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

[Groove_C 267]

18 hours ago, dadax said:

Intel 12th gen 140 FPS 

Intel 11th gen 115 FPS

Ryzen 5th gen 100 FPS

→ So yes, since Ryzen 5th Gen you get a good experience in Arma 3.

To all you guys: 5800X3D test in YAAB still would be great!

 

with only 3600 MHz 16-18-18-36 and no CMA AVX(2) malloc it already does slightly more thsn 100 FPS avg. and slightly more than 60 FPS min in YAAB 1080p standard.

And that at 4.45 GHz with a just slightly more expensive than 100€ mobo, like 65 W or less and an air cooler.

 

Add to that up to 10 FPS more alone from CMA AVX(2) malloc + RAM from 3600 to 3800 MHz and all the timings manually tuned, gives even more FPS.

 

So I would say like 115 FPS for sure, if not slightly more.

[oldbear 390]

It would also be interesting to have information on the performance in Arma3 of the entry-level Alder Lake CPUs, because not everyone can afford a high-performance machine.

So if in your entourage, you have the possibility of collecting YAAB tests with i3-12000, this should allow a better knowledge of possible options and/or update ideas for players on a budget.

[Groove_C 267]

Just now, oldbear said:

It would also be interesting to have information on the performance in Arma3 of the entry-level Alder Lake CPUs, because not everyone can afford a high-performance machine.

So if in your entourage, you have the possibility of collecting YAAB tests with i3-12000, this should allow a better knowledge of possible options and/or update ideas for players on a budget.

haven't encountered anyone using one for Arma here or in the official A3 Discord, yet.

[WGP 91]

If I were looking for a slightly cheaper pc setup, I'd go with a i7-4790k or 4770k, also a gtx 1060 or above for a good arma 3 experience on high settings @ around 3-5000mtr vd.

We have a couple of players playing on those and they seem to have no problems.

 

Need a good cooler for the 4790k though.

[dadax 12]

On 4/26/2022 at 4:05 PM, WGP said:

If I were looking for a slightly cheaper pc setup, I'd go with a i7-4790k or 4770k, also a gtx 1060 or above for a good arma 3 experience on high settings @ around 3-5000mtr vd.

We have a couple of players playing on those and they seem to have no problems.

 

Need a good cooler for the 4790k though.

I upgraded from a 4790K and a 1060 gb/1080 to my 12900K with a 3060Ti
It gets you 90 FPS more than before. (from 48 to 140 FPS) in the YAAB benchmark.

 

[oldbear 390]

@WGP My search for information about entry-level Alder Lake processors is not a personal question, but a search for data provided by gamers to document what I call the "Minimum Recommended Requirement". Some time ago we had a discussion with Groove_C on this topic.

From what I can read on different sites about the Pentium G7400, it looks like this CPU might be a potential contender next to the i7 4790 or the R5 2600, I'm looking to find out what is the actual A3 gaming experience. It sure looks like the first i3 12000 is way above that, I just want to achieve our collective view of what is minimally needed to enjoy the game.

[WGP 91]

I'm just thinking about this series.

I think if your like myself and game in the old 1920x1080p then some of these older cpu's are a good bet. Overall older cpu's are fairly cheap (not the cheapest, but reasonable), and to be honest there are some gems in those older cpu's.

 

Like I said, I game in 1920x1080 monitor wise, with just a 60hz refresh (I'm old, what can I say) so not hard to get reasonable fps. Over 60fps would be a waste of time for me, so something like the 4790k is more than enough when combined with a pretty good gpu. The YAAB is not necessarily the best guide, it's o.k. but I think this series, when tactically played, runs along at 40-45fps avg just as well. For me 40-45fps avg in YAAB, would be more than good enough for an entry level into the series (30fps being the lowest).

