Jump to content
Placebo

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

Recommended Posts

There's obviously something screwy with that test. 

I have the H100v2 (non Pro)

My i7 9900K @5gHz  gets to around 63 Deg on full load.

That's Blender rendering for an hour OR playing ARMA for an hour.

The difference with my setup is that the radiator is mounted at the front not top.  I guess it DOES make a difference...

...And as far as noise goes... I haven't noticed any.

 

I certainly won't be replacing my water cooling any time soon...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't affirmed that AiOs are very loud, just that they are louder than Noctua air coolers.

And if you don't hear it, doesn't mean that somebody else won't hear it.

May be you have your case under the table, may be you ears are less sensitive than somebody elses, may be the way you perceive the sound signature (not noise) is not the same as for somebody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will my Pc be ok? I sometimes get pop ups saying my processor isn't good enough (only on state of decay 2) but then it lets me run it on high settings. I also played forza horizon on Ultra and it was fine but im not sure on games like Arma 3 which may be quite demanding in the background.

 

Processor - Intel Core i5 8400 2.8Ghz Turbo 4.0Ghz

Motherboard 0Asus PRIME B360M-A

RAM32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 2400MHz DDR4

Graphics Card - Nvidia GeForce® GTX 1050 Ti 4GB

Hard Drive1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can play A3 on high with your rig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, andysuter said:

Will my Pc be ok? I sometimes get pop ups saying my processor isn't good enough (only on state of decay 2) but then it lets me run it on high settings. I also played forza horizon on Ultra and it was fine but im not sure on games like Arma 3 which may be quite demanding in the background.

 

Processor - Intel Core i5 8400 2.8Ghz Turbo 4.0Ghz

Motherboard 0Asus PRIME B360M-A

RAM32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 2400MHz DDR4

Graphics Card - Nvidia GeForce® GTX 1050 Ti 4GB

Hard Drive1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM

You need an i7 5775C with an air cooler. Anything else will kill kittens. 🙂

 

Sorry, couldn't resist. 🙂

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buying a very very expensive CPU and mid range RAM. No balance / nonsense.

 

Like buying a relatively expensive car and cheaping out on brakes and tires and thus being forced to drive much slower, just like boosted much less expensive regular cars.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tankbuster said:

AIOs are very reliable. The technology is mature and proven.

 

kzpbu9qwdhr11wsjya.jpg maxresdefaultoxkcq.jpgjpc52idbyj2bd1gowzgpdhjkim.jpg nvxltvz0ty5zyakyb.jpg fcfe01dzcjlc.jpg 2qlfogmjqj9l.jpg 5fvascikxkng.jpg img_0014z6k79.jpg corsairh100iinternal0e0jaa.jpg zyhvfsf0lkft.jpg tfliode7xj48.jpg ma7ohora6jx2.jpg 33moidwkgkso.jpg

Rubber dries out because of temperature, hoses plug out because of increased pressure inside of the loop when coolant heats up and expands but has no place where to expand or simply not good enough quality control.

 

Not counting pump failures and using aluminum radiators with copper CPU contact plates, which gives this because of mixing these 2 metals after like 2 years of usage or less:

maxresdefault1ynjww.jpggalvanic-corrosion-exb3k5l.jpg galvanic-corrosion-of5ljql.png

1. Clogged up pump and CPU contact plate fins because of bacteria (high enough coolant temps for bacteria to develop) despite the usage of bactericide.

2. Galvanic corrosion because of mixing up 2 metals, copper for CPU contact plate and cheaped out on full copper radiator and using instead an aluminum one, like Corsair and almost all other AiO fabricants.

 

Pump noise:

 

@Tankbuster now you can continue to laugh 🤣😆😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had a water cooled pc.. I just let em burn.. They run faster that way. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there are no records of all in one coolers working faultlessly for years, apart from mine?

5 hours ago, Groove_C said:

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of them work well, when they work, but there are all of the risks above.

