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

[3D_vet 29]

are u sure of that ? I don't know why I thought the release and availability of the coffee lake desktops was expected just in October... Yes, 2 cores mores is A LOT, for many things....But that's my opinion...

 

(Edit: I mean, even for games, a 6 cores is more  future proof than 4 cores. Plus, these machines have other advantages, and pricing is gonna be pretty similar)

[kuba999 0]

Nobody knows but on August 21st intel unveiled the coffee lake notebook sku's.  Actually they told us nothing about anything but the fat cow in the background of the stream was holding a cup with an October date so everyone assumes that is when they will officially present the desktop sku's.  Desktop will most likely be showcased in October so we wont see them till November/December.

 

I do not play anything else than arma so that is why im leaning towards the 4 core 7740k.  If they ever come out with Arma 4 then maybe it will use more cores.  The 8700k will be released with the z370 chipset which is just a re badged z270. So if you buy on release people are saying you have invested in EOL chipset.  The real coffee lake chipset is the z390 which we wont get our hands on till next year.  I really doubt the 8700k will be any better than the 7740k in Arma.  Other things for sure but not Arma. 

 

New egg has a deal for a 7740k and gigabyte aorus gaming 3 full 2066 motherboard for USD 499 at the moment.  The current skylake x chips are not so good for gaming but hopefully intel will keep this socket going for at least another generation of cpus.  They might fix the whole mesh latency thing in a future coffee lake x.  So im thinking there is an upgrade path if i need more cores in the future.  

 

What im looking for is a cpu that will not bottleneck my GPU and I can play the game in all its glory at 1440p.  .  I just want a very solid build for Arma nothing else.  I will be happy then. 

 

[oldbear 390]

I will suggest to stay on a balanced configuration.

I think that "here and now", my own gaming rig is near the target I am looking for in order to play Arma3  ... what else ?

The rig us based upon i7-7700K / GTX-1060 6Go / 2 x 500 Go SSD [no raid] / 16Go DDR4 3000.

After BIOS update the switch from DDR4 2400 to DDR4 3000 has helped to get over 50 FPS in YAAB @ Standard settings.

Of course, I know that a GTX 1070 and/or a full change in CPU/Mobo combo will help to get enhanced performances, but I am looking for balance in game ... and budget

 

 

No fancy 4K here, I play on an "old" 1680x1050 Iiyama, so it helps a lot the performance level.

I had updated CPU/GPU/ before updating monitor ... always with balance in mind.

My next step will be an update with a 1920 x 1080, 1 ms, 144 Hz, 24/25" monitor, but when ... ?

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by oldbear
English is not my mother tongue

[domokun 515]

1 hour ago, oldbear said:

I will suggest to stay on a balanced configuration.

I think that "here and now", my own gaming rig is near the target I am looking for in order to play Arma3  ... what else ?

The rig us based upon i7-7700K / GTX-1060 6Go / 2 x 500 Go SSD [no raid] / 16Go DDR4 3000.

After BIOS update the switch from DDR4 2400 to DDR4 3000 has helped to get over 50 FPS in YAAB @ Standard settings.

Of course, I know that a GTX 1070 and/or a full change in CPU/Mobo combo will help to get enhanced performances, but I am looking for balance in game ... and budget

 

 

No fancy 4K here, I play on an "old" 1680x1050 Iiyama, so it helps a lot the performance level.

I had updated CPU/GPU/ before updating monitor ... always with balance in mind.

My next step will be an update with a 1920 x 1080, 1 ms, 144 Hz, 24/25" monitor, but when ... ?

 

Nice but why a 144 Hz monitor?

Apart from Overwatch, d'you think that your PC will be able to output 144 Hz or even close to that in many games?

[oldbear 390]

Lol ..., you mean like that ...

 

 

I will not update for WoWp !

From my point of view, getting a 144 Hz monitor makes sense as soon as I am getting more than 60 frames per second (FPS) in the game.

On Arma3, in SP, on Malden, I am getting more than 100 FP rather often and even sometimes over 144 FPS.

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by oldbear
English is not my mother tongue

[Firebird-B4L 51]

On 8/20/2017 at 2:17 AM, oldbear said:

 

On 8/14/2017 at 5:35 AM, lysan said:

 

 

In these two comparisons, the i7-6950X is quite a bit lower on one chart and at the top of the list on the green chart.  Does anyone know why this is?