 

I have seen the R7 5800x with the RTX3080 and it runs beyond what I need really, however I've recently purchased one, got a good price. It's here in the box and will remain there until I get around to setting it up. Until then I can only go from what I have seen of others with the same setup, it seems to do very well.

 

I don't really worry to much about benchmarks in this series, been around so long 30-40fps was the target years ago and the way we play and have our gaming worlds setup, it would still be o.k. probably. Although I'm lucky and get a constant 60fps with the setup I have now (vsync enabled).

 

Entry level players to this series, don't have to go into the current batch of cpu's and can shop with older (although new) cpu's. Some good prices around.

[Valken 622]

I'm still on the classic ARMA workhorse of 4790K + DDR3-2400CL10 + 1060 GTX.

 

It works well at most online scenarios and when I review what is available to carry into the future, I am excited but also deflated when I look at today's or yesterdays pricing.

 

I think a good budget buy is really a 5600X or 12600K with FAST DDR4 on a B series MB and call it day. Some OC must be done to get the max out of it.

 

Or buy better like a 5800X3D with FAST RAM and good quality AIR cooler. This is one setup that really stands out in terms of HEAT output vs performance at NEAR 12900K levels in most games. Just amazing buy for the money actually with no need to worry about water cooling.

[WGP 91]

1 hour ago, Valken said:

I'm still on the classic ARMA workhorse of 4790K + DDR3-2400CL10 + 1060 GTX.

 

It works well at most online scenarios and when I review what is available to carry into the future, I am excited but also deflated when I look at today's or yesterdays pricing.

 

I think a good budget buy is really a 5600X or 12600K with FAST DDR4 on a B series MB and call it day. Some OC must be done to get the max out of it.

 

Or buy better like a 5800X3D with FAST RAM and good quality AIR cooler. This is one setup that really stands out in terms of HEAT output vs performance at NEAR 12900K levels in most games. Just amazing buy for the money actually with no need to worry about water cooling.

Yep, that 4790k is fast, however you need a good cooler. 😉

They're red hot in more than one way....

[oldbear 390]

Here, the choice between an i7-4790/B85 MoBo/16 GB DDR3 configuration built from elements bought second-hand [+/- 300-400 €] and  a brand  new i3-12100/B660M Mobo/16 GB DDR4 configuration [+/- 400 €] seems rather easy considering the better performance of the i3. It is for this reason that I am looking for results from the experience of Arma3 players with this type of processor.

[Tankbuster 1746]

Without any evidence, I'm going to suggest the i3 is going to benefit from ore bandwidth on the motherboard and DDR4 RAM

[Groove_C 267]

@oldbeari3-12100 is better than stock (no OC) i7-7700K or i5-8600/9600K, even if it had same 8-9 MB L3 cache.

+ it has 12 MB L3 cache.

So, Alder Lake architecture alone already boosts FPS in Arma, despite 4.1 GHz all cores vs. 7-9 gens i7-i5 and 1/3 more L3 cache increase FPS even more.

 

I'm talking specifically about Arma.

 

And since the frequency is just slightly above 4.0 GHz + only 4/8 cores/threads, it's not a problem to cool it down with a 40€ air cooler.

Paired with a B660 board and some 3600 MHz RAM and you have a relatively good system, specifically for Arma 3.

And everything is new - no used hardware.

[Tankbuster 1746]

12 hours ago, Tankbuster said:

Without any evidence, I'm going to suggest the i3 is going to benefit from ore bandwidth on the motherboard and DDR4 RAM

And, as @Groove_C says, the L3 cache which worth a lot of performance

[Groove_C 267]

3 hours ago, Groove_C said:

@oldbeari3-12100 is better than stock (no OC) i7-7700K or i5-8600/9600K, even if it had same 8-9 MB L3 cache.

+ it has 12 MB L3 cache.

So, Alder Lake architecture alone already boosts FPS in Arma, despite 4.1 GHz all cores vs. 7-9 gens i7-i5 and 1/3 more L3 cache increase FPS even more.

