• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ARMA III Alpha Benchmarks CPU

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
frozentundra123456 said:
Not really any new information. Its the same game you used to bash it already. I agree it is not well suited for this game, but why do you hate the i3 so many much?

Besides, wasn't this thread supposed to be about another game? Seems some posters have to bring up cry sis 3 in every thread.
Click to expand...

Hate it?, no way, its a very nice little dualcore where HT really matters,i had the 2120 and was very pleased with it, i'm just declaring it MIA in latest games thats all, dualcores even HT enabled ones like the i3 are simply out the game...
 
AtenRa said:
crysis%203%20proz.png


0nIkCAb.jpg


😉
Click to expand...



Holy "REDACTED COW" - how much AMD pro-bs do you spurt or spin per day?


Even if retail non-alpha\beta engine improved scores for AMD.
(i hope).

Your comparing VHQ vs MQ.
One where GPU is the bottleneck in many cases - and one where the CPU\uARCH\Platform is.

Come on.


Do we just ignore Atenra cause he's just so full of "REDACTED COW" these days?


Stop being so ......... creepy and just post VHQ vs VHQ alpha\retail.

You have to spin everything - and in every thread.
Stop it, go to amdzone and get some love beeps sake.
 
Last edited:
MisterMac said:
Holy "REDACTED COW" - how much AMD pro-bs do you spurt or spin per day?


Even if retail non-alpha\beta engine improved scores for AMD.
(i hope).

Your comparing VHQ vs MQ.
One where GPU is the bottleneck in many cases - and one where the CPU\uARCH\Platform is.

Come on.


Do we just ignore Atenra cause he's just so full of "REDACTED COW" these days?


Stop being so ......... creepy and just post VHQ vs VHQ alpha\retail.

You have to spin everything - and in every thread.
Stop it, go to amdzone and get some love beeps sake.
Click to expand...


Crysis 3 Alpha (Multi-player testing) CPU and GPU Preliminary Performance - GameGPU

crysis%203%20proz.png


Now lets see some conclusions made after the CPU scaling slide was posted.

Spjut said:
Ouch, this and the BF3 CPU test really show that AMD's lineup is aging fast(still playable enough though)
Click to expand...

RussianSensation said:
I don't think it'll matter that much. The performance gap between 8150 and Intel's high-end chips is enormous. Vishera is what 12-13% faster than 8150 overall? That's not enough to catch up even to a Core i5.
Click to expand...

frozentundra123456 said:
Even with a 20% increase, it would still be below any quad intel.
Click to expand...

djnsmith7 said:
For the die-hard Crysis / AMD CPU fans out there, depending on what the final release numbers look like, you may have to jump ship if you want to play at VHQ. Not sure if the AMD chips will be up to the task.
Click to expand...

Crysis 3 Retail

0nIkCAb.jpg


I believe now you understand why i put those slides here.

Edit: just to add that the game is still CPU limited with the GTX690 at 1080p VHQ no AA settings.
 
Last edited:
frozentundra123456 said:
Because amd fans have been arguing endlessly that the i3 is a terrible gaming chip, and one poster said this game showed the same trend as crysis 3 that you need at least a quad core. Obviously the numbers do not bear this out. I guess it is somehow OK to point out where amd is competitive, but not to do the same for Intel.
Click to expand...

The Core i3 2100 is also very close to a Core i5 2500K which in many parts of the world is over 70% more expensive. The would also place the Core i3 3220 and Core i3 3240 probably level pegging with a lot of non-K series SB Core i5 CPUs too,and probably low end IB Core i5 CPUs like the Core i5 3350P due to the lower Turbo clockspeeds.

The Core i5 CPUs don't seem to do exceptionally well in this game considering how much more they cost over a Core i3 even for the non-K models.
 
Last edited:
BallaTheFeared said:
Is ARMA 3 a Gaming Evolved title where AMD can add performance crippling ropes to bolster the appearance of their processors?

Otherwise I'm not sure where you're getting the connection.
Click to expand...
You seriously think that AMD can add "performance crippling ropes" to 3rd party game code just because the game is in their gaming evolved program? If you do then you are very gullible person I'm afraid.
 
AMD Gaming Evolved program is for their Graphic Processing Units/GPU's...

Also AMD did nothing against Intel, no compilers or anything like that what Intel does. More and more programs/games will be multi-threaded since single-threading hit the bottom and that is the future. Bulldozer/Piledriver/Steamroller/Excavator use new arhitecture... So older programs and games can't use the potential of it, Crysis 3 supports 6 cores. i7 2600k is only 5 slower than i7 3770k so FX 8350 is tied with 3770k.

Lonbjerg, Crysis 3 and ARMA 3 are both very demanding games and good looking...
 
Lonbjerg said:
So for the third time I ask?

What does Crysis 3 have to do with ARMA3?

Here is BTW gameplay from ARMA2 multiplayer, so people can get a sense of what ARMA is all about...and hint-hint...it has NOTHING to do with Crysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bocXSVrsZtQ
Click to expand...
Stop crapping in this thread. AtenRa's answer was clear enough, but since you apparently require a additional written explanation to comprehend his post: the link to Crysis 3 was made because it shows the difference in how CPU's might perform in Alpha benchmarks compared with benchmarks of a finished product.
Apart from this, the link to Crysis 3 is totally insignificant, and nobody here cares about the their difference in gameplay.


So, what has ARMA2 multiplayer gameplay footage got to with ARMA3 Alpha CPU benchmarks?..... hint-hint.. it has NOTHING to do with it.

FYI, the PC-Gaming forums are over here, this is about CPU comparisons.

@Below
I can assure you, that Lonbjerg's post wasn't meant sarcastic in any way, he feels the need defend/promote the ARMA series everytime when ARMA gets mentioned or compared with other FPS' in a random post.

@Lonbjerg
Nice try.
 
Last edited:
Look like this thread is another example of Crysis3/AMD GE being promoted...even if they have nothing to do with ARMA3.

Intel CPU's ruled ARMA2...I'd Wager ARMA3 willl be no different.
 
Lonbjerg said:
Look like this thread is another example of Crysis3/AMD GE being promoted...even if they have nothing to do with ARMA3.

Intel CPU's ruled ARMA2...I'd Wager ARMA3 willl be no different.
Click to expand...


yes but your a bigot so who actually cares what you wager because its never from a neutral or objective view point.
 
itsmydamnation said:
yes but your a bigot so who actually cares what you wager because its never from a neutral or objective view point.
Click to expand...

All I care about in this thread is ARMA CPU performance...as I have played since Operation Flashpoint in the series.

I await too see BETA numbers now...not Crysis3 or AMD GE PR...couldn't care less for those.
 
Every CPU performs like crap in this game. I suspect the game doesn't care about more than 2 or 3 cores. What a shame.
 
moonbogg said:
Every CPU performs like crap in this game. I suspect the game doesn't care about more than 2 or 3 cores. What a shame.
Click to expand...

Cue clueless poster, posting FUD due to no knowlegede of what the games does
One good thing about it?

I will never see him online in ARMA3...and gameplay will be better for that reason ^^

Someone should inform him what Alpha means though....but I have wasted enough time already 🙄
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top