3D, 1080p and very high settings in ArmA III - GTX 660 Ti SLI or GTX 670 SLI?

[finguide]

Hi Gurus!

I'm going to buy high-end PC to play my favourite game series' next game, ArmA III. My goal is to play in 3D @1080p and very high / maxed out video settings.

My question: do you think that 2 x GTX 660 Ti in SLI is enough to run ArmA III with those settings? Or do I need to purchase 2 x GTX 670 in SLI?

I know, the game isn't released yet, but you can always estimate. I really really appreciate any help.

Thanks in advance!

[-=Seany=-]

Wait for the Alpha test to come out, then see what perf others are getting.

Also, when any of the Arma series has been released before, they can not be run at "max" settings by any available hardware at the time.

[The Goose]

Originally Posted by finguide

Hi Gurus!

I'm going to buy high-end PC to play my favourite game series' next game, ArmA III. My goal is to play in 3D @1080p and very high / maxed out video settings.

My question: do you think that 2 x GTX 660 Ti in SLI is enough to run ArmA III with those settings? Or do I need to purchase 2 x GTX 670 in SLI?

I know, the game isn't released yet, but you can always estimate. I really really appreciate any help.

Thanks in advance!

I`d be more concerned about your cpu and getting the best out of it

[SLI-756]

dual 660ti has a memory bandwidth weakness (users of said setups reporting lower minimum frames than the rest of us on higher).
gotta be dual 670s, 4gb versions for your Arma3 (i'm gonna get it too especially for the PhysX).
check out the evga 670 ftw 4gb, just get the one now if that's all you can afford.
having a very high vram barrier is ok if you run a dual setup, actually it's ideal.

[---TK---]

Originally Posted by SLI-756

dual 660ti has a memory bandwidth weakness (users of said setups reporting lower minimum frames than the rest of us on higher).
gotta be dual 670s, 4gb versions for your Arma3 (i'm gonna get it too especially for the PhysX).
check out the evga 670 ftw 4gb, just get the one now if that's all you can afford.
having a very high vram barrier is ok if you run a dual setup, actually it's ideal.

A single card will benefit from extra vram the same as a sli setup would. After all the data is mirrored on all video cards in a sli setup.

[finguide]

Thanks a lot for your answers!

I'm going to get i5-3570k and OC it to maximum stable settings, about 4,5 - 4,7 GHz. Would it be the bottleneck of my system if I bought 2 x 670 ftw 4 GBs? ArmA series is known as CPU-killer. I've read comments that the developers are transferring some of the stress caused by the game from CPU to GPU though.

[thatguy91]

i5-3570k really maxes out around 4.4 to 4.5 Ghz, 4.7 Ghz is possible but requires water cooling, considerably higher voltages, and even possibly the dangerous IHS removal and re-TIMming, so best to stick with 4.4Ghz. If you can't play the game at 4.4, you won't be able to play it at 4.6!

You won't need a Nvidia card to make use of Physx, the game uses Physx 3 which is better optimised for CPU use. Physx before now was programmed specifically to run poor on CPU. The funny thing with offloading Physx to the GPU is that it takes GPU performance away from actually rendering graphics. Although Physx 3 won't be anywhere nearly optimised for CPU use, it shouldn't be a disadvantage not to have an Nvidia card...

By the time the game is release, the Radeon HD8000 should have been released, so, say a HD8950 or HD8970 would be a good option

[finguide]

I was going to wait for HD8000 series, but I decided to select Nvidia because of the better second generation 3D technology. If I've understood right, the Nvidia 3D Vision 2 offers a lot better 3D image quality with a monitor that supports LightBoost-technology than HD3D that is like Nvidia 3D without LightBoost (=50 % brightness compared to normal 2D image).

[finguide]

What do you think: could i5-3570k handle a pair of EVGA GTX 670 FTW 4 Gb cards in SLI?

What I mean, if I've understood right, it's common problem that getting another GPU can just cut your FPS to half, if processor can't handle two cards at the same time, so the CPU just gets overstressed. Don't want to do a 400 € mistake...