 

I'm talking specifically about Arma.

 

And since the frequency is just slightly above 4.0 GHz + only 4/8 cores/threads, it's not a problem to cool it down with a 40€ air cooler.

Paired with a B660 board and some 3600 MHz RAM and you have a relatively good system, specifically for Arma 3.

And everything is new - no used hardware.

it's also better than i3-10100, since, again - 12 instead of 6 MB L3 cache of 10100 and better per MHz performance than 10100, although both are 4/8 cores/threads.

[oldbear 390]

I had concluded the same thing on the basis of the documentation and in view of the results of benchs, it is for this reason that I am looking for results from the experience of Arma3 players with this type of processor, because nothing is worth field experience.

[Frank1551 0]

Hey everyone.

My rig is with the Ryzen 5 1600X 3.6 Ghz, 16 gigs of 3200mhz ram, RTX 3060 12 gigs vram and for whatever reason only 40% of everything is being used resulting in 30 FPS in Multiplayer. I have tried multiple fixes from other pinned posts but nothing works I have seen people run this game with my specs and getting 100 fps what am I doing wrong?

[oldbear 390]

@Frank1551 Welcome in our Armaverse.

 

100 FPS in Arma3 running a Ryzen 5 1600X is either a bad joke.

You can get this figure using 500m view distance and Low.

 

If you don't know the essential point of the functioning of Arma3, you must know that the game is totally dependent on the frequency and the power of the CPU especially on 1 core, knowing that now, 4 cores are necessary and that the game still takes advantage of 6 to 8 cores. GPU performance is secondary and as far as I'm concerned, I think for this game an RTX 3060 is an overkill. A GTX 1660 Ti is quite sufficient to benefit from good graphics quality.

 

So, in getting 30 FPS in MP with a Ryzen 5 1600X is in line with what we can expect.

There are not many ways to enhance a bit your FPS level. On the free side, lower a bit the "Global Visibility" parameter and to for a more complete approach, I suggest you read the Old Bear method ™  😎

A more decisive solution, expensive that one,  would be to use a more powerful processor on the same platform with adequate RAM.

[WGP 91]

23 hours ago, Frank1551 said:

Hey everyone.

My rig is with the Ryzen 5 1600X 3.6 Ghz, 16 gigs of 3200mhz ram, RTX 3060 12 gigs vram and for whatever reason only 40% of everything is being used resulting in 30 FPS in Multiplayer. I have tried multiple fixes from other pinned posts but nothing works I have seen people run this game with my specs and getting 100 fps what am I doing wrong?

For extra help. Scene Complexity. Lower this to whatever you think you can stand. It will make quite a difference to your fps (or should), the lower you set it.

 

How to:

Go into your arma 3 folder in your docs. Open 'yourplayername.Arma3Profile', line 759 change the number downwards. ie. 900000 to 400000 or lower, keep testing to see how it looks ingame.

Use Notepad++ or similar to open the file.

[oldbear 390]

@WGP About "scene complexity", there is no magic, you have to explain what the parameter applies to.

During "Autodetect" process , ArmA 3 scan your hardware and applies what has been configured as the "good" value considering the processor and the graphics card, setting a value for scene complexity.

The results of the auto-detection are sometimes strange, it is for this reason that I propose to modify them with my "Method" by trying to better adapt to the CPU while maintaining the best visual quality.

Scene Complexity is tied to the Texture/Object/Terrain settings, so lowering the values of these parameters will have the same effects in game.

So lowering the "Scene Complexity" is lowering the visual quality of the game, and setting it to low value has the same effect as setting Texture/Object/Terrain to "Low".

 

[WGP 91]

7 hours ago, oldbear said:

@WGP About "scene complexity", there is no magic, you have to explain what the parameter applies to.

During "Autodetect" process , ArmA 3 scan your hardware and applies what has been configured as the "good" value considering the processor and the graphics card, setting a value for scene complexity.

