Upgrading CPU For ARMA 3 - Unsure Which

[Ridah]

Lets start with my system now.

FX 8350
8GB DDR3
RX 580 4gb

Now I want to play Arma 3, I found a fun group to play with but i get around 20 fps with probably about 30fps at the best of times. This is horrible, doesn't really matter what graphics settings you change in Arma 3. The game runs at what its going to run at as did 2. (I actually got the FX chip I have like 5 years ago as an "upgrade" to play Arma 2 coming from an Athlon 2 630...which had on real change in FPS)

I am debating on 7700k, 7600k, or Ryzen 1600x. But the 1600 has poor single thread performance unfortunately and the 7700k will be running along side an RX 580 which might limit it severely for all I know.

I just want above 45 fps and as high as I can if possible on high settings. I don't need ultra settings or higher, I just want to have fun operating.

If anyone has these cpus with this graphics card, could you run YAAB (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=375092418) on high preset settings and post the results. Even if you only have one or the other I would still appreciate the input.Setting the preset to high I get about 23 to 24fps via the YAAB benchmark.

I don't have alot of money to throw around and just like when I bought the FX chip Im getting a bit stressed out over which one to buy, and Im remembering the regret I had when I booted up Arma 2 for the first time on that chip. Its a great CPU for more modern games but the stuff that really needs IPC and single threading its horrible at.

I don't really care about compressing or decompressing stuff (I do that once in a while) nor do I care about anything but sheer performance in Arma 3 since all of these are better than the FX chip and except for Arma Im happy with the fx.

 

[drinkingcola86]

The difference between the 1600 and the 1600x is the clock speed. very similar single thread performance. I'm assuming that you are wanting a cpu that will last a while without having to be upgraded. This would be my suggestions on it. The cooling that comes with the 1600 could easily clock to the same speed as the 1600x for cheaper, which then makes up the difference.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($199.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350 Pro4 ATX AM4 Motherboard ($83.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($126.88 @ OutletPC)
Total: $410.85
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-07-18 16:58 EDT-0400

 

[Ridah]

I want a CPU that will run Arma at what I consider playable, that is above 45fps atleast. I honestly don't care about games outside of Arma 3 at this time. 1600 might last a long time but what good would that be if I still can't play Arma 3 at the rates I want?

Anyway I have a cooler I can use already for either slots so thats not an issue.

I know the prices of a 7700k setup I am looking at is about $560 and the Ryzen setup I want would be about a $100 or so less. The problem is real world Arma 3 performance that I'm unsure of. Ryzen is pretty slow per thread and Idk if I can even get decent fps out of it for Arma 3.

All I want to do is Arma 3 atm, but having the extra threads would really help down the road, I agree. Just the thing is I don't buy new games because for the most part, all the good games are already made and everything new is boring casual overpriced and lacking content junk. Just sayin.

 

[drinkingcola86]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip9sraQ6Ghc

Runs a R5 1600 and a 480 8g. Only time I saw it dip below was for about 2 seconds to 35 fps either wise running at about 55-65+ fps.

You would be only looking at 5 on the low end and 10 on the high end fps with the 7700k. From what I could find online briefly, there are a lot of people complaining about the 7700k getting low fps also. Just seems like the game doesn't know how to handle modern CPU's and GPU's.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/69kxtb/arma_3_benchmarks_with_1600x/?st=j5a7hrj1&sh=4b1047e3

 

[Ridah]

SP is a horrible benchmark. Even I can run it well on my current machine. You need to see YAAB or some benchmark with lots of stuff happening to be more representative of the actual performance you will get in multiplayer as thats the main point of Arma 3. Large scale multiplayer.

The main issue is towns. Arma 3 bogs way down when in towns especially when AI is involved in towns aswell.

Alot of people probably buy the cheapest RAM they can and are surprised when it damages performance. The truth is 7700k just runs the game better outright even though Arma is tempermental with using resources the higher ipc is innately going to give boost.

I can't find any benchmarks or anything of the I7 paired with an RX 580 like I would have either.

Just again the campaign is really easy to run while the online component of the game is really the opposite.

 

[drinkingcola86]

Well everything I've ready online, yes the i7 is in the lead for fps when playing the game. I have also read that the game is severely limited when playing online due to server latency. People have posted that an i7 with a GTX 1080 Ti getting only 30-45 fps on multiplayer.

I do believe that between the 3 processors listed up there, the difference between the processors will be so little that, now this is my opinion, wouldn't be worth the $100 between the i7 and the R5.

Also from what I have read is that most reviewers don't benchmark with Arma 3 because of how horribly optimized it is for any cpu given Intel or Amd.

 

[Ridah]

I went with a 7600k because Arma 3 isn't multi threaded well and only uses a max of 4 cores maybe but puts most the load on one or two I believe. The problem with the AMD processors is they are slow in single threaded software and that makes them trash for Arma 3. People were reporting FPS that were actually worse than I think the 3570k or some other 4000 series CPUs, which would line up with the fact IPC is a bit lower than these in some benchmarks I have seen. Which is a real disappointment considering yet again the only thing AMD has for someone like me is more cores. This would be my first Intel CPU and I expect its gonna be fun getting everything working on Windows 7

A bad server will extremely limit FPS, its not a good idea to benchmark Arma games online on random servers. Its well known that the server FPS and client FPS are tied together. Its not an optimized game, but its a game I want to run. I know Im getting the "worse" cpu in terms of multi threaded operations but the truth is Im not going to sit around all day playing with Cinebench, Winrar, and no way am I going to play more the generic AAA games that the only good thing I could say about them is that they are well optimized.

 

[heebobo5]

The difference between the 1600 and the 1600x is the clock speed. very similar single thread performance. I'm assuming that you are wanting a cpu that will last a while without having to be upgraded. This would be my suggestions on it. The cooling that comes with the 1600 could easily clock to the same speed as the 1600x for cheaper, which then makes up the difference.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($199.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350 Pro4 ATX AM4 Motherboard ($83.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($126.88 @ OutletPC)
Total: $410.85
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-07-18 16:58 EDT-0400

+1 This would be a good option.