Jump to content
Placebo

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

Recommended Posts

Ryzen needs higher RAM speeds than Intel. Not less than 3200 MHz RAM.

Ryzen 3xxx is capable of 4400 MHz RAM for sure and even 4600 MHz on high end motherboards!

Listen to this 😉

Share this post


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

Ryzen needs higher RAM speeds than Intel. Not less than 3200 MHz RAM.

Ryzen 3xxx is capable of 4400 MHz RAM for sure and even 4600 MHz on high end motherboards!

Listen to this 😉

i dont get how tiny 1200 MHz can give me 30 fps more lol

every ryzen 3rd gen can do 4400 MHz? 

if so, i should buy this?

even prefering 3rd gen to expensive intel ?

Share this post


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

i dont get how tiny 1200 MHz can give me 30 fps more lol

every ryzen 3rd gen can do 4400 MHz? 

if so, i should buy this?

even prefering 3rd gen to expensive intel ?

 

Ryzen 3000 series CPUs will (almost certainly) be a good buy.

but since there are no proper benchmarks out yet (at least i haven't seen any) we can't tell you.

 

having a quick look in the benchmarks posted in the last month or two, i came to the conclusion, that Ryzen 2 are almost the same when it comes to FPS/GHz.

now AMD claims to have increased the IPC (instructions per cycle) by 15% so the performance per clock should increase as well. but we will have to see how well.

 

now the thing is, the I9 9900K has a maximum boost clock of 5GHz while the Ryzen7 3700X you mentioned has only 4.4GHz. so the intel has a 13.6% higher boost clock.

 

taking those figures into account, makes me believe, that the R7 3700X might be as fast as or only slightly slower than the I9 9900K.

but i think no one here will be able to give you a certain answer.

just wait until the official release, there will be benchmarks shortly after.

 

about the ram thing.

tests have shown, that faster ram, or ram with faster timings helps increasing the FPS in Arma3.

i would explain it this way (but without knowing for sure):

Arma requires lots of different data from the memory but no large files.

So the CPU will have to wait for that data in order to complete it's calculations. the faster the memory delivers the requested data, the faster the CPU can complete the calculation = higher FPS

faster Ram not only has higher bandwidth, but also can often respond in a shorter period of time, given the timings didn't suffer to much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ball Race said:

i dont get how tiny 1200 MHz can give me 30 fps more lol

every ryzen 3rd gen can do 4400 MHz? 

if so, i should buy this?

even prefering 3rd gen to expensive intel ?

@Ball RaceRAM speed is particularly in A3 (more so that other games) however Ryzen has always had more issues than Intel with memory compatibility.

AMD is aware of it and so Ryzen suggested RAM speed was DDR4-2666. With Ryzen 2 this increased to -2993. With Ryzen 3, AMD is expected to push this to -3200.

I therefore think that it's VERY unlikely that most Ryzen will ever achieve compatibility with -4400, unless showered with extreme amounts of cash, LN2 and/or luck.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Ryzen is great and Ryzen 3 is looking REALLY promising.

So I'd wait a few more weeks so that we get the first REAL reviews, not just AMD's propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 @domokun

 

Still looking for the "Minimum Recommended" hardware needed to play* Arma3, I am still testing entry level CPUs.

There are no more issues with RAM now with Ryzen 2nd generation.

 

I had experienced better FPS level with 3000 MHz DDR4 compared to 2400 MHz with a Ryzen R3 2200G

But the improvement is only a fraction of the fancy figures that I see circulating, I will say 3/5 FPS.

Recommended RAM frequency for the Ryzen R 3 2200G is ...

System Memory Specification : 2993MHz

 

To my surprise, the performance has also been improved by increasing the RAM quantity from 8 to 16 GB.

The game has even become almost playable without a graphics card using the integrated Vega 8 Graphics.

 

Because of the way the RV Engine is built and works, the game is still strictly dependent on the efficiency and speed of the processor.

