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

[Flaux82 1]

So, I did the thing with the thing and here are the results and settings. Nothing spectacular and I haven't noticed a problem running the game in the single-player campain.

 

 

 

 

[oldbear 390]

Thanks!

Can you, according to some Old Bear method ™ suggestions ...😎

- set down a bit in the 3200m/3500m range, the Global Visibility parameter,

- disable Vsync in the "Display" section,

- in the "AA & PP" use FXAA : X4 and PPAA: CMAA

... and tell us if it helps a bit ?

 

 

[Flaux82 1]

3 hours ago, oldbear said:

Thanks!

Can you, according to some Old Bear method ™ suggestions ...😎

- set down a bit in the 3200m/3500m range, the Global Visibility parameter,

- disable Vsync in the "Display" section,

- in the "AA & PP" use FXAA : X4 and PPAA: CMAA

... and tell us if it helps a bit ?

 

 

 

That didn't do too much.  It has gone up from 26,6 to 29,3 FPS

 

Changed to CMAA but could't change to FXAA X4, changed to FSAA x4 instead. (Maybe it was a typo?)

[domokun 515]

3 hours ago, Flaux82 said:

 

That didn't do too much.  It has gone up from 26,6 to 29,3 FPS

 

Changed to CMAA but could't change to FXAA X4, changed to FSAA x4 instead. (Maybe it was a typo?)

That's a 10% increase in YAAB's framerates, which should offer noticeable improvement in actual gameplay.

Incidentally, what framerates are you getting in the campaign?

If you're still unsatisfied with your framerates, try overclocking your CPU and/or RAM.

[Flaux82 1]

17 hours ago, domokun said:

That's a 10% increase in YAAB's framerates, which should offer noticeable improvement in actual gameplay.

Incidentally, what framerates are you getting in the campaign?

If you're still unsatisfied with your framerates, try overclocking your CPU and/or RAM.

 

It is yes, but I'm fine for now in the singleplayer campains.

Haven't checked fps while gaming though. I use vsync as

my monitor only does 60fps and I get heavy screen tearing

not using it. So it is either constant 60 or 30 fps. Don't think

I can get it to a steady 60 fps without loosing the details,

but I will have a look.

 

By the way... is there a file within ARMA3 to set a fixed fps?

That is something I could try, I guess...

[oldbear 390]

OK. I understand in this case the use of VSync, it is probably a side effect of the use of a widescreen.

I have never had screen tearing while playing an Arma series game  since the Iiyama Pro 17 " and Operation FlashPoint (now Arma: Cold War Assault).

Considering the way the game engine works, I find it difficult to imagine how it would be possible to set a fixed level of FPS.

 

Note : you are right about the FSAA x4, sorry.

 

[Flaux82 1]

51 minutes ago, oldbear said:

I find it difficult to imagine how it would be possible to set a fixed level of FPS.

 

I meant to say "fps limiter", sorry. So it caps framerates at 60fps. Is there such an option?

 

Found this in a steam discussion:

 

Quote

frame rate limiter:

When ingame, press SHIFT plus NUMPAD MINUS then type FPS.
First time you enter the code it will be 60FPS, displayed after input for ~3 sec. Repeat the code for different FPS limits 40FPS, 20FPS, 0FPS = no frame rate limiter.

 

Has anyone tried it?

[oldbear 390]

In fact, I don't understand what you're looking for with this fps limitation.

The main concern of Arma 3 players is to play above 30 FPS, if possible in the 45/50 FPS zone which is for me the playable zone.
Whatever configuration I play today, i7 7700K / RX5700 or R5 3600X / RTX 2060, I never get 60 FPS stable in game the FPS display jumping continuously from 25 to 80.
It happens that on some terrains like Stratis or Malden to briefly have a 120FPS jump while looking at the sea, but most of the time in combat on my Clan's dedicated server I have an average level of 35 FPS.

As I am a mission maker, I do my best to ensure that none of my teammate has less than 30 FPS in game.

 

Regarding a code to limit FPS, there was a developer code under Arma that you can find it the BI Community Wiki.

