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

[ambushlead 10]

Just make sure you buy a big case for your PC. When you go to your second GPU, you can install some kind of cooling system and overclock your CPU at that point. That's what I usually do. Except, I'm probaly gonna skip on buying another Titan for SLI as AMD actually stepped up their game and made Nvidia release much better GPU's.

[fngmace 1]

Good call on the case! I'll make sure it has some extra room for future upgrades and cooling.

Speaking of AMD, someone has thrown a serious monkey wrench in my thought process for this build. I will link the parts below.. it looks very BEAST buuuuut it's AMD and I've read some negative reviews about Arma and AMD not getting along too well. I'm researching now to see how the below rig compares to the i7 4790k + GTX970 rig I have been planning around..

Thoughts?

http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/WvG8mG

[jandrews 116]

Find a solid mobo that allows upgrades in the future. Asus has solid boards. Check newegg.com for parts., focus on mobo, CPU and GPU, 8GB ram will suffice for now. Oh dont forget to get cooler, corsair makes good stuff.

[ambushlead 10]

I don't think having more cores will be good for gaming, most games don't use more than 2 cores, and Arma uses mostly one core for everything and offloads a little bit to the rest.

PC Gamer did a article on the best CPU for gaming about 1 month ago.

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-pc-gaming-cpus-processors/

It should help you figure out what will be good within your budget.

[fngmace 1]

Thanks again for your feedback guys. Here's one more, very-close-to-final build.

I have put together a 'cream of the crop' Arma rig just to see what the price looks like. My main goal was to select a great CPU, video card, motherboard and RAM. It is a bit too expensive so I'm now deciding which parts to swap out for cheaper components. I also included the monitor I'll be getting. If I can get the total down to $2,500 or a bit less then I'll be ready to put my money down and get this baby ordered.

Have a look.. I think I'll swap out the GTX 980 and go with GTX 970. I might not get a CPU cooler since I don't plan to overclock until at least 6 months after I buy. That will save me $300-ish. If I can figure out any other obvious places to save money without seeing a big loss in performance then I will be happy to do so.

Let me know what you think. I know this is more expensive then I had originally planned to spend but I really want to do it right and get quality components.

http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/thegoodway/saved/4c3dnQ

[kbbw123 115]

Good call on the case! I'll make sure it has some extra room for future upgrades and cooling.

Speaking of AMD, someone has thrown a serious monkey wrench in my thought process for this build. I will link the parts below.. it looks very BEAST buuuuut it's AMD and I've read some negative reviews about Arma and AMD not getting along too well. I'm researching now to see how the below rig compares to the i7 4790k + GTX970 rig I have been planning around..

Thoughts?

http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/WvG8mG

I've got that AMD CPU and its great for every game BUT Arma. i can play ACU, FC4 and everything with a stable 60 FPS on ultra but arma will only play with a stable 30 Fps (sp and MP) so yea like i said amazing CPU and cheap but not good enough for ArmA. Intel core's are better as far as arma goes

[warlord554 2065]

My AMD has ran A2 and A3 no problem @4.2ghz. Beautiful framerates. But they are power hungry, so a good powersupply is a must. I could OC more but ill have to upgrade my cooling capabilities first. Anywho, its been a champ

[St. Jimmy 272]

CPU: i7 4790K

CPU cooler: You really want to change the cooler to get lower heat for your CPU because you want to OC! Even $30 Coolermaster helps a lot already.

Motherboard: Just watch the specs and don't just go to the cheapest one but no need to go for the expensive ones. Also try to find how well and how many fans you can attach on it. At least watch that it has many SATA III ports for faster hard drive performance.

PSU: Something like 750W is well enough unless you go for SLI in the future then you can buy more room. Watch all the W ratings and don't go for those cheap manufactures. Chieftec, CoolerMaster, Corsair, Antec are good what I remember.

GPU: GTX 970 or 980. Good power effiency at least GTX 970 is good at it. AMD counterparts also have performance but they take more W.

