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

[Groove_C 267]

Had to run YAAB (Yet Another ArmA Benchmark) 5-7 times before vRAM, RAM and page file usage stabilized in numbers prior to benching to exclude FPS fluctuation (at least due to this)

Or you have to fully restart the game after each YAAB run.

 

Here an example of how FPS can change with each additional run, because of textures loading etc.

It's not ArmA but it's just to demonstrate.

In YAAB, FPS tends to vary anyway, even after vRAM, RAM and page file usage has stabilized in numbers, because of the nature of AIs' behaviour.

[Groove_C 267]

What is also interesting to observe is the i7-5775C (FCLGA 1150 - Z97) from Q2 2015.

 

It's max turbo frequency for all cores is 3.6 GHz (3.0 GHz cache).

 

It beats the i7-4890K 4.2 GHz all cores by 7 FPS.

It beats the i7-6700K/i5-8600k 4.1 GHz all cores by 1 FPS.

It's behind the i7-8700K 4.3 GHz all cores by 2 FPS.

It's behind the i7-7740K/7700K 4.4 GHz all cores by 3 FPS.

 

It's due to it having L4 cache of 128 MB!

 

You can hit max 4.2-4.3 GHz core @ sub 1.4 V and maybe 3.8 GHz cache @ sub  1.3 V.

So @ 3.6 GHz (500 MHz less) vs. i7-4790K (4.2 Ghz) it's by 7 FPS faster.

I think that @ 4.3 GHz it will be once again 7 FPS faster than the i7-4790K @ 4.8 GHz (500 MHz difference).

[alessiomoreno 43]

Hi there!

 

The i7-5775C etc. being first choice CPUs for ArmA, because of their L4 cache, is veeery old news and has been discussed here times upon times, years ago even.

That being said - it js hardly anywhere still available - if one was as lucky as to acquire a moderately used one - that pal..   was lucky.

 

In regards to my issue: I was much looking forward to input from @oldbear, since he seems to be the most experienced in this field. @Gunter Severloh - you up? Any idea?

 

As far as I understood the sparse data: Hyperthreading/ SMT are, just like with SP ArmA, completely irrelevant.

In general the server.exe is highly dependent on the processor's clock speed and hardly using more than two cores (3-4), same however I found people saying about HCs. So: while they, probably, depending on executed tasks etc., require less resources than the main server.exe, they technically also must be accounted for with ~ two cores (of which the second is, probably, going to be hardly used).

At the same time "people say" though, that with a dedicated server, clock speed isn't that important at the end of the day - slightly higher clocks shouldn't make the game run any notably better for the clients.

This is why I inferred, that core count, as in the X299 SK-X one, might be more beneficial (+1 or 2 HCs). From all I've read on HCs, the general rule is, that every HC can realistically manage up to ~100 AI at the same time, depending on available resources per core and clock speed (to which I would add, logically, RAM speed as well + enough RAM to occupy (hence 32GB), as well as that I thought, maybe, Quad Channel Memory on SK-X might be useful here).

 

I wouldn't be completely ruling out Ryzen, but I have yet to read much (seriously) positive about Ryzen and ArmA in one sentence - not to mention, that I couldn't find anything on Ryzen as dedicated server for A3.

Since money isn't really our main concern, I at least, would much rather invest twice as much in an Intel system, if it gives us any notably better performance.

 

 ~

[Groove_C 267]

Buying a CPU now is really not a good idea.

SK-X with mesh, CL with Z370 chipset (aka 270) with no native support for USB 3.1 Gen 2, not that good power delivery and only 6 cores.

Would have waited for Z390 chipset with native USB 3.1 Gen 2 support, better power delivery and 8 cores + X399 chipset.

[Tankbuster 1733]

There's always someone who says "don't buy now". He wants to buy now and as we all know, tomorrow never comes. You can't always be waiting for the next next best thing.

[alessiomoreno 43]

Correct @Tankbuster.

 

Waiting, unfortunately, is really not an option - originally we wanted to bring about that server last year already - however due to immense time constraints, we had to binge it [besides we had no certainty in terms of parts, except for that many were opposed to getting an i7-7700K (in hindsight - rightly so!)].

 

Especially for me as the one coordinating the whole deal - I really don't have any time anymore - I can hardly finish the project in May - by June I won't have any time whatsoever anymore to set anything up till Octobre - which is when we announced to resume regularly scheduled sessions per week.

In May I at least got a couple of days off (which in and of itself is hardly going to suffice).

 

And besides, @Groove_C you're not really making much sense here (???):

none of the above features of Z390 matters at all for a dedicated server, like.., at all..

apart from core count.. which is offered by and on other platforms anyways.. so ?

[Not to mention the whole point of my questions IS, whether an octa would be superior to a hexa core in this specific application in the first place.]

 

If anyone knows anybody, e.g. in their own clan/ group, who has any experience with both dedicated (ideally: home) servers, and ArmA (and ideally: HC's) - I would be really glad if you could point them here, to share their hands on knowledge.

Though well thought out/ sensible, theoretical, advice is just as much welcomed!

