rue I guess I would be better off spending money elsewhere and getting a new monitor or something. Thinking about a 27 inch 1440p now.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/BenQ-BL3200PT-AMVA-32-inch-Monitor/dp/B00JIWLNHU
27 inch is sooo 2014... 32 inch ftw!
btw i am waiting until feb to see what the freesync monitors are like, if they arent all that they are supposed to be the above link is going to be my backup choice.
Just some average Joe experience here: I'm rocking SLI 780's, 4790K @ 4.4, 16GB @ 2400, ARMA III on an SSD, and while I have stellar performance during single player or empty areas as soon as I get toward the city center/clusterfuck the game tanks to ~30fps or less. I have seen some server which display the server fps along with your current fps, and typically during these massive drops they are the same number.
Well what I get out of this whole thing is screw arma then. I cant stand the choppy game play.
wow Arma so poorly optimized, what is it written in C++? Nvidia CUDA toolkit? Seriously just boycott the game. That's like trying to run SLI on Diablo 3 or hexacore/octacore CPU for starcraft 2.
I decided to do it anyways. This way my little sis gets my old parts and she can play some games with me.
I have I7 4770 and I7 5820k; for games yes they are about the same, however who only has one application open now theses days...
i have folding @ home using 2 core, and a VM 3 core allocated, then the rest for games and OS.... go for the X99 platform... IMO its rock solid and future longevity
Why did you not just adjust the launcher settings to reflect your cores? ArmA 3 does not detect core count very well. When I ran ArmA 3 on my 8120 (~50+fps) @1920x1200 27.5", I tweaked the memory allocator to tbbmalloc and adjusted my available cores in the launcher. It ran just fine. So many people play ArmA and bitch about the performance when they fail to realize the engine does everything on the fly. All the calculations and renderings and so on. It is a Simulator engine. The "highly optimized" games have most of the stuff pre-rendered so it takes less time to do everything . ArmA is not like that. ArmA's servers are moving to a 64-bit architecture so the lag you get on servers should decrease dramatically.
I agree with this wholeheartedly...
I'm running Arma3 at an average of 40fps ( lowest I have seen is 30 ) and that's with an 8350 and single 2gb GTX660 ( yea, medium settings... So shoot me ) to get the best performance out of it you really need to tweak those launch parameters...
I have also noticed that with the Arma series in general, multiplayer performance is very heavily dependant on the host servers performance as well... A server hosted on a dedicated box will always give you more fps than a VM sharing a box with 3 other servers... Just something else to keep in mind....
Agreed!! Also, keep in mind that most of the dedicated boxes and VPS's don't even have fast CPUs. They have cores but slow cores. The server needs 3+Ghz cores plus bookoos of high speed RAM to make a smooth experience. Try running Arma 3 campaign. if you notice that things seem fine, It is the Servers you are connecting to. Especially if it is a Wasteland server. Most of those servers use iniDB and not something more robust like a MariaDB server. Plus the Database design is rather poorly setup. They need to optimize the primary keys and make data access faster to keep up with the constantly changing variables that get written to the database. Also, while ArmA 3 may look extra sexy to have your view and render distances set to the max, DON'T you don't need on average over 3200m. 16000m might look cool but it tanks the frames. EVEN on an intel. Turn your AA to disabled or a low FXAA and turn off PSAA unless AMD CPUs can use CMAA from Intel. Mostly just disable PSAA. Feel free to max out AF though.
I sometimes host ArmA 3 servers on my rig. I used to host an ArmA 2 Wasteland server on my 8120 and for the most part it ran just fine with 40+ slots.
Don't complain about something when you have not bothered to try all the options. Clock speed on ArmA 3 is more important than cores. sure the Intel ipc advantage is nice, but if your Intel CPU is under 3.5GHz, you are CPU bottlenecked. take that 8350 and OC the crap out of it. Get a better board first like a Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 with its 8+2 power phase. Your CPU starts at 4GHZ. Crank that monster up to 4.8Ghz.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=
The AMD Radeon™ R9 295X2, 290X, R9 290, R9 285, R7 260X and R7 260 GPUs additionally feature updated display controllers that will support dynamic refresh rates during gaming
http://support.amd.com/en-us/search/faq/219
My AMD rig runs Arma awesome with an 970.