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

[oldbear 390]

What I say is that playing Argo on a rig will not help getting a good idea about how it can run Arma3.

Argo real minimum hardware requirements are rather low, I know because I have tested Argo and Arma3 on an AMD A8-9600* APU I bought on purpose.

Playing an Arma3 mission on Tanoa is not streaming an Argo TvT missions on Malden.

 

Argo is fully playable in the 20/30 FPS level on an AMD A8-9600 APU on 720p monitor :

 

 

Arma3 is not playable in the 10/25 FPS level on an AMD A8-9600 APU on 720p monitor :

 

 

 I am rather often trying to help people asking "can I run Arma3 ?" or "why Arma3 is not working ?" on forums.

When Argo was released, I had hoped it can take the missing Arma3 demo role, I was sorry to say it was not the case, I will say again, it's not the case.

 

* AMD A8-9600 is a 4 cores last Bristol Ridge 7th gen APU running @ 3.1 GHz/3.4 GHz on an AM4 platform well over the official Minimum requirements for Arma3.

 

 

[Valken 622]

OB is right. The issue is that the amount and complexity of Tanoa (APEX DLC) 3D models FAR exceeds the complexity of ALTIS or MALDEN maps. The map requirements can be compensated for with a FAST GPU. I am running a 1060 GTX now. Good for 1080p. A 1070 or 980 Ti would be better up to 1440p.

 

The rest is mainly CPU such as the AI and the game logic. I found good servers which run multiple headclients helps but on SP,  you need the fastest cpu you can buy and or run a local dedicated server (for the AI and game logic) then connect to it as a client to run some slightly larger missions. It helps splitting up the work load and so far it works well enough my quad core. Client set to use 2 CPU cores, and server set to use 2 cores with HT on. 

[Groove_C 267]

8 vs. 16 vs. 32 GB RAM

i7-6700K @ 4.5 GHz (1440p Ultra)

 

Sites that make comparisons using only "min./avg. FPS" are not to be taken serious anymore, because of several different factors that can have a big influence, such as amount of RAM/vRAM, CPU's/GPU's brand, architecture, drivers' and game's optimization.

 

 

RAM/vRAM amount

You can have virtually the same average FPS in a certain game but the game can/will stutter (very low 0.1% and 1%).

1080p 1440p

That's why you have to search for sites (if possible) that use 0.1% and 1% lows for their comparisons instead of only min./avg. FPS.

 

 

vRAM amount

Directly infuelnces the amount of RAM/Paging file used.

 

GTX 1080Ti 11 GB vRAM @ 1440p

(vRAM: 5.5 GB, RAM 7.5 GB, Paging file: 13.1 GB)

GTX 1060 6 GB vRAM @1440P

(vRAM: 5.6 GB, RAM 8.1 GB, Paging file: 14.1 GB)

GTX 1060 3 GB vRAM @1440p

(vRAM: 3.0 GB, RAM 11.9 GB, Paging file: 14.1 GB)

[oldbear 390]

Well ... 4 FPS for 400 € ?

Of course, if you are already playing Arma3 with a  GTX 1080Ti on a 2560x1440 monitor you can go for the platinium plated RAM in order to get 4 more FPS, ... "nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans" *

 

Playing Arma [what else ?] we now know after 64 bits client release that this game has became incredibly hungry for memory.

What we must seek is a balance between what is really needed in game and what we can afford.

 

 *no one shall be heard, who invokes his own guilt

[Groove_C 267]

I think you completely missed my point.

 

Using only minimum and average FPS for measurements can't show you frame drops (time in milliseconds between frames), which when it's high, makes you feel your game stuttery/laggy despite having good or very good FPS.

 

So my point was not mainly about a pure min./avg. FPS difference for a given price, as we all are used to compare for years now (what turned out to be completely wrong), but about stutter/lag despite FPS being high.

 

With an Pentium G/i3 you can have noticeably more FPS on average than with an Athlon II x4/Ryzen 3/5, but it will feel very stuttery/laggy.

With a GTX 980 (4 GB vRAM) you have more FPS on average than with a GTX 1060 (6 GB vRAM), but it will feel more stuttery/laggy (since 64 bit update form March 2017).