OS: Windows 7 or 10 64-bit

RAM: Don't try to save too much on this especially when you're building a new build. Go above 2000MHz and try to also get the lowest CL. Generally 2133MHz CL8 or 9, 2400 CL9 or 10 and so on. Arma likes good RAM but still watch the price so it's isn't way too high

Case: What you like and likely something like $100 or above. ATX cases should have some space and room to breath.

Case fans: You can put 2 fans on the same connection in MB if the fan comes with that kind of cable. At least that's why I bought some Coolink fans.

HDD: Western Digital Blue or Black are good well known series.

SSD: Kingston, Samsung, Intel at least should be good ones. One 250GB should be well enough for OS, some programs and Arma 3 and mods. You could also go for two smaller ones And keep Arma 3 separate from the OS SSD.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

But you read the information that u wont be able to reach 60 fps, right? Even not with Hexacore and Tri SLI.... But its your money^^

[ambushlead 10]

But you read the information that u wont be able to reach 60 fps, right? Even not with Hexacore and Tri SLI.... But its your money^^

Ya he will, 60 fps on 1080p is nothing with that set up.

Arma is mostly bottlenecked at the CPU, my afterburner results show that CPU one is usually running around 80-90% when arma is running and the rest of the cores around 10-20%

Ram isnt very important for Arma. It uses only 2 - 3 GB. And tests have shown that the type of Ram hardly makes a difference for gaming, might be like half a FPS difference between speeds of Ram.

[Greenfist 1863]

And tests have shown that the type of Ram hardly makes a difference for gaming, might be like half a FPS difference between speeds of Ram.

That might not be true with Arma: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?166512-Arma-3-CPU-vs-RAM-performance-comparison-1600-2133-up-to-15-FPS-gain&p=2529326&viewfull=1#post2529326

I personally got measurable difference between 1600MHz and 1800MHz. On some benchmarks the fps increase was nearly linear to faster RAM. (13% more speed increased the fps by 10%, IIRC)

[ambushlead 10]

That might not be true with Arma: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?166512-Arma-3-CPU-vs-RAM-performance-comparison-1600-2133-up-to-15-FPS-gain&p=2529326&viewfull=1#post2529326

I personally got measurable difference between 1600MHz and 1800MHz. On some benchmarks the fps increase was nearly linear to faster RAM. (13% more speed increased the fps by 10%, IIRC)

Well that makes sense, The speed of the Ram would matter more when the Arma overloads the main CPU and that CPU can use more ram to do more tasks. I think he should be fine tho if he is only aiming for 1080p. I play at 1440p, and my system can't even get perfect 60fps all the time. I might have to overclock my CPU just for Arma. I wish I wouldn't have to, if Arma spread the work around multiple cores more. I think BIS should of spent more time optimizing the engine after Arma 2 rather than start development on Arma 3.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Ya he will, 60 fps on 1080p is nothing with that set up.

Arma is mostly bottlenecked at the CPU, my afterburner results show that CPU one is usually running around 80-90% when arma is running and the rest of the cores around 10-20%

Ram isnt very important for Arma. It uses only 2 - 3 GB. And tests have shown that the type of Ram hardly makes a difference for gaming, might be like half a FPS difference between speeds of Ram.

So? Then my Haswell Refresh CPU (which run over 5,4Ghz when i use my Mach II GT Compressorcooling) is "bottlenecking"? Some people use words like "bottleneck" too easy, without advanced knowledge in the whole archictecture. My Ram runs great too, 2000Mhz with 9-11-9-28 1Timing Mode seems okay for me. I build since over 10 years PC´s for Gamers and Companys, over the last year i build a bunch of PC´s (mostly Overclocked) and not a single one was able to run the constant 60 fps, even not those with Hexa-& OctaCore with Tri Crossfire and Quad SLI. So dont spread informations which are totaly wrong. Thank you.

[ambushlead 10]

So? Then my Haswell Refresh CPU (which run over 5,4Ghz when i use my Mach II GT Compressorcooling) is "bottlenecking"? Some people use words like "bottleneck" too easy, without advanced knowledge in the whole archictecture. My Ram runs great too, 2000Mhz with 9-11-9-28 1Timing Mode seems okay for me. I build since over 10 years PC´s for Gamers and Companys, over the last year i build a bunch of PC´s (mostly Overclocked) and not a single one was able to run the constant 60 fps, even not those with Hexa-& OctaCore with Tri Crossfire and Quad SLI. So dont spread informations which are totaly wrong. Thank you.

