Radeon 7970 released - ARMA 2 Performance Gains

[Shadow NX 1]

After lots and lots of setups i had in mind i now decided to got a bit different way, i keept everythign i listed but swapped CPU and GPU mainly with A2 and A3 in mind and also because i think this way its bit more future proof.

So the GPU is decided to be the Asus HD7950DCUII Top, close to a 7970, also 3gb vram, bit more room for OC, yet the jump from my 6950 isnt extreme but as i sell the old PC anyway i needed a new card and 15-40+/- extra frames per game seem ok to me.

CPU wise i decided for the i7 3770k @ 4ghz instead of the 3570k, in most games the difference is like a few frames yet a CPU eater like A2 seems to make bit better use of the hypertreading so it was more a investment in the future when new consoles come and hypertreading gets more important.

In the end the price was the same for the whole package.

[griffz 1]

i think hyperthreading can degrade performance of arma game. simply because binary can't know if the cpu it's using is logical or physical.

-20% perfs in worst case scenario .

[Shadow NX 1]

According to Benchmarks it seems to have no problem with the Hypertreading:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/04/23/intel-core-i7-3770k-review/7

Personally i hope HT gets more important when new consoles come out and games get optimezed for more cores, if not then i burned 100Eur and should have taken a i5 3570k instead... well so far my order isnt shipped...

[domokun 515]

@Shadow: unless you're a developer, save yoursef your €100 and get the 3570k as HT adds nothing in performance but worries

[Shadow NX 1]

Hehe, thaqt is what i heard 90% of the time when i asked this on forums, guess the guy on mindfactory order hotline will kill me for switching my order back to exactly how it was before i changed it few days ago.

So 3570K with the HD7970 Top it shall be then.

[domokun 515]

But make sure you overclock the nuts off that 3570k.

Mine is running at 4.3 with stock cooling.

I'm getting a decent HSF which should help me push her to 4.4 even 4.5 :D

[cjph 0]

I put a Gigabyte Windforce 7950 in with my 2500K overclocked to 4.4GHz and could'nt be happier, and thats with a triplehead setup. Enjoy !

cj

[Shadow NX 1]

With the Macho there should be a good bit of OC possible, yet i dont plan to max this out, if it goes to 4ghz im already ok with it, in the end its also a question of costs in reagard to power usage.

Last 3570K i used in a PC i build for a friend went to 4ghz without the slightest problem so i guess a lot more would have been possible.

@cjph

How is the Windforce in regards to noise? Especially when gaming, also how fast ( in % i mean ) do the fans go when gaming? Bonus points if you heard a Asus DCUII before and can give me a idea of how you would compare the two.

The Gigabyte 7970 with 1100Mhz seems quite impressive yet im spoilt by the DCUII cooler being so silent under load.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Shadow NX

[kotov12345 10]

I'd rather get cheaper CPU and more expensive graphic.CPU not bring you a single more fps :)

[rowdied 44]

I'd rather get cheaper CPU and more expensive graphic.CPU not bring you a single more fps :)

Wrong. This game requires a better CPU to get better FPS. If you are building this for Arma, then CPU is greater than GPU, otherwise if it is mostly for other games then you are correct.

[kotov12345 10]

Wrong. This game requires a better CPU to get better FPS. If you are building this for Arma, then CPU is greater than GPU, otherwise if it is mostly for other games then you are correct.

I think for arma no difference as well.

Edited February 16, 2013 by kotov12345

[froggyluv 2130]

CPU upgrade was the single biggest FPS increase Ive had yet for Arma2. Going from e8600 to I2500k gave me huge boosts and then overclocking it -even more. The GPU upgrade from Nvidia 460 to the 680 was far less noticeable as far as FPS.

[kotov12345 10]

CPU upgrade was the single biggest FPS increase Ive had yet for Arma2. Going from e8600 to I2500k gave me huge boosts and then overclocking it -even more. The GPU upgrade from Nvidia 460 to the 680 was far less noticeable as far as FPS.

looool - you have to change motherboard to do that - you changed chipset first.If you try different cpu on same motherboard you see no difference in games.people not understand how computer works.Most important is chipset or motherboard.It base to build PC.All rest depending on your task.If you playing game you need to have good GPU.I didnt try i5 - but think even i5 is more than enough.Probably that is why no i5 for socket 2011.

Edited February 16, 2013 by kotov12345

[froggyluv 2130]

looool - you have to change motherboard to do that - you changed chipset first.If you try different cpu on same motherboard you see no difference in games.people not understand how computer works.Most important is chipset or motherboard.It base to build PC.All rest depending on your task.If you playing game you need to have good GPU.I didnt try i5 - but think even i5 is more than enough.Probably that is why no i5 for socket 2011.

