Upgrading the CPU, worth a thought? Have: Core i7 2600k 3.4 GHz Sandybridge

[tortuosit 486]

Hi guys,

after 4 years of my computers lifetime I upgraded my GTX570 to a GTX 970. Everybodies darling: MSI GTX 970 (seems to be a topseller). Some good results there. I like it.

I have an Intel Core i7 2600k 3.4 GHz.

Now I want full action not only against one AI, but maybe 2. ;) - well we all know, CPU bottleneck. I'm not informed about the CPUs and their specs nowadays. Lets say I would be only willing to invest ~EUR 200, but I am expecting at least the double power of the new CPU - is it already useful to watch out for a new CPU or is it too early?

Thoughts? I must say I am pretty happy hardware can be used for a longer time than, say, 15 years ago...

Maybe I should also think about overclocking. That Gigabyte Z68X UD5 mainboard supports any shiny stuff, but I never did any overclocking (because with such things I need to invest some time). And this week I'm definitely not doing it. ~40°C here in western Germany by the weekend :D

Thx

Edited July 2, 2015 by tortuosit

[St. Jimmy 272]

Overclock that baby! You can get easily 4.4GHz. There has been very minimal advancement after 2500/2600K and most of that likely comes from faster RAM freq really.

Simply said not worth at all upgrade from 2600K especially if you're expecting any magical improvement in gaming. It's still one of the best CPUs even though it's getting bit old.

Best upgrade would be to get fastest RAM with a good price and good CPU cooling if you already don't have those.

Edited July 2, 2015 by St. Jimmy

[clawhammer 10]

You can buy a i7 4790k and have bad fps in multiplayer matches. I would wait for the next intel generation with DDR4 support. Yes there are currently some DDR4 Intel cpu's out but they are all slower then the 4790k at games. ArmA improves a lot with high clocked ram and high clocked (single core) cpu's. So i would advice to buy something in that direction. GPU does not matter, a GTX 770 is good enough for all effects.

[Redphoenix 1540]

The processor you got right now is still good. Leave it and wait.

[nikiforos 450]

If you overclock your CPU to lets say 4.2 or 4.4 Ghz you will almost have the same performance as i7 4790k unclocked.

I had the same question but after some investigation I decided to keep my i5-2500k (@4.4) for at least 6 months. I expect some good results with Skylake but we have to wait to find out.

[brightcandle 114]

I haven't seen anyone test Arma 3 on a Haswell and compare it to Sandy Bridge. But in a lot of other CPU driven applications the upgrade can be worth about 20% performance improvement at roughly the same clock speed, and in theory at least that should translate into Arma 3 frame rate. I suspect but can't prove that Arma 3 would disproportionately benefit from the increased ports count due to the way the game calculates heavily in certain parts of the frame. In addition extra cores also help because some of the rendering is done in parallel and that can be worth a boost in frame rate as well. But the game is mostly single threaded, hits heavily on memory bandwidth and on calculation performance.

So in my mind the ideal CPU for Arma 3 is probably a 6 core 12 thread Haswell-E like the 5820k and then overclock it as far as it will go, ideally around the 4.4Ghz or more. A reasonable compromise is a 4 core 4 thread like the 4690k which is also overclocked as far as you can get it.

You can probably get within 20% of the frame rate of the 4690k overclocked with a 2600k overclocked to 4.5Ghz, and some 2600k's will go higher. You will probably still be 30% off of what the 6 core CPU can do and even with the higher clock speed the 2600k might overclock to you wont close the entire gap. So you don't need to replace your CPU, all depends how much the potential 20-30% is worth to you and what its going to take to get it, but the basic rule for Arma 3 is overclock your CPU.

The main issue is that by my measurements if you wanted to sustain 30 fps in all the game modes out there commonly played on multiplayer servers (like Altis life, wasteland etc) then you would need an 8Ghz haswell. That obviously isn't possible so alas getting 30 fps continuously is not a reality with this game as it stands. But you can get decent frame rates with overclocked Sandy Bridge and above CPUs if you stick to smaller player number less script heavy games.

[chrisb 196]

I would only say, the setup I'm using for SP & MP (private server, very important), has no problems whatsoever with either A2 or A3 (spoiler below).

OC'ing isn't the holy grail (imo) many believe it may be. Many players overclock and receive very mixed results, some come off worse than their stock speed (only working from examples in our group, over years of playing the series). I say that because I can wind down my 4.4ghz to 3.5 and still run the game reasonably easily.

I read on here a while back, or it may have been somewhere else, that 3.7 seemed to be a sweet spot for the series. So being very inquisitive, as said, I did a few experiments and tried down clocking from 4.4 to 3.5, every increment 4.3, 4.2, 4.1--3.5 etc, ran the game fine in SP with lots of AI.