These codes are mainly intended for development and testing, their use in game may prove to be counterproductive.

[Flaux82 1]

6 hours ago, oldbear said:

In fact, I don't understand what you're looking for with this fps limitation.

The main concern of Arma 3 players is to play above 30 FPS, if possible in the 45/50 FPS zone which is for me the playable zone.
Whatever configuration I play today, i7 7700K / RX5700 or R5 3600X / RTX 2060, I never get 60 FPS stable in game the FPS display jumping continuously from 25 to 80.
It happens that on some terrains like Stratis or Malden to briefly have a 120FPS jump while looking at the sea, but most of the time in combat on my Clan's dedicated server I have an average level of 35 FPS.

As I am a mission maker, I do my best to ensure that none of my teammate has less than 30 FPS in game.

 

Regarding a code to limit FPS, there was a developer code under Arma that you can find it the BI Community Wiki.

These codes are mainly intended for development and testing, their use in game may prove to be counterproductive.

 

Yeah, you are right I guess. Thx for all the info!

[opus132 3]

Seems to me that unless AMD delivers some major improvement with their upcoming CPUs the only option for this game is still Intel (with all that that entails. Expensive motherboards, expensive coolers etc). 

 

It's uncommon to see Arma 3 in modern reviews but check the performance in Microsoft Simulator, a game i assume is as CPU reliant as Arma 3 is probably for similar reasons: 

 

 

It's sad because i like what AMD is doing and i'm also disappointed at how lazy Intel has become but you have to look at it from a practical point of view i guess. 

 

For myself, i refuse to play at anything less than 60 FPS. I just can't deal with 30 FPS and even dips below 50 FPS annoy me, and with my Ryzen 2600 i get dips below 20 FPS on some maps so i gave on playing the game until i upgrade. 

 

 

[Valken 622]

@opus132

 

I am going to throw out some comments so feel free to fact check me:

 

Both 1440p and 4K FPS shows less than 5% difference (min and average) between both CPUs.

Intel CPU running at higher Mhz ~ 10% average faster (5GHz vs 4.5GHZ, per core).

AMD 3950x is Zen 2, previous gen. with 2x dies. Each die has 4cores so there is some latency between the two dies.

Zen 3 to be release on announced or released OCT 8th has increase in architecture, IPC and per core speed.

Also Zen 3 will have up to 8 cores in one die (CCD) so there will be improved core to core performance across all cores.

 

Lastly, ARMA cripples any CPU because it is barely multi-threaded, the main game and AI threads appears to be single core due to the scripting. So the faster CPU in terms of speed will matter the most while the GPU sits and waits.

 

To get an idea how how well Zen 3 may be, checkout this CPU benchmark in game of a 4 core AMD 3300x 4.4 GHZ (4 cores in one die) vs Intel 7700K normal and OC to  5.1 GHZ (4 cores in one die) to get an idea of how Zen 3 might perform:

 

Full review link: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3581-amd-ryzen-3-3300x-cpu-review-vs-3100-clock-for-clock#!/ccomment

 

 That CPU is faster than my Haswell 4790K @ 4.5 GHZ. The per core performance is good for 4.4 GHz.

 

Wait for Zen 3. If AMD gets close to 4.9-5.0 Ghz on some cores, it will be the new king of CPUs as a better price.

 

 

 

[Rose415 0]

I have an intel i7-7700 and a gtx 1050 TI but I can't get past around 30 fps, and even then it will drop to 25 or so when, say, going to an airfield with a couple people in it.

[Gunter Severloh 4051]

21 hours ago, Rose415 said:

I have an intel i7-7700 and a gtx 1050 TI but I can't get past around 30 fps

What are your other specs?

• Arma3 on an SSD or an HDD?
• How much ram do you have and what is the frequency of it (speed in mhz)?

Review this page on how to check how much ram you have and its speed if your not sure ----> LINK

• What is your CPU speed? 

You can check this by going to the ---->Task manager ----> Performance ----> CPU

[Groove_C 267]

i7-7700 (non-K) boosts to only 4.0 GHz all cores. GTX 1050 Ti is to play at not higher than 1080p resolution at normal/standard video settings.