Erhm...what? http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-3.html

Your 100% wrong. On a p67/h67 motherboard - you will see a HUGE difference between an I3 2100 and an I5 2500k especially for CPU bound games ie Skyrim, Arma 2. Upgrading to a Z68 motherboard with the same I5 2500k will show little to no FPS gain. I build all of my PC's -I think I know a little about how it works :cool:

[kotov12345 10]

Erhm...what? I3 2100 and an I5 2500k

yes I3 dual core i5 quad core - but I didn't write anything about i3 - cheapest CPU - but invest in most expensive is stupid idea.Normally I didnt read such articles as main point between i3 and i5 is 2 and 4 cores.As i7 quad core as well so there no big difference in games.Maximum 10% - I think may be 5.In other words if arma2 benchmark give you 20 fps with some settings you never will have more than 22 when you upgrade cpu.

Edited February 16, 2013 by kotov12345

[froggyluv 2130]

Good god man it just utterly disproves your point -that the MOBO is a bigger determining factor than the CPU for FPS count in gaming. Look at the I5 2400 FPS and I5 2500 fps?!?

Trust me - I did testing a long time ago between the 2500 at stock speed of 3.3ghz and at my overclock speed of 4.5 ghz and the fps increase for arma 2 was amazing. CPU speed and power DOES matter for FPS in Arma 2 -big time. As I also stated -on my i5 2500 setup my jump from an Nvidia 460 to 680 seemed less signifigant in terms of FPS but more in terms of overall visual quality.

.

In other words if arma2 benchmark give you 20 fps with some settings you never will have more than 22 when you upgrade cpu

100% false.

[hellfire257 3]

Chipset obviously makes a difference, but it is by no means the determining factor.

[kklownboy 43]

Well I thought it was common knowledge that a 4.x+ CPU is necessary to have a good experience in ARMA. I mean that is the BASE starting point to having a good A2 rig/kit. The difference between 3.2 and 4.2 is HUGE. And considering that a SandyBridge setup is just TWO clicks in the bios to go 4.4 on AIR cooling. You can safely run a Intel CPU at 70c or higher for years!

As for a powerful GPU. It will make a difference, depending on your Display. My 7970 was a big upgrade.The 3GB was a major reason. I have logged 2.8GB of used VRAM playing ARMA. If I didnt have the extra GB over the usual 2GB cards, it would have choked,and my frame rate would crashed, stutter would be the norm,. i would have to lower my settings. Also at the times of heavy VRAM usage my CPU was rocking 70-90% usage across four cores with one core hitting 100% at times (thats not a good thing, that means i am heading for a bottleneck).

Not sure about this "chipset" stuff. But all Intel I-cores have similar chipsets/NB/SB... per generation/platform. A new platform/CPU clock to clock will be better than a older one.

Funny how some bench marks show a big difference.. but its really a lame Bar graphic that has a real 10% gain, but the bar is scaled to look like its huge 50%...

Edited February 16, 2013 by kklownboy

[chrisb 196]

Well I thought it was common knowledge that a 4.x+ CPU is necessary to have a good experience in ARMA. I mean that is the BASE starting point to having a good A2 rig/kit..

:rolleyes:.. not really..:D

Podagorsk, which is reasonably heavy going.

I’m running lots of mod’s here too..

Without AA = this

With AA = this

Average core usage = this

With my A2 (pc1) rig in the sig (3.4ghz)..;)

These settings..

[froggyluv 2130]

@ChrisB: PC#2 -nice rig :)

Curious if you've done large quantity AI testing (with all your AI mods) bewteen the two rigs -like in the 300+ range?

[chrisb 196]

@ChrisB: PC#2 -nice rig :)

Curious if you've done large quantity AI testing (with all your AI mods) bewteen the two rigs -like in the 300+ range?

Smaller skirmishes tend to be our game play type, a large campaign would be split into smaller missions anyway. Its all based on modern day warfare, so no large battles going on..

So no, not tried 300+ai, max 180ai on the terrain per mission usually, average ai in combat at any one time would be 30-40 or under, possibly a few more now and then, but rarely..

My pc2 has not been used yet really, its another gaming pc, just waiting for the big day (A3), may even have the card changed before it fires up properly ‘8***’ series ! Will wait and see, bought it too early really..:(

A2 has not been put on it, won’t be either.. Lean and clean..;)

[kotov12345 10]

unfortunately not your hardware restrict your fps but software.If you have decent PC or fastest pc you will be limited with fps due to game engine limitation.

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/6963 try and check your fps.

[bangtail 0]

@Kotov

CPU power bears more on ArmA II performance PERIOD.

Simulations and RTS games (AI intensive) in general will derive far greater gains from CPU horsepower than say CoD or BF3 for example.

You can argue to the contrary all you like but it has been proven over and over and over.

Edited February 17, 2013 by BangTail

[Shadow NX 1]

Correct, fits to people reporingt having low fps in demanding regions like Chernogorsk and even a high OC of the GPU wont bring any FPS more because the CPU limits.

[kotov12345 10]

oh yes - big gain :) lol - but if you have socket 2011 pc you can have cheapest i7 + fastest graphic and have same fps if you have most expensive cpu with same graphic.Difference will be 500 uk pounds waste and no more than 5% fps.

More likely will be similar situation if you have sandy bridge motherboard.i5 should be ok (I didnt try - but have friends who have such)- rest of cash you can spend on graphic card.If you playing games pointless to buy now anything below 7970 or 670

Edited February 17, 2013 by kotov12345