 ~

[oldbear 390]

My experience in game server area is limited, so I will be rather cautious on these grounds.

So I will suggest to have a look  this topic : Recommended Server Specs

 

From what I understand, you need the best i5/i7 available such as an i5 8600K , an affordable Z370 MoBo,  a M.2 500 GB SSD, 32 GB of fast RAM [3000/3200 MHz]  and the best Internet connection you can get.

 

 

[Tankbuster 1733]

Servers aren't very different from clients when it comes to choosing components, apart from the obvious  - you don't need any GPU or audio.

 

CPU clock is king, then a good fast bus and as much fast memory as you can afford. I''ve mentioned it before I know, but my i3 6100 is plenty good enough for a dozen players, a TS server and serving media in the house.

 

Part of the battle here is finding a mission that is optimised and doesn't use a huge load of poor mods.

[Groove_C 267]

@alessiomoreno

 

We have several servers on several i7-3930k @ 4.2 GHz.

The one in my sig is running with 2 HCs and it has the whole i7-3930K for him.

We have made several tests by assigning different number of threads to the server and to HCs, but there was almost no change in FPS.

Initially we assigned 2 threads to the server and 2 to each HC.

With 4 threads for the server, FPS has increased, but I can't say the same for HCs.

But as we have 12 threads we have assigned 4 threads to each.

 

I would for sure assign 4 threads to the server.

You can assign 4 threads to 2 HCs or 3 threads to 2 HCs and 2 for 1 additional HC.

i7-7820X sucks because of mesh :-(

i7-6900K (3.7 GHz) (2 MB L2 and 20 MB L3) beats the i7-7820x (4.8 GHz) (8 MB L2 and 11 MB L3).

That's why people avoid buying it.

i7-6900K (4.4 GHz) only matches an i7-7700K (5.0 GHz) thanks to its cache and quad channel mem.

i7-8700K (4.7 GHz) is faster than an i7-6900K (4.4 GHz) despite its cache and dual channel mem.

[Groove_C 267]

I will most certainly buy the i7-5775C I found (to replace my i7-4790K 4.8 GHz) and OC it to 4.2-4.3 GHz, what will be more cost effective for me than buying a new mobo and RAM.

And it even beats an i7-7700K (5.0 GHz) in CPU heavy games, which ArmA is certainly one of.

 

    

[alessiomoreno 43]

@Groove_C lucky #?'&!/% you 😉

 

Seriously, good for you! May I ask, how much you paid?

As with the i7-7820X you have me almost convinced, that there are better options out there.. it's just that it still seems to me, that if raw clock speed really was the most important factor, the i7-7820X should beat the i7-6xxxx with ease (given much higher RAM speeds are supported) - problem remains, benchmarks in other titles won't really help all that much, since ArmA has fairly special needs.. and a dedicated server only adds to that.

I could also get an i7-6900K - it's just ~300 bucks more expensive - would that cpu be better? How far would I have to overclock it and how far would that get me?

 

@Oldbear -- thank you for your (though measured) response - the thread you linked me, unfortunately doesn't provide any viable information really, I guess just one post gives any useful information at all, and even that is purely speculative, besides, I already read it couple times over.

 

To simplify my question in the context of a dedicated server:

In terms of maximum performance, partly achieved through heavy use of HCs  -  is an octa core superior to a hexa core or is it really no different/ irrelevant (since one can "easily" stack HCs on top of one another)?

 

As far as I am informed Hyperthreading really shouldn't influence the .exe at all - as far as I am aware, games, and the RV Engine in particular, are not written in such a way, that they could meaningfully take advantage from HT/ SMT. As long as some one has pointed me to the opposite in data/ articles - I'll continue to be sceptical about that.

 

So.. Hexa or Octa core - which one a (home) server for A3 would benefit more from?

Somewhat higher clocks or ~ same clock speed, but +2 cores?

 

(I would, maybe, even get myself an i7-5775C, I couldn't find any local reseller though really - besides, it's "only" a quad core anyway - and as far as I am informed, more cores might seriously be worth it.)

 ~

[alessiomoreno 43]

Ahh.. and @Tankbuster - in terms of missions, as I already mentioned, since I/ we'll be mostly concentrating on creating our own ones - I really don't see many issues in regards to script density - we'll be able to regulate everything according to our given hardware..

As for mods, apart from ACE3 and ASR_AI, I am not aware, that any of the mods I mentioned in my first post here would decrease performance significantly; and those two aren't really debatable..

[Groove_C 267]

@alessiomoreno

 

i7-6900K is not worth the money it's sold for.

Difficult to OC to high frequencies and also high speed RAM is not so well accepted like with an i7-8700K.

Even with an i7-8700K you have to tweak a lot to make DDR4-4000+ RAM work. I mean SA and I/O analogue and digital voltage, lowering Cache frequency and/or CPU frequency. A lot depends on CPU's IMC and mobo.