My evidence of CPU bottleneck:

My GPU load doesn't ever get to 100%, when I run Heaven benchmark maxed out, it's a average of 40 fps and my GPU Usage is 100%. When I run Arma 3, my GPU usage is only 60% at most and on average about 40 fps.

Changing any video settings related only to GPU has zero effect on my FPS. Only the video settings that relate to CPU improve my FPS when lowered such as Object and Terrain distance rendering.

Here is a video of someone with GTX 980 SLI, the best GPU setup you could get right now for Duo SLI. He has the same CPU as me and he only get's 40 FPS on average as well at the same resolution which I also run at 1440p.

Just watch his video, and notice that his CPU 0 is running at 70 to 80% while the rest of his CPU's are around 25% and fluctuate in small amounts. His GPU's average around 50%. I don't even have SLI and I get the same performance he does. Having more cores for a CPU won't do anything, in fact, it might actually be worse for Arma 3.

Edited January 29, 2015 by AmbushLead

[dr death jm 117]

My rig :

GeForce gtx760

intel core i5-4690k @3.50ghz

8 gig ram (SKILL)

250 SSD

asus mother board

I have no issues .. on my server fps is 70 to 190 ...

so my thought is , good fx card,ssd,and ram..

I forgot to say I run everything in arma3 close to max or max ...nothing is set to low.

[ambushlead 10]

My rig :

GeForce gtx760

intel core i5-4690k @3.50ghz

8 gig ram (SKILL)

250 SSD

asus mother board

I have no issues .. on my server fps is 70 to 190 ...

so my thought is , good fx card,ssd,and ram..

I forgot to say I run everything in arma3 close to max or max ...nothing is set to low.

Whats your view distance? I highly doubt you are running Ultra view overall and object distance at max or ultra, or even very high and getting those frames.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

My evidence of CPU bottleneck:

My GPU load doesn't ever get to 100%, when I run Heaven benchmark maxed out, it's a average of 40 fps and my GPU Usage is 100%. When I run Arma 3, my GPU usage is only 60% at most and on average about 40 fps.

Changing any video settings related only to GPU has zero effect on my FPS. Only the video settings that relate to CPU improve my FPS when lowered such as Object and Terrain distance rendering.

Here is a video of someone with GTX 980 SLI, the best GPU setup you could get right now for Duo SLI. He has the same CPU as me and he only get's 40 FPS on average as well at the same resolution which I also run at 1440p.

Just watch his video, and notice that his CPU 0 is running at 70 to 80% while the rest of his CPU's are around 25% and fluctuate in small amounts. His GPU's average around 50%. I don't even have SLI and I get the same performance he does. Having more cores for a CPU won't do anything, in fact, it might actually be worse for Arma 3.

So what are you try to tell me? Do you think i am not aware of the ridiculous Utilization of CPU&GPU at Arma3? SLI doesnt affect the frames, well it does affect, but not so how a SLI User would expect it. I know it by own tests i´ve done. The effect is that you wont loose much frames as with Single GPU, but there is no advantage due higher constant frames.

Basicly it´s legit to say that Arma´s Utilization of GPU&CPU is a joke, its ridiculous.

One thing for me is sure, he wont get this 60 fps constantly. No chance.

[dr death jm 117]

Whats your view distance? I highly doubt you are running Ultra view overall and object distance at max or ultra, or even very high and getting those frames.

server side view is set at 1,000.

and yeah I didn't look to see what my view distance is... but 1 dosnt need to see 8000m it takes the fun out of the game not knowing whats out there...

also a lot of thing rely on server's .... my server is huge and very fast ... but it being a Linux it has diffrent issues than windows... but speed isn't one of them.

[ambushlead 10]

So what are you try to tell me? Do you think i am not aware of the ridiculous Utilization of CPU&GPU at Arma3? SLI doesnt affect the frames, well it does affect, but not so how a SLI User would expect it. I know it by own tests i´ve done. The effect is that you wont loose much frames as with Single GPU, but there is no advantage due higher constant frames.

