Arma 3 is NOT CPU intensive

[Casimir 4]

CPU is very important, but the GPU is WAY WAY WAY more important compared to it. I rather have a good GPU than CPU for this game.

Why are you spreading misinformation that the CPU is more important?

[Caleb Snackbar 198]

1 minute ago, Piotrus said:

CPU is very important, but the GPU is WAY WAY WAY more important compared to it. I rather have a good GPU than CPU for this game.

Why are you spreading misinformation that the CPU is more important?

It’s dependent upon your settings lower settings is more CPU but if you turn them up higher it’s more GPU dependent 

[Civak 1731]

but it is

turn your render scaling to something over 100% and it lightens the load on the CPU and puts it back on the GPU

[Casimir 4]

1 minute ago, Civak said:

but it is

turn your render scaling to something over 100% and it lightens the load on the CPU and puts it back on the GPU

No it's not, where's your proof. Or are you just gullible and suck in the misinformation that everyone spreads?

[Civak 1731]

3 minutes ago, Piotrus said:

No it's not, where's your proof. Or are you just gullible and suck in the misinformation that everyone spreads?

but it is

where is your proof that it's not

[Theory 220]

5 minutes ago, Civak said:

but it is

turn your render scaling to something over 100% and it lightens the load on the CPU and puts it back on the GPU

I wish I knew that what the fucuuuck

[Casimir 4]

Just now, Civak said:

but it is

where is your proof that it's not

All games that use DirectX or OpenGL are more GPU intensive and the CPU is not as important compared to the GPU. That's a known fact.

Where is your proof that that's not the case with Arma 3?

1 minute ago, Civak said:

but it is

where is your proof that it's not

 

[Civak 1731]

6 minutes ago, Piotrus said:

All games that use DirectX or OpenGL are more GPU intensive and the CPU is not as important compared to the GPU. That's a known fact.

Where is your proof that that's not the case with Arma 3?

have you played arma before

[Casimir 4]

Just now, Civak said:

have you played arma before

Yes, have you?

[KrispyK 22]

dont be a retard, you are the one spreading misinformation.

i have the same shit in my laptop as my desktop except for the cpu as its shitter in my desktop, and more ram in my desktop.
my laptop gets better frame rate.
its the cpu.
everyone knows this.
@Piotrus
@Piotrus
@Piotrus
@Piotrus
@Piotrus

if you are trying to push something that is against the consensus its up to you to provide proof.

[BENJI 1021]

2 hours ago, Piotrus said:

CPU is very important, but the GPU is WAY WAY WAY more important compared to it. I rather have a good GPU than CPU for this game.

Why are you spreading misinformation that the CPU is more important?

Arma 3 is a calculation heavy game demanding more proccesing power to run it, it's a CPU intensive game. Get a hold of yourself

[Toasty 1564]

Taskmanager speaks for itself.

https://gyazo.com/9974478b528ce6c41b6398c7acbbe05d

[Piner 115]

He's a moron, ignore...

[Casimir 4]

5 hours ago, KrispyK said:

dont be a retard, you are the one spreading misinformation.

i have the same shit in my laptop as my desktop except for the cpu as its shitter in my desktop, and more ram in my desktop.
my laptop gets better frame rate.
its the cpu.
everyone knows this.
@Piotrus
@Piotrus
@Piotrus
@Piotrus
@Piotrus

if you are trying to push something that is against the consensus its up to you to provide proof.

Everybody knows this because every retard spreads this false information. It's like fake news, if you push it, the majority will believe it. Take a look at CNN and MSBN, people believe in that crap.

2 hours ago, Toasty said:

Taskmanager speaks for itself.

https://gyazo.com/9974478b528ce6c41b6398c7acbbe05d

That proves nothing, you're literally showing percentage. GPU have more power in total. Now you're going to tell me 10% of 100 is more then 1% of 1000000000.

2 hours ago, Piner said:

He's a moron, ignore...

