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

[Horus 83]

21 hours ago, oldbear said:

@ Horus : why not ? If you do not intend to OC your PC...

 ... but have you get a look at the cost ?

Price is keyword because no one will throw money on K CPU and don't intend to OC. Is better then invest in better GPU, larger SSD or more RAM.

[Firebird-B4L 51]

Haven't pulled the trigger on a new gaming rig yet.  Trying to get caught up again.  Is the Coffee Lake still the best CPU to get for Arma 3?  

[oldbear 390]

If you can get your hand on an Core i7 8700K and if you are OK to spend a lot on an expensive Z370 MoBo, of course you will get a nice base for an Arm3 gaming rig.

The i3-8350K is probably an interesting asset at i5-7600K level.

But the previous "Gen" i7-7700K is still good.

[calin_banc 19]

There's no need for 8700k (6c/12), just get the i5 8600k (6c) and invest the rest of the money into faster RAM.

[oldbear 390]

Of course, as said, if there is no need for expensive and rare stuff, get an i7-7700K and a minimum Z270 MoBo and use the difference to get 3000MHz DDR4.

[Gunter Severloh 3948]

4 hours ago, romille1 said:

Haven't pulled the trigger on a new gaming rig yet.  Trying to get caught up again.  Is the Coffee Lake still the best CPU to get for Arma 3?  

I bought it based on what oldbear suggested and this http://techreport.com/review/31179/intel-core-i7-7700k-kaby-lake-cpu-reviewed/11

look at my specs in my sig, with those, i get 80+ FPS max settings, its about what you can afford, dont settle for less imo, and also as he suggested

"use the difference to get 3000MHz DDR4"

for the ram get as much ram with a high frequency it makes a serious difference!

[Firebird-B4L 51]

Thanks for the guidance guys.  That was the information I was looking for.

[commando180 15]

So as of today what is the best spec for arma 3? Like what is the best rig that will run arma 3 4k at an acceptable framerate?? Cpu wise i5 8600k or i7 8700k? obviously the best gpu currently is the 1080ti. Does anyone use SLI/Crossfire anymore or is there no point in it ? I doubt arma 3 uses 2 gpus effectively anyway.

I have a hard time with 8gb as arma 3 uses up pretty much everything now on 64 bit. Why would high frequency ram help with arma 3? Would an M2 SSD make any difference than a regular SSD, or is this hardly noticeable?

[Valken 621]

I've been playing in sandbox mode with tons of mods and even though I'm at 4.4 GHZ with 2400 MHZ DDR3, I do get the itch to upgrade when it slows down due to too many AI.

 

For those who need the best of what is available, an Intel I7-7700K or 8600K DELIDDED running at 5 GHZ with the fastest ram you can afford and ARMA on a SSD would be ideal. The GPU can be a bog 1060 GTX for 1080 with 8xAA cranked up. I think a 1080 or 1070 Ti, or VEGA would be more than enough unless you want to play at 4K.  It needs a FAST CPU, the faster the better.

 

I had ARMA on a FAST SATA SSD then moved the files to a slightly slower but bigger SSD (1 GB Intel) and there is no difference for me. But I have 32 GB of ram to cache as much as possible so that helps. I doubt the M2 would make a difference.

 

The money would be better spent on the best CPU and more, fastest RAM you can afford. And get a bigger SSD to hold all the mods... I have 300 GB of mods now for ARMA 3. My ARMA 2 CO install is nearly the same!!

 

For 64 Bit, I am using 32 GB and I find it perfect because  even at 16 GB with 64 Bit ARMA, you can run out of of RAM if your HD gets full and the swap files shrinks. With 32 GB, there would be more than enough for ARMA 3 even with a lot of mods.

[oldbear 390]

It is a bit difficult to know which is the best configuration to play Arma3.

 

IRL, It's probably something such as :

CPU - Intel Core i7-7700K
GPU - GTX 1080
Hard drive - 500gb SSD
Ram - 16 GB-3000MHz

Mobo -  Z270
PSU - 550/600w
OS - Win 10 64bit

 

ATM, the Intel Core i7-8700K looks like a "dream processor" not really available, and the needed Z370 is over expensive.

The i7-7740 performed all around the results delivered by the Core i7 7700K on a more expensive X299 board.

 

A single GPU is needed, Arma* engine don't like much SLI/Crossfire.

A GTX 1060 6 GB is enough in order to play without limitation

As next-gen GTX is upcoming, I will suggest to think twice before buying the most expensive kind, perhaps a single GTX 1070Ti will be the best choice.

 

A SSD for Windows10 64 and Arma3 is a must have. Do not wait for an increase in FPS but a fast and efficient disk helps to get rid of stuttering and texture clipping issues.

 

It seems that there is no real gain to go over 3200MHz DDR4.

Nevertheless, nice gains from 2400 MHz to 3000 MHz.

With Arma3 64 bit client it seems the 8 GB is the minimum to get.

But It looks like the game engine tends to use all the available RAM.

... 64 GB DDR4 seems a bit expensive ATM to make some experiments on the topic ...

