Jump to content
Placebo

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

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, oldbear said:

Hi matiasl, welcome here.

 

A GTX 1070Ti is good  enough for 1440p, a RTX 2070 is not needed.

What you need is the most efficient and fast CPU you can get, as an i7-8700K or an i7-9700K on a midrange gaming mobo featuring 16/32 GB 3000/3200 DDR4 RAM.

 

In Armaverse, the CPU is still the Boss!

 

Ok, I started looking at the 2070 now when the price difference seems to be about 100€ between the two. 

 

Already ordered the 9900k and 16g 3600 ram. The 8700k that i planned to use seems to be impossible to buy currently and I got a "good deal" on the 9900k and it was in stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@matiasl

When I've switched from 1080p to 1440p I've lost ~25 FPS (single player) with my GTX 1060 (6 GB) and decided to upgrade to have back the FPS I was used to.

I've tested a GTX 1080 @ 1440p and it managed to match my 1060 @ 1080p but it was to expensive for me so I've returned it and ordered a 1070Ti instead.

(P.S. - I could have bought a 1070 instead and loose ~10 FPS vs. 1060 @ 1080p, but since the 1070Ti was only 30€ more for 5 FPS more...)

My 1070Ti Asus Strix Advanced Binned gives me ~5 FPS less @ 1440p than my 1060 (6 GB) Asus Strix OC @ 1080p.

 

So (technically) a 2070 @ 1440p would match or even dominate a little bit vs. GTX 1060 @ 1080p, if you can afford one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Groove_C said:

@matiasl

When I've switched from 1080p to 1440p I've lost ~25 FPS (single player) with my GTX 1060 (6 GB) and decided to upgrade to have back the FPS I was used to.

I've tested a GTX 1080 @ 1440p and it managed to match my 1060 @ 1080p but it was to expensive for me so I've returned it and ordered a 1070Ti instead.

(P.S. - I could have bought a 1070 instead and loose ~10 FPS vs. 1060 @ 1080p, but since the 1070Ti was only 30€ more for 5 FPS more...)

My 1070Ti Asus Strix Advanced Binned gives me ~5 FPS less @ 1440p than my 1060 (6 GB) Asus Strix OC @ 1080p.

 

So (technically) a 2070 @ 1440p would match or even dominate a little bit vs. GTX 1060 @ 1080p, if you can afford one.

Ok thanks for your answer. It seemes for the moment that I will go with the 2070, if nothing extreme happens to the prices in the 2 weeks until next pay check. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to point out to everyone that considering the performance of a graphics card under Arma3 in terms of FPS without considering all the hardware involved and especially the processor can lead to biased conclusions.

In that case you can't compare performances of a rig based on a nice*, i7-4790K with some extra boost and a rig hosting an i9-9900K.

I will be quite interesting that matiasl after our discussions on the subject give us some feed back about how the monster is howling.

 

For that purpose I will suggest the armarversally known  Yet Another Arma Benchmark By Greenfist

 

* Well, my own nice i7-4790K was running quite well before it burns

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I couldn't observe any FPS gains in several games that can't really use additional cores of newer CPUs vs. overclocked older CPUs with fewer cores, frame time is often more consistant and a little bit lower. Same for newer GPus like GTX1080 vs. 2070.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, we don't need all those extra cores in order to play Arma* ... what else ..., nevertheless the performance gap on one score between the nice old i7-4790K and the brand new i9-9900K is wide enough to justify not making predictions about the performance of the entire platform

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will 100% keep my system as it is until A4 comes out.

1.36 V for 5.0 GHz is not to much for <60°C in ArmA @ air (2x Prime95 custom (run FFTs in-place) completed).

 

Let's see how mature will Enfusion be for A4 release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Helicopters Showcase

GTX 1080

4x8 GB

2666 MHz 16-16-16-36-1 Intel 8/9

2400 MHz 16-16-16-36-1 Intel 7/8

2933 MHz 16-16-16-36-1 Ryzen 2xxx

2666 MHz 16-16-16-36-1 Ryzen 1xxx

Windows 10 (1803)

GeForce 416.16

RAID 2x Crucial M500 960 GB (SATA 6 GB)

 

Lowest frequency is the AVX offset frequency.

So in ArmA:

4.7 GHz for 9900/8700/7700K

4.8 GHz for 9700/9600K

4.6 GHz for 8600K

oc_nv_arma3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Groove_CNice... do you have a graph where all the CPUs were OC'ed to their max then compared?

