Jump to content
Placebo

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

Recommended Posts

I'm waiting for YAAB results @ standard/ultra @ 1080p/1440p from a guy from A3 Discord that @FallujahMedic -FM- has mentioned earlier.

(i9-9900K @ 4.7 GHz, DDR4 3600 MHz CL16 and a RTX 2080 Ti)

 

It will be a really valuable input for A3 community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Groove_Cthanks for that. Interesting to see the FPS gains vs CPU are small yet RAM makes a bigger difference. That R2600x is just kicking butt for the frequency that its running at!  I cannot wait for Ryzen 3 or the 9900KFC to consider my next upgrade.

 

@TankbusterI agree with your purchase. Get it while you can afford it especially when all other apps and games will benefit. ARMA 4 will definitely benefit as well as other new games with Raytracing for example since you can see DX12 and Vulcan can use the CPU to offload some calculations. ARMA 4 and Raytracing at 4K will be my next game pc reference.

 

Don't skimp on the RAM! and wait for the GPU to do what you really want before buying it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, that with AMD, all you do is just to get to 4.1-4.2 GHz, whereas for Intel it's 5.0 GHz, at least, which is more rewarding, by far.

 

Even more work, optimizing RAM timings to compensate for AMD's Infinity Fabric. And all this time to (maybe) get to 3600 MHz, whereas for Intel, there are less timings and the result can be much more satisfying, in form of 4400-4500 MHz 2 sticks or 4000-4200 MHz 4 sticks (depending on motherboard).

 

You buy an i7-9700K or i9-9900K and voila - you already have 4.6-4.7 GHz (stock) + simply insert 3600 MHz CL15 RAM with XMP profil and you're good. No time wasted and more performance than AMD (at a price).

You buy r5 2600 or r7 2700, spend a lot of time for OC and RAM timings and the performance is still under Intel's stock CPU and RAM frequency.

 

Hope this will change with Ryzen 3XXX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Valken said:

 

@TankbusterI agree with your purchase. Get it while you can afford it especially when all other apps and games will benefit. ARMA 4 will definitely benefit as well as other new games with Raytracing for example since you can see DX12 and Vulcan can use the CPU to offload some calculations. ARMA 4 and Raytracing at 4K will be my next game pc reference.

 

Don't skimp on the RAM! and wait for the GPU to do what you really want before buying it.

 

I'm reusing the existing, 2 year old 1080. There's nothing significantly better that warrants buying right now. It's an interesting critique of the GPU industry that this is the case. The RAM is  2 x 8 Vengeance LPX 3600 CL18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tankbuster said:

The RAM is  2 x 8 Vengeance LPX 3600 CL18

3600 CL18 is same as 3200 CL16.

Only 3600 CL15 is better.

No need to buy higher frequency if timings are this much loose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't made clear on their website when I ordered RAM & SSD from Corsair.com that they are coming from Taiwan. If I have to pay import duties, I'm going to annoyed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2019 at 5:02 PM, Groove_C said:

You buy an i7-9700K or i9-9900K and voila

 

The only issue hier is: Voila, you spend more money already than I have spent for CPU, Mainboard and Graphics Card alltogether (against the 9700k). If you take the 9900k you spend more on the CPU alone than I did on CPU, GPU, RAM and mainboard.

 

It really depends on what you are willing to invest and where you want to go with it.


Are you only playing ArmA3, is you budget high enough to be able to afford fast RAM AND the Intel CPU, do you have to go lower on the GPU because you run out of budget etc etc .... If you do have the budget to buy all these High End components, it is the best solution. If you don't, its not a good solution.

 

In most cases I still see people buying an 8700k/9700k for ArmA3 overclock it to 5GHz and combine it with the cheapest RAM they can find on the Market just to find themselves having best average FPS.

 

e.g.: 

 

arma3yaab2ajw9.png

 

 

On 4/7/2019 at 5:02 PM, Groove_C said:

The thing is, that with AMD, all you do is just to get to 4.1-4.2 GHz, whereas for Intel it's 5.0 GHz, at least, which is more rewarding, by far.

