Will this run ArmA 3?

[Styx]

I can suggest him getting a TItan X,after all it can't fit in 500 £ but would give much better performance in gaming wouldn't it?

Bit of a difference, putting an i5 in that build would cost him £70 more

 

[dzul]

Bit of a difference, putting an i5 in that build would cost him £70 more

You keep forgetting about motherboard aswell as you should never spend more on a CPU than GPU in a gaming rig.With such budget as his i'd rather spend this extra 70 quid on a SSD for stability or GPU for overall performance gain.

EDIT:

Anyway realistically the cheapest i5 would give him at most 5 FPS more for double the price,how is that worth it?

 

[Styx]

"I'd stay away from AMD if I were you." - LCN Harry

That's not suggesting Intel, that's saying to avoid AMD.

Yes, it's my opinion, it's not me saying that AMD is incapable of running arma

You keep forgetting about motherboard aswell as you should never spend more on a CPU than GPU in a gaming rig.

This isn't the case when you want to play Arma.... small scale fps games yeah, games like arma no.

 

[dzul]

Yes, it's my opinion, it's not me saying that AMD is incapable of running arma

This isn't the case when you want to play Arma.... small scale fps games yeah, games like arma no.

I really have a feeling that you either never even touched a budget build or have no idea about bottom class of gaming PCs

 

[lionel]

I really have a feeling that you either never even touched a budget build or have no idea about bottom class of gaming PCs

you said bottom teehee

 

[Styx]

I really have a feeling that you either never even touched a budget build or have no idea about bottom class of gaming PCs

Well i'm the only one in this discussion who's actually coming back with facts, unlike others who are just telling me i'm wrong but not why i'm wrong....

It seems to me like you don't even realise that Arma 3 is CPU intensive and not GPU intensive.

 

[CMO Marc Smith]

But... but... i put a picture of a nice graph showing amd cpu's out performing your intel ones on arma ;(

 

[dzul]

Well i'm the only one in this discussion who's actually coming back with facts, unlike others who are just telling me i'm wrong but not why i'm wrong....

Well let me explain,building a budget PC is sort of an art and craftmanship,cause you absolutely have to work with small budget yet come up with something absolutely best for every spent penny,on the other hand building a gaming rig with bigger budget is just easy cause you have much more freedom to make mistakes.

And you didn't come up with any fact,only your opinion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/factsheet/en06opin-l1-f-what-is-fact-and-opinion

EDIT:

The fact is you keep calling Intels architecture better yet most of the world builds are budget ones and they keep using still competitive 4 years old AMDs CPUs for usually half the cost of Intels offerings

 

[Styx]

Well let me explain,building a bufget PC is sort of an art and craftmanship,cause you absolutely have to work with small budget yet come up with something absolutely best for every spent penny,on the other hand building a gaming rig with bugger budget is just easy cause you have much more freedom to make mistakes.

And you didn't come up with any fact,only your opinion

It is a fact that ARMA 3 is a CPU intensive game, which if the title of this post (which it indeed is) is building a PC for playing ARMA, then an intel processor in the build is infinitely more appropriate than an AMD processor,

If you need techy facts, look up to my response to lionel.

 

[dzul]

It is a fact that ARMA 3 is a CPU intensive game, which if the title of this post (which it indeed is) is building a PC for playing ARMA, then an intel processor in the build is infinitely more appropriate than an AMD processor,

If you need techy facts, look up to my response to lionel.

Infinetly more appropriate is a huge exagurration my friend,you've seen a fact that @CMO Marc Smithhas posted with a benchmark showing a diffrence of about 5 frames between equal AMDs and Intels offerings with Intel coming up slightly on top,now that's a fact

 

[Styx]

But... but... i put a picture of a nice graph showing amd cpu's out performing your intel ones on arma ;(

But it doesn't show that....

 

[dzul]

But it doesn't show that....

Now do us a favour and compare the prices of highlighted CPUs <3

 

[CMO Marc Smith]

But it doesn't show that....

Of course it shows that... have you even looked at it?

Edit:

Actually, Dzul can have this one

 

[Styx]

Infinetly more appropriate is a huge exagurration my friend,you've seen a fact that @CMO Marc Smithhas posted with a benchmark showing a diffrence of about 5 frames between equal AMDs and Intels offerings with Intel coming up slightly on top,now that's a fact

So that's frames, that graph doesn't take into consideration whether he's in a city or looking at a sky, how long the PC has been on for, what tasks it's performing at that time, how hot it is etc etc. 

