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

[opus132 3]

Well, my memory is 3600 18-22-22-42. Worth changing it with Intel as much as it is with Ryzen? 

[Groove_C 267]

If you already have it, maybe no, unless you still can return it or can sell it and buy 3600 16-16-16-36.

[Groove_C 267]

Have seen yesterday during the nVidia presentation that their GPUs can load data from SSD directly into the GPU, bypassing completely CPU cache and RAM.

It will also be present in AMD RDNA 2 GPUs, since this technology is part of DX12.2 and not exclusive/proprietary to nVidia or AMD.

Well, maybe AMD and nVidia will have slightly different ways of implementing/using it.

 

This will for sure give a second life to older CPUs with low cache bandwidth, also Intel CPUs (not only old ones) not having as much cache as Ryzen + will give a second life to DDR3 RAM and also will alleviate the importance of expensive high freqeuency and low timings RAM, which is good for us all.

 

Now let's see how it will be in reality vs. theory.

 

RTX 3070 slightly beats RTX 2080 Ti, for $499 founder's edition (no taxes), but only 8 GB vRAM and only GDDR6.

 

I think there will be Ti or Super versions later, to counter AMD RDNA2, with double vRAM (16GB) and also GDDR6X. Maybe with slightly more Cuda cores as well.

 

In 2021 Micron will have double capacity of GDDR6X chips, since now it's only 1 GB per chip, thus 24 chips for 24 GB RTX 3090.

 

So expecting later better prices, performance and availability.

[Gardner95x 0]

Hey guys,

 

My mate wants to play Arma 3 on a new laptop he's getting, he wants to spend nothing more than £500, he said he would go upto £600-700.

 

I found a laptop with a i5-9300h and a GTX 1650 with 8gb RAM and a SSD I plan on installing in it for him.

 

If not is there a minimum price he'd need to spend on one?

 

Would this be good enough to play Arma 3 with a decent framerate? He's not too bothered about the graphics

 

Hope someone can help 

Jack

[oldbear 390]

Hi Gardner95x, welcome in our Armaverse 😎

 

A laptop based on "an i5-9300h and a GTX 1650 with 8gb RAM and a SSD" will allow your mate to play Arma3.

Arma3 is still "CPU dependent", it means that first of all, you must try to get the fastest/efficient CPU you can allow.

In this case, the i5-9300h [4 cores/8 threads running at 4.10 GHz on Max Turbo] is not a bad candidate.

The GTX 1650 will follow and allow displaying the game in "High/Very High" quality.

The 8 GB of RAM is a bit low, 16 GB would be better.

A SSD is a must-have.

 

With Arma 3 a decent framerate, it's above 30 FPS, this laptop should allow it in my opinion

 

 

[Gardner95x 0]

3 hours ago, oldbear said:

Hi Gardner95x, welcome in our Armaverse 😎

 

A laptop based on "an i5-9300h and a GTX 1650 with 8gb RAM and a SSD" will allow your mate to play Arma3.

Arma3 is still "CPU dependent", it means that first of all, you must try to get the fastest/efficient CPU you can allow.

In this case, the i5-9300h [4 cores/8 threads running at 4.10 GHz on Max Turbo] is not a bad candidate.

The GTX 1650 will follow and allow displaying the game in "High/Very High" quality.

The 8 GB of RAM is a bit low, 16 GB would be better.

A SSD is a must-have.

 

With Arma 3 a decent framerate, it's above 30 FPS, this laptop should allow it in my opinion

 

 

Hi,

 

Thanks for replying, so do you think it'd be better to look for a laptop with a more powerful CPU or would the i5-9300h be good enough to run the game smoothly?

[Groove_C 267]

54 minutes ago, Gardner95x said:

Hi,

 

Thanks for replying, so do you think it'd be better to look for a laptop with a more powerful CPU or would the i5-9300h be good enough to run the game smoothly?

Good enough, but if more $$$ available, look for one with better CPU/cooling.

The problem with laptops is mainly cooling, to maintain max advertised frequency.

[Gardner95x 0]

7 hours ago, Groove_C said:

Good enough, but if more $$$ available, look for one with better CPU/cooling.

The problem with laptops is mainly cooling, to maintain max advertised frequency.

Hi,

 

Okay thanks for the help, I'll have a word with him and see if he'll spend a little bit more.

 

Regards

Jack

[Gardner95x 0]

Hi again,

On 9/2/2020 at 6:41 PM, oldbear said:

Hi Gardner95x, welcome in our Armaverse 😎

 

A laptop based on "an i5-9300h and a GTX 1650 with 8gb RAM and a SSD" will allow your mate to play Arma3.

Arma3 is still "CPU dependent", it means that first of all, you must try to get the fastest/efficient CPU you can allow.

In this case, the i5-9300h [4 cores/8 threads running at 4.10 GHz on Max Turbo] is not a bad candidate.

The GTX 1650 will follow and allow displaying the game in "High/Very High" quality.

The 8 GB of RAM is a bit low, 16 GB would be better.