I don't want to try and see if I've spotted a good one or have no luck and loose all my hardware.

And why pay much more for equal or less perf, more noise and less quality/reliability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this PC if it doesn't make noise? if he does not warm the room in winter ...)))

Share this post


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

And there are no records of all in one coolers working faultlessly for years, apart from mine?

 

And mine.

Had an i7 6700k @4.2gHz with a Corsair H60 for 3 years.

No problems rendering for 8+ hours at a time or playing ARMA for a couple.

 

After about an hour playing on ultra settings...

2z69l50.png

 

We must have been lucky 😛

 

Sorry Groove_C but you shouldn't discuss things you don't have any experience with and you're certainly very biased.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, EDcase said:

you shouldn't discuss things you don't have any experience with and you're certainly very biased.

LOL 🤣

Share this post


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

I think, that tester misunderstood the settings. Probably, he tested on LOW and STANDARD instead of STANDARD and ULTRA. Then 3 - 4 FPS boost is appropriate compared to old results (69FPS vs 66FPS).

Here is a video as proof for 66.2 FPS @ 1440p ultra. So his results are correct. Before it was 66.7 FPS.

By the way, it was achieved with 5.3/4.9 GHz core/cache and not as mentioned before (5.2/4.8 GHz)

Before his upgrade from 8700K 5.0/4.5 GHz core/cache 3800 MHz 15-14-14-34-350-1T and a GTX 1080 Ti 2100 MHz he achieved 67.4 FPS @ 1080p ultra vs. 69.4 with the current build.

arma3_ultra_z370cdu2ksdjyt.jpg

 

So like I said before, RAM frequency combined with very very tight primary, secondary and tertiary timings is what makes this huge difference, because ArmA is very latency sensitive.

Share this post


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

So his results are correct. Before it was 66.7 FPS.

I need Standard settings test if it will be 85+ FPS, I am gonna throw my PC to the window. Btw, no need for camrip, Nvidia Shadowplay will be fine. As I can see from statistics, difference between ultra and standard setting is in margin of 17 FPS his is 22 FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Do not throw your rig by the window, you still need something to play with, and by the way, you are at risk to harm somebody  😁

 

Showing that the most powerful PC such as this one featuring  i9-9900K+OC/RTX 2080/DDR4 4200MHz is getting the best performances is reassuring for the owner.

The relatively low level of performance despite the disproportion of means also shows that in this game, due to RV Engine limitations, the race for power is futile.

 

That's why people players wanting to play out of the box PC need tests using the "Standard settings" in YAAB.

Have a look at how a Ryzen 3 2200G/RX 550 based PC runs in 1080p here.

Edited by oldbear
I am not really a bear, but feeling really old sometimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i5-9600K/i7-9700K + RTX 2070 + 3200/3600 MHz RAM is the max one should buy (currently) to be able to enjoy ArmA only at its maximum (FPS + visuals) in 1080p/1440p.

Or if used: i5-8600K/i7-8700K + GTX 1070/1070 Ti/1080/1080 Ti.

OC the CPU to 5.0/4.7 GHz core/cache @ air, OC the GPU to 2000+ MHz and OC the RAM and/or lower the timings.

 

> 5.0 GHz, > 8 cores/threads, > RTX 2070, > 2050 MHz GPU and > 4000 MHz RAM there are almost no gains, but the cost is astronomical.

 

For max visuals but less FPS, but still very well playable: r5 2600 + 3200 MHz RAM + RX 580/590.

For high visuals but less FPS, but still very well playable: r5 2600 + 3200 MHz RAM + RX 570.

For high visuals and well playable FPS: r3 2200G + 3000 MHz RAM + RX 570.

For normal visuals and playable FPS: r5 2400G + 3000 MHz RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Groove_C said:

i5-9600K/i7-9700K + RTX 2070 + 3200/3600 MHz RAM is the max one should buy (currently) to be able to enjoy ArmA only at its maximum (FPS + visuals) in 1080p/1440p. 

