT 1660 Super or a RTX 2060.

The main point being that Arma*, being CPU dependent, you need a GPU that allows the game to be displayed in its maximum graphics quality with a reduced load to avoid any risk of bottleneck.

- Many sources agree to report the release, before the end of the year, of GPUs with much higher performance than current cards. There will therefore be the possibility of having opportunities both to access higher performance and to find sales on current equipment.

 

Note : it looks like you can play other games than Arm3, then RTX 2070 Super is in my own opinion the best GPU you can get today.

[Valken 622]

@ cb65 what oldbear said. He is correct. For GPU intensive games, look at which gpu is better. For ARMA, 1060 GTX with a lot of VRAM is enough.

 

On 7/21/2020 at 6:15 PM, Groove_C said:

@Valken I'm actually using an i7-5775C (128 MB L4 cache) 4.1/3.8 GHz core/cache now on my Z97 board with my 2400 CL10 RAM.

I still have my i7-4790K 5.0/4.4 GHz core/cache, but not using it anymore.

FPS is slightly higher on i7-5775C and it heats less and consumes less as well (delidded).

 

I wish I can find a 5775C here but by that time, I probably will look at Ryzen 3 with 8 cores as an upgrade. We will see how that goes.

[Groove_C 267]

2 hours ago, Valken said:

I wish I can find a 5775C here but by that time, I probably will look at Ryzen 3 with 8 cores as an upgrade. We will see how that goes.

I wouldn't consider Ryzen 3, like 3300X, at all, since it's still only 4/8 cores/threads, like what you already have with your i7-4790K, just slightly newer.

It's not an upgrade, but rather a sidegrade.

In Arma there is 0 benefit.

You should go to at least 6/12 cores/threads or better 8/16 threads.

With your i7-4790K you should wait until the end of the year for Ryzen 4xxx.

Ryzen 3xxx are not worth to buy, for Arma.

 

Have reinstalled my i7-4790K 5.0 GHz (1.36V) and it's still a great CPU for Arma.
max 77°C 100% load in latest version of Prime95 custom (non-AVX + 4K min&max FFTs in-place) at 25°C room temp.
CPU is delidded with liquid metal on DIE, both sides of IHS and on Noctua cooler as well.

[Valken 622]

37 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

With your i7-4790K you should wait until the end of the year for Ryzen 4xxx.

Ryzen 3xxx are not worth to buy, for Arma.

 

Typo! I meant Zen 3 / Ryzen 4 after I check the IPC. 

 

And yes, I would consider 6 core or maybe 8 core but I do not know of any game that "really" uses that many CPU cores. Probably better to buy GPU for "other" games unless someone tells me that ARMA 4 engine uses more cores efficiently. 

[Groove_C 267]

@Valken Well, I would advise you to buy 8/16 cores/threads, so you can keep it as long as you have your i7-4790K,  thanks to Hyper-Threading.

Most of people that have thought they're very clever and bought an i5 with only 4 cores, have already upgraded few years ago to something else and those who haven't, are experiencing a really uncomfortable in-game and applications situations.

 

There are already games that can use more than 16 threads and games that will come with next gen consoles will do same.

 

Death Stranding, released recently, is also very CPU threads hungry.

And newer games we haven't seen just yet, will go even further, in near future.

So 8/16 cores/threads is a better long term choice.

[Groove_C 267]

@Valken Here you can see min. FPS still noticeably increases in Death Stranding even past 12 threads, all the way up to 24 threads.

And this is because the CPU has only 24 threads. So it maybe can scale even further, provided the CPU has more than 24 threads.

And this is only the first of next gen games. So imagine games that are still in developement or not even started.

 

So buying a 12 threads CPU now, thinking that it will last you as long as a 8 threads i7 did is not the right decision*.

*(unless buying a CPU with at least 16 threads is financially not an option)

 

Here you can see how smoothly/consistently Death Stranding runs with 12/16 threads, compared to 8 threads.

In orange, on the bottom, you can see i9-9900K providing smoothest/most consistent FPS delivery.

 

i9-9900K corresponds to an i7-10700K or Ryzen 7 3700X/3800X/XT in number of threads and in-game smoothness.

 

So 16 threads would be the minimum for me.

[Valken 622]

@Groove_C That is great information! Thank you! It does look like 8C/16T should be the minimum for future upgrades!

 

Now I hope BIS will give us a preview of the ARMA 4 engine showcasing CPU, RAM and GPU scaling soon so we can make a good  decision later. 

[oldbear 390]

[Off topic = ON]

 

From my perspective, there are several trends.
The first is linked to the evolution of processors confronted with the limitations of the fineness of physical engraving and the control of consumption and the temperature increases which are linked to it. The cores multiplication option which has been chosen has its own limitations because of the concerns of communications between the cores, the management of the caches memories and the need for the scheduling of the tasks.
Multiplying cores is not necessarily a good option for the game, it is a problem of balance.
The second is linked to the evolution of graphics cards which have more and more independent functions for the most recent cards and which allow calculations in parallel with those carried out by the CPU.
The third is linked to the evolution of game engines, which will more or less know / be able to take advantage of the possibilities of the hardware, all the more so as economic rationality encourages the use of programming blocks which is not necessarily a guarantee of optimization.

 

That's why it's interesting to look at the "Ideal Requirements"  for highly anticipated games like Flying Simulator 2020 and Cyberpunk 2077.

Flying Simulator 2020 : Ryzen 7 2700X - Core i7-9800X / Radeon VII - RTX 2080

Cyberpunk 2077 : Intel Core i9-9900KF CPU + 32GB RAM - NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti

 

On the other hand, if we look at the computing power on board an Xbox Series X console, that's more than the equivalent of an R7 3700X / RX 5700XT combo.

 

[Off topic = OFF]

 

We don't know much about Arma's future. Just information about the work on Enfusion and the intention to make it at least equal to the best current game engines.

[Groove_C 267]

Also don't forgt that even if a game can't use all the threads your CPU has, it doesn't mean, they don't indirectly benefit to the game.

Since the more threads (to a certain extent) you have, the less there is chance that Windows tasks and other programs will be doing their stuff on same threads that you're running your game on.

Windows and other programs don't need to put a lot of load to degrade FPS and especially smoothness.

There are really a lot of small processes running, even if not putting significant load on the CPU in general or on particular/several threads.

So threads stressed less by other stuff, thus slightly higher FPS , but most importantly better smoothness.