So, ATM the existing Intel high level CPUs are still the best existing competitor ... at a price.

You can dream, but wait and see, before building projects.

 

*you can run A2 under 20FPS and play it over 30 FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be getting a new desktop in a week's time to replace my dinosaur from 2009. Any idea on whether this'll be good enough for a decent view/object distance set to 5,000 plus most of the fancy GFX settings on at 1080p?

 

CPU: Intel Core i3-8350K

RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK8GX4M2A2666C16 8GB (2x4GB) 2666MHz DDR4

GPU: Gigabyte Radeon RX 560 16CU Gaming OC 4GB

SSD: Gigabyte UD PRO 512GB SSD

 

I know it's not a top tier rig, so I'll probably be upgrading these parts when time permits. Just needed a new rig at under $1,000 ASAP since my current one looks like it's going to die any day now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the build you plan is OK, but not at the level of the specifications required for " ... view/object distance set to 5,000 plus most of the fancy GFX settings on at 1080p..."

You can expect a nice level of FPS with view/object distance set to 3,800 with the i3-8350K and High/Very High Quality settings with some sacrifices in the Lighting and AA&PP sections with the RX 560.
I will suggest to have a look at RX 570, I have just bought a brand new Sapphire one at a bargain, under GTX 1050Ti price.
 
Since Arma3 Visual upgrade (april 2016), the game is much more GPU demanding. From my own experience, even if you can get some good visual performances from an entry level graphic card, such as the RX 550 I am still using on my entry level Ryzen bench rig, you need a GTX 1060 6GB in order to play it in Ultra graphic quality without sacrifice at 1080p.
 
If it were for me, I would wait a bit. With the release of the Ryzen 3000, there will certainly be good deals.
 
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for the feedback.

 

7 hours ago, oldbear said:

Well, the build you plan is OK, but not at the level of the specifications required for " ... view/object distance set to 5,000 plus most of the fancy GFX settings on at 1080p..."

You can expect a nice level of FPS with view/object distance set to 3,800 with the i3-8350K and High/Very High Quality settings with some sacrifices in the Lighting and AA&PP sections with the RX 560.
I will suggest to have a look at RX 570, I have just bought a brand new Sapphire one at a bargain, under GTX 1050Ti price.
 
Since Arma3 Visual upgrade (april 2016), the game is much more GPU demanding. From my own experience, even if you can get some good visual performances from an entry level graphic card, such as the RX 550 I am still using on my entry level Ryzen bench rig, you need a GTX 1060 6GB in order to play it in Ultra graphic quality without sacrifice at 1080p.
 
If it were for me, I would wait a bit. With the release of the Ryzen 3000, there will certainly be good deals.

 

Fair enough. I don't mind dropping down from 1080p or cutting off AA/PP for performance, so that's within acceptable limits. And I think I might be able to nab a deal for an RX 570 for just $20 more than the 560's current price ($179 AUD), so I'll have a look at that too.

 

Glad to know I'm not making a mistake with the CPU at least. But incidentally, why Ryzen? I thought AMD and Arma don't mix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why AMD ? Because, now, with Zen architecture AMD is able to compete.

On an entry level rig, you can play Arma3 on a R3 2200G / R3 1300X on a B350 Mobo allowing a mild OC and 3000 MHz DDR4 usage.

From my point of view , an AMD Zen based build is recommended in order to get a minimum playable rig on a budget.

I am playing it every days hours on Dev Contact Build on my bench build and enjoying it.

 

Yes, Intel is still the best performer when you play Arma3 because of it's higher boost speed.

But if you look at a build on a budget, an AMD R5 2600 on a B450 Mobo is ATM a possible option that should not be ignored.

We need to have a look at the situation after AMD Ryzen R5 3600 release.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent years regretting my choice of an AMD CPU (now resolved with my new i7-9700)... Maybe they'll work better in the future but I pretty much only play ARMA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only play Arma [since Operation Flashpoint].

