forteh
-
Content Count
275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by forteh
-
-
The same as everyone else in the server as that will be limiting fps when push comes to shove, in open ground away from the cities you should be seeing around 50 to 70 I guess, but in a city firefight expect 20 to 30. As it's a non k processor your core speed will be the bottleneck.
-
Yes, when overclocked the clocks will all be at 4.5ghz, but at stock speeds the processor will only be running at 3.6ghz. In my opinion turbo is a marketing gimmick because windows will unload cycles to unused cores, as soon as the core is used it drops the turbo speed even if it is only 1% usage on the spare core.
-
Don't forget that turbo speeds are only attained when certain numbers of cores are utilised. On the 6600k when only one core is used it runs at 3.9ghz, two cores active it's 3.8ghz and all four cores active it's only 3.6ghz. As arma3 does utilise quad cores then your processor will only by running at 4 x 3.6ghz. When you overclock you should have turbo disabled so you get 4 x 4.5ghz naturally.
-
Hey guys, I have i3 530 and my game gets unfixable lagg few minutes into the gameplay...is that my processor? I want to buy Intel Core i7-870 (4x 2.93GHz) for my asrock 1156 p55....Will the game run normally then? Thank you for the answers :)
The i3 530 is only a dual core and whilst it overclocks like a beast ( mine ran at 4.7ghz quite happily) it just doesn't have the horsepower to drive arma3 unfortunately.
Your best upgrade would be to pick up a sandybridge processor and motherboard, I paid £130 for my 2500k and Asus p67 sabretooth which when overclocked to 4.5ghz gives almost compatible performance in arma3 to any Intel processor released since.
Your cheapest upgrade would be to find an i5 750 and overclock it to 4+ ghz. As a straight plug in on a p55 board you should see almost double the performance and with careful choice of settings arma3 is very playable.
I followed the i3 530 - i5 750 path and only upgraded further to the 2500k because I got it at the right price. The 750 is simplest and cheapest upgrade, the 2500k is undoubtedly better though. I wouldn't bother with the i7 it will play arma3 no faster than the i5.
edit: how much ram have you got and are you running on an SSD? If you only have 4gb ram you're going to be hitting the page file very, very quickly with arma3 - this will then thrash the hard disk and cause horriffic lag. Not such an issue on an SSD as they can read/write the page file far quicker. I would say that 8gb would be the minimum really for arma3, I regularly see 6gb total ram usage in singleplayer.
-
You should be much higher than 60 in the helo benchmark, you haven't got vsync turned on have you?
Assuming you don't have vsync on the overclocked results aren't as high as expected, jumping from 3.5 to 4.5 gives almost 30% more for me compared to less than 10% for you.
-
I've upgraded my machine and performance has increased by over 100% since having arma3 so any perceived fps loss has not been apparent :)
-
I suspect it's the ram that is helping keep the speed up, switching from 1600mhz to 2133mhz was a big jump to the tune of around 20-30% increase on the helo benchmark; I never benched using YAAB with the slower ram but it is a well known peice of the puzzle of getting arma3 to run well.
I clocked my cpu back to 3.5ghz (stock 6600k speed) and got 30.8fps on YAAB, clocked it up to 4.7Ghz and got 39.5fps, both on high preset and with 2133mhz ram; so yes skylake is faster to the tune of 30% at stock speeds on YAAB. However for the cost I'll stick to the 2500k as mp performance is still going to be on the floor :D
For reference I get around 68-70fps on the helo benchmark on high settings.
-
I find opentrack works exceptionally well with arma3, using a 3point ir clip and ps3eye. Development work on it over the last year has been susbstantial and it is getting better all the time :)
-
Swap the ram it for 2133 or faster if you can, it helps the engine unlock a good chunk of cpu performance at that sort of clock speed.
The rest looks good although if you're building it specifically to play arma3@1080p then a gtx660 pushes it along just fine, triple monitor would need more grunt though. Probably best to ask on the ocuk forums about the psu, as long as you don't scrimp on it you should be good :)
edit: if you don't mind buying second hand then a 2500k @ 4.5 plays it fine, if anything just as well as any newer Intel cpu.