 

I suspect even the 9600K - 6/6 cpu would equal the 9900k at the same clock speed. That is more telling for ARMA 3 users. My 4970K feels "slow" compared to those CPU now! :D

 

I did test DayZ SA during the free weekend... Loved the enfusion engine and Chernarus in that version but the game was lacking substance since there was no objective other than to stay alive as possible. I can't wait for Enfusion to come to ARMA 4 for a deeper experience.

 

Would be great to see DayZ SA performance compared in the same way for reference.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too await the new engine. :)

 

About the 3 CPU's you mention, single thread benchmarks do seem to bear out your theory. The gulf between the 4790k (I have one) and the 9600k is about the same between the 9600k and the 9900k.

If you look at overall benchmarks, the 9900k is way ahead (based on multicore performance) but it's not really a gaming CPU. Sure it's turbo is impressive but it cannot sustain that for any longer than the cooling will allow. Theoretically, it can remain on boost indefinitely. Provided, presumably, you can get the heat away.

But the CPU doesn't tell the whole story. Our 4780ks are held back by DDR3 and the rest use DDR4. Arma 3 and even more so Enfusion based games are still moving around vast amounts of data and time and time again, we read here of users doing nothing more than installing faster memory for significant performance improvements. The myth that DDR4 latencies are not much better than DDR3 also doesn't help because the base clock of the 1151 motherboards means everything they do is faster. In other words, DDR4 is way faster than DDR3 in the real world.

I guess what I'm saying is; the more money you throw at a gaming PC, the better it will be. Who knew? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TankbusterI am running my system as optimized as possible:

 

i7-4790K

G.skill TridentX 32GB DDR3 2400 MHZ CL10 RAM

1060 GTX 3GB

SSD for ARMA 3 and OS only

 

I believe my RAM latency is already pretty good but I could try to tweak it down to CL9... not sure where to find such a guide.

 

I supposed for us we can get the fabled i7-5775c to keep us updated unti ARMA 4 or lower settings to keep up.

 

But for sure, those *lake cpus with FAST ram OC'ed looks great on ARMA though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, I remember the mythical 5775c that was killed while being delidded less than a month after it's arrival. It goes to show that if you're ultracapable at the overclocking game, you can achieve some impressive results.  Most of us, however.....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will get a second one from Aliexpress sometime this year for sure :-)

 

Hope I will be able to achieve 4.3-4.4 GHz, on air (liquid metal).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If A4 will be on Enfusion and DayZ runs much better now, I think it could be possible to keep my system even longer )))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The secret of the very high performance level of the  i7-5775C while playing Arma* is probably related to the 128 MB eDRAM.

We all know that Arma* is over sensitive to Memory speed and management, I believe that it's why that CPU was so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5775С is still very capable, because it's L4 cache bandwidth is to be added to the DDR3 bandwidth and this way the total bandwidth is very high and latencies are very low and the most of frames are produced inside these 128 MB L4 cache, lowering significantly the need of communication between CPU and RAM, resulting in lower and more even/consistent frametimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acer Nitro 5 or the cheaper Lenovo Legion Y520

Hello all! I am new to ARMA and have recently gotten Arma2 for christmas but most of my friends and recommendation say to go play arma3. I do not have a gaming laptop now, but I will this February and these are my two choices.

My preferences in game experience are: View Distance (for spotting, I am an air asset player)

and that's about it really XD

just joking, I'd love to get a decent fps too. 25+ is good enough for me and 30 is awesome.

Thank you in advance for the repliy(ies)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YAAB (Yet Another ArmA Benchmark)
@ low preset 1080p (patch 1.68)
80 FPS avg. DDR4 4200 MHz CL17
63 FPS avg. DDR4 3600 MHz CL16
57 FPS avg. DDR4 3000 MHz CL14

50 FPS avg. DDR4 2400 MHz CL11
ramvsfps92d1e.jpg arma3_x642017-04-1721xmclh.jpg

 

66 FPS avg. @ standard preset
arma3_x642017-04-1721jcivo.jpg

 

52 FPS avg. @ ultra preset

arma3_x642017-04-1721acdej.jpg

 

Much lower Frametimes

4200 MHz CL17 vs. 2400 MHz CL11

armaframetimesajirp.jpg armaframetimes2133ramxcipu.jpg

 

FPS hits a wall around 4.8 GHz if no CPU cache OC and CPU used with slow RAM.

cpuclockvsfpsw3c50.jpg

 

