oldbear

Well, ATM, my test rig running R5 3600X + RTX 2060 + 16 GB DDR4 TridentZ Neo 3600MHz C16 performs better than my game rig featuring i7 7700K [slightly OC] + RX 5700 + 16 GB DDR4 TridentZ 3200MHz C16. I am still waiting for Next Gen Intel for planning my gaming rig upgrade 😎

About the future config, I was speaking generically, in correct English I probably should have said "no one needs to wait", but as some have already noticed, English is not not my first language. Nonetheless, based on my own experience with my spare PC game ... CPU: i7 4970 GPU: GTX 1060 3GB RAM: 16 GB DDR3 1866 MHz SSD: 500GB [System] + 500GB [Arma *] ... the performances are at the level of an R5 2600 that I also have the opportunity to test. I see that there is a real performance gap between this Intel gen and the AMD Ryzen 2. My next focus will be on the AMD Zen3 + AMD RDNA2 combo.

@Valken You don't need to wait next Bohemia move to plan to build up your "Next PC", as a minimum it must be on As a minimum, it will have to be at the same level as the upcoming consoles. CPU : R7 3700X / i7 10700K GPU : RTX 2070 RAM : 32 GB SSD : 1To

[Off topic = ON] From my perspective, there are several trends. The first is linked to the evolution of processors confronted with the limitations of the fineness of physical engraving and the control of consumption and the temperature increases which are linked to it. The cores multiplication option which has been chosen has its own limitations because of the concerns of communications between the cores, the management of the caches memories and the need for the scheduling of the tasks. Multiplying cores is not necessarily a good option for the game, it is a problem of balance. The second is linked to the evolution of graphics cards which have more and more independent functions for the most recent cards and which allow calculations in parallel with those carried out by the CPU. The third is linked to the evolution of game engines, which will more or less know / be able to take advantage of the possibilities of the hardware, all the more so as economic rationality encourages the use of programming blocks which is not necessarily a guarantee of optimization. That's why it's interesting to look at the "Ideal Requirements" for highly anticipated games like Flying Simulator 2020 and Cyberpunk 2077. Flying Simulator 2020 : Ryzen 7 2700X - Core i7-9800X / Radeon VII - RTX 2080 Cyberpunk 2077 : Intel Core i9-9900KF CPU + 32GB RAM - NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti On the other hand, if we look at the computing power on board an Xbox Series X console, that's more than the equivalent of an R7 3700X / RX 5700XT combo. [Off topic = OFF] We don't know much about Arma's future. Just information about the work on Enfusion and the intention to make it at least equal to the best current game engines.

@cb65 From my point of view, there are at least 2 possible answers to the question ... - to play Arma3, it is not necessary to have such a powerful card, a GTX 1060 6GB or its current equivalent is perfect in order to play in 1080p. You will need a GTX 1070 or its current equivalent to display the game in 1440p, such as a GT 1660 Super or a RTX 2060. The main point being that Arma*, being CPU dependent, you need a GPU that allows the game to be displayed in its maximum graphics quality with a reduced load to avoid any risk of bottleneck. - Many sources agree to report the release, before the end of the year, of GPUs with much higher performance than current cards. There will therefore be the possibility of having opportunities both to access higher performance and to find sales on current equipment. Note : it looks like you can play other games than Arm3, then RTX 2070 Super is in my own opinion the best GPU you can get today.

Well ... Arma3 being still CPU dependent you can only expect FPS gain from the CPU reaching the highest frequency on 2/4 cores. So back to your set up ... CPU: i3 9350KF @4.8GHz MoBo: AsRock Z390 Phantom Gaming 4S GPU: MSI RX570 ARMOR MK2 OC [Stock] 8GB RAM: 16 GB (8x2) HyperX Predator @2666-13-15-15-35 SSD: Intenso 120GB ... I will suggest again to get an affordable DDR4 kit such as the Crucial Ballistix 16GB, DDR4-3600, CL16-18-18-38, as said consider 16 Go 3200 MHz C16 as the minimum. I will suggest also to get a better GPU such as the GTX 1660 as a minimum, you will gain nothing in Arma3 playing a RX 5700 or a RTX 2060. From my own tests on CanardPC french Arma3 forum : R5 3600X-RTX2060-32GB_3200-Standard 53,80 R5 3600X-RTX2060-32GB_3200-Ultra 42,92 R5 3600X-GTX970-32GB_3200-Standard 55,32 R5 3600X-GTX970-32GB_3200-Ultra 42,55 However, as future games will use ray-tracing more and more, there are 2 options: buy an "inexpensive" RTX 2060 or wait for the release of future generation NVIDIA and AMD cards at the end of the summer to make some good deal. ATM, I find AMD cards are trailing behind in games. My own experiences with the Radeon drivers for the RX 5700 make me very careful, I had waited 8 months before getting a stable GPU. Nevertheless, I am still eagerly waiting for AMD RDNA 2 upcoming GPU and featuring RT. The 1° option ... (+new Z490 mobo, +new Intel CPU 10000+ new cooler) is not so cheap and is a dead end, because of upcoming changes announced/released Q4 2020/Q1 2021.

