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

[RePlayBoy101 0]

i5 3300

gtx1060

16gb ram

 

KOTH ... i cant run with more than 20 fps in a 110 people server

[oldbear 390]

So it's MP related and nothing you can do.

Basically, Arma* engine had not been " ... designed with 100+ player ... deeply modded servers in mind".

Source : https://arma3.com/news/report-in-joris-jan-van-t-land-project

[militant_mind 10]

PC newbie here, how will this used rig I'm looking at run Arma 3?

 

P16 GB Ram ~ 160
P8 Core Processor AMD FX-8350 @ 4.00 GHz ~ 250 
GTX 750 
 

[oldbear 390]

Arma3 will "run" on it for the AMD FX-8350 was one of the AMD last generation able to allow playing Arma3 at the expected standard level and the GTX 750 one of last generation recommended minimum GPU, the 16GB RAM ~160 meaning its not fast is not needed.

 

My own feeling is that, buying now all this previous generation hardware is not wise.

You can already get more efficient CPU at a lower price on a more efficient platform.

You can get a better GPU in the same price area

You will need 2x4Go RAM at high speed

 

As on all the PC gaming hardware is at a turning point, now you can get better parts at a lower price and in the near future you will have even more options due to next gen AMD Ryzen CPU release.

 

My own advice is to wait after full AMD Ryzen lineup launch starting March 2, 2017.

 

But if your need is so urgent you can't wait  ...

[Tankbuster 1733]

Guys,

I think my GTX 970 is struggling. I'm getting game crashes where the screen goes black and the game locks up. The game doesn't actually crash, but there's not much I can do with a black screen. This all started when I got a new monitor, its native resolution is 2560 x 1440.

 

I can mitigate the problem by bringing the game resolution down a little, but this sort of defeats the object. With the prices of the 10 series Nvidia cards dropping after the announcement of the 1080ti, I'm looking at replacing the 970. I have my eyes on some of the better 1070, perhaps the overclocked ones. Is this strong enough to drive my monitor with everything on high/ultra?

[cSensei 0]

Hey guys I wanted to know if this PC I Build on "PartPicker" was solid enough to play arma 3 Multiplayer at Playable FPS https://pcpartpicker.com/list/WJyq9W

I'm aware the build doesn't have a GPU Because I'm going to use my current Overclocked 750Ti (which is a good enough Gpu for Arma 3) until I upgrade it soon.

I am also aware that Arma 3 is Mostly CPU Based so I just wanted to confirm that this build is good enough along with my 750 Ti to run Arma 3 Multiplayer at decent settings with a Decent Framerate. All Answers are Appreciated :) .

[oldbear 390]

@ Tankbuster : The 2560 x 1440 WQHD monitor has 3,686,400 pixels compared to the 2,073,600 of the 1920 x 1080 Full HD which is over 1.77 times as many.
From my point of view in order to compute all those extra pixels, you probably need a more than 1.7 times better working platform.
But the GTX 970 seems to be good enough to display games @ WQHD resolution so you must check your rig before planning a massive upgrade ...

 

As the problem surges with monitor replacement, you must check first all the connecting items connectors and cables.

Last Nvidia "WHQL" drivers are known to be the source of multiple issues, so you will have also to look for a working driver for the GPU.

 

@ cSensei : there are 2 sides for my answer.

1° The performances level you will get on MP are related more or less on determined equally by your rig performances and by the quality of the server (connection, server PC  perfs,hosted mods,administration ...)

So on this side, there is nothing you can enhance, just look for the best server fulfilling your gaming needs.

 

2° In my opinion, some parts you have "picked" seems poorly matched with issues involved.

The Intel i5-7500 is a good A3 gaming item, but now, before installing it on a H110 mother-board, you must upgrade it's BIOS.

So you must ask for a BIOS update before buying the H110 or go for a more expensive B250.

This i5-7500 is sold stock CPU cooler, as you know Arma* is CPU dependent so in game the CPU will became hot, perhaps too hot, so I will advise to look for a better cooler.