Edited November 12, 2017 by oldbear
Being an old animal

[Gunter Severloh 3948]

Lol looks like my specs Old Bear ;)

Got to tell you guys a friend on steam were talking about specs and he wants to upgrade soon, and was looking at various parts, so he was asking about mine since i posted mine on my steam profile,

and asked me if i can do a test for him to see what kinda of fps i get, and to see where my memory was at because his memory was at 75% when he went to taskmanager.

So i ran the test on his request, he suggested a test of 200 ai on Tanoa map, as he said for him he gets 5fps.

 

What i did is place 13 squads of 8 soldiers for both independent, and bluefor, i had placed them on Tanoa on the island where its an airfield, squad were about 300m from each other so from the start of the mission they started firing.

i let the fight go for about a couple min as i had each squad both sides get closer as they had waypoints to do so, i went to my vid settings, looked at the fps and it was at 70, and didn't move!

I did a more demanding test, this time i moved the squads to Georgetown which is the large island and the biggest city, did the same, and the fps was flipping back and forth at 56/57.

 

I looked at my memory on taskmanager and it was at 24%, i dont think thats accurate because you going from desktop to game so the machine is changing its process based on the application, at least i think so.

Anyways he told me he had DDR3 8gb ram at 1600mhz, cpu was a ....i7 400k i think he said, and he had a gtx 970 and running on an SSD, i told him part of your issue is a combination

of your cpu, ram, and gpu, ram here is mostly the weakest.

     Well not to beat the drum again but im happy with my specs, and with Old bears helpful information and insight and knowledge of the game, my arma3 gaming as exceeded what im used too.

Im going to post this link again since its also very informative and in tune with what Old bear is talking about:

http://techreport.com/review/31179/intel-core-i7-7700k-kaby-lake-cpu-reviewed/11

 

[Tankbuster 1733]

@Gunter Severloh my experience with DDR4 is similar to yours. I'm seriously considering promoting RAM speed and type above SSD in my ranking of "what makes Arma run better"

[Groove_C 267]

Screens from Techspot review for G.Skill Trident Z 4000MHz from 23.05.2016

 

@ i7-6700K 4.5 GHz | GTX 980 Ti SLi | Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512 GB

 

 

 

@ i7-6700K 4.5 GHz | 16 GB 3000 MHz | Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512 GB

 

GTX 1080 1080p vs. 1440p

GTX 1060 1080p vs. 1440p

[oldbear 390]

ATM, I am playing G.Skill TridentZ 2x8 GB 3200 MHz.

From my own experience, 16 GB (2x8GB] 3000 MHz is a must have in order to play Arma3.

 

This game is still hugely CPU dependent, still HD hungry,  GPU demanding since last year and now RAM voracious ...

[Groove_C 267]

Also vRAM!

With everything @ Ultra and not even 1080p (I have 1680x1050p) with viewdistance @ 3km rolling with a tank in the editor @ Altis 6 GB vRAM of my GTX 1060 are full after not even 20 minutes.

 

Will buy something like GTX 1070 performancewise next year with 8 GB vRAM + 1440p monitor.

[Gunter Severloh 3948]

3 hours ago, Tankbuster said:

@Gunter Severloh my experience with DDR4 is similar to yours. I'm seriously considering promoting RAM speed and type above SSD in my ranking of "what makes Arma run better"

Nice, i agree, makes a tremendous difference!

 

Wiki/Reference

Should make a go to reference or wiki of some sort to list the demands of the game and then list the various specs in their families and what type of performance and fps one can expect.

People new to arma3 that are planning to get into the game like we are, or at least want the best experience and are looking for a machine to buy or build need a good go to reference rather

then have to ask 20 questions on this thread and get the same answers, or sift through the various posts.

 

Seriously it would save a tremendous amount of time if people knew what will work, then we wont get misc threads popping up asking will this work or that work ect,.

Keep it simple and efficient, and details bake the cake, dont list specs to a new guy who hasn't a clue what any of it means, why there should be a faq along with it where

it says its recommended based on experience to get this part or these specs, or this or that because arma3 renders or process this and so forth,

and then provide examples, with pictures and even videos.

 

In a way i find forums rather stupid place to have information for stuff, unless the first post is a useful reference, which is updated and people can ask questions but to give you an example, back when i created

my mod COWarMod, i have a thread for it, everytime someone asked a question about the mod, how to do this or that, or i have this issue or that issue ect,. i took that question and my

answer and put it into a wiki faq with a drop down slider with the question being like a spoiler and the arrow to open the spoiler being the answer.

I'd show you what i created on my website for my mod but the stupid page dont want to open, wtf

 

So what you guys think, or do i need to explain and or give more examples?

 

[oldbear 390]

18 hours ago, Groove_C said:

Also vRAM!

 

Could you tell us what tank you were using to get this ?

I am looking for proofs/clues around memory usage and leaks.

 

I have no such experience playing vanilla infantry fight.

I just played for 4 hrs my "2vs1" test mission*

High RAM and virtual memory usage and rather high but stable  vRAM usage.

 

 

Does it mean we must get 4 GB vRAM when when play Arma3 on 1080p ?