 

I am playing Arma3 everyday for hours and I had build my #1 gaming rig around an i7-7700K because, I said previously Intel was still the best performer when I had built it but times are changing.

V1Xpflol.jpg

source : http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/articles/cpu-mobo-ram/37408-test-intel-z390-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k.html?start=11

 

I will say again based on my own experience with entry level CPU such as i3-4130, Pentium G3258, Pentium G4500, i3-7100, Pentium G4560, A8-9600, R3 1300X, R3 2200G, that ATM, an AMD Zen based build is recommended in order to get a minimum playable rig on a budget.

You must get that a small Zen based R3 2200G performances are +20% better than those of a Bulldozer/Piledriver based FX-8350.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@drebin052your PC system needs faster RAM. 

 

It has been proven that ARMA is RAM latency and bandwidth sensitive. 

 

I have an older i7-4790K with HT on, @ 4.5 MHZ OC all cores, with 32GB of DDR3 - 2400 - CL10 RAM. 

 

Note the CL10 rating. 

 

I use this with a 3GB - 1060 GTX and can run at Ultra settings at 1080p. Even on Tanoa I get solid 40-45 FPS online with no mods. With mods like Blastcore it drops down to 30s but it still fluid. That means very few drops down to 2X FPS.

 

I found out a few things - if you go with an Nvidia GPU, you need HT ON. It uses the CPU to do some calculates and turning HT OFF to OC the CPU only 0.1 GHZ results in less FPS. 

 

It is possible the opposite on an AMD GPU where they do all their calculations on the GPU, so no "boosting or cheating" to say.

 

But your CPU + RAM combo should be the fastest you can afford for ARMA because the game engine is very single thread, thus totally speed and latency sensitive.

 

I agree with Oldbear you can consider the new AMD Ryzen CPUs. Ryzen 3 looks to be FASTER per MHZ than Intel CPUs now, but you still need DDR4-3000 or faster RAM to get the most out of it. AMD Cpus are even more dependent on faster RAM as their memory controller works at the fastest RAM speeds.

 

So if you can afford really fast RAM, you can consider both Intel or AMD Ryzen Cpus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the RAM topic, I will say that you must have a rather different behaviour if you are building an Intel or an AMD based rig.

 

- with Intel you must simply follow the instructions of the manufacturer of the motherboard regarding the frequency of the memory modules
the suggested frequencies on the Intel specification pages are very limited [probably due to the fact that they want to avoid group actions with regard to overclocking!]

There is a real benefit to using the memory chips proposing a higher frequency within the limits dictated by the motherboard ... and your bank account 😎

 

- With AMD it's a bit more complex, because even with the new AGESA coming with the new Bios version the characteristics of the usable memories modules are at the same time more precise and extended, there are limitations to memory usage with a very high operating frequency.

It's related to the ways AMD Ryzen Infinity Fabric ticks at Memory Speed

It means that the  internal operation of the CPU is depending upon the frequency of the RAM, with a limitation which is that of the capacity of the internal interfaces to process at frequencies higher than the nominal frequency.

On a R3-2200G using the Vega 8 Graphics and therefore using Infinity Fabric, RAM working at 3000MHz is optimum, the performances drop with 2133 MHz is obvious and there is no gain with 3200MHz.

Allowing higher frequency RAM usage is one of the challenges for upcoming Ryzen 3000 and the X570 chipset.

 

@Valken +1 Arma is extremely sensitive to the quality and management of the memory, it is true that this is a point that should not be overlooked or underestimated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My game consistently drops to 1 fps / stutters when arma is installed on the SSD.

On the HDD that doesn't happen. My HDD is 1/4 the speed of my SSD.

I've been told to get faster RAM but I want that to be last resort. SSD Health is perfect.