 

With a 2-3-4 GB vRAM GPU but from an older generation you can have the same average FPS or even more than with a newer GPU (more vRAM but less pure power - on paper) but it will stutter/lag noticeably more, because there is not enough space for data to be stored and it will constantly switch from vRAM to RAM, which is noticeably slower.

You can have the same average FPS with 8 and 16 GB RAM, but with 8 GB RAM it will stutter/lag noticeably more, because there is not enough space for data to be stored and it will constantly switch from RAM to HDD/SSD (paging file), which is noticeably slower.

[Groove_C 267]

For your information

 

[Tankbuster 1744]

2 hours ago, oldbear said:

 "nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans" *
 

 

He who smelt it, dealt it.

[oldbear 390]

@ Groove_C : in fact It's not that I miss your point, I don't understand how speaking about Call of Duty or PUBG can help somebody to answer the question "Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? ...".

The way Arma 3 reacts according to the hardware used is different from that seen in other games, the publications of the Visual Upgrade and 64bits client did not simplify things.

It is for this reason that my position is to remain down to earth and try to help answer practical questions for the only game that really interests me.

[Groove_C 267]

I also play only ArmA (since 2001).

I simply couldn't find such measurements for A3.

But my screens are relevant in general and for A3 as well, since A3 can use significantly more vRAM/RAM (64 bit update) and has a slightly better multi-core optimization.

I myself am as well down to earth since I don't have money for 32 GB RAM and a GTX 1080 Ti.

 

I think that publishing info in particular for people with high end hardware on the forum of the one and only game they spend all their money on is also really helpful, since this is the right place to do so as nowadays it becomes more and more difficult to find (enough) reliable info concerning A3 and especially for really high end hardware rigs.

Not only people with no money to spend play ArmA.

 

I took PUBG @1440p, because its "optimized" similarly to A3 - very high 1st thread load and vRAM/RAM consumption.

There was no 1080p and no A3.

There were BF1 and Overwatch, 1080p and 1440p, but threads' load is distributed more evenly and they don't use as much vRAM/RAM to make data flow that much from vRAM to RAM and from RAM to HDD/SSD to clearly demonstrate the importance of vRAM/RAM amount and SSD vs. HDD regarding stuttering/lags.

I also added CoD WWII to clearly underline all of this as CoD is well know for it's memory leaks, like ArmA.

[Groove_C 267]

Is there a logical explanation to:

-why more RAM used/allocated by the game/Windows with 32 vs. 16 GB when <16 GB used/allocated in case with A3 (and other games)?

-why more FPS with 32 vs. 16 GB when <16 GB used/allocated in case with A3?

 

i7-6700K @ 4.5 GHz

GTX 980Ti

Intel 750 SSD

1x8 GB DDR4-2400 MHz 16-16-16 (single channel)

2x8 GB DDR4-2400 MHz 16-16-16 (dual channel)

4x8 GB DDR4-2400 MHz 16-16-16 (dual channel)

 

[HaseDesTodes 62]

1 hour ago, Groove_C said:

Is there a logical explanation in case with A3 (also in other games) why more RAM used/allocated by the game/Windows with 32 vs. 16 GB when <16 GB used/allocated?

And why more FPS with 32 vs. 16 GB when <16 GB used/allocated?

 

just some guesses:
1. maybe because there are functions in the Ram management, that try to keep some memory free, in case a different program needs some.

if this is an actual thing, those functions might be non linear (maybe log, or sqrt) so with a significant increase of available memory, there is a relatively small increase of used memory.

 

2. maybe because of parallelization. so more chips (or ram bars) can provide the data faster.

[Groove_C 267]

Edited!

 

1. Yes, but with 10-6 GBs left free...

 

2. All mainstream AMD and Intel boards are dual-channel only - 64 bit per channel = 128 bit in total.

Quad-channel Threadripper and Intel boards have also 64 bit per channel, but it makes for 256 bit in total, because of 4 channels.

 

So if you use all 4 slots on dual-channel boards it's the same bandwidth.

4x4 GB = 2x8 GB

2 slots more (4 in total) on dual-channel boards are there only to increase capacity - not the bandwidth.