 

[Tankbuster 1733]

1 hour ago, oldbear said:

@ Tankbuster : The 2560 x 1440 WQHD monitor has 3,686,400 pixels compared to the 2,073,600 of the 1920 x 1080 Full HD which is over 1.77 times as many.
From my point of view in order to compute all those extra pixels, you probably need a more than 1.7 times better working platform.
But the GTX 970 seems to be good enough to display games @ WQHD resolution so you must check your rig before planning a massive upgrade ...

 

As the problem surges with monitor replacement, you must check first all the connecting items connectors and cables.

Last Nvidia "WHQL" drivers are known to be the source of multiple issues, so you will have also to look for a working driver for the GPU.

 

 

 

2

Thanks for the reply.

 

Good call on the cabling. I've swapped out the cables and the issue persists. Rolling back the driver didn't help, in fact, I went back as far as 376.33 from December and considerably lower frame rate. If I'm honest, I reckon the 'roll back the driver' is almost always a false panacea.

 

Other information that I should have provided earlier :) This GPU drives another monitor which displays Athena (excellent 2nd screen map app) and stuff like TS, Steam and the RPT files. There's a 3 monitor, but that's driver by the GPU onboard the CPU.

[oldbear 390]

@ Tankbuster : Well ... so you must have 16 GB fast RAM and a powerful CPU in order to move all those pixels.

Try to unplug the 3rd monitor and disable mixed display in BIOS.

[Tankbuster 1733]

6 minutes ago, oldbear said:

@ Tankbuster : Well ... so you must have 16 GB fast RAM and a powerful CPU in order to move all those pixels.

Try to unplug the 3rd monitor and disable mixed display in BIOS.

 

Yeah, 16 GB of DDR3 1600 and a 4790K overclocked to 4.7 GHz. I'm beginning to think this isn't hardware related.

[domokun 515]

6 hours ago, oldbear said:

@ cSensei : there are 2 sides for my answer.

1° The performances level you will get on MP are related more or less on determined equally by your rig performances and by the quality of the server (connection, server PC  perfs,hosted mods,administration ...)

So on this side, there is nothing you can enhance, just look for the best server fulfilling your gaming needs.

 

2° In my opinion, some parts you have "picked" seems poorly matched with issues involved.

The Intel i5-7500 is a good A3 gaming item, but now, before installing it on a H110 mother-board, you must upgrade it's BIOS.

So you must ask for a BIOS update before buying the H110 or go for a more expensive B250.

This i5-7500 is sold stock CPU cooler, as you know Arma* is CPU dependent so in game the CPU will became hot, perhaps too hot, so I will advise to look for a better cooler.

 

@cSensei @oldbear Old Bear's advice is excellent and dubious:

 

1. don't buy a H110 mobo if you want to install a Kaby Lake CPU because, by default, none of the Sky Lake chipsets support Kaby Lake CPU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1151#Skylake_chipsets

Your only hope would be to have a friend or shop with a Kaby Lake CPU and spare time to flash the BIOS for you. If not, you could pay $25 more and getting a B250 mobo, e.g. ASRock B250M-HDV

 

2. Don't worry about the HeatSink & Fan on the i5-7500. Unless you overclock your CPU, the stock HSF is fine. Especially as the i5-7500 only throws out 65W of heat (medium level).

 

3. Personally I'd dump that i5-7500 and grab a G4560 instead. Yes it's only a dual-core but it's the same speed, has hyper-threading and costs $130 less (65%). Also Arma isn't very well multi-threaded (so multi-core CPU don't really matter). Not to mention that your 750 Ti will be bottle-necking your i5-7500. With the money you saved get yourself a 480GB SSD as that will deliver MUCH better performance that your 1TB HDD. If go for a mobo that supports M.2-2280 you could even get an M2 SSD, e.g. 525GB MX300 @ $145.

 

Conclusion: I'd ditch the H110, i5-7500 & 1TB HDD and get instead a B250, G4560 & 525GB MX300 for a few bucks cheaper: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/tZLpRG

[Tankbuster 1733]

7 hours ago, oldbear said:

@ Tankbuster : Well ... so you must have 16 GB fast RAM and a powerful CPU in order to move all those pixels.

Try to unplug the 3rd monitor and disable mixed display in BIOS.