That graph is very very vague

 

[lionel]

Well i'm the only one in this discussion who's actually coming back with facts, unlike others who are just telling me i'm wrong but not why i'm wrong....

It seems to me like you don't even realise that Arma 3 is CPU intensive and not GPU intensive.

Well put your money where your mouth is, Build a computer on Ebuyer with link and prices.

I have not seen a single fact from you, you actually state its all opinion based (The very opposite of FACT).

Why are you being so toxic, this thread is based on opinion, i'm giving mine, you could pay less than £100 more and put an intel processor in there, and correct me if i'm wrong but he hasn't mentioned a budget, so it's a suggestion to improve longevity. He asked for our opinion on a build, my opinion is it looks great, even better with an i5 in there.

EDIT: I'm not saying AMD isn't better at the lower price range, everyone is jumping on my dick because I suggested Intel, I was suggesting investing in an intel processor should he have the budget as it's a better choice for a longer term rig.

 

[Styx]

Well put your money where your mouth is, Build a computer on Ebuyer with link and prices.

I have not seen a single fact from you, you actually state its all opinion based (The very opposite of FACT).

Did you ignore my last reply to you that was full of facts?

EDIT: I'm not disputing the price difference, as I have said on several occasions during this thread......

 

[lionel]

Did you ignore my last reply to you that was full of facts?

I saw no facts from you!

Just build the damn thing and prove us all wrong or piss off.

 

[Styx]

Why ???? Please read the thread, you let me know if you can see exactly what you said, also said a number of times without any backing information, you cruise in here "Intel is better lel" and then leave without helping at all. And we have to clean up the mess you create of explaining why your saying that, and why in this case your wrong. Its downright annoying, and has now happened multiple times in this thread that you barely bothered to read. Go put a build together with intel parts and post it here.

I have stated plenty of times that Intel outperforms AMD on Arma3, but you seem to have misconception that Arma3 is unplayable on AMD !

"but he hasn't mentioned a budget" - You don't go to a used car garage with £500 to buy a Lamborghini.

As a techie you should recognise the rant quotes and allow for that.

Please quote me on where I said that Arma 3 is unplayable on AMD.

And here are just some of the reasons as to why investing in an Intel processor is better for gaming (EVEN IF IT IS THE LOW END):

Intel has better performance per single core, where amd has slow cores but more of them. Intel can get more done with less cores and clock speed, if you test you'd find that a 3.3ghz quad core i5 can beat a 4ghz 8 core 8350.

AMD uses modules for it's cores so, two cores share a module, and that module is given cache and resources to match demand, which holds the performance back when comparing to that of a core with dedicated resources.

Intel also favours single threaded performance, which is something GAMING benefits from.

Intel processors also have a lower power consumption in comparison to AMD, which means less heat output, generally improving PC performance (especially important when running games like Arma).

Intel have stronger video decoders, it takes an 8 core amd to even begin to challenge a 4 core intel chip.

Overall, Intel architecture is better, the cores are built on a short pipeline with strong single threaded performance, since games like ARMA are poorly optimised, they thrive on this architecture.

I could go on but you get the idea as to why it's better to invest more in an Intel processor.

@lionel

 

[CMO Marc Smith]

So that's frames, that graph doesn't take into consideration whether he's in a city or looking at a sky, how long the PC has been on for, what tasks it's performing at that time, how hot it is etc etc. 

That graph is very very vague

Seriously? That's what you've got to come back with? Wow... this is actually disappointing.

Right, the benchmark is taken from techspot, who do a lot of benchmarking, so they know what they're doing.

All benchmarks were on the same settings, with the same hardware, with the same installation. No extra tasks, nothing. The graph is actually average fps over a play session, so it's not like they just looked at the ground to render the least possible with the amd ones and then looked at kavala with the intel ones...

 

[dzul]

So that's frames, that graph doesn't take into consideration whether he's in a city or looking at a sky, how long the PC has been on for, what tasks it's performing at that time, how hot it is etc etc. 

That graph is very very vague

So as AMD user let me explain you something:

I'm using my Fx 6300 in this motherboard http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4000#ov which is by no means OC mobo with 3+1 power phases.I''m using 80 PLN cooler which is about 15 £ .My CPU is overclocked at 4,4 GHz sittin on 1.280 V setting in BIOS which realistically is about 1.312 V.

Sitting on 90% load it never hits 60 Celius.

After playing Arma 3 for 6 hours the temps still go up to 56 Celsius with no performance loss.

Now what I just said provided with evidence is a damn fact,something you haven't shown us yet.