[teabagginpeople 398]

On 26/03/2018 at 11:53 PM, Groove_C said:

I myself am as well down to earth since I don't have money for 32 GB RAM and a GTX 1080 Ti.

 

I think that publishing info in particular for people with high end hardware on the forum of the one and only game they spend all their money on is also really helpful, since this is the right place to do so as nowadays it becomes more and more difficult to find (enough) reliable info concerning A3 and especially for really high end hardware rigs.

Not only people with no money to spend play ArmA.

 

This whole post then that profile picture. The irony is delicious.

[Guest]

Hi all!

 

My Lenovo Ideapad Y-700-15ISK gaming laptop's specs are:

i7-6700 HQ @ 2.60 GHz up to 3.50 Ghz 

 16 GB DDR 4 RAM

Nvidia GTX 960 M 4 GB GDDR5 overclocked

and the game is installed on a SSD!

 

Please tell me which video settings,setting by setting would be optimal for my rig!

 

Thanks to all in advance!

 

[oldbear 390]

Hi orllak32 !

 

I will suggest 1st to let the "Autodetect" do the thing on "General" tab

Be aware that the "Visibility > Overall " video parameter is NOT GPU related but is a 100% CPU parameter.

It's the main tool you get to tweak the FPS level.

Autodetection system will show on 1st application what is the standard FPS level you can expect from your CPU.

 

Then, going to  "Display" tab disable VSYNC if it's not already done.

 

Going on "AA&PP" tab, you will have many choice to do.

Some such as those set in the "Processes" part are only based upon the feeling  you want in the game.

My own choice is to disable all the bloom and blur parameters as well as the depth of field thing in order to get the sharpest display.

The Antialiasing part is difficult to set up because it can pull hard on your hardware, lowering the FPS level.

Tweaking it is mostly experimental, because it will depends on your hardware CPU,GPU, display and on the drivers as well.

Edited April 16, 2018 by oldbear
English is not my mother tongue

[Guest]

3 hours ago, oldbear said:

Hi orllak32 !

 

I will suggest 1st to let the "Autodetect" do the thing on "General" tab

Be aware that the "Visibility > Overall " video parameter is NOT GPU related but is a 100% CPU parameter.

It's the main tool you get to tweak the FPS level.

Autodetection system will show on 1st application what is the standard FPS level you can expect from your CPU.

 

Then, going to  "Display" tab disable VSYNC if it's not already done.

 

Going on "AA&PP" tab, you will have many choice to do.

Some such as those set in the "Processes" part are only based upon the feeling  you want in the game.

My own choice is to disable all the bloom and blur parameters as well as the depth of field thing in order to get the sharpest display.

The Antialiasing part is difficult to set up because it can pull hard on your hardware, lowering the FPS level.

Tweaking it is mostly experimental, because it will depends on your hardware CPU,GPU, display and on the drivers as well.

Dear oldbear,thank you for replying!

 

I let the Autodetect do its job and it showed me these values for the visibility: 3000 for the Overall and 1900 for the Object!

 

For the another settings it showed me this:

 

Texture:Very high

Objects:Very high

Terrain:High

Shadow:Very high

Particles:High

Cloud:Very high

PIP:High

HDR:Standard

Dynamic lights:Very high

Water reflections:High

Bloom,Radial blur,Rotation blur,Depth of field,Sharpen filter at 100

AO:HBAO+medium

Caustics:Enabled

FSAA:4x

ATOC:All threes+grass

PPAA:CMAA

Anisotropic filtering:Very high

 

And I must use the VSync,because I suffer from tearing!

 

I tried to play a scenario then, and I got 35 FPS at some moments!

 

I would please you to help me tweak the settings so I get 60 FPS almost everytime!

 

Please help me dear oldbear!

Thank you in advance!

 

 

[oldbear 390]

Well, first I must tell you that you can't "... get 60 FPS almost everytime!"

 

On my own #1 gaming rig [i7-7700K/GTX 1060 6Go/16 Go DDR4 3200MHz/SSD 500Go [W10] + SSD 500Go [Arma*]] I am getting 25/110 FPS in game and a bit over 50 FPS in YAAB*.