 

Edit : in the evening I have played a Coop with my Clan, I get a stable but rather high vRAM usage at 5.8 GB.

 

 

* "2vs1" test mission is a vanilla mission I first build in order to get a kind of standard mission for my own tests well before I knew about YAAB.

It's a vanilla mission featuring an AAF vs FIA over the control of Pyrgos.

So it's a huge infantry battle with AI spawning on both side.

It can run for hours ... max time for the time being  24 h on my testing rig.

But it's also a SP/MP  mission ... with Farrook revive Dev parameters, the Team leader can revive his AI soldiers.

 

 

[Groove_C 267]

15 hours ago, oldbear said:

Edit : in the evening I have played a Coop with my Clan, I get a stable but rather high vRAM usage at 5.8 GB.

I don't remember which GPU and resolution you have, GTX1060 @ 1050p? If yes, than your vRAM is full :-)

Imagine vRAM usage @ 1440p or 2160p )))

 

Before 64 bit update vRAM usage with my GTX 1060 @ 1050p Ultra was 3.8 GB.

 

When vRAM is full, you can have (micro)lags (even if fps is high) when some textures (buildings, objects, vegetation) that are already loaded in vRAM have to be unloaded to free up memory for new textures to load.

Even fps drop is possible due to this unloading/loading.

[oldbear 390]

5 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

GTX1060 @ 1050p? If yes, than your vRAM is full :-)

 

That not an answer to the question I was asking.

From what you said "...6 GB vRAM of my GTX 1060 are full after not even 20 minutes ..." it seems that vRAM usage was an dynamic and growing  process on a solo run on Editor.

In this Coop mission, on my gaming rig *, I found evidence of a rather high but stable vRAM usage.

On the same rig, I get 3.8 GB vRAM usage on my "2vs1" involving around 200 AIs fighting in Pyrgos from the start and even after 4 hours, AIs spawning triggered in order to get a stable population.

 

*gaming rig : i7-7700K/GTX 1060 6 GB/16 GB 3200MHz/SSD M.2 SATA [W10 64] - SSD M.2 NVNe [Arma 64]/ 1080p-144Hz

[Valken 621]

I am using a 1060 3GB GTX. I skimped because I was actually saving for Vega but given the lack of supplies, I have to stay with this for now. I have no issues maintaining good FPS even with 8xAA on Tanoa unless I get bogged down with AI or scripting load.

[Groove_C 267]

vRAM usage is dynamic and growing  process for sure - it can't be stable directly from the start.

I suspect that you had A3 already launched and maybe already done something inside so a lot of textures were already loaded, that's why when you've entered the mission you've payled with your clan the vRAM usage was stable.

 

Anyway, I think I'll upgrade to 8 GB vRAM next year.

[oldbear 390]

On 13/11/2017 at 4:11 PM, Gunter Severloh said:

Wiki/Reference

 

Yes, you are right.

There is something to be done but I don't know how.

I have done something like that on the French  jeuxvideo.com Arma3 forums well before I was promoted Moderator.

I have set 2 topics on a sub-forum about hardware , one about the hardware needed to play Arma3 and the other one promoting the "Bear method" , some hints about how to set the game parameters.

So each time we are getting a new question about hardware, the first answer can be to suggest to get a look at those topics working as a FAQ.

From my point of view, there are many problems unsolved doing so ... even if I am an experienced OFP/Arma veteran with some good knowledge about how Arma Engine is working, even if I have some modding experience, even if I published a lot about my own tests, I am no expert, no Arma guru, just an armavangelist.

So many questions stay without an answer such as the "RAM mystery"  ...

 

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by oldbear
Being an experienced noob

[Gunter Severloh 3948]

Good points oldbear, but i think it can work if we had a faq or something because we have alot of questions here, and alot of factual answers that we need to research, compile ect,. which is what i like to do.

We do have a good general knowledge of the workings of the arma engine, and what specs are responding how to it, you know my experience already and im sure alot of others here,

so every person's experience here in the game with their specs has valuable knowledge and workings of their machine.

 

Really people could just refer to this ---> https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri

and get an idea if their machine or would be machine could be run, some details in that are missing imo but its a start.

[oldbear 390]

Well, here you can see why it will be very difficult to set up a FAQ.

We all are speaking about our own experience, not from an official or technical authority point of view.

 

Let say that from my point of view "Can I Run It?" is not a good option.

It's based upon the comparison between official requirements and the user PC specs.

We all know that the official requirements are a bit underestimating game real demand.

That's why on a BI forums topic I have been making a "Request for a "Minimum" requirements update" some time ago.

Reading that topic you can see how difficult it can be to reach  a kind of community agreement to formulate an informed opinion.

[FlamyMind 1]

So I got a "reccomandation" to come here.

I bought the game, I love it, but im playing altis life with 20-30 fps in the city and 40-50 fps outside the city. And thats pretty unplayable for me.

On ultra or low settings, the fps doesnt change.

I tried some videos and guides but nothing changes.

 

With a gtx 970, 16 ram and I7 6700....I should be able to have decent fps since there are worst pcs that get more fps than I do.

 

Whats the problem?