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

[Groove_C 267]

8 hours ago, Valken said:

The Prime X570-P is about the same price as the Gigabyte Aorus Elite but with Extra PCIE4 lanes. But it is barebones, no RESET, POWER buttons or code display.

It has only 4 layers PCB (copper), memory OC is very poor to non-existant, mediocre sound, mediocre VRM and VRM cooling, no cooling for M.2 SSD.

If you buy 1 TB M.2 SSD, using only the 1st M.2 SSD slot, that uses PCI-E 4.0 (up to 8000 MB/s read/write), should be enough. This is where you will have your Windows and games installed.

If for some reason, the main 1 TB PCI-E 4.0 M.2 SSD is not enough, you can use the 2nd M.2 SSD slot. It will operate at PCI-E 3.0 only (up to 4000 MB/s read/write), but it's more than over the top for files like music, videos, pictures and even games.

[Valken 622]

I though I would share these links we found regarding VRM ratings for AMD MBs:

 

https://linustechtips.com/topic/1137619-motherboard-vrm-tier-list-v2-currently-amd-only/

https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/amd-motherboard-vrm-tested-lists.435191/#post-5855412

 

The lists show VRMs TESTED with OC and LN2 maxed out so we know how well they do.

[Ghaleon4 1]

HELLO EVERYONE!  First post!

Specs
CPU: i5-4690k @ 4.5Ghz
RAM: 16Gig DDR3 2400
Storage: 4TB Samsung Evo 

GPU: nVidia GTX 970

I just discovered Arma 3 a couple of weeks ago.  I was floored.  Dumbstruck and filled with excitement, I pressed forward with moderate view distance settings and Vsync enabled @ 50hz.  Glorious, I thought.  And then I left Altis.  My heart sank at the same pace as my framerate when I climbed over that god-danged hill after the beach.  40 FPS.  All view settings down to 500, and STILL 40 fps.  DEFINITELY unplayable at 50 Hz, and I can't deal with screen tearing.  Tried 1080i (30hz), it was smooth, but the latency was unbearable.  Sigh...upgrade here we go.

 

This is a big forum thread.  I've gone back a few pages to see what everyone is talking about, and the most important thing I've learned so far is that clock speeds, IPC, and System Bus performance are the priority.

 

I'm not made of money but I have a little bit to spend.  I was going to upgrade my GTX 970 to a 3080 with this cash, and I have a lot of older games that would benefit greatly if I waited for that.  Was also going to wait for PCIe 4.0 to reach Intel platforms before I did a whole new rig.  Then I realized how sublime this game is and my priorities have...changed.  I feel like if I can get a new CPU/Mobo/RAM and adequate bus performance, I could just play this on my 970 at 1080p for like...a year before I got bored.  Plenty of time to re-save the $$$, right??  You can't even get a new GPU right now anyways...

SO, with that said, I think I'm an Intel fan-boy.  I hear Ryzen is faster, but I'm going to have just as hard a time getting one of those as I did a 3080.  Groove_C (and others), I think, have confirmed in previous postings that the newest model of given CPU is not necessarily the fastest for this game.  If that's true, and due to cost, I think I'll stay away from socket 1200 and maybe get an.....(wait for it)...i9 9900k (socket 1151).  Did I do good???  'Cuz if so, the next thing I need to figure out is motherboard/memory.

Thank you for reading!!!
 

[Ghaleon4 1]

Oh man, one last bit that I forgot!
Another option would be for me to max out this motherboard with the fastest CPU I can get. Socket 1150.
Is that worth looking into, or should I stick with the above plan (previous post) and do a new platform?  I just wanna play the single player campaign at 1080p 50/60hz until a new GPU becomes realistic/possible...

Edit: Just did some research.  I guess the fastest 1150 CPU is the i7-4790k.  Can THIS get me a *solid* 60fps at 1080p in the single-player core/dlc campaigns?

 

Another edit: I just discovered that i5 CPUs now support hyperthreading, and so maybe I can look at a socket 1200 i5-10600k ...
Urg, this is overwhelming and uncertain.