 

OS:           WINDOWS 10 64x

SSD:         KINGSTON SUV400S37240G ATA Device

HDD:         Hitachi HDS723020BLA64 2 ATA Device

 

Monitor:    AOC G2590PX 24-inch 144Hz

Cooler:     BE QUIET! DARK ROCK PRO 4

PSU:            COOLER MASTER - MWE Gold 650W, 80 Plus Gold, 120mm LBD Fan

MB:            ASUS PRIME H270-PLUS

RAM:          2x 8GB 2400Mhz

GPU:         RTX 2060 6GB

CPU:           i5-7600 3.5GHz  (even with the bios "overclock" that puts it at 3.9Ghz)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, welcome back home 😎

 

A SSD that works in a nominal way will neither add nor subtract  FPS

The essential contribution of the SSD to Ama3  is to allow to stream textures at high speed and to fight in game stuttering.

That's the reason why a SSD is a part of the official "Recommended" Arma3 requirement since APEX release.

 

My thought is that you must get a close look at how this SSD is working ... or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some dim and distant memory of having to make sure the ssd (or the SATA interface) is running in AHCI mode to get it to work properly.

Share this post


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

I have some dim and distant memory of having to make sure the ssd (or the SATA interface) is running in AHCI mode to get it to work properly.

 

It seems like im already using AHCI

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So, if the hardware track has been cleared, you must look now at the way you manage your Steam directory.

Even if it's written that you can move easily your files from one location to an other, it's not working that way.

Based upon my own experience, Steam is not happy if you touch it's files by external methods.

Once, I had to reinstall the whole mess on a new disk even after strictly followed the method to move directories and files.

So the 1st thing to do is to Verify Integrity of Game Files

If nothing has been modified after doing this, the only solution is probably to uninstall the game, and then reinstall it after re-boot.

Before deleting, you must save somewhere, your files located in the Documents directory.

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
1 hour ago, oldbear said:

So, if the hardware track has been cleared, you must look now at the way you manage your Steam directory.

Even if it's written that you can move easily your files from one location to an other, it's not working that way.

Based upon my own experience, Steam is not happy if you touch it's files by external methods.

Once, I had to reinstall the whole mess on a new disk even after strictly followed the method to move directories and files.

So the 1st thing to do is to Verify Integrity of Game Files

If nothing has been modified after doing this, the only solution is probably to uninstall the game, and then reinstall it after re-boot.

Before deleting, you must save somewhere, your files located in the Documents directory.

 

Alright my "fix" was finding a spare SSD in my house and using that instead. Works fine

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, 4K.Scar said:

Alright my "fix" was finding a spare SSD in my house and using that instead. Works fine

So thats a confirmation you did finally fix it, no more stuttering?

 

Share this post


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

So thats a confirmation you did finally fix it, no more stuttering?

 

 

On this random SSD I found, not stutters yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 4K.Scar said:

On this random SSD I found, not stutters yet.

Nice! Cross your fingers, seems you been dealing with the stuttering issue for some time, glad Old bear and Tank Buster

could help and shine some light on the issue, why i sent you here they know their stuff! 😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i can say from my experience that some Kingston series are bad. Low speed. And i also have kingston atm and i experience some microstuttering from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Kinsgston SSD issue,  as far as I know, it a story of the past with V300 series when ...

Quote

The first generation V300 (which was sampled to media) used Toshiba's 19nm Toggle-Mode 2.0 NAND but some time ago Kingston silently switched to Micron's 20nm asynchronous NAND. The difference between the two is that the Toggle-Mode 2.0 interface in the Toshiba NAND is good for up to 200MB/s, whereas the asynchronous interface is usually good for only ~50MB/s.

 

Source : https://www.anandtech.com/show/7763/an-update-to-kingston-ssdnow-v300-a-switch-to-slower-micron-nand

 

... since 2014, Kinston seems to get back on tracks. Nevertheless, I am only an Intel/Samsung SSD user for system SSD, Crucial used only for storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway guys, what do you say about new ryzen.. im still waiting some arma benchmarks for 3900x or other ryzen cpu. I have doubts about i9 or some new ryzen.. 😄

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

×