CPU slowing me down in ARMA 3 ?

[manlykeweaver465]

ive recently brought arma 3 when i run on high settings im at around 25-50 fps depending on the game mode, i have an fx 6300, 8gb ddr3 ram and a gtx 1060 6gb. 

 

could it be my CPU which is slowing me down and would an i5 7400 allow me to achieve 60 fps. as some of my friends with worse specs than mine run the game at 60 fps high settings 

[LUUD18]

Arma 3 is heavily dependent on Single Core Performance. Moving from AMD to Intel will give you more FPS. My friend recently upgraded his AMD FX to an i7 7700k and has solid 60FPS now.

[xitywampas]

ARMA 3 is my if I only had one game, game. Was in the 7th Cav gaming and have close association with The 506th. Single core clock speed is key with ARMA. That being said I've seen people with 4.2 GHz+ only get 40-50 fps in that game.

What mods are you running?

[LUUD18]

Just now, xitywampas said:

ARMA 3 is my if I only had one game, game. Was in the 7th Cav gaming and have close association with The 506th. Single core clock speed is key with ARMA. That being said I've seen people with 4.2 GHz+ only get 40-50 fps in that game.

What mods are you running?

Ghz =/= Single core performance. You could overclock an Pentium to 5Ghz but still get worse Single Core Performance then an i7 7700k.

 

Also you could check this chart to see which processor would be the best for your budget:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Higher in the list = better.

[GER_T4IGA]

ARMA sometimes also has low fps becasue of server issues, other than that it is mostly singel core performance. I think I can recall an update doing something about mutlicore but i don't follow it enough. Your CPU is your problem, yes

[manlykeweaver465]

1 minute ago, xitywampas said:

ARMA 3 is my if I only had one game, game. Was in the 7th Cav gaming and have close association with The 506th. Single core clock speed is key with ARMA. That being said I've seen people with 4.2 GHz+ only get 40-50 fps in that game.

What mods are you running?

i get 50 - 60 fps in battle royale with the player unknown mods but with no mods on king of the hill i was getting like 25 -35 fps and in epoch i get around 30 fps 

1 minute ago, LUUD18 said:

Ghz =/= Single core performance. You could overclock an Pentium to 5Ghz but still get worse Single Core Performance then an i7 7700k.

 

Also you could check this chart to see which processor would be the best for your budget:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Higher in the list = better.

my budget is around 350 for cpu ram and mobo 

[LooneyJuice]

ArmA 3, even though it is one of my gaming loves I keep coming back to, it is one of, if not the most temperamental piece of gaming software out there. I don't care what kind of hardware you have, depending on View Distance, Object View Distance, and entities on screen, you can expect anything from 120fps to 23. It really doesn't matter. Now, that said, any edge you can get hardware-wise is a good thing, but don't expect ARMA 3 to ever run at pegged 60fps all the time, ever. Thankfully, it is playable at lower Framerates, but don't expect miracles even with an upgrade. It is just the beast that is ARMA 3 and the Real Virtuality 4 engine.

[NoCster]

The AMD FX 6300 CPU in general is not a very good CPU for Arma 3, I also happen to own one as well. I would recommend you to upgrade to the i5 7400 if you can. Also keep in mind that GPU performance does not really matter that much in Arma 3, I could match a 750ti and a GTX 1070 together and would get a very minimal fps boost. Also are you able to overclock the FX 6300 at any chance? 

[ApolloFury]

You people say ARMA 3 is single-threaded dependent but recent updates have improved multi-threaded loads. The reason why the FX CPUs are struggling since their IPC in the first place is really bad, Ryzen's IPC is higher than Haswell and has more threads. My i7 6700K in that game gets around 50-65% CPU usage. Also I would rather get a Ryzen 5 over a locked Intel i5, why would you even get an i5 these days?

[manlykeweaver465]

1 minute ago, NoCster said:

The AMD FX 6300 CPU in general is not a very good CPU for Arma 3, I also happen to own one as well. I would recommend you to upgrade to the i5 7400 if you can. Also keep in mind that GPU performance does not really matter that much in Arma 3, I could match a 750ti and a GTX 1070 together and would get a very minimal fps boost. Also are you able to overclock the FX 6300 at any chance? 

i cant overclock it because of my old mobo which ive had for 4 years and i think that its dying so i am in need of an upgrade 

1 minute ago, LooneyJuice said:

ArmA 3, even though it is one of my gaming loves I keep coming back to, it is one of, if not the most temperamental piece of gaming software out there. I don't care what kind of hardware you have, depending on View Distance, Object View Distance, and entities on screen, you can expect anything from 120fps to 23. It really doesn't matter. Now, that said, any edge you can get hardware-wise is a good thing, but don't expect ARMA 3 to ever run at pegged 60fps all the time, ever. Thankfully, it is playable at lower Framerates, but don't expect miracles even with an upgrade.

yeah i get you ill have a look at my settings 

[LUUD18]

7 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

You people say ARMA 3 is single-threaded dependent but recent updates have improved multi-threaded loads. The reason why the FX CPUs are struggling since their IPC in the first place is really bad, Ryzen's IPC is higher than Haswell and has more threads. My i7 6700K in that game gets around 50-65% CPU usage. Also I would rather get a Ryzen 5 over a locked Intel i5, why would you even get an i5 these days?

Because an i5 gives you more fps in Arma 3.

 

[NoCster]

Just now, manlykeweaver465 said:

i cant overclock it because of my old mobo which ive had for 4 years and i think that its dying so i am in need of an upgrade 

yeah i get you ill have a look at my settings 

In the meantime lower your some of your settings and make sure v-sync is disabled and your view distance is not too high those can be fps killers! 

