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

[Groove_C 267]

If you're not as well informed, it's ok. But majority of known tests were published before so many new security holes on Intel CPUs were made public and Windows/BIOS patches came out as a result.

Same goes for tests of AMD's current CPUs. When majority of tests were done, they couldn't perform at advertised frequencies and there were troubles with Win 10.

So Intel CPUs performed better in tests, because none of latest security patches were applied to them, which degrade their performance up to 10%.

AMD CPUs performed worse, because lower frequency as advertised and prior to BIOS/Windows updates, which fixed most of this.

Just FYI.

 

And I repeat once again, I myself have 2 Intel CPUs, but I'm not a blind fanboy. If AMD gets better, then I will buy AMD.

I won't buy a product of a certain brand, because it's this brand or because I had only positive personal long term experience with it.

Things change and one should track market/changes, to make a wise choice, not a blind choice.

[Tankbuster 1733]

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

It's actually beneficial to consumers to have competition between manufacturers, for better price, performance and progress.

Absolutely agree. 🙂

You'd be right if you sense my disappointment having just bought an expensive Intel CPU when it was the boss and now the 3900X rocks up and appears, at first glance to be a very good part. I'd very probably be buying one if I was in the market.

[Groove_C 267]

@Tankbuster you know very well that I proposed to you to wait a little bit to see what to buy, since your PC was still working and its performance wasn't bed at all. But you decided otherwise.

Sure, 24 threads and 70 MB cache is better than 16 threads and 16 MB cache, especially considering +- same price (depending on where you live).

+ No need for watercooling and expensive mainboard.

+ AMD/Microsoft are still working to further improve BIOSes and Windows, for even more performance and even better power and load/threads management.

[Groove_C 267]

2020 Intel CPUs won't be much different from now.

Only 100 MHz more at stock and lower prices, to try to counter AMD Ryzen 4xxx, partially.

They will still require watercooling and a decent mainboard, because of all the heat and energy, since they will still use same old technology from 2015.

[Groove_C 267]

New Ryzen CPUs were reviewed vs. Intel in July, whereas 77 new security holes in Intel CPUs were made public only in November, despite them being provided to Intel by different research universities a long time ago.

Intel had to make them public, because of pressure from different research universities, that threatened Intel to make them all public themselves.

So Intel took the initiative, to limit its image damage.

Not all of them could be fixed up to date + previous BIOS/Windows patches, that already cost performance, were not able to fix completely the holes they were released for.

A bunch of new holes were already discovered by these same research universities, which will additionally cost performance to Intel in the near feature, when they will be made public, once Intel gets fixes (for the majority of them).

Not everything can be fixed. Some holes require a whole new CPU architecture in order to fix them.

AMD/Microsoft patches were releases also past July reviews.

So the majority of reviews don't reflect the current state of performance of both brands' CPUs.

 

Considering all of the above, I can't say I'm really a happy Intel user/owner.

[Groove_C 267]

Furthermore, all 2020 Intel CPUs will suffer from same performance loses, right out of the box, since they will be based on current architecture.

 

Also a well know fact, for people that researched a lot on this specific matter, is that Intel knew right from the start about a lot of flaws in the architecture, but was hoping that nobody will discover them.

But this way, they could squeeze out more performance, spend less time on the architecture and invest significantly less.

So basically, they could have avoided a lot of these security holes right from the start, by taking more time and investing more into the architecture.

[oldbear 390]

@SearchAndRescue Welcome in our home on the Armaverse 😎

 

From my point of view, the AMD R5 3600 is a better pick than the Intel Core i5-9400F, being a more efficient and flexible solution.

You can build an AM4 rig based on a B450 Mobo [Ryzen 3000 ready] featuring 16 GB (2x8GB) Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200 MHz C16.

In order to play in 1080p, a GTX 1660 is a good plan.

You will need a CPU cooler a bit more efficient than the Wraith Stealth if your intend is to play long game session. I am currently using an AMD Wraith Prism bought as spare parts on my R5 3600 and R5 3600X builds.

 

According to my own tests, the R5 3600 works really well with Arma3. You can have a look at last session results here on the French CanardPC forums : Jouer à Arma3 avec un AMD R5 2000/3000 : Armaverse Battleship.