The results of the auto-detection are sometimes strange, it is for this reason that I propose to modify them with my "Method" by trying to better adapt to the CPU while maintaining the best visual quality.

Scene Complexity is tied to the Texture/Object/Terrain settings, so lowering the values of these parameters will have the same effects in game.

So lowering the "Scene Complexity" is lowering the visual quality of the game, and setting it to low value has the same effect as setting Texture/Object/Terrain to "Low".

 

I perhaps didn't explain to well. However I thought anyone taking that route would understand what it was for. But you explained it very well.

 

The reason for doing it in the configs is, much more control, just what I have found anyway.

[Groove_C 267]

Microsoft mimalloc 2.0.6 (AVX) (April 2022) with lock pages in Windows is BattlEye compatible and much much much newer than CMA AVX malloc (Intel tbbmalloc 2016).
+ a lot of bugs fixed and unnecessary debug and stats codes removed, that are present in CMA AVX malloc, which causes overhead in certain situations and memory leaks.

 

Microsoft mimalloc 2 0.6 (AVX) handles memory fragmentation better, in a long run.

 

My tests of Microsoft mimalloc 2.0.6 (AVX) (April 2022) with lock pages in Windows, don't show any min. and avg. FPS difference (within margin of error) vs. CMA AVX malloc (Intel tbbmalloc 2016), but max. FPS is slightly higher, on Microsoft mimalloc (AVX) with lock pages in Windows.

 

AVX2 and AVX-512 mallocs perform same as AVX (within margin of error).

https://github.com/GoldJohnKing/mimalloc/releases
https://github.com/GoldJohnKing/oneTBB/releases

[Groove_C 267]

Will use Microsoft mimalloc 2.0.6 (AVX) with lock pages in Windows and see whether FPS degradation over many many hours of uniterrupted gameplay on same server/mission/round is solved or improved vs. CMA AVX malloc (Intel tbbmalloc 2016) or default BI Intel tbbmalloc (2017).

[Groove_C 267]

for Microsoft malloc with lock pages, 32 GB RAM is kinda mandatory, because  you need to always have more than 8 GB RAM consecutive free space, when running Arma 3, as it would lock several consecutive 1 GB large pages in your RAM and prevent it from being swapped into the paging file of your disk.

[sydsim 2]

On 4/29/2022 at 6:37 PM, oldbear said:

Here, the choice between an i7-4790/B85 MoBo/16 GB DDR3 configuration built from elements bought second-hand [+/- 300-400 €] and  a brand  new i3-12100/B660M Mobo/16 GB DDR4 configuration [+/- 400 €] seems rather easy considering the better performance of the i3. It is for this reason that I am looking for results from the experience of Arma3 players with this type of processor.

That i3 looks pretty nifty, may have to check out some yt benchmarks.

[Pete Fox 0]

On 3/23/2022 at 3:27 AM, oldbear said:

@Sertica I will answer here to the question you open elsewhere 😕

I will quote your question ...

Back to basics to choose hardware to play Arma 3

- a fast and efficient processor with a large L3 memory cache,

- a fastest RAM kit with aggressive timings,

- the fastest and most stable disk storage available

 

At present, my Arma 3 rig is based upon AMD Ryzen 5 5600X/ AMD RX5700_8GB/Ballistix 32 GB (2x16 GB DDR4 3600 C16 /M.2 1TB+SSD M.2 500GB+SSD M.2 500GB.

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X is a good asset for paying Arma 3 as seen here

.

If I had to change configuration here and now, without much hesitation, I would opt for an Intel platform centered on a Core i5-12600KF, the Max Turbo at 4.90 GHz gives it an edge !

If the Core i5-12600KF turns out to be too expensive, the best fallback should be a Core i5-12400, I find the performance of the i3 relatively limited in comparison.

 

 

 

Are they still manufacturing I3?