Jump to content
Placebo

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

Recommended Posts

@Groove_C

 

I did the same tests for fun with a 1060 GTX, 4790K, 32 GB CL10 DDR2400 RAM and I get ~ 45-48 FPS on LOW and 23-26 FPS ULTRA average on YAAB.

 

So there are some GPU scaling vs Ryzen with Vega 64 as there is Ryzen is equal or greater than Haswell in IPC.

 

But online, I get 45-60 FPS Ultra as all the AI has been shifted to server CPU. If I disable AI or just load a map and walk around, no mods, I get well over 60 FPS.

 

But as soon as I load ACE or other mods with a lot of scripting, it dropped. 

 

For fun, I was testing zombie mods - loaded ALL of them and wanted to see how each Zombie unit type compared and I was was running between 100-200 zombies at once in VR with no problems once the AI cached.

 

I wonder if users can just copy and paste that optimization into each game script or just make a blanket mod to redirect the eventhandlers to improve cpu performance? Sorry for going OT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Valken

 

What is the frequency of your 4790K?

Have you selected XMP profil in the BIOS for you 32 GB 2400 MHz RAM?

Otherwise it runs at like 1333 MHz with high latencies. it's not enough to just plug it in the motherboard.

Don't forget you have a GTX 1060 with less vRAM and less cores that is the limiting factor @ 1080 ultra vs. 6 GB GTX 1060 that provides max FPS @ 1080p ultra.

 

No idea for the rest, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Built my computer yesterday, will run the benchmark when I get my gfx next week. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 10:49 AM, Groove_C said:

@Valken

 

What is the frequency of your 4790K?

Have you selected XMP profil in the BIOS for you 32 GB 2400 MHz RAM?

Otherwise it runs at like 1333 MHz with high latencies. it's not enough to just plug it in the motherboard.

Don't forget you have a GTX 1060 with less vRAM and less cores that is the limiting factor @ 1080 ultra vs. 6 GB GTX 1060 that provides max FPS @ 1080p ultra.

 

No idea for the rest, sorry.

 

@Groove_C

 

I double checked my settings and it WAS set to DDR1333 in the BIOS! Slaps forehead! It must have reset during of the hot summers days! Thank your for pointing out!

 

I went back and tweaked my system, ran YAAB with no mods, 64 bit.

 

i7-4790k CPU ~ 4.5 GHZ,  Cache 41x, CPU Multi 46x 98MHZ bus speed due to OC RAM: 

G.Skill DDR3-2540 MHZ CL10 OC'ed, 32GB!!! 1.65 volts stock. 

1060 3GB GTX - I know, its only a temp GPU... I was looking for a 580 when I bought this but my country was sold out!!! So I will consider buying a better GPU in the future for 4K or more.

 

Stock voltages for everything, no voltage OC, balanced settings - same as performance actually so left it to save energy when PC idles. The only thing I turned off in Ultra was the blur and SMAA to CMAA:

 

048217F62E5A4E8C08EF1C32B1004BB028009648

 

Much better! At least 10 FPS gain on almost every setting. I will do some online testing now.

 

Only issue is that I need to keep a FAN on top of the RAM Heatsinks to keep it cooler but that is much more economical compared to a new MB/CPU/RAM upgrade!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Valken

140 MHz DDR3 RAM more is 0.5-1 FPS more, avg. - not even min.

It's not worth it.

 

Under or over 100 MHz BCLK is not good for the CPU and components related to BCLK.

Should be 100 MHz.

 

If your GPU is limiting @ 1080p ultra preset, then run YAAB @ 1080p standard preset without changing anything inside of it for results comparison consistency between users, at least for the YAAB runs.

 

This way we all just have to select a certain preset and run YAAB and compare easily.

