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

[oldbear 390]

I would like to put some order in the matters in which I am involved and correct some inaccuracies.

 

Since April 2017, I have been playing Arma3 with a configuration based on an i7-7700K which I was impatiently awaiting availability and since then I have had no reason to regret this choice.

The PC runs like clockwork, the performance is not out of the ordinary but suits me perfectly.

 

The ways it runs today ...

 

 

In addition, since the release of Arma, I have done tests with the available hardware.

My very first test, that of a config around an Athlon XP2000, was published on the ArmedAssault.info site in 2006.

Since then, depending on the circumstances, I have tested many processors with Arma2 then Arma3. Athlon II x2 250, Core2 Duo E6600, i7 875K, i7-4790 / 4790K, AthlonX4-870, Pentium G-3258 / G4500 / G4560, i7 i3-4130 / 6100, AMD A8-9600, Ryzen-3 1300X / 2200G, Ryzen-5 1600AF / 2600/3600 / 3600X / 5600X, Ryzen-7 3700X.

All the PCs built around these processors, and some others, have been distributed around me for family, friends but also people who need a PC without the means to buy one.

These different tests but also the regular help given on French forums to players having difficulty playing Arma3 led me to define on the one hand what I call the "Minimum Recommended Configuration" to correct the official specs for in "Minimum" and "Recommendable" and on the other hand to propose, which at first was a joke in our Clan, "The Bear Method".

Some of my tests had been posted on CanardPC Arma3 dedicated forums (yes ... in French!)

 

So I'm playing Arma3, Civilization 5/6, World of Warplanes, Insurgency with the i7-7700K.

I built a second configuration dedicated now to Flight Simulator 2020 around the Ryzen-7 3700X.

 

I do not intend to upgrade my configuration immediately.

In my opinion, too much will change in the coming months, whether for Intel or AMD, whether for RAM formats or PC power supplies. My advice is to wait, not only for the release of the next Intel CPUs at the end of the year or AMD next year, but also for the dust to settle.

[Groove_C 267]

3 hours ago, oldbear said:

I built a second configuration dedicated now to Flight Simulator 2020 around the Ryzen-7 3700X.

Well, if you have built a system just for Microsoft Flight Sim and unless you didn't already have 3700X, then it was a really bad choice, because it's as single core as Arma and works best with highest frequency possible, instead of threads count.

A 5600/5800X would have been the way to do it, if that is when you've build your current Flight Sim system.

But if you've built it when Ryzen 5000 weren't even released or available/in stock, then a 10600K/11700K would still have been a better choice for it than 3700X.

 

 

[Groove_C 267]

4 hours ago, Tankbuster said:

I recently bought a Legion 5 Pro. It has a 5800H, a GTX 3070, a fast Samsung 1TB SSD and 32 GB of 3200 C16 RAM. It's WAY faster to start the game and load missions (startup params are identical) than my 9900K/GTX1080 desktop, but once the mission loads, its framerate is lower, my desktop does 52 FPS and the Legion does 40 FPS.

Well, that's to be expected, because it's a laptop CPU and its frequency is relatively low, compared to your 9900K, despite it also having 16 threads and 16 MB L3 cache.

+ 3200 MHz CL16 in a laptop is not the same as 3200 MHz CL16 in a desktop PC, because it's only the frequency and the first of many timings. The rest of the timings are way higher on laptop RAM than on desktop PC RAM, which further reduces the performance.

So one shoud never directly compare laptops vs. desktop PCs.

 

A 5800X desktop CPU on the other hand has 32 MB L3 cache, instead of only 16 MB and also boosts higher than your 9900K, as exemple.

[oldbear 390]

Well ... here is an interesting difference between theory and practice.

 

Basically, the platform on which I play FS was the test platform on which I did my tests with the Ryzen 5 5600X.

During the period when the Ryzen 5 5600X initially bought and returned to AMD for after-sales service, I bought an R 7 3700X taking advantage of an offer.

It was then that I decided to mount this FS 2020 setup, more than 2 months later when I received a new Ryzen 5 5600X, I mounted it, but I quickly found that temperatures during long flights became excessive despite the Noctua NH-C14S and an over ventilated 19"rack box with 3 Noctua NF-P12 Redux-1700 PWMs.

So I disassembled the Ryzen 5 5600X and found correct temperatures with the Ryzen 7 3700X.

 

In practice, in my testing, I found that the Ryzen 7 3700X regularly held a 4.3 GHz working frequency close to its 4.4 GHz Boost frequency while the Ryzen 5 5600X climbed to 4.6 GHz, then returned to 3.7 GHz continuously, the end performance being ultimately very close during a flight of more than an hour.

