Jump to content
Placebo

Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications?

Recommended Posts

No comment ūü§ź

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why no comments?

Provide valid arguments to justify techpowerup useless results.

 

I'm providing them already so there is no questions.

 

In 720p there is no GPU limit, but RAM limit (3600/4000 MHz), because

3600 MHz

17 (9,44 ns)

19 (10,55 ns)

19 (10,55 ns)

39 (21,66 ns)

is slower than

4000 MHz

20 (10 ns)

19 (9,5 ns)

19 (9,5 ns)

39 (19,5 ns)

and slower than

3200 MHz

14 (8,75 ns)

14 (8,75 ns)

14 (8,75 ns)

34 (21,25 ns)

And 4000 MHz 20-19-19-39 is slower than 3200 MHz 14-14-14-34.

 

What's the point in testing with higher frequency sticks, but slower overall vs. 3200 MHz CL14?

What should normal users conclude after reading this? That there is no point in investing in more expensive/faster RAM than 3200 MHz CL14?

Actually the point should have been that there is no point to pay more ‚ā¨‚ā¨‚ā¨ just for more frequency but less performance overall (due to higher timings!).

 

In 1080p there is same RAM limit (3600/400 MHz) + GPU limit, because very GPU taxing games in the test.

 

If techpowerup would have used

3600 MHz

15 (8.33 ns)

15 (8.33 ns)

15 (8.33 ns)

35 (19.44 ns)
it would have been faster than
4000 MHz

17 (8.50 ns)

17 (8.50 ns)

17 (8.50 ns)

37 (18.50 ns)

and faster than

3200 MHz

14 (8,75 ns)

14 (8,75 ns)

14 (8,75 ns)

34 (21,25 ns)

but!

4133 MHz

17 (8.23 ns)

17 (8.23 ns)

17 (8.23 ns)

37 (17.90 ns)
would have been faster than 3600 MHz 15-15-15-35.

 

So... 3200 CL14 < 4000 CL17 < 3600 CL15 < 4133 CL17

 

In this case, the conclusion could have been that 3200 MHz CL14 is kinda "bang for the buck" performance vs. standard 2666/2933 MHz or vs. slower 3200/3433/3600/3733/3866/4000 MHz.

And 3600 MHz CL15 + 4133 MHz CL17 are the non plus ultra. Worth the money or not, but more performance is definitely there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is dedicated to help people having questions such as "Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications?" , nothing less and nothing more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, oldbear said:

This topic is dedicated to help people having questions such as "Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications?" , nothing less and nothing more.

 

I think maybe he thought you were suggesting he dismissed that review because it doesn't back up his assertions.¬† ūüĎÄ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know. And such people get help here, when needed. So I don't see where is the problem.

So we should speak here only/maximum about Intel i3 and Ryzen 3/5 + not more than DDR4 3000 or 3200 16-18-18 + not more than GTX 1050 Ti/RX 570/GTX 1660?

 

But I doubt that you don't know that there are also people here (and not only a few!) with more budget that also play ArmA and are also looking for advise/comparisons/experiences.

And here is the only place on the net, where one can find a lot (more than anywhere else) info not only about what is required to make ArmA run adequately, but also about what is required to make ArmA run very fluently/smoothly.

And as you may have seen over the years, I'm not the only here who has posted here about more higher end or very high end hardware in relation to ArmA.

And there were also people that did exactly this in this topic, even before you have made your first post in this precise topic.

 

Don't be so narrow minded and please, respect other people's opinion/work/suggestions/questions/requests!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tankbuster said:

I think maybe he thought you were suggesting he dismissed that review because it doesn't back up his assertionsÔĽŅ.¬† ūüĎÄ

There clearly can be more than one (my) opinion, which will/can be correct, depending on the subject. I accept it no probs. I don't need to have the last word or to always be right, even if I'm not.

But I can't let it be, when something is wrong.

And techpowerup's review clearly can't be taken as representative of performance advantages of higher RAM frequencies combined with tight timings (whether it's on more expensive or rather more affordable side), because they've used only higher frequency, but not tighter timings - rather very loose timings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Groove_C said:

Yes, I know. And such people get help here, when needed. So I don't see where is the problem.