 

16 GB of 1866MHZ DDR3 and a 4790K at 4.7 GHZ. I'm beginning to suspect this isn't hardware.

[oldbear 390]

@ Domokun : there is not any doubt about the fact that the Pentium G4560 is an interesting CPU and a good base to build a Arma3 dedicated rig. From my point of view is a good candidate for what I am looking for, the "Minimum Recommended" CPU.
But, you must bear in mind that it's only a dual core hyper-threaded processor @ 3.50 GHz and that the i5-7500 4cores/4threads @3,4GHz/3,8GHz on turbo is 30% more powerful.
Some bench such as the one you can see on Hardware Unboxed  ...

 

... are misleading.
The test plateform  was featuring an Asrock Z270 Gaming K6 Mobo, an Nvidia Titan X (Pascal) and 32 Go DDR4 RAM 3000Mhz.

 

On my own test rig featuring this Pentium G4560, a MSI B250I-Pro, a GTX 750Ti and 8 Go DDR4 RAM 2400Mhz, the results are more on line with real game experience.

 

 

 

 

@ cSensei : So, if you are on a budget the Pentium G4560 is an obvious choice, but if you can spend some more money, the i5-7500 will give you a better in game Arma3 experience.
I will add, that on this base you can upgrade later for a more powerful GPU as now Arma* is also GPU demanding

 

[oldbear 390]

Double post deleted

Edited March 18, 2017 by oldbear

[Will_The_Gamer_PT 25]

Right now I have an I5 4690K (with a bequiet! shadow rock slim cooler) at stock speeds, a GTX 960, 8 gb of DDR3 RAM, FSP raider 450W PSU and unlocked gigabyte Z97 mobo, with arma 3 running on a HDD 1T drive. I wan't to know if and overclock to my CPU would help in arma 3 performance, or should upgrade another part? thank you for any help provided.

[oldbear 390]

Of course you can plan to overclock with such CPU and MoBo, but then,  you must also plan to upgrade the PSU.

 

From my point of view, as now Arma3 is not only CPU dependent but also GPU demanding, a graphic card upgrade will be a better move.

The GTX 960 seems to be the weak link on your rig, so I will advise to look for a GTX 1060 6 Go.

[afevis 26]

2 hours ago, Will_The_Gamer_PT said:

Right now I have an I5 4690K (with a bequiet! shadow rock slim cooler) at stock speeds, a GTX 960, 8 gb of DDR3 RAM, FSP raider 450W PSU and unlocked gigabyte Z97 mobo, with arma 3 running on a HDD 1T drive. I wan't to know if and overclock to my CPU would help in arma 3 performance, or should upgrade another part? thank you for any help provided.

I'd recommend putting ArmA on a SSD as well when you get a chance.

[oldbear 390]

5 hours ago, afevis said:

I'd recommend putting ArmA on a SSD as well when you get a chance.

 +1

As a 2nd upgrade, you can plan to move Windows and the Steam library hosting Arma3 on a SSD [ 256 Go minimum] 

HARD DRIVE 25 GB free space, SSD / Hybrid HDD / SSHD storage source : https://arma3.com/buy#requirements

[domokun 515]

@Will_The_Gamer_PT There are a few things that you can do:

1. Overclock that 4790k. Your Bequiet! shadow rock slim is a good HSF. So you should be able to reach 4.2 defo, 4.3 easy, 4.4 prolly, 4.5 maybe and 4.6 if you're lucky

2. Old Bear is right about replacing your GTX 960 with a GTX 1060. However ignore is advice about upgrading your PSU. 450W is more than sufficient. Even if you added a 1080.

3. Afevis is right that adding a SSD is a good idea but it would required migrating your Windows and Arma install onto the SSD (lengthy process but worth it)

[oldbear 390]

With this base fit for OCing, upgrading PSU doesn't look as a bad idea ...

[Snelle.MODA 0]

Hi

Yesterday I received my new MSI 1060 gaming x 6gb video card because my 6 year old ATI Radeon 6970 has died. Arma 3 was only playable with this GPU with decent frame rate if all settings were medium.

This new GPU can play the game with all settings on "very high" or "ultra". Frame rate is around 40 with a limited number of units but it's drops to 15/25 when approximately 125 or more units are in combat.

