Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/156993-arma-3-cpu-vs-ram-performance-comparison-1600-2133-up-to-15-fps-gain/
If you want better FPS in Arma 3, get a new CPU or O'C your current CPU. That will yield the greatest return.
I am running a 4790k@4.0 and I have a gtx 960
I am running a 4790k@4.0 and I have a gtx 960
Zero...
If you have the game on a 7200rpm spin disk you will notice more texture poping compared to a decent SSD and that might indirectly affect fps at times. If you put the whole game on a Ramdisk (use ram to emulate a harddisk), which I did with Arma 2 as a test, you will get less texture popping compared to a SSD, since a ramdisk is like 4 times faster (also why more ram wont matter if it streams from the harddrive btw), but it will not be practical and noticeable differences.
The amount of ram however doesnt matter. Ether you have enough and the game starts or you dont and it does not. Thats it. The game is inherenlty a 32bit application, not 64bit. So in Windows there is a 2gig limit for such programs at any time. The Arma engine at its core is the same as it was back in Operation Flashpoint days.
Biggest fps limiter in Arma is the CPU because of the independent type AI used in thegame. Arma works better with Intel than AMD.
Graphics cards basically only dictates how good the game can look with shadows, shaders, AA and so on. Make it better looking that your hardware can handle, that will indirectly drop fps. The game does NOT support Sli or Crossfire well (I have Sli).
7200rpm harddisk streaming is too slow, SSD are good enough. Amount of ram or other stuff dosent really matter that much at all.
In short, if you have the game on a 7200rpm or similar spin disk. I would upgrade that to a SSD. Otherwise its new motherboard, CPU and Ram and depending on what you already have its not a given the gain with a newer CPU would overal be worth it.
If I overclocked from 4.0ghz to 4.2, how much of a difference would there be?
If you're worried about your RAM, you can just download some here: http://downloadmoreram.com/
Or, you could upgrade and download some WAM (2nd gen RAM): http://www.downloadmorewam.com/
4200/4000*100=105 (Gain 5%)
How many fps more do you think you would get with a 5% increase in performance?
Is your 4gh the stock speed or turbo speed. Because games use the tubo speed when applications need them. Example. I have a 4770K at stock speed which is 3,5gh, but its turbo speed is 3.9gh. So if you have a rather new CPU with stock at 4gh and turbo at 4,4gh. You would actually lose performance because OCing usually means you lock the speed at "max" all the time and it wont go over 4,2gh. Secondly, if you have a modern i5 or i7 at 4gh it wont be worth it bying a new motherboard etc ether.
4400/4200*100=95,45 (Loss 4,4%)
I used to OC before. First I had it at 4,5gh (gave a 5-10 fps more), then I needed to lower it to 4,2gh (gave about 3fps more from 3,9gh, aka 8% vs your 5% gain) and then I just had to stop the whole thing because I just got too many BSODs (OC software from Asus if people wondered). This with a H110 280mm closed loop liquid CPU cooler. So, if you think you are gonna OC on your stock cooler from Intel, foget it. If you think its going to be worth it, LoL.
That said, 4,2gh does seem to be the sweet spot for Arma 3, but thats more about having 26fps in places you would have 23fps instead, but you, who have a 100 more mh wouldnt notice this in places I noticed it. Bottom line is. Your next CPU should be as high as possible and not under 4,2gh with turbo if you can afford it, but OCing your current CPU is NOT worth it and on stock cooler its most likley not a doable thing.
--------------------------
For others with more OCing knowledge than me. Yes, I know OC programs are ♥♥♥♥. Yes, I know people can get lucky with their chip and I was probably not, but overall. Learning propper OCing from scratch and investing $ in propper cooling to get 2fps more in one game is NOT worth the hassle even if its possible. It will also shorten the life of the CPU and run the system at a higher heat which means more noise and so on. Its NOT worth it for Arma 3 alone.
--------------------------
You are better of tweaking your settings better.
If you have a i5 or i7 at 4gh and a GTX780 or better you should be getting upper tier performance.
I uploaded 3 images of my settings. You can try them out and see if you like the look better, but try object range at 2000m first before pushing it up to 4000m because that setting is more in regards to tank warfare and not infantry and therefor is a waste of performance that hits the CPU hard if you are not a tanker.
Image link: (4770k stock, single GTX780 ACX settings, SSD hardisk)
http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970616511/screenshots/
This is BS. Dont link to malware!