 

Otherwise it will lead to many changes/adjustments here and there from different users and we'll be lost in numbers, leading to "wrong" results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Groove_C

 

I took your advice and reset my system to 4.6GHZ/4.0GHZ Cache/DDR3-2400CL10

 

96987BCDA298312A4DFB4DBD448E049EFE682937

 

The last run was on my custom Ultra setting - 3800/3800 distance and models with CMAA, no SMAA, no blur.

 

It is almost the same as before vs lower CPU +  higher DDR speeds. 

 

The good thing is I beat the:

 

7700K@5GHZ - 50 FPS avg. DDR4 2400 MHz CL11 

4790K@4.6GHZ - 58.5 FPS avg DDR3-2400MHZ CL10

 

I want to try to OC the cpu further but my cooling is not that great so am happy with what I have. I have no idea how to stabilize OC the cache so left it at 4.0 GHZ.

 

PS: the low - S preset is setting LOW in video, then pressing S before benchmark start. It creates a weird hybrid LOW - STANDARD setting but its there for reference. Everything else was set only via the video preset, no mods, all stock. 

 

Edit -

 

GPU OC has NEGATIVE EFFECT on LOW + STANDARD.

GPU OC + 9% @ Ultra - makes sense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if you guys know the best timings for memory DDR4 Vengeance 3000Mhz . I'm running them now at  (15-17-17-35) but could I go any lower? Will that give some performance improvement?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@nikiforos I suggest you do a search for the best timings. There are websites that do tweak and OC RAM such as overclockers.net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mahatma Gandhi @djotacon @Max85

 

Ryzen 3XXX engineering sample 12/24 cores/threads @ 3.6/3.4 GHz core turbo/base with 64 MB L3 cache + 1x4 GB 2666 MHz 19-19-19-43-2 single rank RAM stick
vs.
i7-5775c @ 3.8/3.7 GHz core/cache and 1.8 GHz stock eDRAM with 6 MB L3 cache and 128 MB L4 cache + 4x8 GB 2400 MHz 10-12-12-31-2 dual rank RAM sticks

 

Cache latencies:
index0vdk3s.png Source
vs.
index0uk6p.png  Source

 

Ryzen 3XXX is @ 12 vs. 20 ns i7-5775c for 8 MB
Ryzen 3XXX is @ 20 vs. 27 ns i7-5775c for 16 MB
Ryzen 3XXX is @ 97 vs. 30 ns i7-5775c for 32 MB
Ryzen 3XXX is @ 91 vs. 31 ns i7-5775c for 64 MB
Ryzen 3XXX is @ 92 vs. 48 ns i7-5775c for 128 MB


Lets not forget that Ryzen 3XXX L3 cache is splitted in 16 MB per chiplet and 32 MB inside of the I/O-Die.

Whereas the i7-5775c has its 6 MB L3 cache in one piece and whopping 128 MB L4 cache, also in one piece.

 

In my opinion - Ryzen is doing very well.
Considering that it wasn't even running some decent 3600 MHz 14-14-14-32-2 single rank RAM sticks with tuned secondary and tertiary timings.

 

Will may be consider it when upgrading in 2020/2021, if Intel won't deliver.

 

But the i7-5775c's eDRAM could have as well been OC'd to 2.0 GHz, paired to some more than decent 2666 MHz 10-12-12-31-2 or to 2800 MHz 11-14-14-35-2 dual rank RAM sticks ;-)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryzen 3k is going to be way too much.  :)

Specially the higher end of it. (I really disliked some aspects of Threadripper, besides price. So, this fits quite better with my work needs....)

Tons of cores. For those of us using the PC for mostly work, heck, am gonna adore it for my renders and video editing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@3D_vet


Lets first see how much they will cost.