-
Just benchmarked my 2500k on YAAB and got 38.6fps on high default setting, gpu was thrashing 99% for a lot of it though.
I also ran it through with my preferred settings and got 37fps, gpu usage is around 80%.
1920x1080
Sampling 100%
Texture Very High
Objects Very High
Terrain Very High
Shadow Very High
Particles High
Cloud Very High
PiP Standard
HDR Standard
Dyynamic Lights Very High
Overall Visibility 2250
Object Visibility 2250
Shadow Visibility 100
Bloom Off
Raidal Blur Off
Rotation Blur Off
Depth of Field Off
Sharpen Filter Off
AO Disabled
Caustics Enabled
FSAA 4x
ATOC All trees + grass
PPAA SMAA ultra
Anisotropic Filtering Ultra
System is: -
i5 2500k @4.5ghz
16gig - 2100mhz 11-11-11-31-2T
gtx660
cruicial mx100 ssd
-
Have you recently defragged the hard disk arma is installed on and have you verified the game cache in steam? Possibly try creating a new profile and seeing if it still happens.
-
Apologies for the late response but I guess there is something up with either the config of your machine or arma3 if you're not using ram.
On single player I regularly see over 5gb total ram usage in afterburner, cpu cores are all working (about 80/50/40/40 % split) and gpu around 75% load. I have high/very high settings and 2250/2250 view distances.
My page file is set to 800mb and is barely used, when I had 8gb windows would occasionally flag up a low memory message when it went over 6gb usage, now I have 16gb it never happens.
-
i dont want to invest in a old platform after spending 8 years on my last one, i allready have a 1151 board and ddr4 btw :)
update: the i3s popped up in stores this minute (was like f5ing this morning :v ), i assume the prices will now drop for a period of 4 weeks, so if anybody has some definite information on wether 2 cores with hyperthreadding on 3,9ghz and the latest IPC performance (plus 3000mhz Rams) will do a decent job or not, feel free to share.
E.g. what would be the effect of 2 cores 4 threads 4mb l3 cache in compairsion to the i5 4 cores 4 threads 6mb l3 cache in therms of absolute average performance in arma? is it worth 100-150€?
Fair shout :)
In my opinion yes it's worth the extra money, as much as people whinge and moan about arma3s multicore support, it does use 4 cores (although it doesn't load them all up 100%) and two cores will get overwhelmed because hyperthreading relies on there being spare cycles on the logical cores. Even if you consider a generous 50% IPC increase from 1st to 6th gen i3 processors that would give around 45-50 fps in the altis benchmark basing it on my hours of testing with the i3 530@4.7ghz. The 2500k at stock 3.2ghz outperformed the overclocked i3, the extra cores and increased cache is where it comes from.
On a side note, I also use my machine for solidworks (notoriously single threaded because of how solid modellers are written) where single core speed if generally king, again the i5 trounces the old i3 by a good margin, it's only loading up one core but it is just lacking.
-
Or just buy a 2500k/3570k/4670k, save a bucket of cash and gloat over the fact you have a machine that plays arma just as well* as a 6700k :D
*dropping down to 25 fps in kavala when the server can't keep up!
-
but consider its 6th gen not first gen and has hyperthreading?
The 530 is hyperthreading, unfortunately there just isn't the same IPC horsepower to drive arma3; the hyperthreading takes spare cycles from the two logical cores and unloads them to two virtual cores, however the i3 (being a office machine / desktop marketed cpu) just cannot process the information quickly enough and gets bogged down. I would imagine that 6th gen will give a boost but nothing compared to an i5/i7 of any generation.
From my i3 530 I upgraded to an i5 750 (same motherboard so just a cpu plug in for £40) and that was significantly faster than the i3 to the tune of about 15-20 fps on the benchmark and it made it completely playable, I upgraded to the 2500k because it came at a very good price with the motherboard and processor. From my experience an i7 is wasted on arma3, a sandybridge onwards i5 with a decent overclock and fast ram is the sweetspot. On my 2500k and gtx660 I generally see cpu core load at around 80/60/40/40% and gpu load at 75-80%, this is with 2250/2250 view distance and all settings on high or very high.