[---TK---]

Originally Posted by finguide

What do you think: could i5-3570k handle a pair of EVGA GTX 670 FTW 4 Gb cards in SLI?

What I mean, if I've understood right, it's common problem that getting another GPU can just cut your FPS to half, if processor can't handle two cards at the same time, so the CPU just gets overstressed. Don't want to do a 400 € mistake...

an oc IB would do just fine there, if you want more mhz get a 2500k, if you get a good low voltage one you can do 5ghz on a good air cooler.

[eternitykh]

*raises hand*

3570k and 2x 670 ftw+ 4gb in sli here

cpu clocked to 4.6~4.8 (depends if im benching or not), works well, and i see 99% usage on both cards no problem (if the game demands it and if the game has good sli scaling).

so, go nuts!

[SLI-756]

Originally Posted by thatguy91

i5-3570k really maxes out around 4.4 to 4.5 Ghz, 4.7 Ghz is possible but requires water cooling, considerably higher voltages, and even possibly the dangerous IHS removal and re-TIMming, so best to stick with 4.4Ghz. If you can't play the game at 4.4, you won't be able to play it at 4.6!

You won't need a Nvidia card to make use of Physx, the game uses Physx 3 which is better optimised for CPU use. Physx before now was programmed specifically to run poor on CPU. The funny thing with offloading Physx to the GPU is that it takes GPU performance away from actually rendering graphics. Although Physx 3 won't be anywhere nearly optimised for CPU use, it shouldn't be a disadvantage not to have an Nvidia card...

By the time the game is release, the Radeon HD8000 should have been released, so, say a HD8950 or HD8970 would be a good option

I wouldn't recommend an AMD card for Arma3, gotta be nvidia due to PhysX, also 3570k doesn't max out around 4.4 - 4.5, i suggest a better cpu cooler or thermal paste.

[---TK---]

Can you post a p95 screenshot at least an hour into p95 blend with core temp or real temp open. I'm curious as to see what temps you are getting at 4.7

[eternitykh]

Originally Posted by ---TK---

Can you post a p95 screenshot at least an hour into p95 blend with core temp or real temp open. I'm curious as to see what temps you are getting at 4.7

me?

sure i'll do that once i get home from work tonight. i'll probably just let it run during dinner time.

[---TK---]

Not you that sli dude, wouldn't mind seeing that though

[SLI-756]

Originally Posted by ---TK---

Can you post a p95 screenshot at least an hour into p95 blend with core temp or real temp open. I'm curious as to see what temps you are getting at 4.7

hehe, um NO!!

here, this is me idling, i ain't gonna thrash my new ivy bridge for an hour for some stranger on a kids forum.

[Brendruis]

Originally Posted by SLI-756

I wouldn't recommend an AMD card for Arma3, gotta be nvidia due to PhysX, also 3570k doesn't max out around 4.4 - 4.5, i suggest a better cpu cooler or thermal paste.

Big boy 3770Ks max out at about 4.4-4.5 without high end loops and LN2.. that's what we are referring to

maybe little guy 3570Ks without hyperthreading can go higher

I'd still like to see your temps. The TIM in place of soldered IHS in combination with higher transistor density has had quite a large increase in temperature from Sandy to Ivy. I know I had a good 10-15C jump from a 2600K to 3770K.

Test with the latest AVX prime, not AIDA64 or some other BS. Honestly if you are below 95C under load I'll be impressed.. and I'll question if that is truly stable like have you checked for WHEA loggers? If you've got those you're not stable yet.. add some LLC and then see what temps are.

[SLI-756]

My rig is built for gaming primarily, when used as such the cpu is imo the boss, just being honest here.
so if i thrash it for an hour and make it sweat it'll get warmer than a Sandy, ok big deal, perhaps you're right i don't know nor give a damn, also for an ivy bridge cpu i'd advise a z77.
Enjoy running your gen2 rigs, fellas, just keep tellin' yourselves it's the most ideal and it'll be fine.

in my experience this cpu is cooler than my ol' 2500k.