With lower temperatures and less noise inconvenience in the case of the Ryzen 7 3700X.

 

[Groove_C 267]

37 minutes ago, oldbear said:

Well ... here is an interesting difference between theory and practice.

 

Basically, the platform on which I play FS was the test platform on which I did my tests with the Ryzen 5 5600X.

During the period when the Ryzen 5 5600X initially bought and returned to AMD for after-sales service, I bought an R 7 3700X taking advantage of an offer.

It was then that I decided to mount this FS 2020 setup, more than 2 months later when I received a new Ryzen 5 5600X, I mounted it, but I quickly found that temperatures during long flights became excessive despite the Noctua NH-C14S and a 19 "rack box with 3 Noctua NF-P12 Redux-1700 PWMs.

So I disassembled the Ryzen 5 5600X and found correct temperatures with the Ryzen 7 3700X.

 

In practice, in my testing, I found that the Ryzen 7 3700X regularly held a 4.3 GHz working frequency close to its 4.4 GHz Boost frequency while the Ryzen 5 5600X climbed to 4.6 GHz, then returned to 3.7 GHz continuously, the end performance being ultimately very close during a flight of more than an hour.

With lower temperatures and less noise inconvenience in the case of the Ryzen 7 3700X.

 

That's the problem with Ryzen CPUs construction - they can't effectively transfer heat from DIE to heatspreader, because the DIE is very very small, because of 7 nm and not located in the center, but the power that's inside it is very high.

It's not so obvious on Ryzen 3000, only because their frequency is not that high.

 

That's why I prefer Intel. Because they have their DIE in the middle and it's much much bigger, so more surface to spread heat across and better heat transfer to the cooler + much better memory responsiveness.

But yes, 14 nm makes them consume more electricity.

[Groove_C 267]

If R5 5600X was throttling, then i7-10700K would have been the better choice.

It's more powerful than R7 3700X, per core, because at stock it has 4.7 GHz boost all cores, instead of 4.3-4.4 GHz of 3700X.
And it has also 16 MB L3 cache, like 3700X, but in one piece, not 2x8 MB + much much better RAM responsiveness.

And your Noctua wouldn't have had any problems to cool it, because of one big central DIE.

 

But I imagine you already had AMD motherboard, so a new Intel motherboard wasn't really an option.

[Groove_C 267]

very high temperature of 5600X was 100% not a problem with your Noctua cooler, because a CPU like 5600X, considering its TPD, is nothing for your Noctua cooler.

[Groove_C 267]

)))

 

[Valken 622]

18 hours ago, Groove_C said:

)))

 

 

Your MIN is higher than my MAX! Well done Comrade!

[Tankbuster 1744]

20 hours ago, Groove_C said:

)))

 

Is it wrong that I have framerate envy? 🙂

[nikiforos 450]

20 hours ago, Groove_C said:

)))

 

Wow just wow

[Groove_C 267]

5 hours ago, Tankbuster said:

Is it wrong that I have framerate envy? 🙂

No, as @oldbearsaid, 30 FPS is plenty, for Arma - no need for 60+.

[Tankbuster 1744]

9 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

No, as @oldbearsaid, 30 FPS is plenty, for Arma - no need for 60+.

Indeed. I've said it many times too.

[Groove_C 267]

4 hours ago, Tankbuster said:

Indeed. I've said it many times too.

So your wife/girlfriend shouldn't approve the upcoming upgrade, since you already have 30+ FPS 🤣

[oldbear 390]

@Groove_C I would like to correct here inaccurate information that is wrongly attributed to me.

 

To help gamers disappointed with the performance achieved with PCs that still meet the official "Minimum Requirements", I tested many CPUs which I listed earlier in this topic.
During these experiments, I was able to verify that some CPUs, like the Athlon II x2 250, AthlonX4-870, Pentium G-3258 or AMD A8-9600 allow to open the game and even access the editor, but do not allow to play regularly above 20 FPS with any setting other than "LOW", which is unsatisfactory video quality given the quality of the game.

I have also seen that the requirement that says "Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz "is wrong, because this type of processor [2 cores / 2 threads) regularly causes crashes.

During these experiments, I was able to verify that the indications set by the game designers, accessible at the time of the settings, were a good indication of whether it would be playable or not.
With an average rate below 20 FPS, it's Red and unplayable, above 20 FPS and below 30 FPS, in Yellow, it's laggy but more or less playable, above 30 FPS, when the 'indicator comes White, it becomes playable.

 

Since the release of Visual Upgrade in 2016, the requirements for the entire configuration have become higher, the requirements for graphics cards have increased, but the CPU requirements have become completely inaccurate.