Is that your argument: "He's a moron, ignore...". Why don't you provide some evidence and some reason before you just make yourself sound like a autistic retard.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Remer said:

Arma 3 is a calculation heavy game demanding more proccesing power to run it, it's a CPU intensive game. Get a hold of yourself

Yea it's CPU intesive, but the GPU is WAY WAY WAY more important. You guys are making it out like the CPU is more important then the GPU.

Pussies rekted with LOGIC and REASON. Who's next.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Piotrus

[BENJI 1021]

14 hours ago, Piotrus said:

Yea it's CPU intesive, but the GPU is WAY WAY WAY more important. You guys are making it out like the CPU is more important then the GPU.

You actually couldn't be more wrong, the CPU does all the heavy lifting. Yeah depending on your GPU you MIGHT be able to run on higher video settings, or MAYBE get a slight increase in FPS. It's simply due to this game's engine, as it's not that great in the performance department as you can tell. Simply googling this would give you all the proof of why Arma 3 is CPU intensive, and lots of it at that. Stop acting like you're right, cause you aren't.

[Captain_ 207]

Crtl+alt+del-> task manager 

Why even argue this when you can see the usage 

[Big Steve 54]

It is.

[Icy 127]

idk how i came across this thread nor why i’m posting on it, but here i am.

previously i had a bad gpu and a bad cpu, but now i have a good cpu and a bad gpu. my frames are noticeably better and i can run arma 3 on ultra

 

or maybe that’s just my i9-9900k fucking with me and my frames will tank when i get on tomorrow.

[OOster 0]

Sorry for the necro.

I'm here to squash everyones point here including the OPs.

If you mostly play small scale multiplayer scenarios IE official server games like KoH or official single player campaigns, then yes OP is correct the cpu usage is less than GPU.

However. If you are a mission maker, or in a unit that does large scale scenarios like warlords or Zeus then yes this game will absolutely tank your cpu. 

Facts and evidence:

I have been making missions/scrips/mods in ArmA since 2011. I have over 4k hours across every ArmA title. In the older titles mission framework can absolutely stop in its tracks if your cpu is low end. When I first started making missions I used a Toshiba Satellite laptop. If I placed too many waypoints over vast distances and places large scripts in every unit to force them to have a particular loadout the game fell apart. My frames would be seconds per frame, and AI functions would cease to act. Blufor and opfor wouldn't attack each other, even if they were placed feet apart with no scripts effecting behavior. AI units wouldn't move. AI functions failing to do their jobs is a cpu related hang up. I proved this later when I built my first work station and replayed these same exact missions on arma 2. I loaded the old files and AI behavior returned.

Speaking of work stations. When I build Computers I design around mostly the CPU. I do other things Like 3d rendering and map building. In 2013 I went from that toshiba laptop to these specs:

i7-3940k 6 cores 12 threads (OC) 4.1 ghz
16gb ram ddr3 2133mhz cl13
GTX 780 (Later upgraded to GTX 980ti SC in 2016)

For 2013 this was a very powerful set up, it still is today in terms of just gaming, but not for workstation applications. One of my most detailed missions I've made in arma 3 consist of very intense scrips/configs/mods. I used The ravage mod to create a survival based insurgency sand box where players must go and find gear, money, allies, and food to complete tasks covering the entire map of Tanoa where they will find enemies from multiple factions who spawn dynamically around the player. With multiple stores where players can purchase gear and save items persistently in a dedicated server and save/sell any items they found from the random loot spawner. Needless to say there is a lot happening in the mission. However at any given moment no more than 50 AI units are allowed to be alive throughout the map. 

With those specs I was only able to get 12 frames on ultra when I can normally run it above 60 fps on smaller missions.
Today I built a new work station. And I used My arma 3 mission as a benchmark.

Ryzen 9 3950x 16 cores 32 threads 3.5 ghz (No OC)
16gb ram ddr4 3600mhz cl15
GTX 980ti SC

I get 31 frames on that same mission with only a cpu upgrade and slightly faster ram 

https://ibb.co/mcmKJ7c
https://ibb.co/C20Nv3d
https://ibb.co/JQX3bwj

Arma can be cpu intensive in the right circumstance.