Please post a screen of tearing in Arma3, I am fully interested  because, I have played Arma3 over 6000 hrs and well over 20 000 hrs on the Arma games family and have never seen tearing in game.

 

Before trying to use the Bear's method™ disable all parameters you may have set in the NVIDIA parameters and let the game be ruled by it's own parameters.

 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, oldbear said:

Well, first I must tell you that you can't "... get 60 FPS almost everytime!"

 

On my own #1 gaming rig [i7-7700K/GTX 1060 6Go/16 Go DDR4 3200MHz/SSD 500Go [W10] + SSD 500Go [Arma*]] I am getting 25/110 FPS in game and a bit over 50 FPS in YAAB*.

Please post a screen of tearing in Arma3, I am fully interested  because, I have played Arma3 over 6000 hrs and well over 20 000 hrs on the Arma games family and have never seen tearing in game.

 

Dear oldbear,I don't know how to post a screen of tearing in the game,but never mind,I suffer from tearing in any game I play on my laptop!So I use vync and it fixes everything!

 

Please tell me about the other video settings!Thank you in advance!

[oldbear 390]

The Old Bear method ™

Basics:

    CPU : in Arma3 unlike most of the "fashionable" FPS, the power and efficiency of the processor is decisive, its why it’s the game is "CPU dependent ". Of course the power and efficiency of the graphics card will participate in the performance of the PC in game but only in the 2nd rank.
    Power and efficiency from the processor is required to compute the terrain display. It is for this reason that the Video parameter "Visibility" is actually a 100% CPU parameter, it regulates the diameter of the terrain to be calculated before any graphic rendering [terrain shape and textures of the terrain] and it will be essential to define The level of the FPS, it defines the CPU load.
   A second Video parameter , "Quality Terrain", is a mixed CPU / GPU parameter , it will define the level of calculation to display elements associated with the textures of the ground.

    GPU : the release of Apex and Visual Update marks an important modification of the role of the graphics card in Arma3. Before the graphics card played only a secondary role, then it becomes a much more important element for the visual quality of course but also the overall performance of the configuration in game.
    This results in a modification of the "Recommended" specs from ...

    GRAPHICS: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 / AMD Radeon HD 7750 Series with 1 GB VRAM .... to ...
    GRAPHICS: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 / AMD Radeon HD 7800 Series with 2 GB VRAM
    The new features of dynamic lighting and water glare can have a significant impact on performance, but can be disabled or switch to low.

Bear’s Method

1 ° prerequisites:
- Play the game without addons or Mod.
- Use a performance evaluation tool. I propose the use of the Stratis Arma3Mark*

2 ° initial test:
- Use in game autodetect as a first step
- Execute the Arma3Mark bench on Stratis 3 times
- Rate the results

3 ° set the "Global Visibility" :
- from the setting given by the autodetect, decrease "Visibility" by making tests, for example in steps of 250m: 3000m, 2750m, 2500m ... until you obtain a level of FPS that you consider satisfactory.
- decrease the "Quality Terrain" parameter if necessary.
- do not change the shadows settings, never set them on "Low" yourself.

3 ° Disable options that "eat" FPS:
- in the section "Quality" - "Lighting"
    Disable water reflections
- in the "Display" section
    Disable Vsync
- in the section "AA & PP"
If everything is off, don’t touch anything !
If not ...
    Disable the "bloom"
    Deactivate the 2 "blurs"
    Set the "depth of field" to 0
    Set "sharpen" out of 100
    Use the recipe proposed by HardOcp: "Therefore, the best AA combo in this game is : FXAA Ultra + 2X / 4X or FSAA 8x and you will get the best texture quality, no blur, sharp textures, smooth objects and vegetation . " The FSAA 2X is the one that costs the least in terms of FPS.
    On a "small" graphics card, it may be worth keeping PPAA: CMAA [still checking]

4 ° - For each major modification of the settings, global visibility level for example, run again the Arma3Mark bench on Stratis to see what the effect on the level of the FPS.

