Forum Jump :

Author Message


Posts: 2
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location:
Occupation:
Age:
In-game name:

 
#1 Posted at 2015-12-30 10:37        
     
I5? I7? E3? FX 83xx good enough?

Was using: FX 6300 (died 29th :c)
Now using: phenom ii x4 945

Gpu: 7950 (confident this will get 60fps ultra with no bottleneck.. Gets 20 at 20% usage, 40 at 50...)

Oh yeah, ArmA III... (game being used, 2 is dead except overpoch)


Author Message

DarkXess  

Modsaholic Founder


Posts: 2855
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: cn
Location: PRC
Occupation:
Age: 36
In-game name: DarkXess

 
#2 Posted at 2015-12-30 14:46        
     
i5 is working fine for me, the i5-4690K in fact, no problems at all. They say that AMD isnt the way to go for gaming so the FX cards I would not recommend. If you want decent graphics then got for a GTX card maybe something like a 960, 970, or 980 should do you just fine for playing A3.

Welcome to Armaholic :-)

1st - Check The Rules! 2nd - Use The Search!


Advertisement


Author Message


Posts: 131
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location:
Occupation:
Age: 22
In-game name: Joshua

 
#3 Posted at 2016-01-01 03:39        
     
Much like DarkXess said, Intel is the way to go for Arma. Arma isn't a very GPU demanding game, I have a GTX 970 in my desktop and it has more than enough horse power for Arma 3. However I have a 650M in my laptop and it struggles to keep up at medium settings at ~1440x900 (not 1920x1080). I am not sure exactly where the 7950 fits into that, but based on what I know of the older AMD cards, you might want to look into a slightly more powerful card.
As for the CPU, Intel is the way to go. AMD can run the game but Intel gives you much more bang for your buck with how Arma is optimized. An i5 or i7 will give the best performance, though an i3 or even a good Pentium could be made to work. I wouldn't recommend an E3 (or any other Xeon chip) unless you need the build to double as a server. I have a i7 3840QM in my laptop and that handles the CPU end fine. The 4790K in my desktop is about as close to overkill as you can get for Arma and runs it pretty well. I recommend going to CPU boss (http://cpuboss.com/) and finding the best processor for single core performance you can afford (single core performance is a metric that CPU boss measures).


Author Message


Posts: 2
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location:
Occupation:
Age:
In-game name:

 
#4 Posted at 2016-01-02 09:51        
     
# DarkXess : i5 is working fine for me, the i5-4690K in fact, no problems at all. They say that AMD isnt the way to go for gaming so the FX cards I would not recommend. If you want decent graphics then got for a GTX card maybe something like a 960, 970, or 980 should do you just fine for playing A3.

Welcome to Armaholic :-)

I have no reason to buy Nvidia, considering the 390 is slightly less than a 970 and has wayyyyy more horsepower. Physx is a joke as well. Nvidia also has worse drivers at this point in time. (Yay Radeon crimson) HD 7950 is more than enough to max all the games I have at 1080p. (Gta, bf4. arma 3 has massive cpu caused gpu bottleneck, gpu gets 30% usage, still gets 30fps. By myself (solo altis, editor) I can get 70-120+ fps ultra, which shows gpu is bottlenecked by my CPU and that's specifically why I made the topic regarding the cpu...)

Note : I reread what you said; people that say amd isn't for gaming are fanboys... Come on, in most games, fx-8350 gets at most 10fps less than 4790k, and the fx is from 2011, the i7 from 2014. Obviously the fx is gonna show age. I only consider intel cpu's because I do a lot of heavy work, like animation and mapping. I need a little more horsepower for some things.
Besides, Nvidia always comes out with something new after AMD catches up again. 290 is about the same as a 970, but performs slightly worse, and AMD gets talked shit about. The 290 was 780 competitor. 390 is 970 competitor and it stomps on 970... Fanboys just love to cry about everything to make the other company look worse. Cpuboss and gpuboss consist of these people.

Did you really just call Radeons an FX? I'm not sure if you're confused or know that little about the company. No disrespect, just saying.


Author Message


Posts: 131
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location:
Occupation:
Age: 22
In-game name: Joshua

 
#5 Posted at 2016-01-02 22:32        
     
I wasn't specifically recommending an NVidia card, I am not completely sure about AMD's naming conventions on cards pre 200 series and wanted to let you know Arma isn't a GPU demanding game (both my computers happen to have NVidia cards).

As for the CPU, I wasn't aware of the 8350's performance. I will keep that in mind in the future (though I do tend to lean Intel over AMD for cpus.) The big thing that counts is per core performance. If you are fine with the per core performance of an AMD cpu, then there is no need to spend the extra on the intel. Core chips tend to be better per core than Xeon chips though.