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

[rowdied 44]

@Groove_C which ram would you use between the 3?

 

1. Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600mhz 16GB Timing 14-16-16-36

 

2. G.SKILL Trident Z 3600Mhz 16GB timing CL16-16-16-36

 

3. G.SKILL Trident Z Neo Series 3600Mhz 32GB Timing 14-15-15-35

 

Ram is getting stupidly expensive now

 

thanks

[Groove_C 267]

@rowdied 

G.Skill Trident Z Neo 32GB 3600 MHz 14-15-15-35 (F4-3600C14D-32GTZN).

 

16 GB now is already almost like 8 GB several years ago. So it should be not less than 32 GB.

 

And RAM will be even more expensive soon. Already known/announced information.

[Groove_C 267]

@rowdied I myself have

G.Skill Trident Z Neo 32GB 3800 MHz 14-16-16-36 (F4-3800C14D-32GTZN).

 

But 32 GB 3600 MHz CL14 is already very good. Actually the second best <4000 MHz, after mine.

[rowdied 44]

@Groove_C Great thanks for the info!

 

I was also looking at that kit of 3800Mhz  as well and it is cheaper than the 3600Mhz lol.

 

Did you get the Ryzen 5800x yet?

 

thanks!

[Groove_C 267]

No, not Yet.

[rowdied 44]

@Groove_C Would the Noctua U12S be sufficient enough to cool the 5800x?

 

I run the computer in a basement with the side panel removed

[Groove_C 267]

It's OK, but it could be cooled better, for higher frequencies at same or lower voltages and higher RAM frequency with lower timings.

 

Noctua NH-U12A would have been a better option for sure. Or NH-D15S Chromax Black.

[Tankbuster 1747]

8 hours ago, Groove_C said:

@rowdied 

G.Skill Trident Z Neo 32GB 3600 MHz 14-15-15-35 (F4-3600C14D-32GTZN).

 

It's very expensive! Is it good value?

[Groove_C 267]

Depends on how you look at it.

 

With 3600 CL14 at stock (XMP), you know it was preselected/binned at factory, to some extent, which of course requires additional time and manpower and better memory chips for sure.

But numbers not worse than what stated on the box are at least guaranteed, in form of specs  and aren't just a pure luck.

And that's what you're paying for.

 

Have already often enough seen enormous discrepancies past guaranteed stock specs on same model products, just different samples.

 

While 3600 16-16-16-36 is certainly better value, the chance to push it to 3600 CL15/14 or higher, due to usual quality discrepancies within different samples of same model, is much slimmer.

 

The additional performance you potentionally could squeeze out from it, is not guaranteed by the manufacturer, as it's past the specs on the box and is rather a nice bonus, in addition to what it's capable of at stock and could potentially apply only to some of the samples, more for some and less for the others - it's a lottery.

 

It's like if you buy several G.Skill Trident Z (Neo/RGB/Royal) 3200 14-14-14-34 model samples.

Some will do even 4600 CL16, while some will already max out at only something like 3600 CL16.

[Groove_C 267]

Faster RAM let's the CPU and GPU better show what they're capable of.

Faster RAM bottlenecks CPU and GPU less.

With faster RAM, data for the CPU is prepared faster, thus the CPU spends less time doing nothing and is fed with more data or is fed with data faster, which in turn makes the GPU also idle less, waiting for data from the CPU.

So with faster RAM, the CPU itself is also better loaded/used in %, transmitting more data or transmitting data faster to the GPU, which then also waits/idles less and thus is also better loaded/used.

[Groove_C 267]

Getting 11900K and Asus Apex Z590 in 1 week.

[Smart Games 76]

@Groove_C i wonder if it's worth waiting for Intels 12th gen.

I didn't play Arma in a while, but i assume my i3-9350kf is still one of the better CPUs for Arma.

[oldbear 390]

@Smart Games Your i3-9350KF is not the best CPU for Arma, but it's still a good asset. My own Game#1 rig i7-7700K is running at the same performance level at a steady 4.5 GHz on all cores under all circumstances like a good workhorse. So why change what works well.

Regarding Arma3, I am getting better performances from the R5 5600X placed on the bench table. However, I will not change my game config, I will wait for more maturity from the upcoming Intel next gen.

[Groove_C 267]

Alder Lake will have very expensive and very slow (very high timings) DDR5.

Because higher RAM frequency is only higher bandwidth - not better responsiveness (in nanosecs in Aida64).

RAM bandwidth doesn't increase FPS in games - only RAM responsiveness (in nanosecs in Aida64) does.

 

Before we see DDR5 with even higher frequencies than the stock 4800 MHz, with adequate/low timings and at an acceptable price, at least few years will pass.

 

I'm also very skeptical what concerns Windows tasks scheduler in combination with Alder Lake, because it will have more and less powerful cores at the same time and running at different frequencies.

 

So I prefer to buy a CPU with a proven design, in combination with the fastest DDR4.