[oldbear 390]

Probably because the related missions played are rather different :

 

- Comptoir du Hardware is playing their own test mission a 108s flight over Stratis played 10 times with an unknown GPU on Very High and only FXAA for AA diplayed on a FullHD monitor, more important Visibility : Overall and Object are set to 12 000m.

 

This mission is not clearly involving IA and FX and is "over ground" skipping most of the terrain texture CPU/GPU mixed load, with Visibility : Overall and Object set to 12 000m.

It's a mission testing the raw power of the processor in a game using 4 cores and oversensitive to CPU frequency on one core.

 

- IO-Tech is playing YAAB with unknown settings using a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti OC with overall Ultra/Very High parameters on a FullHD monitor.

 

This mission is a real Arma3 mission involving IA and FX at the ground level getting the terrain texture CPU/GPU mixed load, Ultra settings auto-detection is giving 3800m for Visibility : Overall.

It's a mission testing how the processor can behave in game.

[Firebird-B4L 51]

2 hours ago, oldbear said:

Probably because the related missions played are rather different :

 

- Comptoir du Hardware is playing their own test mission a 108s flight over Stratis played 10 times with an unknown GPU on Very High and only FXAA for AA diplayed on a FullHD monitor, more important Visibility : Overall and Object are set to 12 000m.

 

This mission is not clearly involving IA and FX and is "over ground" skipping most of the terrain texture CPU/GPU mixed load, with Visibility : Overall and Object set to 12 000m.

It's a mission testing the raw power of the processor in a game using 4 cores and oversensitive to CPU frequency on one core.

 

- IO-Tech is playing YAAB with unknown settings using a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti OC with overall Ultra/Very High parameters on a FullHD monitor.

 

This mission is a real Arma3 mission involving IA and FX at the ground level getting the terrain texture CPU/GPU mixed load, Ultra settings auto-detection is giving 3800m for Visibility : Overall.

It's a mission testing how the processor can behave in game.

Ok my brain really hurts now.

[oldbear 390]

Let's start again ...

Arma3 is build around Real Virtuality game engine.

This game engine not is working exactly like other more modern and sexy FPS engine.

 

For the brain ... one of the main thing you must get is that the 1st  job of this game engine is to compute the terrain, that's why the so call video "Visibility : Overall" parameter is so important. It is NOT a GPU parameter, it's a 100% CPU one.

It's the main parameter you must use to tweak your FPS in game

 

When Comptoir du Hardware is using the Visibility : Overall parameter up to 12 000m it's for testing purpose. One of BI Dev had said once that it was an "insane" parameter for gaming. The idea is to get all the juice from the processor.

The score of this test shows a kind of processors hierarchy related to this game, no less, no more.

 

When IO-tech is running YAAB, this is quite different.

In game, in a real mission, the CPU is dealing with other problems such as AI management and path-finding, ground textures and objects processing. YAAB is good to show what you can expect in a real gaming situation.

 

Of course getting a high end GPU will help a lot now after APEX release, but the CPU is still the big boss here.

[Firebird-B4L 51]

5 hours ago, oldbear said:

Let's start again ...

Arma3 is build around Real Virtuality game engine.

This game engine not is working exactly like other more modern and sexy FPS engine.

 

For the brain ... one of the main thing you must get is that the 1st  job of this game engine is to compute the terrain, that's why the so call video "Visibility : Overall" parameter is so important. It is NOT a GPU parameter, it's a 100% CPU one.

It's the main parameter you must use to tweak your FPS in game

 

When Comptoir du Hardware is using the Visibility : Overall parameter up to 12 000m it's for testing purpose. One of BI Dev had said once that it was an "insane" parameter for gaming. The idea is to get all the juice from the processor.

The score of this test shows a kind of processors hierarchy related to this game, no less, no more.

 

When IO-tech is running YAAB, this is quite different.

In game, in a real mission, the CPU is dealing with other problems such as AI management and path-finding, ground textures and objects processing. YAAB is good to show what you can expect in a real gaming situation.

 

Of course getting a high end GPU will help a lot now after APEX release, but the CPU is still the big boss here.

Well explained thank  you.