 

My 2600x is by the way not overclocked at all... it's actually undervolted and at auto clock.

 

@Valken

 

We will surely test the Ryzen 3k with ArmA3. I will let you (guys) know what to expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mahatma Gandhi  I will suggest not to use results based upon unknown parameters.

It's rather difficult to do comparison in game/rigs performances without having information about all the parameters involved.

Too often reports on forums are based on misunderstanding about how Arma3 is working and what matters or not in tweaking.

One of the main error is based on main AAA games parameters transposition in Arma3.

 

@Valken  Whatever the hardware you are playing,  Arma3 needs more time spent on tweaking than other games.

Sometimes with interesting results ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silky smooth experience while flying at ultra.
Significantly reduced primary, secondary and tertiary RAM timings definitely help not only min FPS, but frametime.

Me flying (takeoffs and landings) in the editor (Altis).

 

Forgot to take out landing gear at the end of the video )))

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Groove_C said:

Silky smooth experience while flying at ultra.
Significantly reduced primary, secondary and tertiary RAM timings definitely help not only min FPS, but frametime.

Me flying (takeoffs and landings) in the editor (Altis).

 

Forgot to take out landing gear at the end of the video )))

 

I get the same results, although I haven't touched my pc, just stock 4790k runs at 4.4 (with stock boost). Zooming in and out can give an advantage with fps, but flying straight forward gives good enough fps and performance.

I would take a little time to set everything up in detail prior to playing, if I were to play A3 for any length of time. But A3 seems much more optimised than A2. Plus of course they give a number of things you can do in the settings that should be enough to give a reasonably good performance, on a medium to higher end gaming pc.

 

Only problem I get is trying to run something with the game. Intel do not like too many tasks at the same time it seems to me. Prefers to do one thing at a time, does it fairly well, it has to be said, but still just the one task at a time. I get the same mini stutter as in the video above there. Doesn't do it if not recording, but soon as I hit the record, I get it. Can't say it annoys me because its just a recording and I don't put any time into setting those up properly. As long as its not there when playing, I'm o.k. I don't mind the odd thing here and there, just Arma. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, chrisb said:

I get the same results, although I haven't touched my pc, just stock 4790k runs at 4.4 (with stock boost).

Mind you that it was "only" 60 FPS, because I've locked FPS to 60 while recording to avoid a much bigger file size because of even higher FPS and YT can't reproduce more than 60 FPS anyways.

I've heard that it's better to have same FPS as what you have set it to for recording, for overall better image quality.

 

26 minutes ago, chrisb said:

I get the same mini stutter as in the video above there.

For ArmA it's considered as really smooth 🙂

 

Recorded with Bandicam using the GPU (NVENC H264) 50 Mbit (constant bitrate), 60 FPS (constant FPS), 60 FPS lock, 320 kbps stereo and 48 KHz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

 

For ArmA it's considered as really smooth 🙂

 

 

 

Yep, I'm not moaning, looked o.k. 😉

 

That said.

I would never play A3 with full view distance, I play around 3-4000 on the ground, in the air you can knock the setting up a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no new CPUs for me until this revolutionary move by 2020-2021.

 

Really underrated YT channel!

Listen carefully and don't skip!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for YAAB results @ standard/ultra @ 1080p/1440p from a guy with an i7-5775C @ 4.2/3.8/2.2 GHz core/cache/eDRAM with DDR3 2400 MHz CL9 and a GTX 1080 Ti @ 2100 MHz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest GPUs 1080p and 1440p.

 

arma1080ppzkvm.png arma1440pyajsn.png

 

Radeon VII, 1080 Ti, 2080 and 2080 Ti @ 1440p are only by 1 FPS better than 2070.