If you want to try that mission out for yourself as a benchmark email me.

[email protected]

[evannnn 590]

2 hours ago, OOster said:

Sorry for the necro.

I'm here to squash everyones point here including the OPs.

If you mostly play small scale multiplayer scenarios IE official server games like KoH or official single player campaigns, then yes OP is correct the cpu usage is less than GPU.

However. If you are a mission maker, or in a unit that does large scale scenarios like warlords or Zeus then yes this game will absolutely tank your cpu. 

Facts and evidence:

I have been making missions/scrips/mods in ArmA since 2011. I have over 4k hours across every ArmA title. In the older titles mission framework can absolutely stop in its tracks if your cpu is low end. When I first started making missions I used a Toshiba Satellite laptop. If I placed too many waypoints over vast distances and places large scripts in every unit to force them to have a particular loadout the game fell apart. My frames would be seconds per frame, and AI functions would cease to act. Blufor and opfor wouldn't attack each other, even if they were placed feet apart with no scripts effecting behavior. AI units wouldn't move. AI functions failing to do their jobs is a cpu related hang up. I proved this later when I built my first work station and replayed these same exact missions on arma 2. I loaded the old files and AI behavior returned.

Speaking of work stations. When I build Computers I design around mostly the CPU. I do other things Like 3d rendering and map building. In 2013 I went from that toshiba laptop to these specs:

i7-3940k 6 cores 12 threads (OC) 4.1 ghz
16gb ram ddr3 2133mhz cl13
GTX 780 (Later upgraded to GTX 980ti SC in 2016)

For 2013 this was a very powerful set up, it still is today in terms of just gaming, but not for workstation applications. One of my most detailed missions I've made in arma 3 consist of very intense scrips/configs/mods. I used The ravage mod to create a survival based insurgency sand box where players must go and find gear, money, allies, and food to complete tasks covering the entire map of Tanoa where they will find enemies from multiple factions who spawn dynamically around the player. With multiple stores where players can purchase gear and save items persistently in a dedicated server and save/sell any items they found from the random loot spawner. Needless to say there is a lot happening in the mission. However at any given moment no more than 50 AI units are allowed to be alive throughout the map. 

With those specs I was only able to get 12 frames on ultra when I can normally run it above 60 fps on smaller missions.
Today I built a new work station. And I used My arma 3 mission as a benchmark.

Ryzen 9 3950x 16 cores 32 threads 3.5 ghz (No OC)
16gb ram ddr4 3600mhz cl15
GTX 980ti SC

I get 31 frames on that same mission with only a cpu upgrade and slightly faster ram 

https://ibb.co/mcmKJ7c
https://ibb.co/C20Nv3d
https://ibb.co/JQX3bwj

Arma can be cpu intensive in the right circumstance.

If you want to try that mission out for yourself as a benchmark email me.

[email protected]

shut up retard

[Toretto 564]

On Arma you want the CPU with the most speed.  Doesn't matter if it's an i5 or i7.  If you're pumping out high GHz numbers then you're going to be solid.  Even though the game is technically multi-threaded it is all bottle-necked by a single core process.  Multi-threading for older games was not something common.  Older games are retro-actively adding multi-threading.  World of Warcraft just got muilti-threading support last year after the game had been out since 2004!

 

As for Arma, I do believe there is a way to make things better using headless clients (server addition).  I am not entirely sure if Olympus uses headless clients, but on a previous Arma server I played on they attempted to implement it.

[Deluxe 34]

Just pour ln2 on your delidded cpu while clocking it at 5.6 ghz you will usually get over 60fps in kav while still keeping decent temps. Make sure you pour more ln2 on when necessary though or it will kill the CPU. I recommend using a i9 10900k or similar. 

[Johnny Greene 18]

i found more RAM 16gb+ and faster ram speeds to be a big help to arma 3 ddr4 2400mhz or higher seems to work back when i had a potato as a laptop