[Tankbuster 1733]

It's worth mentioning that an SSD will help here. It might not improve the measured FPS but it will help the experience. Also, not all SSDs are created equal. I'm lucky enough to own an Intel 750 series and it feels like a step change over my previous SATA Samsung part.

 

Once you're into the latest generation of CPU, then the faster the installed RAM, the better. Remember that x64 uses more RAM, a lot more, and the game needs to get all of it, very quickly.

[oldbear 390]

Yep, no FPS gain with SSD, but SSD is a must have in order to get a better Arma3 gaming experience. Why ?

" Streaming in huge textures in real-time can be a bottle-neck to anyone's perfect setup" ... it means that there is a heavy load on disk and explain why "Recommended" specs have been updated since APEX :

 

HARD DRIVE	25 GB free space, SSD / Hybrid HDD / SSHD storage

 

A fast and efficient disk helps to get rid of stuttering and texture clipping issues, the game is more fluid and a lot better from a subjective point of view.

Edited August 25, 2017 by oldbear
impossible to delete an added text zone

[Tankbuster 1733]

The above understood - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the use of a modern SSD does actually improve measured FPS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an SSD on the PCIe bus is much easier on the CPU than a SATA one, freeing up CPU and stuff for the game?

[oldbear 390]

Had a 500 Go Crucial SATA on M.2 slot for Windows 64 and Arma3 on my gaming rig.

I believe that using that kind of "slow" SSD will help to skip temperature issues reported on high end NVMe SSD.

In fact it was going hot, well over 60°C while playing, Cristal Disk alarm was ringing, ringing ...

I think it that here, overheating is related to M.2 slot location between the CPU socket base and GPU back.

Got then 2 fans blowing down the gap and get more acceptable temp.

 

Was discussing this topic on French CanardPC forums for some time.

 

Well ... and what about a NVMe SSD on a PCIe card? Received the 500 Go Samsung 960 EVO NVMe and the Asus Hyper M.2 X4 Mini, 5 days ago, save Arma3 and all the related paraphernalia.

Make an Arma3 clean install, reload all the *** things ... tested it during the night.

No change in performances, but this SSD is cooler at start [less 5°C] and stay cooler during a gaming session [less 15°C] than the Crucial.

 

Speaking about performance I get a nice boost ... by accident, because I tweaked other parts while the case was open, all RAM related, but that an other story ...

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by oldbear
Too hot in here, must stop posting and drink something ...

[Tankbuster 1733]

Very recent M.2 SSDs have cured some of the temperature problem, but not all, which leads me on to the following...

 

My laptop is a 7700HQ at 2.8 with a 940MX GPU, a recent Samsung M2 SSD and 8GB of DDR4. My gaming desktop is a 4790K at 4.6 and the above mentioned Intel 750 SSD, a GTX 1080 and 16GB of DDR3.

 

When they both join my dedicated server at exactly the same time and load my mission , the laptop loads and gets into the mission much quicker than the desktop, there are about 5 seconds in it. So even though the laptop CPU is clocked slower, it's superior architecture and faster memory (the SSDs are roughly the same) starts the game quicker, but in actual play, even allowing for the desktop having to drive a much bigger resolution, the desktop shows higher FPS

[kuba999 0]

8700k benchmark.  Seems like very little single thread performance increase compared to 7700k

 

http://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-intel_core_i7_8700k-763

[oldbear 390]

Well ...

1° be cautious with that kind of bench extracted from such site, because too often results are not related to real benchmarks but more or less extrapolated from marketing data shown by the manufacturers in the best case and unverifiable sources and leaks in the worst case. ATM, nobody knows when the Intel Core i7-8700K will hit the shelves.

 

Try the buy it at Amazon link  .... We found 0 results for "Intel Core i7-8700K"

 

I know, I am spoiling the fun, but that the way of the Bear!

 

2° because of the very little enhancements related to CPU, here most of the evolutions of the performances will come from the platform and in fact that why a new kind of mother board is need.

So the overall performance increase compared to 7700k may be better than shown on this so call benchmark.

Only real tests, by real testers on the real combo (i7-8700K+Z370) will tell us something about the "truth" in that ... wait and see.