But this is due to the CPU bottleneck because the game engine runs heavelly on 1 core/thread. I have made a gameplay movie showing and analysing the CPU/GPU statistics with Rivatuner.

My advice is: You can better spend your money on a decent CPU (7700K) instead a GTX 1080 If you are a hardcore Arma player.  

 

Computer Specs pc is almost 6 years old.

Chipset               =  Sandy Bridge

Motherboard      = MSI p67a-gd65

CPU                   = Intel i7 2600K 3.4 (OC 4.2)

GPU                   =  MSI GeForce GTX 1060 Gaming X 6GB

RAM                   = 16GB:  Corsair 4x4GB, DDR3, 1600MHz, CL9, Vengeance 

SSD                    = Intel SSD 2.5", 160GB, SATA300, 320 Series

OS                      = Windows 7, 64 bit

 

 

[oldbear 390]

Since Visual Upgrade the impact of the GPU performances on overall rig performance has significantly increased.

So Arma 3 is still CPU dependent but also GPU demanding as well as in need of at least 8 GB RAM and  "SSD / Hybrid HDD / SSHD storage"

 

So, I believe you are right.

The GTX 1060 6GB is doing fine on an 7700K based plateform.

In order to play Arma3 ... what else ..., you don't need a better GPU, even if you can gain some overall performances with a GTX 1070.

 

 

YAAB bench on my gaming rig : i7 7700K/GTX 1060 6Go/16 Go DDR4 2666 MHz/500 GB Crucial SSD before last update.

 

 

 

[Venger__ 2]

What I don't is if everyone is saying Arma 4 is a very CPU intensive game, why then it my CPU usage always around 20-30% when running the game. I'm new to A3 so still trying to figure this out. Could it be that A3 is only using 1 out of 4 cores?

 

I have the game installed on an SSD drive, 16gb DDR3 memory, i7 4790K overclocked to 4.8ghz and a GTX 1080 Ti.

[domokun 515]

1 hour ago, Venger__ said:

What I don't is if everyone is saying Arma 4 is a very CPU intensive game, why then it my CPU usage always around 20-30% when running the game. I'm new to A3 so still trying to figure this out. Could it be that A3 is only using 1 out of 4 cores?

 

I have the game installed on an SSD drive, 16gb DDR3 memory, i7 4790K overclocked to 4.8ghz and a GTX 1080 Ti.

Prolly because your first core (CPU1) will be maxed out at 100%, whilst the other cores are doing almost nothing.

And guess what? An 4790k has 4 cores. So CPU1 if is at 100% that only represents 25% of your total cores.

The reason that A3 doesn't use your CPU's other cores very much is down to how it's engine (RV4) is multi-threaded.

Basically RV4 isn't very well multi-threaded because it's build on very old technology.

Sure it's evolved considerably over the years but compared to other engines, it's really beginning to show it's age.

That's probably why BI has invested some much time and effort into Enfusion engine (an evolution of the Enforce engine that powers Take On Mars).

The Enfusion engine's first title will be DayZ.

I suspect that if the Enfusion works well, it will power the next Arma.

So until then, given your current configuration, you just want to reduce your bottlenecks, e.g. what speed is your RAM?

[Venger__ 2]

1 hour ago, domokun said:

Prolly because your first core (CPU1) will be maxed out at 100%, whilst the other cores are doing almost nothing.

And guess what? An 4790k has 4 cores. So CPU1 if is at 100% that only represents 25% of your total cores.

The reason that A3 doesn't use your CPU's other cores very much is down to how it's engine (RV4) is multi-threaded.

Basically RV4 isn't very well multi-threaded because it's build on very old technology.

Sure it's evolved considerably over the years but compared to other engines, it's really beginning to show it's age.

That's probably why BI has invested some much time and effort into Enfusion engine (an evolution of the Enforce engine that powers Take On Mars).

The Enfusion engine's first title will be DayZ.

I suspect that if the Enfusion works well, it will power the next Arma.

So until then, given your current configuration, you just want to reduce your bottlenecks, e.g. what speed is your RAM?

 

I see. So there's not much we can do about it now besides lowering graphical settings or upgrading our CPU? I believe my memory is running at default speeds of 1600mhz