Gaming graphics card problem

[JeetBoy]

So I've started noticing how un-thought out my pc build was 6 months after I actually did it. I was going fine with frame rates and general browsing until I started playing heftier games like Arma 3. My Fps is aweful trying to play it at only around 10-25 at the most fps and its honestly pretty hard to even look around the lag is so bad. I've read some of the topics on the forums about how arma is a pretty CPU intensive game but i didn't think my CPU was THAT bad. Running valley benchmark i am usually getting around 70 FPS and 40-50 when the scenes change so i'm not quite sure why i absolutley cannot run arma. So i guess my question to everyone is should I upgrade my CPU, upgrade my GPU, or go SLI with my GPU's. Will list all pc specs below!

 

Motherboard: Asus m5a99fx Pro 2.0

CPU: AMD FX 8320

GPU: EVGA Geforce gtx 950

PSU: EVGA Supernova 550 GS (80+ Gold)

RAM: 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3

[Shadow_Storm56]

2 minutes ago, JeetBoy said:

So I've started noticing how un-thought out my pc build was 6 months after I actually did it. I was going fine with frame rates and general browsing until I started playing heftier games like Arma 3. My Fps is aweful trying to play it at only around 10-25 at the most fps and its honestly pretty hard to even look around the lag is so bad. I've read some of the topics on the forums about how arma is a pretty CPU intensive game but i didn't think my CPU was THAT bad. Running valley benchmark i am usually getting around 70 FPS and 40-50 when the scenes change so i'm not quite sure why i absolutley cannot run arma. So i guess my question to everyone is should I upgrade my CPU, upgrade my GPU, or go SLI with my GPU's. Will list all pc specs below!

 

Motherboard: Asus m5a99fx Pro 2.0

CPU: AMD FX 8320

GPU: EVGA Geforce gtx 950

PSU: EVGA Supernova 550 GS (80+ Gold)

RAM: 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3

Tough one... I like Intel better but that cpu should bot bottle neck a 950. Bring up all ur stats and see what ur use ages are. If ur ram or cpu are at near neaR 100 they are the issue. If not the maybe it's the game. Some games aRe horribly optimised. For example tera. It can be down at 20fps with no bottle necks and 25% gpu useage and sometimes go  up to 200fps in some area. Or black ops 3 when it was first out wold get lower frames due to bad optimization. Check out ur stats.

[UrdnotGrunt]

it may be because of your CPU. I had the 8350 and I was getting kicked out of a few BF 4 matches because of it being CPU intensive and lagging me out. and your RAM, imo should be 16GB min if youre playing the latest games and want to play the new games coming out in a few months like Mass Effect Andromeda. and should upgrade yer GPU to something like a GTX 1060 or RX 480 if your budget bound. as for the CPU get an i5 6600 (K variant if you plan on overclocking) and a Z170 board. youll also need DDR 4 ram for it as well

 

 

 

[JeetBoy]

6 minutes ago, UrdnotGrunt said:

it may be because of your CPU. I had the 8350 and I was getting kicked out of a few BF 4 matches because of it being CPU intensive and lagging me out. and your RAM, imo should be 16GB min if youre playing the latest games and want to play the new games coming out in a few months like Mass Effect Andromeda. and should upgrade yer GPU to something like a GTX 1060 or RX 480 if your budget bound. as for the CPU get an i5 6600 (K variant if you plan on overclocking) and a Z170 board. youll also need DDR 4 ram for it as well

 

 

 

That is what i was kind of thinking. When i started my build i wanted to budget the CPU as much as possible and with all the "good stats" the 8320 had which i really didn't know much about it sounded like a good deal. So let me ask you this is there any way for me to assign how much GPU and CPU usage i want to a game? Lets say arma 3. and how much does having less ram like i do for instance actually affect gaming performance do you think in your opinion? Appreciate the feedback!

 

12 minutes ago, Shadow_Storm56 said:

Tough one... I like Intel better but that cpu should bot bottle neck a 950. Bring up all ur stats and see what ur use ages are. If ur ram or cpu are at near neaR 100 they are the issue. If not the maybe it's the game. Some games aRe horribly optimised. For example tera. It can be down at 20fps with no bottle necks and 25% gpu useage and sometimes go  up to 200fps in some area. Or black ops 3 when it was first out wold get lower frames due to bad optimization. Check out ur stats.

Yeah after building i realized how much better intel cpu's were than amd even if clock speeds and all that were different. So by checking my usages do you mean a program that will show how much usage my cpu and gpu are using while im running the game or when im not running the game? CPU has 8 cores and ive read that arma doesnt do well the more cores your cpu has, don't know how true that is but. Also, with the new Intel CPU's coming out early 2017, what would you think about just waiting to see the prices and stats on them and maybe getting one of those? Thanks for the feedback!

[UrdnotGrunt]

I highly doubt there is a way to (assign/reserve) resources to a game or another program for that matter. I think one of Linus' videos on youtube explains the importance of RAM, i forgot which title(s) they were.

[JeetBoy]

2 minutes ago, UrdnotGrunt said:

I highly doubt there is a way to (assign/reserve) resources to a game or another program for that matter. I think one of Linus' videos on youtube explains the importance of RAM, i forgot which title(s) they were.

Yeah was just about to go sort out the ram situation. On the CPU side of things I've been looking and comparisons and what are your thoughts on a i5 6600k vs an i7 4790k? 6600 a better value and quite a bit better statistics, but didn't know if you had other opinions.

[UrdnotGrunt]

According to a website I go to alot for PC games the I7 4790K and 6700K are around 20% better. But the 6700K is sort of like the 6600K but has hyperthreading while the 6600K does not. Which is good if you plan on streaming. If you plan on going intel and getting an i7 get the 6700K and not the 4790K. The 4790K is 4th Gen and the 6700k is 6th Gen.

[JeetBoy]

3 minutes ago, UrdnotGrunt said:

According to a website I go to alot for PC games the I7 4790K and 6700K are around 20% better. But the 6700K is sort of like the 6600K but has hyperthreading while the 6600K does not. Which is good if you plan on streaming

So you think it would probably be the best investment to go with a 6700k or 6600k?

[UrdnotGrunt]

It depends on what you plan on doing with it. I personally went with the 6600K because I dont stream. Also if you do initially get the 6600K and later on decide you want to upgrade to the 6700K. You dont have to buy another motherboard. They both are Socket 1151. So its basically a drop in

 

Here is my current gaming rig setup.

 

https://pcpartpicker.com/b/cKJV3C

 

I havent updated it yet because it still shows my H100i V2 as the CPU cooler when I changed it back to my Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO. I just got lazy heh

[Shadow_Storm56]

I muchly prefer 2011 do I'd recommend any of the v3 cpus

[PrinzyXX]

All I will say about arma 3 is its optimization is shit. My 6700k and 1070 with 32gb or ram with the game on an ssd I still bottom out at like 20fps sometimes, albeit at ultra settings.

[GitGud]

Arma 3 is a god awful optmized game that runs horribly on AMD side cuz its engine heavily relies on single core performance, but still in single player ive seeing people doing quite ok with FX CPUs, in MP FX choke themselves.