 

Be advised the score you will get on the Stratis Arma3Mark bench mission is NOT the FPS level you can expect in game. It’s only to be used as a tweaking tool.

In order to get a realistic estimate of what you can expect in game, I will recommend to use YAAB.

 

Notes :

[1] the "Bear's method" has started as a joke in my Clan.

I have publish on our forums some findings about how to tweak the game parameters.

It has grown as a kind of private FAQ. I have then published as a method on some French forums.

I hope it has helped some players.

 

[2] you will find the benchmarks on the Steam Workshop
YAAB ou Yet Another Arma Benchmark -> http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=375092418&searchtext=yaab
Arma3Mark-Stratis = benchmark_0.51 -> http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=172475381&searchtext=benchmark

 

[3] to get an Arma3 screenshot in game use F12 key and get it in the Steam screenshots manager.

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by oldbear
English is not my mother tongue but you know that already

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, oldbear said:

The Old Bear method ™

Basics:

    CPU : in Arma3 unlike most of the "fashionable" FPS, the power and efficiency of the processor is decisive, its why it’s the game is "CPU dependent ". Of course the power and efficiency of the graphics card will participate in the performance of the PC in game but only in the 2nd rank.
    Power and efficiency from the processor is required to compute the terrain display. It is for this reason that the Video parameter "Visibility" is actually a 100% CPU parameter, it regulates the diameter of the terrain to be calculated before any graphic rendering [terrain shape and textures of the terrain] and it will be essential to define The level of the FPS, it defines the CPU load.
   A second Video parameter , "Quality Terrain", is a mixed CPU / GPU parameter , it will define the level of calculation to display elements associated with the textures of the ground.

    GPU : the release of Apex and Visual Update marks an important modification of the role of the graphics card in Arma3. Before the graphics card played only a secondary role, then it becomes a much more important element for the visual quality of course but also the overall performance of the configuration in game.
    This results in a modification of the "Recommended" specs from ...

    GRAPHICS: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 / AMD Radeon HD 7750 Series with 1 GB VRAM .... to ...
    GRAPHICS: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 / AMD Radeon HD 7800 Series with 2 GB VRAM
    The new features of dynamic lighting and water glare can have a significant impact on performance, but can be disabled or switch to low.

Bear’s Method

1 ° prerequisites:
- Play the game without addons or Mod.
- Use a performance evaluation tool. I propose the use of the Stratis Arma3Mark*

2 ° initial test:
- Use in game autodetect as a first step
- Execute the Arma3Mark bench on Stratis 3 times
- Rate the results

3 ° set the "Global Visibility" :
- from the setting given by the autodetect, decrease "Visibility" by making tests, for example in steps of 250m: 3000m, 2750m, 2500m ... until you obtain a level of FPS that you consider satisfactory.
- decrease the "Quality Terrain" parameter if necessary.
- do not change the shadows settings, never set them on "Low" yourself.

3 ° Disable options that "eat" FPS:
- in the section "Quality" - "Lighting"
    Disable water reflections
- in the "Display" section
    Disable Vsync
- in the section "AA & PP"
If everything is off, don’t touch anything !
If not ...
    Disable the "bloom"
    Deactivate the 2 "blurs"
    Set the "depth of field" to 0
    Set "sharpen" out of 100
    Use the recipe proposed by HardOcp: "Therefore, the best AA combo in this game is : FXAA Ultra + 2X / 4X or FSAA 8x and you will get the best texture quality, no blur, sharp textures, smooth objects and vegetation . " The FSAA 2X is the one that costs the least in terms of FPS.
    On a "small" graphics card, it may be worth keeping PPAA: CMAA [still checking]

4 ° - For each major modification of the settings, global visibility level for example, run again the Arma3Mark bench on Stratis to see what the effect on the level of the FPS.

 

Be advised the score you will get on the Stratis Arma3Mark bench mission is NOT the FPS level you can expect in game. It’s only to be used as a tweaking tool.

In order to get a realistic estimate of what you can expect in game, I will recommend to use YAAB.

 

Notes :

[1] the "Bear's method" has started as a joke in my Clan.

I have publish on our forums some findings about how to tweak the game parameters.