[Groove_C 267]

@oldbear what is the CPU you have, a 3600 or 3600X?

What's its average frequency in Arma, per thread and all threads?

[oldbear 390]

I have both Ryzen 5 3600 and R 3600X 😎 ...

 

In game test Ryzen 5 3600/Aorus B450I Pro Wifi/16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200 C16 / GTX 1650

 

In game test Ryzen 5 3600X/TUF B450M Pro Gaming / 16 GB G.Skill 3600 C16 / RX 5700

 

 

 

[Groove_C 267]

@oldbear I don't think that min frequency in Arma drops down to 2.2 GHz and the average is 3.45 GHz.

It's most probably the min on desktop and this is why the average is 3.45.

Could you please press on the "clock" button in HWiNFO to reset all the values when you run YAAB?

To have accurate picture of actual frequency per core.

Thx in advance.

[Groove_C 267]

On Ryzen CPUs, to have an idea of the approximate frequency, since it's different on each core and fluctuates during tests on same core, one has to reset the values with application/game launched, when the load starts to be applied.

After this, one can observe average frequecy of each thread and calculate an average frequency of threads combined.

[oldbear 390]

In game, playing a MP mission, the minimum is 3,354 MHz on core #0,1,3, and 3,368.9 MHz on core #2.

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by oldbear
It take time in order to get the full picture ...

[Groove_C 267]

@oldbear and average for each core?

[domokun 515]

17 hours ago, SearchAndRescue said:

Just lookin for 1080p also have the i5-9400k in the mix bc it’s just $50 more and boosts to 4.6 ghz

@SearchAndRescue Get a R5 3600 as you'll get better performance and save $50 (which be used make other meaningful upgrades, e.g. 500GB SSD, decent HSF).

This advice is based on empirical analysis by reputable sites and not personal bias (I have 7 different Intel CPUs at home and been building PCs for 20+ years).

TechSpot: Best CPU of 2019

AnandTech: Best CPUs for Gaming: Holiday 2019

TomsHardware: Best Gaming CPUs of 2019

GamersNexus: Best CPUs of 2019

You'll notice that the 9400f hardly gets a mention in any of these comparison.

[oldbear 390]

The R5 3600 built is a rig for one of my grand-son.

Currently set in a Kolink Satellite.

As said it is based on a  Ryzen 5 3600/Aorus B450I Pro Wifi/16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200 C16  combo

I have added GTX 1650, this GPU being the most efficient without needing extra PCIe power feed and and at the right level for games played by the boy.

I am using a 500 GB Samsung  870 Evo+ NMVe M.2 SSD for system and a 500 GB Samsung  860 Evo 2"5 SSD for data.

For the cooling, I have switch from the AMD Wraith Stealth supplied with the R5 3600 to an AMD Wraith Prism bought as a spare at a low price.

It looks like a good Christmas present 🎅

[Groove_C 267]

On 12/10/2019 at 7:25 AM, oldbear said:

In game, playing a MP mission, the minimum is 3,354 MHz on core #0,1,3, and 3,368.9 MHz on core #2.

 

Is it with PBO, CCX OC, overvoltage or simply latest BIOS?

3600X with 4.4 GHz or 3800X with 4.5 GHz is certainly better, for Arma.

[oldbear 390]

On both both Ryzen 5 3600 and R 3600X rigs, latest AGESA 1.0.0.4 B BIOS , latest chipset, XMP profile and PBO auto/on.

I had bought the R 3600X as a test item because it looks good for Arma3 to get an already overclocked CPU [and circumstances allowed me to buy it at the recommended price].

In fact, in game, the gap is reduced, it is more important to have efficient and fast DDR4, Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200 MHz C16 is a good asset.

[Groove_C 267]

Ryzens handicaped by 3200 MHz RAM (because of Infinty Fabric) vs. no handicap for i7-9700K with same RAM (because one chip design -> no Infinity Fabric).

So if you consider that one needs to buy a 3600 MHz good performance RAM for Ryzen to only get close to Intel, it impacts a lot the total price, as only a fraction of users know which specific RAM models can be bought and how to OC them to 3600/3800 MHz CL14/CL15, to save money.