 

Source

 

P.S.:

my 4790K @ 5.0/4.4 GHz core/cache + 32 GB DDR3 2400 MHz CL10
45 FPS avg. @ ultra preset 1080p (patch 1.88) (GTX 1070 Ti 2063/9600 MHz CUDA/vRAM)
vs.
52 FPS avg. @ ultra preset 1080p (patch 1.68)
for 7700K @ 5.0/4.4 GHz core/cache + 16 GB DDR4 4200 MHz CL17

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that only 7 FPS difference between 4790K and 7700K at the same frequency (5.0/4.4 GHz core/cache) is more due to 4200 MHz DDR4 vs. 2400 Mhz DDR3 than to IPC gains.

And it's only average FPS / singleplayer / 1080p / ultra settings.

 

Not all motherboards/CPUs will do 4200 MHz RAM frequency.

Even less users that know what to buy and what to do to make 4200 MHz RAM frequency work.

 

One is more likely to buy like DDR4 3600 or 3866 Mhz to make it work by just plugging it in and loading XMP profil.

With like 4.8 GHz 8600K/9700K CPU (no delidding/liquid metal) + AiO watercooling + average/good motherboard.

 

And if you take into account multiplayer and 1440p...

 

For 5-7 FPS more (average / singleplayer / 1080p / ultra settings) that one would get with a 8700K/9700K/9900K is likely more due to 12/16 vs. 6/8 MB cache (i5/i7 3rd/4th gen) than because of additional cores/threads.

Of course ~10 FPS more (average / singleplayer / 1080p / ultra settings) could be gained with 5.2-5.3 GHz + 4133-4400 MHz RAM + big custom watercooling.

But it's not doable for every user!

 

So if you have a good Ivy Bridge/Haswell/Devil's Canyon i5/i7 running at 4.5-4.8 GHz with 2133/2400 MHz RAM - keep it (until ArmA 4).

There are no perceptible gains for ArmA 3 multiplayer, especially @ 1440p.

At least not for the moment + considering the price one would have to pay for a very good new mainboard/RAM/CPU/cooling.

 

P.S. - really need to get my hands on an i7-5775C and OC it to the moon (L3 + L4 cache inclusively)!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once I will have an i7-5775C with 128 MB L4 cache we will see if 8700K/9700K/9900K or Ryzen have lower and more even/consistent frametimes because of more cores/threads or simply because of more cache (vs. Sandy/Ivy/Haswell/DC/Sky/Kaby)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vRAM, RAM and pagefile usage after 6 hrs multiplayer gameplay without restarting/reconnecting.

 

With only ArmA, Discord, Steam and MSI Afterburner running - no browser (Facebook, YouTube etc.).

 

Evolution III mission - 30 players PvE Coop - no mods.

Visibility: 8 km jets / 6 km helis / 5 km armor / 3 km infantry

1440p ultra

arma3_x64_2019_01_07_fvf44.jpg

 

2 headless clients / no script errors / no unnecessary scripts / corpses+wrecks+inventory items on the ground regularly cleaned depending on the number of players on the server.
Infantry+armor+paras+helis+jets reinforcements number and periodicity depending on the number of players on the server, AI casualties, which armor/air vehicles players have and how many and other factors.

Max number of vehicles/AI each player can buy depends on the number of players on the server.

Everything what's possible (client/server) rewritten using this enhancement from Dedmen.
12 threads i7 @ 4.2 GHz 32 GB RAM SSD.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more RAM and pagefile usage after some more hours )))

I love ArmA )

arma3_x64_2019_01_08_18djj.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 FPS avg. in YAAB @ 1080p ultra for a guy from BIS Discord.

(Ryzen 5 2600X @ 4.2 GHz (6 cores/12 threads + 16 MB L3 cache) 16 GB RAM 3000 MHz CL15 + SATA SSD)

His GPU was not the limiting factor @ 1080p ultra as it's a RX Vega 64 (somewhere between GTX 1070/1080 in ArmA).

 

vs. ~35-45 FPS avg. for good old Ivy Bridge/Haswell/Devil's Canyon i5/i7 @ 4.5-4.8 GHz + 2133-2400 MHz RAM, providing one is not limited by the GPU @ 1080p ultra.

vs. ~43-52 FPS avg. for good "old" Skylake/Kabylake i5/i7 @ 4.4-4.9 GHz + 3000-4000 MHz RAM, providing one is not limited by the GPU @ 1080p ultra.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×