ambushlead

I am curious as to what kind of CPU could actually run Arma at decent frames. Arma's demand for the power of only one CPU core is outrageous! I think the engine needs to spread the load evenly on all cores, if only they did it at the start!

Yes constantly he won't, but you didn't write constantly in your previous post. I assumed you meant, he won't reach 60 fps at all. ---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:31 ---------- Ya 1000 seems reasonable for Infantry and vehicles. Flying at that render distance will feel like crap tho.

Whats your view distance? I highly doubt you are running Ultra view overall and object distance at max or ultra, or even very high and getting those frames.

My evidence of CPU bottleneck: My GPU load doesn't ever get to 100%, when I run Heaven benchmark maxed out, it's a average of 40 fps and my GPU Usage is 100%. When I run Arma 3, my GPU usage is only 60% at most and on average about 40 fps. Changing any video settings related only to GPU has zero effect on my FPS. Only the video settings that relate to CPU improve my FPS when lowered such as Object and Terrain distance rendering. Here is a video of someone with GTX 980 SLI, the best GPU setup you could get right now for Duo SLI. He has the same CPU as me and he only get's 40 FPS on average as well at the same resolution which I also run at 1440p. Just watch his video, and notice that his CPU 0 is running at 70 to 80% while the rest of his CPU's are around 25% and fluctuate in small amounts. His GPU's average around 50%. I don't even have SLI and I get the same performance he does. Having more cores for a CPU won't do anything, in fact, it might actually be worse for Arma 3.

Well that makes sense, The speed of the Ram would matter more when the Arma overloads the main CPU and that CPU can use more ram to do more tasks. I think he should be fine tho if he is only aiming for 1080p. I play at 1440p, and my system can't even get perfect 60fps all the time. I might have to overclock my CPU just for Arma. I wish I wouldn't have to, if Arma spread the work around multiple cores more. I think BIS should of spent more time optimizing the engine after Arma 2 rather than start development on Arma 3.

Ya he will, 60 fps on 1080p is nothing with that set up. Arma is mostly bottlenecked at the CPU, my afterburner results show that CPU one is usually running around 80-90% when arma is running and the rest of the cores around 10-20% Ram isnt very important for Arma. It uses only 2 - 3 GB. And tests have shown that the type of Ram hardly makes a difference for gaming, might be like half a FPS difference between speeds of Ram.

The Sharpen filter for me has to be turned on 150-200. It's the only way I can spot enemies at far distances.

Lol you forgot to add the update info in your text file readme.

I don't think having more cores will be good for gaming, most games don't use more than 2 cores, and Arma uses mostly one core for everything and offloads a little bit to the rest. PC Gamer did a article on the best CPU for gaming about 1 month ago. http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-pc-gaming-cpus-processors/ It should help you figure out what will be good within your budget.

Just make sure you buy a big case for your PC. When you go to your second GPU, you can install some kind of cooling system and overclock your CPU at that point. That's what I usually do. Except, I'm probaly gonna skip on buying another Titan for SLI as AMD actually stepped up their game and made Nvidia release much better GPU's.

Sorry, I'm not entirely understanding it still. Can you explain to me how adjustments to the AI SKILL and AI ACCURACY relate to the code?

Why buy the i7-4790 when you can get the i7-4790k for 30 dollars more and get much better CPU? It also has unlocking potential for overclocking. Honestly, if you just play videogames, a I5 is sufficient, the I5-4690k which LSD_Timewarp82 recommended is a good choice. But if you really insist on a I7, get the K version. The i7-4790 is pretty much the same as my 3770k. http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/517/Intel_Core_i7_i7-3770K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-4790.html My advice is always get K versions of CPU. Also, in my opinion, after market cooling is not necessary unless you plan on overclocking. If you don't plan on overclocking at all, save that money to get a better CPU or GPU.

DragonFyre is the most impressive sound mod I've heard for any game. In my opinion, you could probably get hired doing sounds for various video-game companies if you showed them a comparison video of original and your mod. I can understand how you feel. I dislike a lot of design choices BIS has decided. In my opinion, I wish Arma 3's base game was more like Arma 2's Ace. But then again mods always seem better than the base game. Perhaps if you got hired and made content, someone else would come along and create a mod of your work and make your stuff look rookie, lol.

I think you misunderstood me. The gunshots are great in this preview. I'm just saying that JSRS also adds more sounds for things that are not gunshots like trampling of grass which isnt there in vanilla. The only thing I dislike about JSRS are some things like the NATO MX gunshots which sound like a airsoft rifle when you hear it fire from 3rd person at certain angles.

To help you get a better idea I have a 3770k no OC, GTX titan 6GB vram, 16 GB ram. And I run Arma 3 on Ultra at 1440p at 40-60 fps. If you are planning on 1080p, you should be fine with something similar, a 780ti would be fine, but then again. You should get the 900 series as they have full DX12 function. If you want a even better CPU than the ones shown during that test, get the i7-4790k. It runs at Base Clock Frequency of 4.0 GHz. Mine only runs at 3.5 GHz