@_WARHAWK_ here is a glimpse on my own experiences with a Ryzen 3 2200G + RX570 + 16 GB DDR4 @ 1080p

@Groove_C Please stay close to reality, the figures you offer are benchmark figures and in no way reflect the reality of the performance obtained in game. It is for this reason that for players the use of this imperfect but absolutely necessary tool that is YAAB allows us all to return to the reality of the game environment. @ _WARHAWK_ : welcome😎 I agree with Gunter Severloh about the RAM frequency. Because of the ways a Ryzen CPU works, here, you must get 3000MHz DDR4, and so far, you don't need more than 16 GB in order to play Arma3. Here the GTX 1050 Ti can be a limiting factor when the 90% GPU usage is overshoot when you try to use "Ultra" video quality for example But before you try to think about any hardware modification, it can be a help to have a look at The Old Bear method ™

Your build can allow you to play in 1920x1080 but as Arma3 is oversensitive over memory frequency and management, I will suggest you to use 16 Go 3200 MHz C16 as a minimum. Crucial Ballistix 16GB, DDR4-3600, CL16-18-18-38 @ 100 € will do the job. I will also suggest to use default 64 bit client and enable Large Page Support in the Launcher Parameters. The RX570 is a the limiting factor if you want to play over 1920x1080. Getting around 45 FP is what you can expect playing in "High/Very High" with 3200/3500 Visibility. Note-1 : As far as hardware is concerned, the "future proof" concept has a very limited lifespan 😟 Note-2 : From the strict point of Arma3 1080p gaming , a GPU the GTX 1660 level is more than enough to run along your i3, do not expect FPS gain with a RTX 2060 or a RX 5700. Note- 3 : In order to play Arma3 over 1920x1080, you will need a better CPU/GPU combo. Here, the Z390 platform shows its limitations.

@Groove_C : my source is TechPowerUp Intel Core i7-10700K Review - Unlocked and Loaded I emphasize the point because even if Intel managed to use a technology that is now outdated for the last time, with certain efficiency, it comes at a cost. It should be remembered that the TDP of 125 W displayed on the official description is in no way representative of actual consumption. As far as I am concerned, I will wait for the next generation of Intel processor featuring a new architecture and a new 7/ 10nm technology before considering upgrading my game configuration. Here and now, opting for a Ryzen 3700X or 3800X is a wise choice that allows you to build a balanced, versatile and high-level configuration.

@Groove_C An Intel i7-10700K is probably here the "King of the Hill" featuring a 5.00 GHz Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 and an 5.1 GHz Max boost. Be aware of the high energy consumption in game in the 400W range, so in order to use this CPU, you must get a high level efficient 240/280 mm water cooling, an efficient high level 700/800 W PSU and a very well ventilated pc case. I will not open a discussion on hardware prices, I will wait until the fever subsides and the containers are unloaded 🤐

@ Zagger49 : Welcome 😎 Not a bad build, nevertheless, I will prefer an AMD build, based on a R7 3700X, less efficient in my most favorite game, it is clearly more versatile and its AM4 platform, still has possibilities of evolution.

Welcome! I'm sorry to say that it is not possible to consider playing Arma3 with this PC. The gap between the specifications of this Aspire TC-260 and the minimum required is too great. I order to get an enjoyable gaming experience on a regular basis above 30 FPS with Arma3 APEX, you should consider a configuration like this one ... CPU : Ryzen R5 1600AF MoBo : B450 RAM : 16 GB (2x8GB) 3000 MHz GPU : RX 570 -if still available- or GTX 1650 SSD : 500 GB SATA (Windows+Arma3)

Standard Intel i7-9700K seems to runs @ 3.60 GHz / 4.90 GHz Turbo maxi so this one was overclocked. It would be better to say this before presenting the results. Too bad we haven't standard i7-9700K results while running a Standard YAAB test.

@123golden Welcome our Armaverse forums 😎 There is no simple answer to the question. It would be nice to give us more information on what you are looking for, especially the budget conditions and other uses for this PC.

@ nicklomas : Welcome in our Armaverse. I don't know what is your knowledge of Arma3 game engine specific aspects. Here, due to the ways the RVEngine works, the CPU is the boss even since APEX release, the graphics card does more than figuration. So you must consider the real power of the Intel® Core™ i7-9750H Processor rather than its marketing designation. With 6 cores / 12 threads @ 2.60 GHz and Max Turbo @ 4.50 GHz this CPU is at the level of an i5-9400 or an R5 2600 It's a good basic CPU to play Arma3, but it will be necessary to take into account the performance of the processor for the settings and the mission editing. So first , you must works on your settings ... have a look at The Old Bear method ™ Then, run some YAAB test missions in Ultra, Standard and your custom settings so you will get what you can really expect in game. Then learn the many ways, we, all the veteran missions makers works to make playable the unplayable. Having 120 groups potentially on the map but only a few present and visible around the player, modify clutters and objects display to speak only of the simplest things. But that an other story to be told elsewhere 😎 Note about YAAB : you can get a look at some interesting results and discussion on the Yet Another Arma Benchmark release thread on our BI Forums!