In MP not all fared so well, above 4.0ghz was o.k. but there was one 'sweet' spot that this person mentioned 3.7 on an i7, possibly an i5 too (I don't know). The 3.7ghz setting did very well, no idea why, it wasn't a tech test by any means (I did take down the voltage too)..

However... I put 3.7 to the test on our group server for a few games. It ran great, as smooth as the 4.4, obviously with slightly less fps, but overall you would not really know the difference when playing. This is using a fully militarised terrain i.e. full military presence (AI, because we play mostly coop against AI on that type of setup) with the help of a very good cache system. That means meeting good numbers of AI at any given time in the game-play, in any location (inc towns).

The setting of 3.7 fared so well, that I would be happy to run the game on my machine at that setting all day long, if I had too for any reason.

All that said, I run a gaming pc, I don't use it for anything else, so its lean and clean. That does make a difference to gaming in general, I believe. The lack of background programs disturbing your game-play whilst playing helps no end especially in MP.

But its an interesting subject, one our group often ponders when/if a member is changing systems.

Now, just to mention.. If your on public servers, then that minefield will make huge differences to performance. Try stick with private/group servers, if you can. I don't play on public servers, so didn't test on any of those.

[tortuosit 486]

Interesting discussion. OK, it's not worth thinking about a new CPU. I'm not playing much MP, no clan member, just some casual KOTH or Breaking Point but there framerates depend on server and action on the map.

Any good resources for overclocking? I have no clue what I have to tune except clock speed (Voltage e.g. as well?); my last overclocking experiences are from my first monster computer. DX-2 66 - hell yeah it rocked. I had some ~500 MByte hard drive. A beast!

Will test some overclocking, when it's not so hot any more. Cooling is "EKL Alpenföhn Matterhorn" fan.

[jumpinghubert 49]

Overclocking guide: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/265056-29-2600k-2500k-overclocking-guide

Its recommended to read 2 different guides minimum and with some luck you match one with your mainboard.

Edited July 2, 2015 by JumpingHubert

[vran. 13]

The main issue is that by my measurements if you wanted to sustain 30 fps in all the game modes out there commonly played on multiplayer servers (like Altis life, wasteland etc) then you would need an 8Ghz haswell. That obviously isn't possible so alas getting 30 fps continuously is not a reality with this game as it stands. But you can get decent frame rates with overclocked Sandy Bridge and above CPUs if you stick to smaller player number less script heavy games.

Yeah this is true, A3 MP code not designed for large player counts and resource heavy missions or mods. Will have to wait till next gen ArmA for improvements in that direction, maybe then large scale battles like in Planetside 2 will be possible. DX12 should bring some performance improvements though.

[Alexxx 11]

I went from a 2500k clocked at 4.8 to a 4790k clocked to 4.6 and in basic arma3 benchmarks there was less than 3 fps difference, the 4790k runs hotter as well so i reckon sandys still go life in them.....

[fabio_chavez 103]

i placed chickenbones on my hat and drew a chalk circle around my rig and i had pretty good results with that. :)

[tortuosit 486]

I heard sacrificing <whatever> Life players produces some good results.

[chrisb 196]

Chickens.. can't go wrong, get to eat them afterwards. Has to be on a full moonlit night though. Oh and you have to have one foot in a bucket during the process.. Doesn't get you any more fps, but you get onto YouTube.

[DancZer 65]

Overclock and wait for the expansion.

[I give up 152]

Hi guys,

after 4 years of my computers lifetime I upgraded my GTX570 to a GTX 970. Everybodies darling: MSI GTX 970 (seems to be a topseller). Some good results there. I like it.

I have an Intel Core i7 2600k 3.4 GHz.

Now I want full action not only against one AI, but maybe 2. ;) - well we all know, CPU bottleneck. I'm not informed about the CPUs and their specs nowadays. Lets say I would be only willing to invest ~EUR 200, but I am expecting at least the double power of the new CPU - is it already useful to watch out for a new CPU or is it too early?

Thoughts? I must say I am pretty happy hardware can be used for a longer time than, say, 15 years ago...

Maybe I should also think about overclocking. That Gigabyte Z68X UD5 mainboard supports any shiny stuff, but I never did any overclocking (because with such things I need to invest some time). And this week I'm definitely not doing it. ~40°C here in western Germany by the weekend :D

Thx

As people said, your cpu gets easily 4.0/4.2 GHz, even with stock cooler, overclock a bit and you are ready to go.

Now (and looking at specs in your signature) you can improve in matters of performance for Arma 3.

First, get a second SSD and set both as RAID0, here you will have a noticeable increase in game performance.