[3D_vet 29]

IMO the increase will be significant. Even being equal, is a newer platform, and mostly is 6 cores against 4. I mean, there's no contest there,if want sth future-proof in both games and applications, thinking globally, not just in Arma 3. Also, for me 'performance' is not just FPS in a game, or single core synthetic capability, is also having the machine going smoother while multitasking. And there 6 cores do quite a difference, I pretty do know this well.  Is reported how just the i7 5820k did run way smoother in certain multiplayer games thanks to this, and that's a six cores, too. And BTW, one of the fav machines in the late years for mid level  video editing. (high end is other stuff, but am talking about average pockets). When I render with blender cycles, I can set it to render using all the 8 threads, but sometimes I just put the enough number of  threads so that it's left enough power (depends on the other task to do) to the rest of the system to at least do more regular tasks fluidly while it render (which will so obviously take more time, but sometimes is the only way). And in my tests, it affects the matter strongly: More threads = u can do more stuff at a time. I work in my home pc, and more stuff at a time = more money. So, is not 'simply' important... If only for joy, well, if not yet, sooner or later you'll become more of a heavy multitasker, as is where everything is leading, imo... and then the more cores will and already do make such a difference. And that even while am not the kind of guy that streams as I play, no twitch , no stuff....but yep, rendering, video rendering, installing stuff, hear streaming audio often being a video feed (news, tutorials which I only "hear", etc ) , having skype for team work (and a lot of people as well uses TS or whatever for game voice),  or even just so that the antivirus updating takes less impact..... Indeed, I would have preferred if at least the very higher end of the mainstream line would have been 8 cores, this way Ryzen still might have an edge for me.

[Tankbuster 1733]

wot no linefeeds?

[3D_vet 29]

Sorry,

next

time

will 

do

so.

[Firebird-B4L 51]

I was going to just go ahead and build a 7740x rig or a  7700k rig with two 1080ti cards.  Here's what the guy who was going to do the build told me.  Thought I'd run it by you oldbear and the other gurus/experts here to get your thoughts.  He said, and I quote:

 

"7740x is a waste with 2 GPU's. Only has 16 PCIe lanes."

 

and he also said,

 

"The 7700k would offer marginal at best performance improvement for gaming, and probably be a step back for video editing. It really does not have enough PCIe lanes to fully take advantage of multiple gpus."

 

So we both decided waiting on the 8700k was our best bet based on what the builder relayed to me.

Edited September 1, 2017 by romille1
spelling

[Tankbuster 1733]

For Arma, that's poor advice. In this game, the 7700k is going to walk all over the 8700k. And 2 TI cards is just an utter waste of money and electricity.

 

If your heart is set on coffee lake and it's marginally faster memory support, because for arma, that's the only difference, get the i3 version. That is going to be a little rocket, and will be a great mid power, value cpu for this game.

 

If you're in no rush, wait to see what joys cannon lake brings. In the past, the refresh stuff has been really tasty, the 4790 is case in point.

[oldbear 390]

SLI is rarely worth it (same with Crossfire). The performance gains are never at the expected level.

A single card would now offer better gaming experience without all the driver problems and micro stutters in each new game.

Speaking about Arma3, a GTX 1060 6 Go is enough to play in Ultra without making any quality sacrifice.

A GTX 1080 Ti can be useful to move all the pixels of a QHD (2560 x 1440 pixels)  monitor, but if you play on standard FullHD, get a GTX 1060/1070 and wait for next gen ...

 

By itself the Core i7 8700K is probably not a high improvement over the Core i7 7700K, but nice gains in performance can be expected from the platform as a whole and in fact that why a new Z370 mother board is mandatory " Requires Intel 300 Serie chipset-based motherboard."

 

[Tankbuster 1733]

My monitor is 2560 x 1440. I've never felt my 1080 is struggling.

 

**edit.. In fact, the 1080 drives a second monitor which is 1440 x 1080 although that screen only shows windows, TS, steam etc

[kuba999 0]

Personally I am going to wait for 8700k benchmarks.  If it turns out that its just another kaby with 2 extra cores and not much ipc gain then I will get the 7740x with a decent mother board.  

 

The z370 will have no upgrade path and planning to keep the rig for 5 years.

 

I am banking that when arma 4 gets released in 2 years time then I can get a coffee lake x or hopefully a 10nm cpu on socket 2066.  Socket 2066 is new and should support at least 2 gens of CPus.   Don' really need the extra cores yet.

 

Coming from a 3570k