• 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.

[GPU.RU]ARMA III Bench

Jaydip

Diamond Member
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-test-gpu.html

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-ARMA_III-test-a3_1920_u.jpg


http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-ARMA_III-test-a3_2560_u.jpg


http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-ARMA_III-test-a3_proz_u.jpg


1.Another game where you need MGPU

2.Extra two cores provide no tangible benefits to 3970X
 
Last edited:
How is it possible that this game doesn't even use 2 cores properly?!
From the screenshots - it doesn't look as amazing as one could though from looking at the graphs
 
How can a new game engine only use 2 cores? An AMD FX4100 should not get the same performance as a FX-8350. This is laughable.

And shouldn't the top graph for the Titan match the bottom graph for the 3970X?
 
How can a new game engine only use 2 cores? An AMD FX4100 should not get the same performance as a FX-8350. This is laughable.

well, this is a PC only game, from a smaller company... that's why i5s are great deals, good for any kind of game.

And shouldn't the top graph for the Titan match the bottom graph for the 3970X?

why? they can use different scenes for CPU and GPU testing
 
Yet another unoptimized turd. You get just 2 fps more by moving from 2600K to 3930K and I bet all of that is coming from extra cache and turbo boost. It's hard to believe a game with graphics from 2006 is needing 780s in SLI for smooth gameplay.

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-ARMA_III-test-cach-arma3_2013_09_15_21_48_20_955.jpg


http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-ARMA_III-arma3_2013_09_15_21_53_45_990.jpg


Crysis 1 from 2007 craps all over this graphically and runs faster too. This should not be the case vs. a 2013 FPS game. They should license the latest CryEngine, UE 4 or Frostbite.
 
Last edited:
well, this is a PC only game, from a smaller company... that's why i5s are great deals, good for any kind of game.



why? they can use different scenes for CPU and GPU testing

Smaller company or not, there is no reason to not build the engine for using at least 4 threads. For this game an i5 is a complete waste. You get the same performance for an i3 (If you clock the i3 to the same clock speed). The i5 only outperforms it a bit because of turbo boost.
 
Smaller company or not, there is no reason to not build the engine for using at least 4 threads. For this game an i5 is a complete waste. You get the same performance for an i3 (If you clock the i3 to the same clock speed). The i5 only outperforms it a bit because of turbo boost.

well, there is probably a good reason, as far as I know they keep updating their very old engine...

you don't get the same performance as an I3 because you can't overclock i3s, and they have half the l3 cache.
 
BIS have actually published quite a lot of details about why they can't easily use multiple threads, its largely impossible given the complexity of the simulation they are doing. BIS isn't a big studio and they have an incredibly complex game engine so its a real challenge to make it use more threads than it does. It actually runs OK but I do wish it would use more CPUs because I would like to be able to get to a high refresh rate and better GPU utilisation.

You have to bare in mind that in Arma 3 you play on a single map that is 270 Sq KM and you can see up to about 10KM, the graphics are thus impacted by that. They are also going for a look that is more realistic, so the difference between light and dark isn't over done or overbloomed like in some other games. Graphically its much better than its predecessor, but its obviously not the best looking game but I also don't know of a single other game that even has 10KM of continuous map in a multiplayer game let alone one which does it with 60 players and 300 AI.
 
Interesting results but hard to extrapolate to multiplayer due to the testing methodology. The fact that it's the infantry showcase with only 20 or so AI vs real world MP scenarios and the limited opportunities to see long distances in the enclosed valley where the showcase takes place also limits what we can learn. The AI in idiot mode is another factor that probably prevents much opening up between the CPU's but I may well be wrong. Going to hold fire on my upgrade as it looks like my 2009/2010 system is actually holding up pretty well in this game.
 
Last edited:
It's hard to believe a game with graphics from 2006

ha! don't think we were seeing graphics like this back in 2006. arma 3 may not have the greatest textures, which is to be expected considering the sheer size of the maps, but it more than makes up for it in lighting and other things,imo. and some textures do look pretty good.

8532961472_dfe24f1de6_o.jpg


Cux6zx.png



Crysis 1 from 2007 craps all over this graphically

lol.....

heavily modded crysis

hz8w5U.png


lXQi2q.png


kjj3Bl.png
 
Back
Top