Basicly it´s legit to say that Arma´s Utilization of GPU&CPU is a joke, its ridiculous.

One thing for me is sure, he wont get this 60 fps constantly. No chance.

Yes constantly he won't, but you didn't write constantly in your previous post. I assumed you meant, he won't reach 60 fps at all.

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:31 ----------

server side view is set at 1,000.

and yeah I didn't look to see what my view distance is... but 1 dosnt need to see 8000m it takes the fun out of the game not knowing whats out there...

also a lot of thing rely on server's .... my server is huge and very fast ... but it being a Linux it has diffrent issues than windows... but speed isn't one of them.

Ya 1000 seems reasonable for Infantry and vehicles. Flying at that render distance will feel like crap tho.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

He will reach 60 fps, but only when he is close to alone on an open field without some action. Close to towns he will drop to 20-30 fps, when he prefer to play such Arma Life crap he will encounter even lower frames

[FixArma3 10]

Yes more efforct needs to be placed on the GPU side for this game and make the game perform across all cpu cores

[dr death jm 117]

Ya 1000 seems reasonable for Infantry and vehicles. Flying at that render distance will feel like crap tho.

yep.. makes a player fly low .. 1,000 isn't the best for all missions but my missions are 99% dm,ctf, and hold .. some of my dm view is set to 300.

just because the dm is set in a small area (town or what not) so ne need to set high view.

I had a cti I edited up for a bit setting were 1200 to 1800. personaly I like to lock view settings because someone with a monster computer will set there to 8,000 and see all the way across the map and kill from very far distances, So limit is the key..

[mobile_medic 43]

Reading through the siterep I come across something that kind of irks me in regards to performance. Not only has the profile build now disappeared and all we again have is development stable but we are soon going to get a boolean switch so they can tell if a game is modded or not. Its not which mods are running, nor is it tooling to tell us which mods are costing time per frame, no its a simple switch of vanilla or not. They seem to be setting up the blame game and pointing at mods rather than actually a) helping people improve the performance of the mods and b) actually addressing the problems of performance generally.

This massive delay and this feature as well as the type of testing they are doing tells us a lot about what they think the problem is, they think its all the modders fault. Yet I can open vanilla and go to altis and get the game into the 20's on a high end machine, I don't understand why they don't just do that test themselves. I would say keep up the pressure but they haven't done anything about it yet, and right now all the evidence is they are going in the opposite direction of "its all fine its you and your modded games" without actually helping fix the darn issues.

Thank you for articulating this observation so well. (and, for your other post earlier in this thread as well)

It is an oft repeated "excuse" for performance issues in Arma. (I'm not saying it isn't a consideration. It is in fact a valid consideration when troubleshooting performance issues. I am sure you are also implying that it is being used as an excuse, rather than a valid consideration to troubleshoot and improve)

Within the same timeframe of that sitrep release, I've also noticed (what I perceive as) an increased PR push to pump the, "it's not the game/engine, it's the mission/mod maker's fault", knee-jerk response within the community. Won't elaborate on that point, as I don't want to single folks out, but an observant bird, might recognize what I am referring to. My opinion, anyway.

[fngmace 1]

LSD_Timewarp82, would you mind looking at my parts list and giving some feedback. I have put together a really nice rig (I think) BUT the only problem is I went waaaay over budget. I fell in love with the motherboard and cpu so extra money will be spent but I'm wondering if I should buy the GTX 970 instead and maybe no water cooling. Maybe cheaper RAM and power supply too. I don't know, need some input. Part of me wants to just get the best of the best and be happy with some good years of gaming to come, the other part of me says I should save the money and upgrade later.

What do you think about price vs performance on my parts list?

http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/thegoodway/saved/2LVCmG

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Dude,

never spend so much cash on a PC, Hardware is preety much old real fast. It´s like with TV´s and Mobile Phones, short time after you buy the best a better product is on the market.

If i were you i would change it to these Hardware which would save you about 400$.

http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/89nYhM

A 970GTX would be enough too (in my opinion) but i would wait until Nvidia gives a legit declaration to the actual discussion

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation

More money you could save by choosing other Screen, but this is up to you