[Brendruis]

Originally Posted by SLI-756

My rig is built for gaming primarily, when used as such the cpu is imo the boss, just being honest here.
so if i thrash it for an hour and make it sweat it'll get warmer than a Sandy, ok big deal, perhaps you're right i don't know nor give a damn, also for an ivy bridge cpu i'd advise a z77.
Enjoy running your gen2 rigs, fellas, just keep tellin' yourselves it's the most ideal and it'll be fine.

in my experience this cpu is cooler than my ol' 2500k.

I'm sorry but 3570K is not cooler than 2500K... only at idle is it cooler.. Give it something to do and you'll see its quite a bit hotter actually.. do you stress test your OCs?

Not sure who you are advising to be on Z77 either.. my P67 supports PCI-E Gen 3.0 and everything I need.. the only thing I feel its missing is technologies from Lucid to utilize the IGPU which honestly I wouldn't use anyhow.

[SLI-756]

Originally Posted by Brendruis

I'm sorry but 3570K is not cooler than 2500K... only at idle is it cooler.. Give it something to do and you'll see its quite a bit hotter actually.. do you stress test your OCs?

Not sure who you are advising to be on Z77 either.. my P67 supports PCI-E Gen 3.0 and everything I need.. the only thing I feel its missing is technologies from Lucid to utilize the IGPU which honestly I wouldn't use anyhow.

Your card is running on gen3 x16?
I disagree with it being 'quite a bit hotter'(at least in gaming my Ivy runs cooler), having owned them both, i stress my OCs with heaven 11.5 and it always does me fine (e.g. i know that for 4.8 i need more juice but 4.7 no probs, and i stress my OCs & components with daily usage, if something fails i go change a setting, easy.
I'll do a 11.5 run with coretemp open but cba with anything else, i bought avengers blu ray yesterday, disc quality is pants these days - a spec of dust fell on the disc and it no-longer works - and i only watch a tiny bit of it and had only seen a chitty copy before that, so yeah -i'll stop praising the Ivy's if you guys want, it'll be a shame for prospectful buyers though to miss out, guru's prefer sandy over ivy, whatever next?

[thatguy91]

Ivy is better than Sandy, but doesn't clock as high. An Ivy at 4400, 4500 Mhz is at least as good as a Sandy at 4800, if not higher.

I highly doubt an Ivy Bridge can do 4700 without getting warm. The issue is the TIM used by Intel, it simply can't transfer the heat quick enough. Using LN2 etc is different though, the coldness is such that it overcomes the bad TIM somewhat.

In terms of ARMA III, the actual topic of discussion, I wouldn't overlook AMD over Nvidia just because of Physx. ARMA III uses Physx 3, which should be better in terms of performance on CPU. Physx was deliberately made to run a bad as possible on CPU, to make the performance on CPU look better.

The problem with GPU physx is that it take processing away from the graphics. If Physx was programmed properly for CPU, it would be pretty the case that if the GPU is taxed and CPU not, CPU Physx would be better, and vice versa. Physx 3 is only barely 'optimised', if you can call it that, for CPU, it doesn't make use of SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.x, AVX, XOP, or anything else that may or may not be beneficial.

[HeavyHemi]

Originally Posted by thatguy91

Ivy is better than Sandy, but doesn't clock as high. An Ivy at 4400, 4500 Mhz is at least as good as a Sandy at 4800, if not higher.

I highly doubt an Ivy Bridge can do 4700 without getting warm. The issue is the TIM used by Intel, it simply can't transfer the heat quick enough. Using LN2 etc is different though, the coldness is such that it overcomes the bad TIM somewhat.

In terms of ARMA III, the actual topic of discussion, I wouldn't overlook AMD over Nvidia just because of Physx. ARMA III uses Physx 3, which should be better in terms of performance on CPU. Physx was deliberately made to run a bad as possible on CPU, to make the performance on CPU look better.

The problem with GPU physx is that it take processing away from the graphics. If Physx was programmed properly for CPU, it would be pretty the case that if the GPU is taxed and CPU not, CPU Physx would be better, and vice versa. Physx 3 is only barely 'optimised', if you can call it that, for CPU, it doesn't make use of SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.x, AVX, XOP, or anything else that may or may not be beneficial.