 

I'm afraid that it could become more expensive if IPC and frequency gains will be true to what's being discussed currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, seems there are some solid guesses about that... I believe the 3700x ( and the 3850x is just a.... BEAST... 16c/32t at 5.1 GHz, only 500$) is planned to be 320 US $ ( I mean...12c/24t, 5.0 Ghz, for 320$??? ). Not expensive in my book, for that range of freaking power (and after that amazing cinebench test where it even gets better results to a non overclocked 9900k, it's clear that not at the cost of consuming too much power. To say it lightly). And the rest of the  gama, all that kind of great bang for the buck.  I wouldn't worry bout that, but mostly on when they'll come out. It seems it could be as late as July. And I have zero data yet on when they will release (seems current latest chipsets are going to be more or less compatible) the chipset that really fully support all to full advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Groove_C

 

Thanks for making this comparison. I made another one based on the same leak of the ZEN2 ES sample from last week. I compared it to the current incarnation of the Zen µArch.

 

untitled15ukr4.png

 

Of course this always needs to be taken with a grain of salt. This is an ES with non final AGESA and UEFI Firmwares and it only clocks at about 3.7GHz. Yet, I think it appears that the outsourcing of the memory controler in Zen2 will roughly cause a 10ns Latency penalty over the Zen+. On the other hand, its pretty save now to assume that Zen2 will double L3 Cache and will come with 32mb L3 Cache that performs fast at a latency of only ~10ns.

 

So for ArmA3 there is good and bad. RAM Latency gets worse, double (32mb 10ns L3!) Cache will however for sure absorb many cache misses. Its very hard to predict what the result will be. With some friends we are just about to start some small RAM Review Channel and I am sure we will be able to review Ryzen 3k soon after release. And I will make sure we include ArmA3 ;-) Will let you know!

 

Mahatma

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Groove_C

 

Do you have cache latency of Intel 7700K, 7740K, 8700K or 9700K? It would be good to compare to those vs both Ryzen and 5775c for ARMA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Groove_C

 

Nice overclock! Does anyone have such a CPU here?

 

@Valken

 

You can look up memory latency ladders of any CPU on Userbenchmark

 

e.g. 7700k, 8700k, 9700k, 2700x and 7900x

 

(I havent checked whether in these runs here specifically the CPU or Ringbus or Mesh etc is overclocked ... one needs to pay attention there of course)

 

But cache performance alone is a poor indicator as of course BP performance and cache sizes play a huge role. Also cache hierarchy and Inclusive vs. non-inclusive vs exclusive cache organization matters. If you want to make performance extrapolations, its save to say that comparisons within one uArch are good but not between uArches (e.g. Coffee Lake vs Skylake-X vs Ryzen)

 

Maybe @Dwarden can give an idea of what to expect from large caches (e.g. 32mb L3 in Zen2 or the eDRAM in 5775c). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mahatma Gandhi

 

It's a guy from overclock.net.

There are even a few, that have their i7-5775c @ 4.4/4.0/2.4 GHz core/cache/eDRAM :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi orllak32.

You gave us no info on the SSD your "predator" is featuring.

With a high level laptop like this one the limiting factors for Arma3 are coming from the weakest link.

Having Windows and Arma3 on the same SSD is mandatory.

 

For settings, do not use Nvidia Panel, use program parameters :

- use in game "autodetect" as a first step

 

- set the "Global Visibility" in order to get a good view distance and a good FPS level [global visibility is a 100% CPU parameter]
- test disabling/enabling Vsync

- in order to get the sharpest image on screen :

*Disable the "bloom"
*Deactivate the 2 "blurs"
*Set the "depth of field" to 0
*Set "sharpen" up of 100

- best Post Process solution is related to the way you GPU driver is dealing with screen performances, so you must test by yourself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, oldbear said:

Having Windows and Arma3 on the same SSD is mandatory.

Whats the reason for this?

i have 2 SSD's OS is on one, and all my steam games are on the other, i find performance for Arma3 pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also 2 x 500 Go  SDDs, one for Windows and the other hosting Arma* games.

So what I think is mandatory is to get Windows and Arma3 on SSD.

My answer was related at what I know about "Predator" laptop, more often a small SSD and a large 5400rpm HDD.