 

3866 MHz or maybe 4000 MHz will run just by putting them in the mobo and setting XMP profil.

[Tankbuster 1733]

There is no way a 3 year old CPU on a motherboard 2 generations old is going to outperform an i7 7700k. The figures just don't bear that out. Not only is the core clock of the 7700 rather higher than the 5775, but the bus speed is way higher and it supports considerably faster RAM.

[Groove_C 267]

@Tankbuster

 

It's because of it having 128 MB L4 cache which helps a lot in CPU limited games.

[Tankbuster 1733]

Just now, Groove_C said:

@Tankbuster

 

It's because of it having 128 MB L4 cache which helps a lot in CPU limited games.

 The performance gains from that cache, while impressive, are not going to come even close to the performance you'll get from a top end 7th Gen CPU on a decent motherboard with appropriate RAM. The bus speed alone is the best part of twice as fast.

 

The 5775 was a great chip in its day, but that day was a very long time ago.

[Groove_C 267]

@Tankbuster

 

@ 3.6 GHZ all cores - 2 FPS behind an i7-8700K @ 4.3 GHz all cores (700 MHz difference + 4 threads more).

@ 3.6 GHZ all cores - 3 FPS behind an i7-7700K @ 4.4 GHz all cores (800 MHz difference).

 

Newest ArmA 3 screenshot from oldbear from french site, including Ryzen 2.

[Tankbuster 1733]

Whatever. You press on with overclocking your 2-year-old part on an 1151 chipset with DDR3. Keep the fire brigade on standby and your credit card handy.

[Groove_C 267]

@Tankbuster

 

DDR3-2133 CL9 is ~ DDR4-3200 CL14

DDR3-2400 CL10 is ~ DDR4-3600 CL15

FPS wise in A3.

 

Don't let you be fooled by RAM manufacturers.

1 .Bandwidth only doesn't count for A3 and other games, otherwise CPUs with quand channel mem would have had way more FPS just because of bandwidth.

2. Frequency only in conjunction with latency is more important.

3. DDR4's latency is way higher than DDR3, despite much higher clocks.

DDR4-4400 CL19 is 3.5% worse than DDR4-3600 CL15.

DDR4-4400 CL19 is 1.0% better than DDR4-3200 CL14.

DDR4-3866 CL18 is 11.5% worse than DDR4-3600 CL15.

DDR4-3866 CL18 is 6.0% worse than DDR4-3200 CL14.

DDR4-4266 CL17 is 4% better than DDR4-3600 CL15.

Here an i7-8700K

 

@alessiomoreno

 

ArmA can't greatly benefit from HT when 4 cores or more.

But it benefits greatly from HT when when 2 cores + 2 threads.

When you use HCs you assign/force them to use specific threads and they will use them by setting affinity for processes in the task manager.

 

Have a look at the i3-7350K dualcore with Hyper-Threding.

Sure it has to be clocked higher than real quadcores that have 2 more native cores and more L3 cache, but HT makes sense in A3 when only 2 physical cores, which is the case when using HCs.

[alessiomoreno 43]

@Groove_C - now you're making much more sense!

(After reading your post above.)

Though in regards to your other post(s), I think it would've helped to distinguish between threads and cores, since that might quicker to grasp. Anyways.

All nice and well, but this doesn't really answer my question as to whether a hexa would be better than an octa core - looking at the last chart you posted (on the i7-8700K) for the nth-time, I'm really starting to get the feeling I should perhaps get one of those newer Ryzen octa cores, in case I really want one, since they seem to blow the Intel ones out of the water with ease when OC'd. Now I am not really familiar with how stable and secure running AMD processors at their max. clock is - would be running a server from such cpu be sensible? (given decent cooling)

 

This might be somewhat off topic, but can anyone share any experience with HCs and how much AI/ script load they can support, given certain clock speeds, or are those nigh irrelevant for HCs?

(HCs being the reason, why I thought of rather getting an octa over a hexa core, in the first place - given I wouldn't loose much performance in regards to our server, i.e. clock speed.)

 ~

 

[Groove_C 267]

2 hours ago, alessiomoreno said:

@Groove_C - now you're making much more sense!

I'm really starting to get the feeling I should perhaps get one of those newer Ryzen octa cores, in case I really want one, since they seem to blow the Intel ones out of the water with ease when OC'd.

R7 2700X 4.2 GHz @ 1.46 V DDR4-3200 MHz 16-16-16-36

[Guest]

Hi all,

I am writing here again,because I still get stutterings and FPS drops while playing ArmA 3!

And I get the stutterings even on the lowest settings!

 

My gaming laptop's specs are:

 

i7-6700 HQ @ 2.60 GHz up to 3.50 GHz

16 GB DDR4 RAM

Nvidia GTX 960 M 4 GB GDDR5 GPU

 

Please help me!

I would be very grateful!

[Gunter Severloh 3948]

Hi Orllak32, is the game on an SSD or HD?

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Gunter Severloh said:

Hi Orllak32, is the game on an SSD or HD?

It's currently on HDD,but I had installed it and on the SSD ,and I didn't notice any difference!It was still stuttering,and with FPS drops!

[Gunter Severloh 3948]

Whats the frequency of your ram?

What are you playing when it stutters, and using any mods?