I suppose that RAM capacity and speed + lack of SSD might be the problem in first place.

[Janez 530]

"Only" 4GHz 🙂 , it actually supposedly boosts up to 4.2 but really, if that CPU is crumbling then play some other mission and/or on a different server. 1050 on the other hand was quite over hyped. Its way too weak for 1080p gaming, 720p max from my tests. CS: GO and LoL from its marketing sheets aren't really noteworthy benchmarks. Its a bottleneck for any i7 CPU in any case. Try downsampling 3d resolution, Options >> Video >> General (tab) >> Sampling: ~75%? and see if that gives your GPU some room to work.

[oldbear 390]

@Rose415 Welcome in our Armaverse 😎

 

You stated ...

Quote

I have an intel i7-7700 and a gtx 1050 TI but I can't get past around 30 fps, and even then it will drop to 25 or so when, say, going to an airfield with a couple people in it.

 ... without giving much explanation on the context.

 

To give an in-game reference, I would say that with an Athlon 3000G / GTX 750Ti combo, I am getting 35/40 FPS on Altis Base playing the Helicopters showcase.

Playing in "High" with a 2500 m Overall Visibility without Mods or extra addon.

 

Therefore, returns to the basic principles to keep in mind to be able to play Arma3.

- Arma3 game engine incredibly efficient and scalable but now obsolete, is completely dependent on the frequency and efficiency of 1/2 core(s) whatever the processor.

In this case, the i7 7700 which is no longer in the highest Tier is perfectly capable of running Arma3 at a good level.

You can run YAAB and have a look at what you can expect in game, probably in the 30/40 FPS range playing Arma3 which is good.

- Since Visual Upgrade release [2016-1.60], you also need a better graphic card.

With a better graphics card there is no particular gain in FPS, but there is the possibility of losing less with a particularly nice in-game image.

From my point of view, the minimum card to benefit from the contributions of the Visual Upgrade was a card of the RX 580 / GTX 1060 level, today I would say a GTX 1650Ti.

- To play Arma3 in good conditions with a 64bit client, it is necessary to have enough fast RAM, to go with an i7 7700, I would say that 16 GB of DDR4 @ 3200 C16 is a good base.

- From the APEX release, an SSD for Arma3 is mandatory.

An SSD doesn't help gain FPS, but by allowing continuous streaming of textures, the game becomes smoother without stuttering.

 

All this to say that it is very difficult to answer the question asked without having information on the entire configuration, on the parameters used, on the addons and mods involved.

[FluffyPlays 0]

@oldbear I ran the benchmark that you recommended me to test on sept 23 and I got https://gyazo.com/ac7570e2276cc448fe2231285e5da2dd I had steam, msi afterburner, and discord open.  My settings are https://gyazo.com/259146a6b849da3f7be31261fdf5bb24 https://gyazo.com/dfa0d1c13b0555a3dde892a71a2bdf91 https://gyazo.com/99e994df19df79337a6a002123c650e7

[Groove_C 267]

Arma 1.98 + 2.00 | YAAB 1.00 (Yet Another Arma Benchmark)
1080p | standard video settings preset
i7-4790K @ 5.0/4.4 GHz core/cache | 32 GB (4х8) DDR3 2400 MHz 10-11-12-18 (dual rank) (38.6 ns Aida64) | GTX 1070 Ti 2088/9600 MHz core/vRAM | SATA SSD | Win10 1909 build 18363.418

- only Arma + Steam + Razer Synapse + Samsung Mafician
- CMA AVX2 malloc + Windows lock pages in memory
- v-sync off
- full screen (no window - because of lower FPS and higher input lag)
- no mods


VS.

i7-9700K @ 5.1/4.8 GHz core/cache | 16 GB (4х8) DDR4 3200 MHz 14-14-14-34 (single rank) (49.6 ns Aida64) | RX 470 4 GB 1250/6600 MHz core/vRAM | SATA SSD | Win10 1909 build 18363.535
vs.
i7-9700K @ 5.1/4.8 GHz core/cache | 16 GB (4х8) DDR4 4000 MHz 15-15-15-28 (single rank) (40.0 ns Aida64) | RX 470 4 GB 1250/6600 MHz core/vRAM | SATA SSD | Win10 1909 build 18363.535

At same core and cache frequency (5.1/4.8 GHz).
But at XMP 3200 MHz 14-14-14-34.
-9 FPS min.
-9 FPS avg.
vs. 4000 MHz 15-15-15-28

So RAM OC actually brings something.
Actually ~10 FPS min. only by OC'ing RAM, it's not that small, in Arma.