-
A dual core processor just isn't up to playing arma unfortunately. When I first got the game I had an i3 530 running at 4.7ghz and it would pull around 35 fps on the altis benchmark. My i5 2500k @ 4.5ghz pulls 70 fps on the same benchmark with much higher settings. In reality this equates to around 50-60 fps in the single player campaign with a mixture of high and very high settings.
Granted it's a much later generation processor and architecture but there is a reason why it's so much cheaper - it has so much less grunt.
-
I bound z+ and z- to throttle, so jea.
Try just binding one of then and see if it helps :)
This interesting, thank you for it.
One question - does the same apply to the helicopter collective?
I believe all axis mapping is the same.
-
Have you bound both positive and negative in-game axis to a single physical axis? It's counter intrusive but if you bind increase and decrease throttle to "z axis +" and "x axis -" respectively it gives the response you're getting. Bind increase and decrease onto either "z axis +" or "z axis -" and it should work.
Also if you have a split throttle (like on the thrustmaster warthog) make sure you only bind the throttle to one of the axis because arma3 shares the axis range across all controllers bound to it if that makes sense. If two analogue axis are bound to the same control each one will control only50% of the movement.
-
1
-
-
I've not got any more comparison data in afraid, this was based purely on the altis benchmark results. If I get time I'll put together a quick scenario of 100ai fighting each other and then compare the typical fps with the ram running at 1600 and 2133.
It's definitely not a placebo unless msi afterburner is susceptible to placebos?
Running a ram disk would be even faster, I tested one a good while a go on 1600mhz and it garnered a very substantial speed increase, this was with my old i5 750 not my current 2500k so the apparent bottleneck might be less now. If I get time I'll set up the ram disk again and retest the same scenario.
-
A minimum of 40 fps on multiplayer is not going to happen on heavily populated servers, at times you'll get a lot more but you have to accept that at times and at certain places on the map the fps is going to dive.
Your system will play arma3 as well as any other, if you haven't overclocked the cpu then do so; 2133+mhz ram also helps to unlock performance.
Run the altis benchmark and see what average fps you get, adjust your settings till you get the quality/performance you desire. This will give a rough indication of what fps to expect in single player, multiplayer fps is still limited by the server so if you're always getting far lower than you would expect then try a different server/mission.
-
I have a 120gb ssd and a 1tb hdd, I have Windows, arma3 and solidworks on the ssd with steam and all other major programs installed on the hdd. No issues with space on the ssd, got around 50gb free still but I'm not planning on any other major installs on it.
For performance you absolutely want arma3 installed on the ssd, just create a separate steam library if you're concerned about your other steam libraries taking up too much space.
-
Guessing it's a typo and he's got an i7 920. The 820 only supports 8gb ram and is only 1.73ghz.
The 920 won't be turbo boosting up to 2.93 in arma3 so likely running base clock of 2.66. Overclock it and you will unlock a good performance increase, make sure your cooling and psu are adequate though.
-
What if slower clocked RAM is mixed with 2133 MHz RAM?I have "EKL Alpenföhn Matterhorn" fan, I hope that's enough cooling... will see.
I don't think that's going to work, I believe all of the ram will run at the slowest speed of the installed sticks. If you can't stretch to 16gb 2133mhz get 8gb and possibly another 8 at a later date.
I have never seen more than 5-6gb ram usage whilst playing arma3 so eight will generally suffice. I only upgraded to 16gb because I use solidworks on my machine and 8gb is nowhere near enough!
-
I can second the 2133 mhz ram boosting fps in altis benchmark, my average fps went up by around 20% from 61-74, that's with an i5 2500k @ 4.5ghz, gtx660, 16gb 2133mhz and an ssd. Keep the cpu, invest in decent air cooling (I use a thermalright truespirit140bw and it doesn't get above 63°C when stress testing and push that overclock up :)
Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications?
in ARMA 3 - GENERAL
Posted
edit: for reference I can run an 80+ Ai firefight free for all in a city using my 2500k@4.5ghz and the minimum fps is around 24, this is on very high settings with a gtx660.