What's new
By:
Filters
Roleplay UK

Join the UK's biggest roleplay community on FiveM and experience endless new roleplay opportunities!

What next?

gaz6464

gaz6464

Well-known member
Location
Staffordshire
My current setup consists of-

AMD FX 4130 quad core - oc 4.2ghz turbo to 4.5ghz

16gb ram

arctic freezer cpu air cooler

AMD radeon r9 270x 4gb

samsung 128gb ssd (operating system and steam and arma)

toshiba 500gb hdd

I currently drop down to 14 fps in towns and 25 fps countryside when it is busy and 25 fps in towns and 45 fps in the countryside when its quieter, I suspect my processor is my greatest bottleneck and I am saving for the 8 core fx cpu and liquid cooling for a 5ghz oc, in the mean time...

ram, is this really worth upgrading for a cheaper quick boost? Does the game even use this much?

seperate ssd for arma files, would reading from two fast drives rather than one make any difference, will this improve the data flow to my cpu, ram and gpu significantly enough to notice. I guess more so once I have 8 cores?

Ultimately, am I better just being patient and getting the cpu upgrade next I guess.

 
I am running a Intel Core i7-4770 (non-k) Quad Core, 3.4GHz with a MSI GTX 980ti. On a busy day in Kavala i drop to about 30 FPS, outside Kavala 30-70 FPS, everything ultra of course and no post processing stuff.

16 GB RAM is enough, won't change anything to upgrade and why do you think you need an 8 core... Go with an i7 better bang for the buck then shitty AMD.

How are you suppose to install Arma 3 on two diffrent SSD's? You are over thinking, what I can see you need to trash that AMD CPU and graphic card.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upgrading to the 8 core processor isn't going to make a difference due to the fact Arma doesn't use more than one core. Plus AMD isn't the best in comparison with intel. I'd suggest editing around your video settings, especially try disabling vsync as I've heard that makes a big difference.

 
Angus MacKinnon said:
Upgrading to the 8 core processor isn't going to make a difference due to the fact Arma doesn't use more than one core. Plus AMD isn't the best in comparison with intel. I'd suggest editing around your video settings, especially try disabling vsync as I've heard that makes a big difference.
Click to expand...
It uses all my cores.
u8uXdj9.png


 
Angus MacKinnon said:
Yeah cause it automatically sets the cpucount with intel processors however it has issues with AMD ones. Was literally just about to suggest checking this setting but it's more than likely already enabled.
Click to expand...
It did not, I had to set it up and it increased performance. But minimal changes.

 
Agent Fortyseven said:
I am running a Intel Core i7-4770 (non-k) Quad Core, 3.4GHz with a MSI GTX 980ti. On a busy day in Kavala i drop to about 30 FPS, outside Kavala 30-70 FPS, everything ultra of course and no post processing stuff.

16 GB RAM is enough, won't change anything to upgrade and why do you think you need an 8 core... Go with an i7 better bang for the buck then shitty AMD.

How are you suppose to install Arma 3 on two diffrent SSD's? You are over thinking, what I can see you need to trash that AMD CPU and graphic card.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the CPU, On the GPU however i think you're wrong, AMD cards Have amazing value and a 270x should be able to run ARMA III fine. 

 
Freebz said:
I agree with you on the CPU, On the GPU however i think you're wrong, AMD cards Have amazing value and a 270x should be able to run ARMA III fine. 
Click to expand...
Well his FPS is fine, can always upgrade it if he want more then just fine. And I just have some hate relationship with AMD.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent Fortyseven said:
Well his FPS is fine, can always upgrade it if he want more then just fine.
Click to expand...
True, however you said "trash that AMD cpu and that graphics card" implying they were awfull, all i am saying is that his CPU is indeed awfull for modern games, especially arma 3, but a 270x should be good for a 2013 game. 

 
Freebz said:
True, however you said "trash that AMD cpu and that graphics card" implying they were awfull, all i am saying is that his CPU is indeed awfull for modern games, especially arma 3, but a 270x should be good for a 2013 game. 
Click to expand...
As I edited, I just have some hate relationship with AMD. 
1f618.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
12db0b1cad6ad9e77dac73ce5563895a65ad1d3de6f1a43c0a97f552cc774131.jpg.baeb87b5a0539b23b28ac42fbaeccc9c.jpg


AMD sucks with Arma, that is just the way arma is coded, not much you can do about that :( but you can get similar issues with Intel's.

Depending on how much you have available to spend depends on what you can change.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ram wont effect arma 3, its a 32 Bit game. The only thing I would recommend is a new CPU (And obvs a new mobo due to a different socket) Apart from that it all looks pretty swanky.

But for your current setup there is quite a few video guides out there to increase fps by disabling unneeded settings. Just hit me with a PM and ill link them to you!

 
I don't have the money to go Intel unfortunately. I would love an i7 but the cost is more than double or close too. I'm not a pc god so bristol uni isn't gonna give me any freebies.

There's no issue with gpu as fps are the same on ultra as any other setting. Arma campaigns or online.

In terms of two ssd, my thinking was one ssd for windows and things like gpu drivers and "system" stuff, with a separate ssd for game files etc.

 
Dual ssd is a little pointless if you have windows and Arma on a ssd already, the issue with the old drives when loading info from spinning drives it could cause frame drops while loading, you shouldn't see any of that with a single SSD

 
Agent Fortyseven said:
It uses all my cores.
Click to expand...
Your i7 is 4 core and 4 virtual cores, so 8 total? More cores equals more performance if I can have all 8 running at 5ghz it'll warm my whole house but surely should outperform a stock i7. 

Agent Fortyseven said:
As I edited, I just have some hate relationship with AMD. 
1f618.png
Click to expand...
I love the value. Intel don't do value for money on a tighter budget.

And leave the gpu alone guys. I know. On offline missions it handles everything the game throws at it without skipping a beat. I have a really stable oc on the gpu Inc memory and power %. I've benchmarked better than most stock gpu's my friends have that are worth 100 quid more but locked. I'm on ultra everything offline and not moving from 70fps. (Limited due to screen)

lionel said:
Dual ssd is a little pointless if you have windows and Arma on a ssd already, the issue with the old drives when loading info from spinning drives it could cause frame drops while loading, you shouldn't see any of that with a single SSD
Click to expand...
Cheers. I had a feeling the difference would be minimal until mega loading was needed. I was just thinking about loading per "bus"? channel.

 
depends on the SSD you have and what you have your Bios settings at.

Ensure that the channel with your SSD is set to AHCI

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top