Or if used: i5-8600K/i7-8700K + GTX 1070/1070 Ti/1080/1080 Ti.

OC the CPU to 5.0/4.7 GHz core/cache @ air, OC the GPU to 2000+ MHz and OC the RAM and/or lower the timings.

False statements. No need in RTX. Maximum settings - gtx 1070 fully cover ultra settings. Probably, even RX580 8Gb will be fine for 1080p, even gtx1060 wih 6Gb may be fine (not sure if 6Gb of VRAM is enough for 8xAA)

About CPU wrong too. 8350k with overclock to 5Ghz totally fine too. That will give you 64 FPS in YAAB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote /1440p if you can't see it.

Buying only 4 cores today for years to come is not a good decision.

Share this post


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

I wrote /1440p if you can't see it.

Well, 1070TI/1660Ti is totally fine for ultra ARMA 3 then. No need in RTX2070.

 

58 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

Buying only 4 cores today for years to come is not a good decision.

Not as bad as you think. 4 cores are very good for Arma. As you can see from here https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

more than a half of steam users have 4 cores CPU. It is OK for at least 2 more years. And in 2 years you may upgrade platform to new 5-7nm CPU.

Btw, after messing around with mallocs and memory overclocking, here is what I got on Standard preset:

s8qmgYc.png

 

Pretty impressive for:

i5 6400@4.5Ghz, 3Ghz CL15 DDR4 and stock gtx1070ti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1070 Ti is difficult to find and 1660 Ti has only 6 GB, whereas I have always 8 GB fully loaded on my GTX 1070 Ti @1440p ultra. So RTX 2070 because of 8 GB.

 

I know one guy who has a Radeon VII with 16 GB vRAM and @1080p ultra he hits more than 9 GB vRAM usage.

So no 6 GB, sorry.

Share this post


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

I know one guy who has a Radeon VII with 16 GB vRAM and @1080p ultra he hits more than 9 GB vRAM usage.

Pretty interesting, than you must have heavy lags on your build with 1440p ultra with 8Gb only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Please stay close to the basics of this topic dedicated to "Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications?"

 

 back to basics .

 

@andysuter ...  back to basics .

 

23 hours ago, andysuter said:

Will my Pc be ok? I sometimes get pop ups saying my processor isn't good enough (only on state of decay 2) but then it lets me run it on high settings. I also played forza horizon on Ultra and it was fine but im not sure on games like Arma 3 which may be quite demanding in the background.

 

Processor - Intel Core i5 8400 2.8Ghz Turbo 4.0Ghz

Motherboard 0Asus PRIME B360M-A

RAM32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 2400MHz DDR4

Graphics Card - Nvidia GeForce® GTX 1050 Ti 4GB

Hard Drive1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM

 

Your PC is OK, and your GTX 1050 Ti 4GB is allowing you to play in "Very High" Quality in 1080p.

Nevertheless, you will have to set the Visibility > Overall parameter to a playable 3200/3500m distance because of your nice but average i5 8400.

In Arma3, FPS are mainly related to CPU frequency and efficiency.

 

The configuration can be improved by switching Windows 10 and the Steam library containing Arma3 on an SSD as suggested in the official "Recommended"requirements
A SSD [256 GB minimum, 512 GB is better] doesn't help to gain  FPS but it deals with the irritating problem of "stuttering" in game.

A HD, even a good 7200RPM, is unable to deal with the streaming of textures Arma3 RealVirtuality game engine requires.

 

 

 

 

Edited by oldbear
I am not really a bear, but feeling like an old one now
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all players, try xtbbmalloc avx2 version from here http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=31217

That malloc gave me incredible 9 FPS boost, read installation/usage section carefully, especially Remarks (admin rights, secpol.msc).

 

UPD: Btw, you will have to run game old style method with exe shortcut (with startup parameters). I just don't know how to run Arma3 with admin privileges from arma launcher.

  • Thanks 2

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

×