With same core and cache frequency + RAM settings as the build above, on CPUs like i7-7700K, i5-8600k, i7-8700K, i7-8086K, i5-9600K, i9-9900K(S), i5-10600K or i7-10700K, same FPS applies.
RAM was OC'ed to 4000 MHz 15-15-15-28 from stock 3200 MHz 14-14-14-34 (XMP).

[oldbear 390]

@FluffyPlays In my opinion something is wrong, the symptom being these many drops below 10 FPS.

 

I went back to your first post where you indicate the composition of your config ...

• CPU: Intel i7 6700
• GPU: GTX 1660 Super
• Ram: 16GB DDR4 2666Mhz
• SSD: Kingston 120GB
• PSU: 650 Watt 80+ Bronze

On second thought, I would make 2 comments
1 ° using DDR4 at a higher frequency, I would say 3200 MHz would probably be a good thing if the motherboard supports it.
2 ° use an SSD with a larger capacity that can accommodate both Windows and Arma3 is mandatory

Nevertheless, this is probably not the main cause of the drops in FPS.

 

It is difficult to determine the cause of the drop in FPS. I suggest looking first in the direction of memory usage.

So ...

- use "High performance" power plan settings in Windows 10,

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

- close all apps, especially browsers including AfterBurner and Discord.

Use "Standard" presets, then run YAAB and press "S" key  before benchmark-mission start.

Run the bench 3 times and save the 3 scores then post here a YAAB screen shot.

 

[Groove_C 267]

@oldbear 2666 MHz RAM has not that high bandwidth + we don't know if he had other programs open when playing YAAB.
It's required to have everything possible closed other than Arma and Steam and mouse/sound/motherboard software to have better comparable YAAB results.

Maybe he had his brother open with a lot of heavy tabs like youtube + antivirus scanning at the same time very deeply + considering his RAM +- "low" bandwitdh, it could have been a problem then.

[Groove_C 267]

I'm considering to replace my i7-4790K + DDR3 RAM with Intel 11th gen (March-May 2021) or with Ryzen 5XX0 XT, since my rig will be 7 years old in July 2021 and already shows its age since some time.

[Valken 622]

I am in the same position as Groove C. My system is good enough but GPU wise getting a little slow for newer games. Plus many are 8 core now. I hope ARMA 4 will have RTRT with better visuals than UE engine so will plan for a system to balance that.

 

Waiting for Zen 3 benchmarks, and maybe 6900XT.

[Groove_C 267]

I wouldn't buy first wave of new Ryzen CPUs as it's always the same story, like it was with 3XX0(X), that couldn't clock that high and needed higher voltage, because early samples.

I'm sure AMD will have XT revision of them to counter Intel 11th gen in March-April, which will clock even higher at stock and will not need higher voltage to do so or even lower voltage (vs. non-XT Ryzen 5XX0).

Because buying a CPU that has not that good chip quality and pay a lot for it, because of the hype and because it's difficult to find one to buy...

5600/5800XT will be good.

They'll be clocked as high as possible from factory, so not much left for manual OC, but it's good for people that don't know/want to OC, but still want very good performance out of the box.

[Valken 622]

@Groove_CTrue. Also to wait for BIOS and  RAM frequencies to stabilize.

 

Good idea to wait for XT variations.

 

I wanted to ask how is your performance with any of the DLC maps? On Tanoa, I drop down to the 40FPS range. Wonder if GM or Contact hits that hard.

 

Also CUP Chernarus and Chernarus 2020 are HEAVY maps.

[Groove_C 267]

Only playing on Altis and Malden. So can't tell you.