A SSD is a must-have.

 

With Arma 3 a decent framerate, it's above 30 FPS, this laptop should allow it in my opinion

 

 

 

Hi again.

 

Convinced him to spend a bit more, would a laptop with a i5-10300H be better or should I go upto a i7?

[oldbear 390]

Well, getting a CPU having a 4.50 GHz Max Turbo is a move in the right direction.

But it is with good reason that Groove_C tells you that, "the problem with laptops is mainly cooling, to maintain max advertised frequency".

Getting a more powerful CPU means generating heat so you must think about "balance".

I am not speaking of your friend bank account balance but about power used in game/heat generated and the way laptops are built.

An Arma3 gaming laptop is not an extra thin object, it' a bit bulky due to the presence of an elaborate and efficient CPU cooling system, it' heavier and often more expensive.

Very often, the thin sexiest laptops you can find even with high level CPUs have build in security to level down power consumption before a BSOD.

Edited September 4, 2020 by oldbear
English is not my mother tongue, but you already got that

[Gardner95x 0]

9 hours ago, oldbear said:

Well, getting a CPU having a 4.50 GHz Max Turbo is a move in the right direction.

But it is with good reason that Groove_C tells you that, "the problem with laptops is mainly cooling, to maintain max advertised frequency".

Getting a more powerful CPU means generating heat so you must think about "balance".

I am not speaking of your friend bank account balance but about power used in game/heat generated and the way laptops are built.

An Arma3 gaming laptop is not an extra thin object, it' a bit bulky due to the presence of an elaborate and efficient CPU cooling system, it' heavier and often more expensive.

Very often, the thin sexiest laptops you can find even with high level CPUs have build in security to level down power consumption before a BSOD.

Oh no I agree and understand. I've seen a few with better cooling etc on them and I plan on changing the paste and undervolting it

 

Got a laptop with a i5-10300h and a GTX 1660 in the end with 8gb RAM and 512gb SSD and seems to run at 50-70fps on ultra. Haven't tried lower settings yet but will update when I do

[oldbear 390]

Do not use lower settings !

Your GTX 1660 allow you to play at the Video Quality the game must be played.

The only parameter you can lower is General>Visibility>Overall because this parameter is 100% CPU.

It defines for the processor the surface of the ground which will be calculated and will be used as base for rendering.

 

[Gardner95x 0]

6 hours ago, oldbear said:

Do not use lower settings !

Your GTX 1660 allow you to play at the Video Quality the game must be played.

The only parameter you can lower is General>Visibility>Overall because this parameter is 100% CPU.

It defines for the processor the surface of the ground which will be calculated and will be used as base for rendering.

 

Hello,

 

Okay ill test it with him and see how it goes, still plays miles better than on his old laptop!

[Tankbuster 1746]

Some one get me some humble pie please?

I jst bought my first non Intel powered machine in more than 20 years and the Ryzen 5-3500 and Vega 8 is really great value.
Long story short - I had decided to buy this particular machine as a school laptop for my sons move to high school, but I couldn't find it in stock anywhere and eventually ordered the similar priced Intel power machine.

The following day, the Ryzen one came in stock AND it transpired, my daughter needed a new machine too. I ordered it. So, within the space of a couple of days, I've taken delivery of two same priced (£40 difference) Asus laptops that really only differ in their CPU and GPU.

And there's no doubt about it, the Ryzen machine is considerably better. It can actually play a decent game too - they are playing Ylands on it right now and we played a bit of Civ 6 too amd it really held up. Calculations show it will use it's battery a lot faster, but it will still last the whole school day and that's what's important here.

[Smokejumper 0]

Building a new computer and just wanted to make sure it can play arms at max settings. 
ryzen 9 3900x

x570 mb

32 g skill trident memory

2 1gig m.2 storage 

evga GeForce rtx 2060 sx ultra. 
h20 cooling 

[FluffyPlays 0]

Idk if this is the right place for this but I have been having major fps issues lately and I don't know why.  A few months back around February I used to run arma 3 at 1080p 60fps+.  Now I cant even get above 30 without studders without mods and just playing any missions.  My specs are
CPU: Intel i7 6700
GPU: GTX 1660 Super
Ram: 16GB DDR4 2666Mhz
SSD: Kingston 120GB
PSU: 650 Watt 80+ Bronze
If anyone can help me I don't know why I am having such bad fps, I have tried changing settings, to high, to low.  I have tried setting parameters for better performance.  I have tried the profiling version, no help there.  I have also set a custom performance power plan.  I have set my nvidia control pannel settings for performance.  And after all of this, I can still not get above 30 fps on a singleplayer campaign, or anything else.  

[Valken 622]

@ smokejumper that system should be able to run ARMA 3 at Ultra settings but Zen 3 is going to be announced on October 8th. if you can wait 2 weeks, you might have better options depending in how much of an improvement it might be.

 

The 12 cores of that 3900x won't affect ARMA. It would be IPC, CPU speed per core, and lowest RAM latency + highest possible speed combined that would make the biggest impacts.