[Ghaleon4 1]

I hope that my repeat posts are okay.  I don't have any techy friends to bounce this stuff off of.
And Hell,  I guess you just eat an elephant one bite at a time, right??

I really think I've boiled it down to two contenders between two sockets/chipsets.

Socket 1200 / z490 i5-10600k (Supports Hyperthreading) $270 
Socket 1151 / z390 i9-9900k $300-400

 

They both support DDR 4, and they'll both fit the existing Corsair h100i AIO that I've got.

Up 'till now, this exercise has been motivated 100% by Arma 3 -with the goal of finding a configuration with the highest single-core speed and IPC.  Now I need to consider other things outside of Arma, like features on the motherboard and which memory to buy. 

Motherboard:
I like Asus for some reason, and I liked the philosophy behind how they built my Maximus VII Hero (entry-point mobo for good overclocking).  Is there a modern-day equivalent to what this board used to offer?  This 'Prime' (entry level) Z390 board from Asus seems to match/exceed the features of my current board -and onboard audio doesn't matter, 'cuz I'm a dork that already owns an SB AE-5 add-on card.  I'm definitely going to overclock whatever I get...but it's going to be HARD to compare motherboard models and prices across two chipsets I think.  Here goes more research...I'll be back!

[Ghaleon4 1]

Okay, here's what I've broken my choices down to, I think.  No Memory considered yet...

Socket 1151
Asus Prime Z390-A $179 + i9-9900k $300(Microcenter?) = $479

Socket 1200
Asus Prime Z490-A $211 + i5 10600k $274 = $485
Asus Prime Z490-A $211 + i7 10700k $380 = $591

This....is the confusing part that I was afraid of.  A choice between an i9, i5, and an i7?  Across two socket types!?  I found these based on reviews and charts, but what do these mean for ARMA 3?  And the future of my PC??

If someone could confirm/deny that the i5 10600k is more than enough for single-player campaign 1080p 60fps, '3km view, 1500 obj' throughout, then I'll use this as the less expensive stepping stone to Socket 1200.  Then maybe I'll win that i7 later in a contest or something lol, right?  So long as I can play this game -well- in the meantime.  <- If this ain't possible, ever, on any setup, someone just tell me now.  : p  Thanks again!!!!!
 

[Ghaleon4 1]

Oh man, if someone doesn't write back and stop me, I'm going to drive to my Best Buy and get a *friggin'* 10700k.  They didn't have the i5 in stock, but they've got this i7.  For god's sake, is this a bad idea or a ticket to Arma heaven!?
If I'm right, I could be up and running by tomorrow morning...

 

Edit: Okay, impulse denied.  They've barely closed (at 8 on a saturday) But they open at 10am tomorrow morning.

Now about that memory.  BestBuy has the following:
pc4-28800 (3.6ghz) 18-22-22-42 

pc4-25600 (3.2ghz) 16-18-18-36

 

I did the math and both of these would seem to have a 'True' latency of 10.

 

I searched locally, and can't find anyone that'll sell me 3.6Ghz with a CL of 16.  I'd have to wait for shipping, and I have zero patience after this whole 3080 fiasco!  For this impulse purchase to go through, I'll have to settle for 'slightly' compromised memory speeds.  Can someone confirm whether or not I'm already over the hurdle so maybe it doesn't matter?

[Tankbuster 1744]

For the last 2 decades, I've been religiously buying Intel CPUs. Not because I have any fanboi attachment to them, but because they have made the best CPUs. Until now - AMD is the best choice for a gaming CPU.

[Ghaleon4 1]

@Tankbuster Yes, but did any of them run the single-player campaign at a solid 60?  Happy Sunday to the U.K.!!!

[Tankbuster 1744]

I've only played a couple of the SP campaigns. I rarely get 'solid 60' FPS (presumably 'solid' means 'constant'?), but you don't need 60 FPS in this game unless you plan on taking a fast jet through the valleys at treetop height. In which case, there are better games for that.