[oldbear 390]

That's the reason why I had said " ... I will wait for more maturity from the upcoming Intel next gen."

From Arma3 gaming point of view, my current equipment i7-7700k / RX 5700 and R5 5600X / RTX 2060 is more than enough.

Rather, it is with Flight Simulator 2020 that the need to combine a more powerful graphics card with the R5 5600X arises.

[Groove_C 267]

With my 11900K and fastest possible DDR4 I will wait until DDR5 gets faster and new CPU architecture matures after few generations.

[Groove_C 267]

Raptor Lake (13th gen in 2022) will be a refesh of Alder Lake with higher performance and larger cache. It's like 7700K vs. 6700K.

 

Meteor Lake (14th gen in 2023) will be another approach than Alder and Raptor.

But it will be the first Intel try in 7nm, which won't be very good, because it will be the first and it will be the last on LGA 1700.

 

So I wouldn't go Intel again before late 2023 or 2024, when they release Lunar Lake (15th gen), their 2nd gen in 7 nm and a new socket that will stay for at least few generations.

 

Or go AMD.

[Groove_C 267]

The only reason I'm still going with Intel, despite it costing me 200€ more for same performance, once/when both OC'ed, despite higher power draw, is because I'm used to how OC'ing CPU and RAM on Intel works and it will be much easier for me to OC it than to learn a lot of new stuff to OC AMD, spending too much time doing so.

 

With Ryzen 5000 there are a lot more different voltages than on Intel and additionally also a lot of different resistances in Ohm, which Intel doesn't have.

+ unlike on Intel, you can't simply increase all of this and when you find your stable settings, simply begin to lower all the voltages/resistances.

Voltages/resistances have to be no lower than, like on Intel, but also not higher than, which makes it more complicated for me and woud require a lot of time and learning process that I don't want.

[oldbear 390]

It seems, from my own experience, that it seems that the best option with a Ryzen 5000 is to do nothing, just turn on XMP memory.

Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than rack my brain with Ryzen Master, CTR or undervolting.

I chose to use the fastest possible memory compatible with my savings to enhance the rig performances.

Currently 16 GB (2x8 GB) G.Skill TridentZ Neo 3800 MHz C16, a C14 kit [CL14-16-16-36], would have been interesting to test but the price to pay was too high when I made my purchases.

[Groove_C 267]

Yes, too many settings, software and time.

 

But the thing is that tuning RAM from stock increases FPS considerably.

But time needed to do this is also considerable.

 

Having almost 100 FPS avg in YAAB 1080p standard thanks to well tuned RAM is a lot.

 

More than 20 FPS more is a lot, in Arma.

 

It's not like going from 100 to 120 or from 220 to 240 FPS in other games.

 

Because having lowest FPS in Arma being not 25-30, but 45-50 is a big difference.

 

Tuning RAM on Ryzen 5000 from like 3600 CL16 to like 3800/3866 CL14/15 is at least 10 FPS more, for free, if you don't count your time.

 

Min FPS on my 2014 system is 45, in YAAB 1080p standard, which is nothing, because I don't play at 1080p, but at 1440p and not on standard, but at ultra.

So my min FPS, on settings I really use to play daily, is much lower and thus such an upgrade is not even questioned - no hesitation at all.

 

I will still spend a lot of money, but at least the FPS difference will finally be noticeable and not just measurable.

 

Because with a well tuned 10th gen Intel and good RAM, FPS increase would have been like 10 FPS only (vs. my well tuned 2014 system) and that's for like 1200€.

And it was too little for too high cost.

[Groove_C 267]

On Intel I will simply increase all the voltages, look which settings it can do and after testing for stability, will simply start to increase each voltage, one after another and recheck for stability to find min. stable voltages.

 

It's still a lot of work, but much less than with Ryzen and at least I already know how to do it. So it will again cost me less time.

[Groove_C 267]

If it wouldn't have been for OC, I no doubts would have bought R7 5800X, since at stock it performs better then 11700K/11900K.

 

Even for CPU only OC I would have bought R7 5800X, since it's not complicated at all.

 

Only RAM OC is much more complicated on Ryzen than on Intel.

 

RAM OC in general, at all times has been the most complicated (vs. CPU and GPU) on all platforms and continues to get more and more complicated/sofisticated.

[Groove_C 267]

Wanted to buy 11900K today and also today was announced Zen3+, still on AM4 with DDR4 and PCI-E 4.0, but with 2/3 L3 cache more by the end of this year or the beginning of the next year.

 

So it's 96 MB L3 instead of 32 MB L3 for 16 threads.

 

What a good timing!

 

So my i7-5775C will have to work until then.

[Smart Games 76]

@Groove_Cwhat's the benefit of a much higher L3 Cache?

Are we going to see some performance increases in Arma? 

[oldbear 390]

Yes, Arma3 is particularly sensitive to the quality and quantity of available memory.

This is particularly visible with the jump in performance between the R5 3600X and the R5 5600X.