You mean PhysX initially was designed to run on a PPU not the CPU. They didn't intentionally gimp performance on the CPU. The CPU is far too slow to run extensive hardware accelerated PhysX effects. You might as well have said the problem with 'X' Physics engine is it slows down blah blah blah. Yes indeed, adding effects slows things down regardless if it runs on the GPU or the CPU. I'm not sure why people who should know better, still perpetuate this silly myth.

[thatguy91]

It's not a silly myth, it's fact. Until Physx 3, Physx was purely x86 code. It had no instruction extensions whatsoever. If it were programmed with whatever instructions are useful out of any of the instruction sets it would perform very much significantly better. Nvidia simply didn't want Physx to run well on CPU because it massively closed the gap in terms of performance.

I'm not arguing that the type of workload Physx is that it can't run faster on GPU, I'm just stating the fact about how it is for CPU. The simply fact that even you, yourself, are running a separate card just for Physx actually does somewhat show that running it on the GPU does actually hinder graphical performance as it takes GPU power away from doing graphics, otherwise having a specific card for Physx would make zero performance difference.

Sorry, but anyone saying that Physx wasn't intentionally hindered for CPU is either ignorant of the facts, or are Nvidia fans making excuses. If you disagree with this, then you must try and argue that instruction sets, back from the old MMX days through to SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, future FMA3, FMA4, XOP, AVX, CVT, and future AVX2 provide no or only a marginal benefit. Because Physx until Physx 3 had NONE of these. Even Physx 3 only uses SSE2, and only uses it for some of its functions, its very, very far from optimised. Why would Nvidia bother if it meant it running better on CPU with AMD GPU's?

[Brendruis]

Originally Posted by SLI-756

Your card is running on gen3 x16?

No, x16 3.0 not possible with SLI unless you have a PLX chip or X79. I use Gen3 8x on both cards. If I had just one card I could use x16

I disagree with it being 'quite a bit hotter'(at least in gaming my Ivy runs cooler), having owned them both, i stress my OCs with heaven 11.5 and it always does me fine (e.g. i know that for 4.8 i need more juice but 4.7 no probs, and i stress my OCs & components with daily usage, if something fails i go change a setting, easy.

3570K is hotter.. it has 20.7% increase in transistor count on top of that they have used TIM instead of soldering the IHS which in the past we have proven has been detrimental on some of the older Intel value chips.. In additional to all of this it uses the new FinFET technology which is manufactured in such a way that it cannot dissipate heat as well.

I'll do a 11.5 run with coretemp open but cba with anything else

What do you mean you test with Heaven? Never heard of a program called Heaven for CPU testing.. there is Unigine Heaven 3.0 but if you're using that for CPU testing you are way off in left field.

[HeavyHemi]

Originally Posted by thatguy91

It's not a silly myth, it's fact. Until Physx 3, Physx was purely x86 code. It had no instruction extensions whatsoever. If it were programmed with whatever instructions are useful out of any of the instruction sets it would perform very much significantly better. Nvidia simply didn't want Physx to run well on CPU because it massively closed the gap in terms of performance.

I'm not arguing that the type of workload Physx is that it can't run faster on GPU, I'm just stating the fact about how it is for CPU. The simply fact that even you, yourself, are running a separate card just for Physx actually does somewhat show that running it on the GPU does actually hinder graphical performance as it takes GPU power away from doing graphics, otherwise having a specific card for Physx would make zero performance difference.

Sorry, but anyone saying that Physx wasn't intentionally hindered for CPU is either ignorant of the facts, or are Nvidia fans making excuses. If you disagree with this, then you must try and argue that instruction sets, back from the old MMX days through to SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, future FMA3, FMA4, XOP, AVX, CVT, and future AVX2 provide no or only a marginal benefit. Because Physx until Physx 3 had NONE of these. Even Physx 3 only uses SSE2, and only uses it for some of its functions, its very, very far from optimised. Why would Nvidia bother if it meant it running better on CPU with AMD GPU's?

LOL, check yourself you just wrecked yourself hard. PhysX was x87 code. That alone should, if you had any sense at all, tell you where you went wrong. Then you go down hill from there. Good gawd, try your act on a less informed group.