[NoCster]

6 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

You people say ARMA 3 is single-threaded dependent but recent updates have improved multi-threaded loads. The reason why the FX CPUs are struggling since their IPC in the first place is really bad, Ryzen's IPC is higher than Haswell and has more threads. My i7 6700K in that game gets around 50-65% CPU usage. Also I would rather get a Ryzen 5 over a locked Intel i5, why would you even get an i5 these days?

Great point!

[LUUD18]

8 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

You people say ARMA 3 is single-threaded dependent but recent updates have improved multi-threaded loads. The reason why the FX CPUs are struggling since their IPC in the first place is really bad, Ryzen's IPC is higher than Haswell and has more threads. My i7 6700K in that game gets around 50-65% CPU usage. Also I would rather get a Ryzen 5 over a locked Intel i5, why would you even get an i5 these days?

Which update btw? The engine is based on a single thread. Nothing you can do about that.

[ApolloFury]

17 minutes ago, LUUD18 said:

Because an i5 gives you more fps in Arma 3.

 

How old is that benchmark? The recent updates for Ryzen in Windows and micro-code has improved its average performance in games by a little (~5%) but minimum and frametime variance became improved a lot, I had an argument with someone between 7700K and R5 for gaming just yesterday and they have convinced me with this video: 

Unless the OP will only play ARMA III for the rest of his life, an i5 is not a smart buy in 2017.

And besides it is still a considerable upgrade over his FX CPU on DDR3.

(Note: Get the R5 not R7)

[LUUD18]

2 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

How old is that benchmark? The recent updates for Ryzen in Windows and micro-code has improved its average performance in games by a little (~5%) but minimum and frametime variance became improved a lot, I had an argument with someone between 7700K and R5 for gaming just yesterday and they have convinced me with this video: 

Unless the OP will only play ARMA III for the rest of his life, an i5 is not a smart buy in 2017.

And besides it is still a considerable upgrade over his FX CPU on DDR3.

(Note: Get the R5 not R7)

Rest of his life? CPU's usually last 5 years...

[DarkBlade2117]

19 minutes ago, LUUD18 said:

Because an i5 gives you more fps in Arma 3.

 

OP you seriously shouldn't base your purchase off of one game. Ask yourself this, ARMA 3 is already getting old. The game itself is horribly optimized and even going off this graph you are going to get lag anyways. You're best bet is going with an R5 1400 and AM4 board. Yes you might be getting slightly less FPS overall than an i5-7400 but that is in this game. Released in 2013. At least with AM4 boards you know AMD is planning on supporting a whole new generation on it.

[ApolloFury]

15 minutes ago, LUUD18 said:

Rest of his life? CPU's usually last 5 years...

Read again.

18 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

Unless the OP will only play ARMA III for the rest of his life, an i5 is not a smart buy in 2017.

And in that graph you shown (taken before the micro updates I assume) the Ryzen is already beating the i5 7400 by 2 FPS (albeit it is the 8 core version)

1 hour ago, manlykeweaver465 said:

would an i5 7400 allow me to achieve 60 fps.

35 minutes ago, LUUD18 said:

Because an i5 gives you more fps in Arma 3.

 

You only proved that the i5 7400 is slower and does not hit 60FPS...

[ApolloFury]

9 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

OP you seriously shouldn't base your purchase off of one game. Ask yourself this, ARMA 3 is already getting old. The game itself is horribly optimized and even going off this graph you are going to get lag anyways. You're best bet is going with an R5 1400 and AM4 board. Yes you might be getting slightly less FPS overall than an i5-7400 but that is in this game. Released in 2013. At least with AM4 boards you know AMD is planning on supporting a whole new generation on it.

He wouldn't even get less FPS than the i5 7400 since that graph already shows the i5 7400 is 2FPS slower and I assume this benchmark was taken before the micro-code and Windows updates of which further improves Ryzen's performance since then.

[PlayModeOn]

16 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

And in that graph you shown (taken before the micro updates I assume) the Ryzen is already beating the i5 7400 by 2 FPS (albeit it is the 8 core version)

You only proved that the i5 7400 is slower and does not hit 60FPS...

No offence to LUUD18 but that is actually kind of funny

[LUUD18]

10 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

He wouldn't even get less FPS than the i5 7400 since that graph already shows the i5 7400 is 2FPS slower and I assume this benchmark was taken before the micro-code and Windows updates of which further improves Ryzen's performance since then.

Its the Ryzen 7 1800x which is way more expensive....

 

[LUUD18]

2 minutes ago, PlayModeOn said:

No offence to LUUD18 but that is actually kind of funny

SO FUNNY. Maybe look with your eyes before posting something like this.

[LUUD18]

 

Ryzen 7 1800x: 490 euro

i5 7400: 175 euro

[ApolloFury]

3 minutes ago, LUUD18 said:

7 minutes ago, LUUD18 said:

Its the Ryzen 7 1800x which is way more expensive....

We already know the Ryzen 7 isn't faster than the Ryzen 5 in gaming. That is why earlier I said:

31 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

Unless the OP will only play ARMA III for the rest of his life, an i5 is not a smart buy in 2017.

And besides it is still a considerable upgrade over his FX CPU on DDR3.

(Note: Get the R5 not R7)

Ryzen 7 and 5 can be overclocked to 3.9GHz with relative ease. 4.0 if you are lucky.

 

[LUUD18]

1 minute ago, ApolloFury said:

We already know the Ryzen 7 isn't faster than the Ryzen 5 in gaming. That is why earlier I said:

 

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3916vs3919

Strange that it isn't faster in games but it still has 10% higher single core performance.

 

I do agree that a R5 is a good upgrade but if he only wants to get more fps in Arma 3 then the i5 might be better for him.