You're new to Arma. First things first, get the FPS fixation out of your head. We don't sideways bunny hop, emptying 3 magazines into a player you saw as a silhouette through a wall 20 seconds ago. Secondly, some missions run at 60 FPS, others run at 30 FPS, and that's fine. If you're prone in a bush for half a minute, waiting for that patrol to come back, or you're glaring at the map, choosing your next vantage point, 60 FPS isn't going to help you. If you're on a hilltop with a shoulder launched AT rocket, waiting for that APC 800 meters away to turn around so you don't have to risk a shot to it's stronger frontal armour, 30 FPS is plenty. Trust me on this.

If you take the best current advice and buy one of the new AMD CPUs, you do have to get the right memory for it. Others here know more about this than me, but I will say this - if you impulse buy, you'll regret it.

Other things to consider - get the fastest and biggest SSD you can afford. The motherboards you are looking at probably support M.2. You'll be needing an SSD to go in that slot and be big enough to have the OS and the game and ny mods you want to use. Have a secondary drive for the rest of your stuff, another M.2 drive if your mobo supports that.

Don't get too hung up on a GPU. In this game the GPU you want is decided by the resolution of your monitor. Most of the GTX 1070 and upwards will drive a 1080p monitor. My 1440p monitor is happy with my GTX 1080.

 

[Ghaleon4 1]

Thank you for the feedback Tankbuster!
I know that the Arma community is sensitive to frame-rate complaints.  Indeed, this is a simulator that is operating with a lot of overhead that conventional games just don't have to deal with.  That's why I didn't barge in here to ask about how to play at 1440p or 4k at 144hz  --but I really can't deal with the screen tearing on fixed-pixel displays.  Maybe if we were all still using CRTs I could manage, but I can't do it on a panel.  The rest of my machine is built with a GTX 970, a 500 gig Evo and a 4TB evo.
 

I've learned that the spot in the single-player campaign that tanked my frame rate is the city of Kavala, and they say it's one of the worst spots in the game.  Can anyone run this area of the game with moderate view distance at 50 fps??  I've played with 50 VSync (see my first post above), and it's sublime. 

 

Look, I'm already getting the sense from here and on Reddit that I'm going to have to defend my aspirations.  Here it is:  I don't think it's too much to ask to be able to use my TrackIR to scan the east horizon while I crouch-walk north to the next tree -and dips in the frame-rate are like being stricken with sudden bouts of blindness.  I can't track objects or see if anything is moving in this scenario if the damned frame rate isn't steady or if I've got instances of tearing flickering all over the screen.  Remember, I'm scanning things 1km away with the naked eye, right?  Simulator??  And don't get me started on the joy of 'aiming'.  If I wanted this kind of random outcome to my carefully-planned actions, I'd just play some D&D.  So if it's not steady enough for me to be an effective infantryman, then I'm not playing this game and I'm saving my $700 for another generation.

[Valken 622]

@Ghaleon4Before you do anything, just look at this review:

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-10900k-vs-amd-5900x-gaming-performance/

 

Look at the 1280x720 benchmarks with  both Ryzen 5000 vs Intel 10X00 series with GOOD RAM.

 

The test shows that IF the GPU has "relatively" unlimited power, hence simulated by running at an absurdly low resolution, what would be the MAXIMUM available performance from the CPU?

 

You can see the AMD system kills all the Intel CPU system with same RAM, and GPU for all games.

 

Then you see as it scales up to 4K, the AMD Ryzen with FAST RAM still kills all the Intel systems, with the same FAST RAM.

 

That means in the future when even FASTER GPUs come out, you can just upgrade that and still have MORE performance to be gained, because the AMD Ryzen CPUs are ridiculously fast now.

 

Unless you are buying a new Intel system for a huge discount, like 30-50% off, I would not binge buy anything from that. 

Old 14 nm technology

You HAVE to OC the Intel to 5+ GHZ to match the Ryzen TODAY.