Second, get more 8 GB of Ram, with 16 GB also you will have a noticeable performance increase because the game will use much less the system page file (located in hard drive) for caching and it will use Ram, instead.

You will have a system ready for very high/ultra (if you moderate in view distance).

[jumpinghubert 49]

i placed chickenbones on my hat and drew a chalk circle around my rig and i had pretty good results with that. :)

wrote Mr. Ponds-Mania

[tortuosit 486]

First, get a second SSD and set both as RAID0, here you will have a noticeable increase in game performance.

Why does this help? I think I will never do that ... Well I already use 2 SSDs, I need them, ArmA 3 I think already is >100 GB. And XPlane... Need the room for (loading intensive) Steam games.

Second, get more 8 GB of Ram, with 16 GB also you will have a noticeable performance increase because the game will use much less the system page file (located in hard drive) for caching and it will use Ram, instead.

Definitely need to buy RAM, but is ArmA3 such a RAM beast in a way that OS has to write to page file? I did not notice, but thats because SSDs emit no noise. Is page file usage imminent here? I am surprised.

[Rehooja 10]

Hey tortuosit

Try searching google for "cpu passmark". That page has very good charts of cpu performances! :)

[tortuosit 486]

Thx!

RAM: 2 x 8 GB, ~EUR 110, is it alright? I think I can't do mistakes with RAM (except the typical case that it doesn't work with the existing RAM)

HyperX Savage HX316C9SRK2/16 Arbeitsspeicher 16GB

http://www.amazon.de/HX316C9SRK2-16-Arbeitsspeicher-1600MHz-DDR3-RAM/dp/B00N9PVZXO/

[St. Jimmy 272]

Thx!

RAM: 2 x 8 GB, ~EUR 110, is it alright? I think I can't do mistakes with RAM (except the typical case that it doesn't work with the existing RAM)

HyperX Savage HX316C9SRK2/16 Arbeitsspeicher 16GB

http://www.amazon.de/HX316C9SRK2-16-Arbeitsspeicher-1600MHz-DDR3-RAM/dp/B00N9PVZXO/

What's the fastest speed your MB supports? I remember that CL9 2133MHz is likely the best bang for your buck for this architecture. When I changed from CL9 1600 to CL9 2133 they were as pricey and 2133 brought me ~10% better performance in Altis benchmark.

So you really should look closely the RAM you're buying. Sometimes the slower RAM costs even more than the faster!

[tortuosit 486]

2133 is fastest speed of RAM.

http://www.gigabyte.us/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3848#sp

Maybe this is alright then:

http://www.amazon.de/HX321C11T3K2-16-Arbeitsspeicher-2133MHz-DDR3-RAM/dp/B00M7S8DCA

ROTFL, they seem to think gamers are stupid... Typical name and design for a braindead target audience.

Industry seems to forget the first gamers are grand parents today... not everybody is 13 years old, like our Altis Life folks.

Edited July 3, 2015 by tortuosit

[forteh 11]

I can second the 2133 mhz ram boosting fps in altis benchmark, my average fps went up by around 20% from 61-74, that's with an i5 2500k @ 4.5ghz, gtx660, 16gb 2133mhz and an ssd. Keep the cpu, invest in decent air cooling (I use a thermalright truespirit140bw and it doesn't get above 63°C when stress testing and push that overclock up :)

[tortuosit 486]

What if slower clocked RAM is mixed with 2133 MHz RAM?

I have "EKL Alpenföhn Matterhorn" fan, I hope that's enough cooling... will see.

[I give up 152]

Why does this help? I think I will never do that ... Well I already use 2 SSDs, I need them, ArmA 3 I think already is >100 GB. And XPlane... Need the room for (loading intensive) Steam games.

Definitely need to buy RAM, but is ArmA3 such a RAM beast in a way that OS has to write to page file? I did not notice, but thats because SSDs emit no noise. Is page file usage imminent here? I am surprised.

Setting both SSD in RAID0, theoretically doubles the speed basically because both disks are used to read/write with the data being striped between both.

But in reality you will have a gain of about 50/70%, which is quite nice. We can easily get write/reading speeds of 800 MBps, which for a game with the architecture of Arma 3, is a huge performance boost, when compared with 500 MBps speed of a single SSD.

Yes, Arma 3 use page file intensively, it requires a continuos data write/reading from Hard Drive, that's why RAID0 gives a nice boost.

Obviously with less RAM available (8GB) it will use more page file for caching and obviously with more RAM (16GB) it will use less page file for caching because the data is being cached in to RAM.

Either way always will use page file because RAM is being continuously refreshed/flushed and data needs to be cached somewhere, in this case in system page file.