Arma III Pc parts

[Erwin_Rommel]

Hello fellow Arma III players. I have a question. I have a gtx 960 but I would like to but a i5 4460 haswell. Would this be a whise thing to do ? 

[Cassettes]

Arma is notoriously known for poor optimization also it's CPU intensive game. The i5 is pretty good in most cases but if you want to see the best preformance the i7s are the power houses. I also have the 960 but a weak fx 6300 and get around 25-45 fps, 25 in kavala on a full server. But I get 60-70 in campaign mode and in Stratis wastelands.

[Bob Jill.]

i have an i5 4460 and a gtx 970  get pretty good fps around 50-60 

Edited April 22, 2016 by Bob Jill.

[Dakinehernandez]

very whise indeed. cool wqhip

Edited April 22, 2016 by Dakinehernandez

[TheRealLethal]

6700k best Performance in the enthusiast category

[GeoArma]

just keep in mind, there is only so much you can buy before it gets way too expensive, and you will always occasionally have some sort of choppyness, lag, graphical error, etc...its arma! and alot of the ways to make arma run better are through parameters, unparking cpu, overclocking, set priority, getting computer clean up and background process suspender programs...

hope this helped!

~geo

[Enclave]

very whise

[Ghost0fDawn]

4 hours ago, Cassettes said:

Arma is notoriously known for poor optimization also it's CPU intensive game. The i5 is pretty good in most cases but if you want to see the best preformance the i7s are the power houses. I also have the 960 but a weak fx 6300 and get around 25-45 fps, 25 in kavala on a full server. But I get 60-70 in campaign mode and in Stratis wastelands.

Except while true, Arma 3 doesn't use good utilization of multithreaded processes, if it all. If you want maximum performance from the CPU side, per-core performance is critical, which i5's are going to have over i7s. The future is full of surprises, perhaps arma 4 will (and hopefully) change that.

[Cassettes]

2 minutes ago, Ghost0fDawn said:

Except while true, Arma 3 doesn't use good utilization of multithreaded processes, if it all. If you want maximum performance from the CPU side, per-core performance is critical, which i5's are going to have over i7s. The future is full of surprises, perhaps arma 4 will (and hopefully) change that.

I've no experience with intel, I'm an AMD fag so I can't argue here, all I know is that Arma sucks ass when it comes to FPS, I get 60 + FPS on pretty much every single game I have except Arma 3 and Crysis , these games I've been told are CPU intensive and even tho the GTX 960 preforms well it when I upgraded from the 750 ti there was 0 FPS increase, actually my FPS may have gone down even lol.

[Ghost0fDawn]

Just now, Cassettes said:

I've no experience with intel, I'm an AMD fag so I can't argue here, all I know is that Arma sucks ass when it comes to FPS, I get 60 + FPS on pretty much every single game I have except Arma 3 and Crysis , these games I've been told are CPU intensive and even tho the GTX 960 preforms well it when I upgraded from the 750 ti there was 0 FPS increase, actually my FPS may have gone down even lol.

I've went from a i7-4770K & GTX 760 + 8GB ram -> i7-6700K & GTX 980ti + 16GB ram, and there is a notable difference. However, only notable. That kind of change in a normal circumstance should otherwise be substantial. My game runs effectively at the same exact performance @4K resolution on my new PC as it did in 1080p on the old one. Since more pixels is simply more graphical information, there's no CPU tax. However, start increasing render distance, and the CPU has to take in all of the physics data that accompanies it. Including wind, weather, and ANYTHING happening in those far out scenes. Even stressing my machine, I could get up to about 7km object and terrain distance at 900p with a 20-25fps range. CPU gets hit hard. Partially due to the fact that arma 3 is a 32bit application and can't use hardware like it should.