Very HOT when you OC it

No PCIE4 options until second half of next year and they will bring out new CPUS STILL on 14 nm process with that bolted on. Again, HOT.

 

I could go on and on...

 

If you need to buy now, want to save a few bucks, buy an AMD Ryzen 5600X (6 core), G.skill DDR4-3600-CL14 or CL16 if you cannot find CL14, OC that 3800CL14 if possible, MSI Tomahawk or Gigabyte Aorus Elite or Asus TUF Gaming or Asrock Steel Legend B550, or X570 MB,  and swap in your old parts.

 

For ARMA, you can max out like the user from Groove_C's post with your existing GPU.

 

Then get a next gen GPU when it becomes available.

 

Look at Groove_C's post and here is what a 5800X with DDR4-4000CL16 can do in single player in 1080p:

 

100 FPs average, 70+ FPS minimum!!! The minimum is higher than your MAX currently!

 

 

I was going to get the above but noticed some game engines, Battlefield Frostbyte, DayZ (for ARMA 4), Tomb Raider, and many strategy games really are catered to 8 cores. 

 

As the current pricing for the Ryzen 5800X is over priced to me, I will wait until more GPU becomes available and buy the system at the same time to benefit.

 

I have nearly the same system as you but with a 4790K, same RAM, nearly the same GPU 1060 GTX = 970 and I run Ultra with 3800 distance and objects. Only on Tanoa or super heavy missions like "The Devils House" that I would lower the map and objects distance to 1000 + 500 to have something reasonable.

 

On maps other than Tanoa (I do not have contact so cannot comment on Livonia), I get between 45-80 FPS depending on the mission, online. I play ESCAPE  and COOP mostly with others so you can join us to see how it goes.

 

You can find me on Outkasts or Salty Dogs or Escape from Hell servers.

 

Again, do not buy Intel unless you get a YUGE (President Donald Trump voice) discount. Don't waste your money on old tech when for the same money, you have a BETTER purchase with MORE performance today and tomorrow. That would be the smart buy.

[Tankbuster 1744]

You are seeing screen tearing because your GPU or monitor isn't up to the job. Vsync is probably making it worse. I too use TrackIR. That sometimes causes flickering if one of the emitters is blocked, but you're probably onto that already.

I don't know if your talk of seeing objects a KM away is rhetorical? Here's what I see when I look at a warehouse building 1000m away (its right in the middle of the bino reticule). You're just aren't tracking any object at that distance with the naked eye. Note that I'm seeing it on a 32" monitor in 2560 x 1440 and a man object is single pixel high there. The warehouse is 12 pixels high.

I'm getting the sense here you are unwilling to accept advice you don't like. Framerate drops are all part of the rich tapestry that is being a Bohemia Interactive customer. You haven't even experienced the world of frustration and joy that is content creation in this game. This $700 you mention? Add another $300 and we'll talk.

[oldbear 390]

I have just updated my bench platform based on ASUS TUF GAMING B550M-Plus with R5 5600X and post here my 1st tests results ...

 

 

... the performance gap with previous R5 3600X is impressive!

It looks like the DDR4 3600 C16 is still on the right spot, here I am using Crucial Ballistix 16 GB (8 GB x2) BL2K8G36C16U4R 3600 MHz CL16 ... Red of course 😎

The Gigabyte GTX N970IX OC-4GD is good enough for the job but in my opinion has a lower level than necessary to play in 1080p without sacrificing visual quality and ... hearing comfort, in Ultra it howls like a turboprop.

 

[scruffy 22]

I upgraded my CPU from a 3700x to a 5800x and did some benchmarks.

 

YAAB 1.00 | Arma 2.00
1080p standard (CMA AVX2 malloc)

5800X (Eco mode 65W) | 2x16 GB DR 3600 MHz 16-18-18-36 1T | GTX 1080ti (11 GB) | SSD

FPS: 61,9 min | 89,1 avg | 139 max

 

1080p Ultra (CMA AVX2 malloc)

FPS: 44,5 min | 67,4 avg | 94,8 max

 

Compared to the "old" 3700x I now get on Ultra nearly what I had on Standard preset before. Here is the post what the old one managed with different RAM settings, and here is a comparison graph:

[Groove_C 267]

Ryzen 5000 are the best now.