@Tankbuster and only by 4 FPS better than your 1080 🙂

RX 580/590 8 GB / GTX 1060 6 GB / GTX 1660 Ti 6 GB are more than solid choice for 1080p.
RX Vega 64 / GTX 1070 Ti / RTX 2060 are more than solid choice for 1440p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Ryzen and amd's newer cards do look good. Plus I suppose, you can do more than one thing at a time. 😉

All at a price to suit many pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can already play Arma3 with a low level AMD entry rig ... playing a R3 2200G APU and using 16 GB DDR4.

Image quality using "Standard" setting is a bit crappy, so I will easily suggest adding an entry level GPU such as the RX 550.

Nevertheless, it's playable, I know, I have really done it

 

 

h5WlQ6Mh.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@oldbear

Imagine r3 3300G 6C/12T 3.8 GHz with Navi 15 CU 65W TDP $130 or r5 3600G 8C/16T 4.0 GHz with Navi 20 CU 95W TDP $200 for ArmA III.

 

We have a player on our server who couldn't afford an expensive new PC and his old was like from 2009, with 4 GB RAM and really low GPU.

So he's bought a r5 2400G 4C/8T 3.9 GHz and 8 GB 3000 MHz CL15 or 16 and he's playing really ok on our server with the iGPU.

Later he will buy a dedicated GPU and 8 GB more RAM.

 

I think it's a really good solution for many players.

 

untitled6wvkns.jpg

 

I don't know if Steam counts only physical cores (not Hyper-Threading) or may be the most of the gamers are simply to lazy to participate in the Steam survey, but the tendency seems to be clear - most players still use/have 4 cores only.

Bohemia most certainly knows this, as well that the transition towards double the cores/threads won't happen already tomorrow, but instead will take several years for the majority to switch only to 6/8 cores.

That's why (I think) Enfusion engine used in DayZ, in its current state, is already optimized/rewritten in an acceptable way in order to spread load +- equally between cores/threads that most gamers already have, like 4, 6 or 8 (with HT).

 

Here is a video (russian) as proof of Enfusion loading 16 threads for sure and this is good to know, so we know what (at least) to expect from A4.

10:20-10:41 he shows all 16 threads of his r7 1700X loaded +- equally (with a visual graph).

10:41-10:48 he compares Real Virtuality 4 load vs. Enfusion load (with a visual graph).

So no need to understand russian, don't worry 🙂

 

That means that more cores/threads and GHz will for sure result in a very good FPS in A4.

But I think that this optimization will also have a most than perceptible benefit for gamers even with "only" 4, 6 and 8 cores/treads.

They won't get as much FPS as CPUs with even more cores/threads and GHz, but min/stable/fluent FPS around 40-60 would also have been a very good result, especially with good view distance and good number of AI, buildings and vehicles.

This would have potentially "revived" CPUs with less frequency, but with good amount of cores/threads, like Xeons, i7-3930K/4930K/5820K/6800K or r5/r7 1600(X)/1700(X).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The R5 2400G is a good choice for a player on a budget for a start .

The RX Vega 11 i-GPU allow "High" graphic quality, it performs a bit higher than the GT 1030 and a bit lower than the RX 550.

From my own experiences with the R3 2200G, I strongly suggest that the upgrade to 16 GB @ 3000 MHz DDR4 should be considered as a priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, because 8 GB is already really low, with a dedicated GPU. And without dedicated GPU, the iGPU uses some of it as well. So he really needs 16 GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first got A3 (when first available), I didn't know if I would take to it or not (I didn't), I was, and still am, very into the previous titles. So I put it on my second system I had back then which was a Athlon IIx64 640 and it played very well indeed with upto around 200ai seen at any one time even in combat, although I tended to keep that at around 70'ish seen at any one time.

 

AMD are very underated, better than Intel for multi tasks imo, plus smoother whilst recording.

 

Old vids.. All Athlon IIx64 vids.

 

 

 

 

 

I would be looking at that 3850x coupled with one of their cards when it has been out a while and when I want to move on from this 4790k setup. I like to go back and fourth from Intel to AMD.

___________________

 

Edit: First vid I ever did of A3 with the Athlon. 😉

 

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

×