It has grown as a kind of private FAQ. I have then published as a method on some French forums.

I hope it has helped some players.

 

[2] you will find the benchmarks on the Steam Workshop
YAAB ou Yet Another Arma Benchmark -> http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=375092418&searchtext=yaab
Arma3Mark-Stratis = benchmark_0.51 -> http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=172475381&searchtext=benchmark

 

 

 

Dear oldbear,thank you so much!Regards!

[Tankbuster 1744]

Good work OB!

[GuthixAwesome 5]

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/vthn7W

 

I know this'll run Arma 3 but would y'all recommend upgrading anything? Trying to stay as close to $1300 as possible. Cheap monitor for now, will upgrade later down the road.

[Gunter Severloh 4052]

RAM

Nice work for choosing some decent memory and a good frequency too, i would recommend getting more ram at last 16gb as a minimum.

if you can afford to up the frequency to what the mobo can handle then do that.

 

Tower

As far as the tower goes, looks good, may want to look for something with more fans, or when you get it put a huge fan on the window to blow in the air,

and have a fan at the very top sucking out the air.

 

CPU Cooler

Although that is a great choice, something like this -----> CRYORIG H7 Tower Cooler For AMD/Intel CPU

Could work just as good, and cost less.

 

SSD

I would bump that up to a minimum of 500gb, and put the game on it, you will burn through 250gb with arma3 and mods.

[oldbear 390]

@ GuthixAwesome : welcome 

 

CPU : I will suggest to switch from Ryzen 5 1600X to Ryzen 5 2600X just released.

RAM : from what I saw in the offer, it's OK. Of course 16GB is better, but ... at a price!

CPU Cooler : the Ryzen 5 2600X is coming with a  Wraith Spire Cooler, so I suggest to use this one.

Note : in the future, do not plan buying single fan AIO water-cooling, it's noisy and not so effective.*

SSD : 250 GB is the minimum, be aware you must have Windows and Arma3 on this SSD. If you are using MODs, you must switch to 500 GB.

 

*I know, the Corsair H60 is back in the box and the old Noctua back in game.

[HaseDesTodes 62]

@GuthixAwesome

what are you planning to use that PC for?

mostly Arma3 or other games, maybe programs (video editing/encoding)?

 

btw: what are you using now? would it be possible to reuse some parts (case, HDD, monitor)?

 

my first thoughts:

CPU: good CPU for a low price. it also has 4 cores/8 threads, so a good multithreading performance.

RAM: as fast as it gets for this Mobo. Heck the Ram is even on the memory QVL for this board (often overseen)

16Gb would be better, but since you have a price limit, you should be fine.

Mobo: nothing fancy, but should do the job

CPU cooler: get a normal CPU cooler. you can filter for noise level. (+10dBa=2x the noise)

you should find coolers with a lower noise level for half the price.

SSD: you will fill up your 250Gb in no time. and you will have to keep some space for updates (steam is a female dog)

so better go for 500gb+

i found the WD Blue SSDs had a good price.

if you get a "cheaper" SSD you might want to go for the 2.5" version instead of a M2 version. speed is around the same, and you can keep the slot for an upgrade.

 

PSU:

better go for a 80+Titanium PSU. i saw at the site you used, that the "SeaSonic - FOCUS Plus Platinum 750W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply" costs only 17$ more, but it should save some energy (= less money and less heat).

 

Monitor:

cheap monitors, hard to find a good one.

i would pick the "Dell - SE2417HG 23.6" ", because it's bigger, and i once had a Dell monitor, and i liked it. no idea how the quality is for that one, but i guess it's around the same as from the one you have selected.

 

GPU:

looks quite noisy, maybe look for one with 2 fans (but they cost at least like 30-40$ more).

 

@oldbear

i would agree, that a R5 2600X would be the better choice, but you should also get a mobo with a 400 series chipset, and those are only available as X470.

so even if it's only +30$ for the CPU and you save the money for the cooler (if you even want that thing), you still pay around 50$ more.

(i even have problems finding matching 8Gb kits of ram (3200Mhz) for the x470 mobo i selected)

 

 

over the limit: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/6WRp8Y

but it has everything i didn't like fixed