Arma 3 Performance with my gaming pc

[Hyperoid]

So I recently brought Arma 3 and have recently found out that I can't run it with my current gaming laptop (yes I know, laptops are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ with gaming, I am stupid) I was thinking of buying a new gaming pc that can maybe run Arma 3

Parts:
CPU: AMD Ryzen 3 1200 OC 3.9GHz
GPU: Gtx 1050ti super locked
Ram:8gb
SSD: 120GB
By looking at these parts, is it possible to run Arma 3 on a decent FPS count, and what resulation would that be with.

[Sgt Smash]

Get atleast a 2nd gen 2400 ryzen or above

But if you want no compromises get a 8th gen i7 intel or wait for 9th gen to drop soon

And maybe wait and get a 2050ti when it comes out

[Druark]

Your Ryzen is less powerful than my I5-4690k so take what I say with a grain of salt cause you will likely have worse performance than me.

With my CPU I get between 20 - 70 FPS in Arma 3 with my old 4GB Jetstream 770 which is similar to your 1050ti bearing in mind my new 1070 has made almost no difference to the framerate. The frame range is so big because depending on what you're going ot be doing the FPS can dip like crazy. For example a huge battle with about 50+ AI can bring down most machines regardless of how good your CPU is. The way around that is having a seperate PC for the server but thats another debate altogether.

In general, you can likely expect about 20-40 FPS with that CPU at 1080p I'd guess, which means it's perfectly playable but if you're somewhat bothered by low framerates then I'd just give up now regardless of what gaming PC you go for. Arma 3 will never run amazingly until they rebuild the engine which won't happen as I believe they're working on Arma 4 or at least a newer engine right now.

[Murge]

With those parts you can run 240x360p with 30 fps

[Hyperoid]

Originally posted by Druark:

Your Ryzen is less powerful than my I5-4690k so take what I say with a grain of salt cause you will likely have worse performance than me.

With my CPU I get between 20 - 70 FPS in Arma 3 with my old 4GB Jetstream 770 which is similar to your 1050ti bearing in mind my new 1070 has made almost no difference to the framerate. The frame range is so big because depending on what you're going ot be doing the FPS can dip like crazy. For example a huge battle with about 50+ AI can bring down most machines regardless of how good your CPU is. The way around that is having a seperate PC for the server but thats another debate altogether.

In general, you can likely expect about 20-40 FPS with that CPU at 1080p I'd guess, which means it's perfectly playable but if you're somewhat bothered by low framerates then I'd just give up now regardless of what gaming PC you go for. Arma 3 will never run amazingly until they rebuild the engine which won't happen as I believe they're working on Arma 4 or at least a newer engine right now.

So is Arma a CPU demanding game because if so, I may get a better CPU

[SubsidedLemon]

Very cpu demanding!

[Druark]

Yes, but don't just go out and buy an I7, you want something with faster individual cores for Arma and usually CPUs with more cores have slower indiviudal cores. Multi-core is used more today but still doesn't always make as big a difference as just having more powerful individual cores, especially as very few games will use more than 4 cores currently.

[Murge]

Originally posted by Druark:

Yes, but don't just buy an I7, you want something with faster individual cores for Arma, and many other games. As multi-core is used more today but still doesn't always make as big a difference as just have more powerful individual cores.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

[tracksone]

i have

Fx 8350
Gtx 1050 2gb
8gb ddr 3 ram
SSD 500gb

In multiplayer i range 30-45 fps (with settings on standard and turning down shadows and either AA off or on low)
Single player i hover around 50-60 fps

So Yes, if these are acceptable FPS to you, you can have a great time. Your CPU is much newer than mine and is faster, you should have no issues playing the game. I hope to upgrade to a ryzen soon.

[Captain n00by]

If you're buying mainly for ArmA 3, go for a Intel chip instead of AMD.

Nothing against AMD, but ArmA 3 is a "IntelVidia" game.

[tracksone]

Originally posted by noobean:

If you're buying mainly for ArmA 3, go for a Intel chip instead of AMD.

Nothing against AMD, but ArmA 3 is a "IntelVidia" game.

Thats an opinion, which you are entitled to

[Captain n00by]

Originally posted by tracksone:

Originally posted by noobean:

If you're buying mainly for ArmA 3, go for a Intel chip instead of AMD.

Nothing against AMD, but ArmA 3 is a "IntelVidia" game.

Thats an opinion, which you are entitled to

Not really, the game is made with "Nvidia GameWorks" in mind and prioritizes "per core" performance, which is where Intel shines the brightest.

With that I'm not saying it doesn't run well on AMD hardware, but as there are PC games made mainly for AMD hardware (DOOM, Quake Champions, etc), there are also PC games made mainly for "IntelVidia" hardware (ArmA 3, The Witcher 3, etc.).

Of course you can run both type of games on either hardware, but there are some differences.

[VooDoo]

Ryzen CPU's for a game heavily dependant on CPU Usage would be a bad idea. Let alone the specific one you've picked would let you down! Going off your specs I'm guessing your on a tight budget, if you plan on gaming at a high res & quality on Arma & Current/Future games I'd suggest investing more money into better parts!

Let's not forget about the other things that will benefit you long term like cooling system, better CPU, GPU ,Power supply & Monitor

[tracksone]

Its still your opinion (that it runs better), and again, you are entitled to that.

[Detective Dan]

I'm running:
MSI Radeon RX480 4gb GDDR5
AMD FX4350 @ 4.2ghz Factory OC
16gb DDR3 (2x8gb)
I spent $650 on my computer 2 years ago that i built myself and it still runs everything at max. Budget builds are just as good as dedicated gaming rigs that cost $2500

While, i'm not a frames snob like most gamers these days who are the type of people who require a consistent 100fps for everything they play, i generally get 30-50 frames in game depending on whats going on. I don't mind 20-30fps, but generally lower than that i'm gonna get angry...

Arma is an extremely CPU intensive game as processes by the game are carried out on the CPU instead of harnessing the processing power of a graphics card (GPU). Should BI decide to rebuild their engine to use more GPU, the game certainly would run better for everyone running at least a 970 or Radeon equivalent and a quad core. Mind you, my statements is based on 10 years experience playing Real Virtuality games (basically OFP and Arma), so i'm only partially an idiot


Putting what i said above into relevance if you jumped into a game of Arma and there was a rave with 50 players in the same warehouse on the docks with colored smoke grenades filling up the warehouse, it doesn't matter if you're running the game on an alien super computer in a bunker 4 stories underneath Area 51, your game is going to lag

[F. Raven]

Arma is "CPU" intensive... but it's based off clock speed being that it only really utilizes 1-2 cores.... So clock speed is good. But you cant go wrong with Intel i5's or i7's.... through experience the higher the graphics settings the more gpu dependant you make the game. So i run On Ultra with a AMD XFX RX 480 until i get my 1080ti... But if you want performance have Arma loaded on a SSD, Have about 16gb of Ram, a CPU with a decent Clock / Boost speed, and play with settings until it works for you.

Heres my Setup:
i7 8700k
G.Skill 32gb DDR4 Ram @ 3200mhz
AMD XFX RX 480 8gb GDDR5