While the average FPS from i7-9700K (5.0 GHz) is only slightly higher than for 3700X (4.3 GHz) and 3800X (4.5 GHz), the 1% low and 0.1% low FPS is an other story, really. And this is with no cache OC on i7-9700K + it's not even a i9-9900K(S).

 

[Groove_C 267]

 If AMD won't significantly improve RAM latency on Ryzen 4xxx and won't make it possible to go 4000-4200 MHz RAM in 1:1 mode, I might buy Intel again, despite PCI-E 3.0, 14 nm and much smaller cache.

[Groove_C 267]

🤕 https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-plundervolt-attack-impacts-intel-cpus/

[oldbear 390]

So far, my only concern is about how AMD Ryzen 3000 and/or Intel 9000 behave in game with Arma3 here and now.

Based on my own experience, I can tell that a Ryzen 5 3600/ B450MoBo/16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200 C16  combo has the best cost performance balance.

I must add that a fast and efficient SSD is a needed asset and that a GTX 1060 or GTX 1660 6GB is the best GPU for the job in 1080p.

 

For the future, as it has been said "you know nothing"

[Groove_C 267]

55 minutes ago, oldbear said:

For the future, as it has been said "you know nothing"

I know for sure right now, that there will be an i5-10600K with 6/12 cores/threads.

It's already confirmed.

Coming in April.

[Groove_C 267]

In April one will be able to decide whether to buy an i5-10600K (6/12 cores/threads) or an i7-9700K (8 cores/threads) for lower price than now.

[Groove_C 267]

i7-5775C 4.1/3.6/2.2 GHz core/cache/eDRAM (4/8 cores/threads)

2x8 GB DDR3 1600 MHz 9-9-9-24-1

2x8 GB DDR3 2400 MHz 12-13-14-32-2

GTX 1080 Ti

1920x1080 monitor resolution

(test from May 2018 with Arma 3 patch 1.82)

 

From this test, one can clearly draw the following conclusions:

- RAM with higher frequency and lower timings really benefits to Arma, only on CPUs, that have not that much L3 cache

- with Hyper-Threading on, FPS with 1600/2400 MHz RAM is exactly same as with Hyper-Threading off

- enabling 128 MB eDRAM/L4 cache, eliminates the need to send the frame data to the intermediary in form of RAM, by proceeding frame data inside the 128 MB cache, without it leaving the CPU, thus leveling out the performance difference between RAM of different frequency and timings

- enabling 128 MB eDRAM/L4 cache, boosts the min FPS from 40-42 to 52

 

My i7-5775C operates at 4.3/3.8/2.2 GHz with 4x8 GB DDR3 2400 MHz 10-11-12-18-1 😏

 

Source: https://www.ixbt.com/live/platform/igrovaya-proizvoditelnost-core-i7-5775c-v-razlichnyh-rezhimah-chast-2.html

 

Other games were also tested for difference with HT on/off, different RAM frequency/timings, 128 MB L4 cache on/off and DX11 vs. DX 12.

The test is in russian, but the pictures are self explanatory.

[Groove_C 267]

R7 3700X ~4.2 GHz (SMT on) (Auto -> no PBO)
2x8 GB DDR4 3600 16-16-16-36 1.35 V @ 14-15-15-35 1.35 V via Ryzen DRAM Calculator
X570 Aorus Elite
GTX 1080
SSD
Windows 10 + BIOS up to date
Launcher mods + browser, Discord, Skype, Teamspeak etc + all known background programs/processes off

YAAB 1080p standard
Run 1: min 43 avg 65,4 (4219 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 2: min 42 avg 63,8 (4222 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 3: min 43 avg 63,5 (4206 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)

YAAB 1080p ultra
Run 1: min 33 avg 50,8 (4191 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 2: min 36 avg 50,1 (4189 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 3: min 35 avg 48,7 (4202 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)

YAAB 1440p standard
Run 1: min 41 avg 63,1 (4206 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 2: min 38 avg 64,9 (4226 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 3: min 43 avg 63,1 (4214 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)

YAAB 1440p ultra
Run 1: min 31 avg 48,1 (4206 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 2: min 34 avg 47,1 (4196 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 3: min 31 avg 41,8 (42017 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)