 

I am looking at Zen 3 like many ARMA players here as a potential upgrade too. Read Oldman and Groove C's older post in this thread as they have great advice.

 

@ Fluffyplays

 

Check to make sure CPU and GPU fans are not clogged with dust. I just cleaned my system (AIO watercooler) and vacuum a ton of dust out of the radiator. Gain my performance back immediately.

 

 

[Flaux82 1]

Hey guys, I'm new to Arma3 and can't wait to try it. For the last days I asked myself, how my system will handle the game... 21:9 is no problem in Arma, or is it?

 

ASUS Z97-A

INTEL i5-4690K

KINGSTON 16GB DDR3 1600Mhz

ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER EVO OC Edition 8GB

Sandisk SSD Plus 1TB

Samsung S34E790C | Single 34" 3440 x 1440

 

[oldbear 390]

@Smokejumper Hi, welcome in our Armaverse 😎

Answer to the question about "max settings" is difficult.

Arma3 because it is powered by an efficient but now outdated RVEngine shows limitations compared to current games. The first limitation is that the game is absolutely dependent on the frequency and efficiency of the CPU.
To put it simply, to play here and now at the maximum level you need the fastest processor, an Intel CPU with a Turbo max at 5.30 GHz with all the consequences and drawbacks that go with it, in particular a special motherboard, a consumption and a very important temperature involved.

If you opt for an AMD processor, you have several options in my opinion, either to play right away, choose an R7 3700X on a B550 motherboard 16 GB DDR4 3600MHz C16 or to have more choices wait until the release in October of the CPU with Zen3 architecture and choose the most suitable RAM.

I have done a lot of tests playing Arma3 with a R5 3600X, whatever the GPU over the GTX 970 level, you can play in "Ultra" video quality.

 

@FluffyPlays Welcome and sorry to hear that.

I will suggest you ...

- to disconnect all unnecessary connections, USB key, gamepad for example.

- to disable any profile created in the Nvidia panel and use Arma3 parameters,

- to create a new profile, use AutoDetection to get the BI parameters,

- to shut off all so called "social media" and browsers

then run a YAAB mission test-benchmark and show us your results using Standard bench parameters, here or there ...

 

@Flaux82 Hi, welcome.

Here I think 21: 9 is not the problem, on the other hand playing at 1440p on a wide screen with the current CPU / RAM / GPU combo can be difficult.

[Flaux82 1]

1 hour ago, oldbear said:

 

@Flaux82 Hi, welcome.

Here I think 21: 9 is not the problem, on the other hand playing at 1440p on a wide screen with the current CPU / RAM / GPU combo can be difficult.

 

Thanks for the prediction. I though resolution is just a gpu thing and doesn't affect cpu/ram within ARMA3 which would be the bottleneck anyway.  (The 2060 super handles 1440p quite good in other games.)

[Valken 622]

@Flaux82 Your GPU will run ARMA 3 fine maxed out. Your CPU will get clobbered pushing a lot of objects as that appears to be a CPU loading issue.

 

If you pull back the objects distance, start at 500 and move it up until you find the speed tolerable, then you should be OK.

 

Here is me messing with fake 32:9 ratio at 1920x540 (half the resolution of 1920x1080) and wide screen looks incredible in ARMA:

 

 

I am using 4790K and 1060 GTX with only 3GB ram.

 

Waiting on Zen 3 and next RTRT GPU.

 

[oldbear 390]

@Flaux82 I have been probably a bit overcautious in my previous answer as I found an interesting topic ou our forums :  Arma 3 and 21:9 monitors

I am still cautious because even if resolution is mainly a GPU job, in Arma* all render is depending on simulation.

If nothing happens, the display is going to be perfect and very immersive, things will get complicated from the moment there is action.
Although the RVEngine is multicore since Arma2: OA with some serious improvements with Render Time Scope for example, the game is still dependent on a single thread doing the game world simulation which will quickly get very busy in game.

You have just to remember that  3440 x 1440 = 4 953 600 pixels  will be processed by the simulation before being sent to rendering and then to display.

 

[Flaux82 1]

Finally downloaded the game, installed it and had my first 2,5 hours playing.

All went well and there wasn't a situation where I had to suffer bad fps drops so far. It feels fluid all the way.

And it worked right out of the box. Even upped the water reflections. Otherwise I haven't touched any setting.

(Who would have thought!)

 

It looks great and I already dived into the campaign. Still have to get used to the game of course, but that's part of the fun. 

 

Thx so far guys. You really help out all the newbies with their struggle in getting the game to run fine and usable. 

[oldbear 390]

@Flaux82Great! So It seems I was over cautious...

Could you send us screens from your Video parameters  and do some runs with YAAB mission benchmark and give us your results ?

[Flaux82 1]

41 minutes ago, oldbear said:

@Flaux82Great! So It seems I was over cautious...

Could you send us screens from your Video parameters  and do some runs with YAAB mission benchmark and give us your results ?

 

I should be able to do so tomorrow, no problem.