And single core performance gains in Arma are not only mesurable, but can also be noticed, even if FPS is not displayed.

[nikiforos 450]

10700k cost almost 100 bucks less than 5800x and the results are similar. At least for this game.

[Groove_C 267]

1 hour ago, nikiforos said:

10700k cost almost 100 bucks less than 5800x and the results are similar. At least for this game.

not similar at all. and you don't take into account that it needs better motherboard and cooler and temp and power draw are higher.

[Valken 622]

@oldbear@scruffy Can you guys tighten your RAM times to CL 14-14-14-38 1 with a 0.05 voltage increase? I bet you will get more FPS just from that. Even better if you can get Infinity Fabric 1:1  at 1900 MHZ / DDR4-3800.

 

@nikiforos per tested setttings:

 

IIntel I7-9700K (8 core cpu @ 5+ GHZ ) with DDR4-4000CL15 RAM, should be similar for 10700K:

 

 

vs AMD 5800X with DDR4-4000CL16 RAM

 

 

There is over 14 MIN FPS and 18 AVERAGE FPS difference. 

 

Most of of us care about these in ARMA, and CSGO or competitive players would look for average to peak FPS.

 

There is $100 USD difference but no way the Intel 9700K or 10700K can keep all core 5 GHZ without at least 120 USD AIO water cooler.

 

The Ryzen does not require it. It works with STOCK AIR COOLER up to 5GHZ turbo and gives the above performance.

 

So the price will be the same just for CPU, RAM and MB. 

 

Plus you get PCIE Gen4 for Direct Storage coming later, similar to the XBOX X and PS5 so when users upgrade to PCIE4 M.2 NVME drives, they will get even more performance for open world games.

 

For users buying NEW or upgrading from old 4 core systems who have to replace CPU, MB and RAM at minimum, AMD Ryzen for ARMA players is the best choice now.

 

For current Intel 6/7/8/9/10 series with 6+ cores K CPUs, if they can OC up to 5GHZ, just get faster RAM. No point to upgrade to Ryzen 5000 series for 20+ min FPS.

[Groove_C 267]

On 11/22/2020 at 8:54 PM, oldbear said:

I have just updated my bench platform based on ASUS TUF GAMING B550M-Plus with R5 5600X and post here my 1st tests results ...

 

 

... the performance gap with previous R5 3600X is impressive!

It looks like the DDR4 3600 C16 is still on the right spot, here I am using Crucial Ballistix 16 GB (8 GB x2) BL2K8G36C16U4R 3600 MHz CL16 ... Red of course 😎

The Gigabyte GTX N970IX OC-4GD is good enough for the job but in my opinion has a lower level than necessary to play in 1080p without sacrificing visual quality and ... hearing comfort, in Ultra it howls like a turboprop.

 

make it as your main PC then )))
move your SSDs and your GTX 1060 6GB to it )
3600 MHz 16-18-18 RAM is a very very good choice, since it's much cheaper than 3600 MHz 14-15-15 or 16-16-16 and the performance is almost the same, in Arma.
The problem with GTX 970 is its vRAM. It physically has 4 GB of it, but actually one should say it's 3.5 GB, since the other 512 MB are separate and much slower than the other 3.5 GB + 3.5 GB is not the real size, like it's also not real when you say 8 or 16 GB or 1 TB disc drive, since in reality it's less.

[oldbear 390]

From my perspective, there is no reason to change the configuration of my # 1 gaming PC.

The i7 7700K / RX 5700 combo is perfect for me to play Arma3, Civilization V and World of Warplanes.

I'm waiting for Intel to finally break the deadlock to change the gaming platform. 😁

 

My test PC is an opportunity to experiment and experiment with different pieces of hardware.