I too have been using this cooling scheme for over 12 years with all the different cases I have used, in large cases such as Antec Twelve Hundred, CM HAF 932 with lots of ventilation possibilities, as the obvious solution . Yes, indeed, it works, and that seems obvious and it is for this reason that I said that it was "somewhat simplistic preconceptions". For 12 years the main source of heating in a PC has become the graphics card and while there are standard very efficient cooling systems for the CPU, the most common solution for graphics cards is a multiplication of fans and an excessive extension of GPU cooling solutions. These solutions are effective in themselves but in a closed case they lead to circulating more or less hot air which affects the cooling of the whole. The only solution that really blows the air out of the box is the blower system. But using only one fan at high speed this system is noisy and less efficient than 2/3 fans current GPU coolers. With the evolution towards more and more powerful graphics cards and keeping this design, it will become obvious that the graphics card watercooling is the only solution. My question is whether we should not reconsider everything including with less obvious options

Well, ... have a look at The Old Bear method ™ 😎 As I have previously said : Arma3 is 100% CPU dependant, from Arma3 point of view, your R5 1500 X is at the same level as a R3 1300X, with such a CPU you can play in the 30 FPS range in SP. If you are getting less than 20 FPS in MP, it's all related to the server performances your are to play on. Quickly, in accordance with the APEX standard, I will suggest you to use "Very High" presets and to disable all the bloom and blurs in order to get a sharper image on screen.

Welcome ! It has nothing to do with your GPU. Arma3 is 100% CPU dependant, from Arma3 point of view, your R5 1500 X is at the same level as a R3 1300X, with such a CPU you can play in the 30 FPS range in SP. If you are getting less than 20 FPS in MP, it's all related to the server performances your are to play on. Nevertheless, i will suggest you to discuss this subject on the Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications? dedicated thread 😎

The idea of Groove_C deserves an in-depth examination, based on tests rather than on somewhat simplistic preconceptions. Having a fresh air intake as close as possible to the CPU seems to me a very good idea, it was the concept that had led Intel to create the BTX motherboard format. The slightly too idyllic images of the classic solution neglects the large flow of hot air ejected from all sides by the graphics card, of which only the negligible part is ejected from the rear. Reality is closer to that ... ... with this solution, the air which must cool CPU, VRM and RAM is always, more or less, hot air.

Gaming mouse : After using many brands of gaming mice, i bought a Logitech MX 518, 10 years ago, the clicks got a little soft but the animal still does the job. Commonly, for everyday play, I use a Logitech G502 Hero which by its weight, its shape, its grip corresponds well to my style of play. I treat my mouse like a weapon, I clean it regularly, I get rid of the dust pads and I check that no obstacle exists in front of the sensor. Water cooling : From experience, I returned to air cooling. I tried water cooling, my current analysis is that it is a false good idea for a personal computer. In one of the companies where I worked, a long time ago, we used liquid cooling on our mainframe, the gain in place in the room was enormous, but the cooling device 4 stages higher was monumental. Anyway, in the end it was very effective. Much later, I tried water cooling with an AIO Corsair on my gaming PC. The results were very mixed, it works but ... - it was not silent, in fact more noisy than the Noctua it replaces - it was no more efficient than the Noctua it replaces - it need air cooling of the socket/VRM area In the end, we're probably on the wrong track by concentrating our efforts on cooling the processor. It is the graphics card that is currently the real hot spot. From my point of view, these too long cooling solutions that disperse hot air throughout the case "sont un cautère sur une jambe de bois" ... a band aid on a prosthetic leg.

@Chimere As I have said previously, from my point of view, your scores looks OK, at the level expected for an i7 8700K powered Arma3 rig. Anyway whatever you do, due to the limitations of the Arma3 engine, in-game performance will be limited. Keep what you have and just enjoy playing 😎

What we have to keep in mind when we talk about hardware in order to play Arma3 is that the game is CPU dependent, which must have a CPU with the highest frequency always available, that the game is particularly sensitive to memory management and that the higher compatible frequency is the better, that the game requires a system allowing the streaming of textures so you have to have a very fast disc, that since the Visual Upgrade, the power of the GPU must be really taken into account.

Min FPS drops in Arma3 are related to the ways the game engine is working. Even with a high end rig, you will get those. Your Arma3 FPS level is OK so unless you get some xtra money allowing you to bought a rig such as the one played by Reezo, enjoy yours as it is 😎

Welcome Chimere. From my point of view, your scores looks OK, at the level expected for an i7 8700K powered Arma3 rig.