In that case, what is mandatory is to get Arma3 library on the SSD, not on the HDD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, what cpu/mbo/ram you recommend for nice fps in koth mainly.

Current specs:

Gtx 1060 6gb

I5 4690k

Asrock z97ex4

16gb

Old intel m.2 ssd

Kingston ssd.

 

Most of the time i play on epm hc and eirnacken whatever its called hc servers(objects ultra, terrain low, 8x aa)@1080 res. And in the city i got on 1000-1500 view distance around 30-50 depends on how many players and position etc. Sometimes it drops below 30.

 

Looking for stable 40-60 (city)if its possible. Ryzen or i7/9? Or i should OC that cpu?(not worth the upgrade?)

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome ipetanj

 

From my point of view your PC is working fine, playing in the 30/50 FPS range is good and you will need a rather huge spending to gain a bit.

Having stable 40-60 in city is a goal many are dreaming of,  but I am wondering if only one had got such an achievement IRL.

Many will show benches explaining  that an [i7 - 8900K / Z390 MoBo/ RTX 2070 / 16 GB DDR4 @ 3200] based combo will help a lot. That's true.

But such upgrade comes at a price.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this system run ArmA III? I really don't want the hassles associated with ArmA 2/OA on Steam.

 

System specs:

CPU Type: Intel Core i7 8th Gen

CPU Speed: 8700 (3.20 GHz) Can be over-clocked to 4.60

Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 2GB

Memory Capacity:16 GB DDR4

HDD: 2 TB

 

Thanks,

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this "system" will run Arma3 but not the way you are looking for.

Let say the whole thing is unbalanced.

CPU /RAM too high vs GPU/HD too low.

The GT 1030 is playable [I know, I have one] but it will always run at 100% in game with a lot of limitations.

A 2To HDD is also playable, but you will get stuttering and texture flickering.

 

In order to play Arma3, you will need

- the fastest and more efficient CPU you can get : it has been the case for all Arma* games.

- a rather good GPU. Before Visual Upgrade, even a low entry graphic card can do the job, now, you will need a middle range one as a minimum.

- 8 RAM of fast -@3000 MHz- RAM is mandatory. Arma* have always been "RAM sensitive", now its also "RAM greedy".

- 256 GB SSD is also needed. Arma* have always need fast HD, now with a lot of data streaming in, the fastest is needed.

 

From my point of view, in order to play Arma3 today, you will need a rig more or less based  these specs :

CPU : AMD Ryzen 3 1300X /Intel i3-8100

GPU : NVidia GTX 1050 / AMD RX 560

RAM : 8 GB RAM DDR4 (2x4) @3000 MHz

HD : 240/500 GB SSD. Windows 10 64 and Arma3 library on SSD.

 

Note : you can have a glimpse at an AMD Ryzen 3 1300X with Arma3 in a small test I had posted on French CanardPC forums : Jouer à Arma3 avec un Ryzen3 - Le retour de la Force

Be advised French language involved.

 

If you want to get a better, more comfortable from the FPS point of view, you can get something like :

CPU : AMD Ryzen 5 2600X /Intel i5-8400

GPU : NVidia GTX 1060 6GB / AMD RX 580 8 GB

RAM : 8 GB RAM DDR4 (2x4) @3000 MHz or 16 GB DDR4 if you are thinking to play over 1080p.

HD : 240/500 GB SSD. Windows 10 64 and Arma3 library on SSD.

 

Or ... taking your "System" specs as a basis:

CPU Type: Intel Core i7 8th Gen

CPU Speed: 8700 (3.20 GHz) Can be over-clocked to 4.60

Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 2GB, NVidia GTX 1060 6GB or AMD RX 580 8 GB

Memory Capacity:16 GB DDR4

HDD: 2 TB, 240/500 GB SSD + 1To HD

 

Edited by oldbear
English is not my maternal language, but you had already get it

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

×