It is for this reason that, on the one hand, I got in touch with Devs at BI and on the other hand, I launched what I called the "Minimum Recommended Requirement".

 

Let's look together at the last post on this topic, sorry, but  I quote myself ...

Updated suggested "Minimum" requirements in "APEX Standard"


Based upon what I had post on JeuxVideo.com Arma3 Forums [edit 16 January 2020]


A Recommended Minimum config to the "APEX Standard" must allow playing at a good level of FPS, regularly above 30 FPS with a graphic quality in "Very High" and a visibility of 3000 to 3500m.
This level of performance can be achieved in 1080p with a config based upon ...


CPU: Ryzen R5 2600 /i3 9100
RAM: 16 GB (2x8 GB) 3000 MHz
Graphics card: RX 570 / GTX 1650
SSD: 500 GB (Windows + Arma3)

In my opinion, based on my gaming experiences, I say again that it is possible to play Arma 3 between 25 and 35 FPS with a PC that has sufficient configuration.

I also believe that in order to enjoy the game, enjoy the remarkable work done by the A3 game Devs and Mod creators, you need a configuration that allows you to play regularly at over 30 FPS.

To achieve this goal, it is not necessary to have an extraordinary configuration.

[Groove_C 267]

1 hour ago, oldbear said:

 

I also believe that in order to enjoy the game, ..., you need a configuration that allows you to play regularly at over 30 FPS.

To achieve this goal, it is not necessary to have an extraordinary configuration.

Yes, >30 FPS and also not less than 30, is what's needed, to enjoy the game and no need for very expensive hardware to achieve this.

You are correct.

 

But if much much higher FPS can be achieved, even if only through more €€€/£££/$$$ and with a lot of knowledge/hard work/time and the person wants that or at least feels the "need", why not.

Nothing wrong with that.

[javadmolaei24 0]

hello

who can help me?

when i will install arma 3 tool in steam

dosen,t active install button and i can,t install it

what is my problem?

[oldbear 390]

Welcome in the "Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications?" thread.

It looks like your problem is not related to your hardware and game settings.

So, here is not the right place to discuss this issue, sorry.

Have you looked for other topics specifically related to Arma 3  Tools and Steam ?

[Groove_C 267]

On 9/4/2021 at 8:15 AM, Valken said:

 

Your MIN is higher than my MAX! Well done Comrade!

Just don't forget that for such performance you would need such hardware and even having all off this, won't be enough to reach such FPS, without a lot of knowledge and patience to tune everything to the last MHz and lowest doable timings - it's on the limit of doable even if it's still on air.

 

So expectations have to be lower than that.

[Valken 622]

1 hour ago, Groove_C said:

... without a lot of knowledge and patience to tune everything to the last MHz and lowest doable timings - it's on the limit of doable even if it's still on air.

 

I wanted to ask and confirm you did this all on AIR? Did you have a fan or blower on your RAM as you had increased it to nearly 4000 MHZ from 3733 MHZ?

 

During the summer like now, I have to keep a fan on my DDR3-2400CL10 as it gets very hot.

[Groove_C 267]

@Valkenyes, a fan than cools RAM to not higher than 40°C. And less than that when ambient temp 18-22°C.

Each of my RAM modules have temp sensors.

 

I also downclocked my RAM from 3960 MHz to 3866 MHz, so it requires much less voltage, RAM and memory controller inside the CPU reach much lower temperature and FPS difference is only marginal.

You can measure it, but can't feel it. So not worth the stress for the hardware.

[Smart Games 76]

4 hours ago, Valken said:

During the summer like now, I have to keep a fan on my DDR3-2400CL10 as it gets very hot.

Never had a problem with RAM-Temps, even though mine is running @1,5V

[oldbear 390]

 @Smart Games  It should be remembered that we run our PCs in different climatic conditions.

Whatever the hardware, the air temperature in the room where the PC is located is decisive.

 

I had played in Marseilles for years, with over with more than 35 ° C in the house in summer.

I always had to use extreme solutions such as a pair of 50 cm fans blowing on the components to be able to continue playing.

Now in the mountains, I have come back to more traditional solutions, ... in addition the air conditioning helps a lot 😎

[Groove_C 267]

8 hours ago, Smart Games said:

Never had a problem with RAM-Temps, even though mine is running @1,5V

Well, you don't tell us your RAM temp, room temp, RAM timings and frequency. RAM voltage alone means nothing.

 

Even 65°C is a perfectly working temp for RAM, but Samsung chips can start to have errors even past only 35°, if you go for very high frequency and very low timings.

[Valken 622]

It is between 32-40 C where I am now. Might get up to 42! So yes, additional FAN with AC is a must until Father Winter arrives!