My plan is to do my own tests, produce my own information and share it with the gaming community.

To be complete, the R5 5600X stopped working properly after an hour and a half playing Arma 3 and it was returned to the supplier.

 

The test config is now running smoothly and stable with an R7 3700X whose performance in game with Arma3 is a little better than the R5 3600X.

At the moment, I am waiting for a G.Skill TidentZ Neo 3800 MHz C16 kit in order to test the 1:1 mode limits without the silicon lottery.

[Groove_C 267]

4 hours ago, oldbear said:

I'm waiting for Intel to finally break the deadlock to change the gaming platform. 😁

Well, Intel 11th gen will have max 16 threads, with TDP of 20 threads i9-10900K and PCI-E 4.0 (Z570/590?).
I might still buy it, despite the TDP and same 14 nm process, because there is no Infinity Fabric (monolithic die) = better RAM rsponsiveness and not depending on RAM bandwidth and responsiveness + it will be a completely new architecture, finally.
Rocket Lake will also finally have a upgraded iGPU, DX12 and more powerful, in case you've sold your GPU and the new one is still not available or your GPU is dead and you're waiting for a replacement or you don't immediately have money for a new one.

Oh and also 20 PCI-E 4.0 lanes and not only 16 lanes, so you have 4 lanes directly from the CPU for your PCI-E 4.0 M.2 SSD, like Ryzen 3000/5000.

[scruffy 22]

On 11/24/2020 at 8:20 AM, Valken said:

@scruffy Can you guys tighten your RAM times to CL 14-14-14-38 1 with a 0.05 voltage increase? I bet you will get more FPS just from that. Even better if you can get Infinity Fabric 1:1  at 1900 MHZ / DDR4-3800.

I'll try sometime in the future, but I'll wait a bit for new BIOS versions and what I read. Some seem to have problems running even 3600Mhz, though that seems to be with other mainboard manufacturers. I've got a Gigabyte Aorus Elite. Until then I'm happy with what I ran before and that it's stable.

Thanks for the tests everyone, I'm tempted to get new RAM, as I probably won't get a new GPU anytime soon :D

[Valken 622]

@scruffy@oldbear 

 

I just thought of something. Can you guys set ARMA affinity to 2 cores, 4 threads MAX to test Ryzen 5000 boosting? Does it get nearly up to 5GHZ or does it sit at 4.5-4.6 GHZ?

 

Just curious how Ryzen 5000 does on heavy few core loads.

[Gunter Severloh 4051]

Question for you Arma3 computer tech masters here, lol

This past weekend and up til about 20min ago to me typing this, i been working on an update to 5 versions of a mission i built.

      Each version other then one of them requires mods, now for about an hour i been shutting the game down, changing mods, and starting up again, doing

that about 10-20, 30min worth of work, then repeat.

 

    On two occasions now i come to the forum to reply to my one post i created or reply to another one, while the game is running in the background, and then

everything just froze, like i couldn't type, alt tab, delete, go to my desktop, press windows key to bring up start menu, i had to cold force quit, basically go

and press the power button on my computer and restart it.

 

So my question is, is it possible that between the switching, shutting down and loading mods back up, and switching between versions ingame

that i either overheated my cpu, used up my ram?

   Just to give you an idea of my specs

• CPU - Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake Quad-Core 4.2 GHz
• Motherboard - EVGA Z270 FTW K
• GPU - EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 8gb SC2 GAMING iCX
• Ram - G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB)  - overclocked to 3600mhz
• PSU - EVGA SuperNOVA 1000w P2 220-P2-1000-XR
• Heatsink/CPU Fan - Cryorig H7 Tower Cooler
• 1TB SSD, 3 - 500gb SSD   - Games are on one SSD, OS on another, the 1 TB SSD has nothing on it yet as its new, was planning to move Arma3 over to it sometime.
• OS - Win10 64bit             

           Really no way i could have tested to see if that happed or what happened, and really it never happened to me on this computer

it just froze 2 times since i been going to the forums and to the game and restarting ect,.