So we should speak here only/maximum about Intel i3 and Ryzen 3/5 + not more than DDR4 3000 or 3200 16-18-18 + not more than GTX 1050 Ti/RX 570/GTX 1660?

 

But I doubt that you don't know that there are also people here (and not only a few!) with more budget that also play ArmA and are also looking for advise/comparisons/experiences—é

And here is the only place on the net, where one can find a lot (more than anywhere else) of info not only about what is required to make ArmA run adequately, but also about what is required to make ArmA run very fluently/smoothly.

And as you may have seen over the years, I'm not the only here who has posted here about more higher end or very high end hardware here.

And there were also people that did exactly this even before you have made your first post in this topic.

 

Don't be so narrow minded and please, respect other people's opinion/work/suggestions/questions/requests!

You say people come here for help and you'd be right.

Is paragraph after paragraph of figures and tables helpful to the majority of users here? I'd hope so but remain to be convinced.

Having purchased an expensive cpu recently, much against your advice, you advised me to buy memory that simply wasn't available and still isn't unless I was prepared to pay 5 times what I did.

I don't doubt that this is with good intentions at heart, but I wonder how applicable your advice is to most users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 1:42 PM, Tankbuster said:

Is paragraph after paragraph of figures and tables helpful to the majority of users here? I'd hope so but remain to be convinced.

So other users that are not the majority should leave or should I make great efforts to convince each and every user, part of the majority by explaining the tables, already provided in most short and self explanatory form possible, which are despite all of this not read/understood/interpreted correctly if at all?

I post here for everybody. Some have more knowledge, some less. Can't do much about it.

 

On 7/10/2019 at 1:42 PM, Tankbuster said:

Having purchased an expensive cpu recently, much against your advice, you advised me to buy memory that simply wasn't available and still isn't unless I was prepared to pay 5 times what I did.

Show me where I have advised you against the i9-9900K. I doubt you will find it, because I never did this.

I only tried to advise you to wait until Ryzen 2 reviews appear, so you could decide with more assurance which one to buy for sure and/or eventually get even greater discount on the i9-9900K if Ryzen 2 was not up to your expectations.

I've for sure affirmed that i9-9900K performance advantage in ArmA vs. Ryzen+, was not worth $$$ difference and even less so vs. Ryzen 2. But this is subjective. To each their own!
And you definitely could have waited no probs with the rig you had at that time. But whatever, you decided otherwise and I respect this. In the end, it's your $$$, choice and wish.

 

It's not my fault, that RAM I suggested to you was not available for you. Nor have I ever affirmed that its cost was a good deal. I only pointed out which RAM was the better performer (and didn't cost a whole fortune compared to 4000+ MHz sticks).

I supposed you had the budget for the better than average RAM, since you were talking about the i9-9900K and/or a RTX. And you haven't pointed out that this specific RAM was not available for you + that you were not ready to spend this much on RAM + you haven't asked for alternative RAM options.

So...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I originally didn't want to comment on here anymore, I do feel like I have to one last time, jump to @Groove_C's defense here.

Haven't read the article, no intention to do so; but from what he stated (if it's true that is), he's correct and judging by the things I have read over the last couple of years, on this topic as on many others, I have to agree that many so-called news outlets out there, often construe tests which either are decisively flawed or just don't make much sense altogether.
Pointing out a flawed testing methodology in an article recommended on this very thread  IS actually  very useful and, at least in my book, most certainly exactly what this thread needs.

I agree that his use of charts and other images is certainly not the best and, to a degree, annoying (perhaps use spoilers,@Groove_C, for your pictures, so that your posts take up less space and feel less intrusive) - nonetheless, one has to recognize, that he at least attempts to underscore/ justify the things he types - a quirk many here should rather learn to adopt than no to!

 

As to the usefulness of his comments on RAM: 
The vast majority of people out there are completely ignorant on the topic of RAM and it's influence on a computer's overall performance, especially in titles like ArmA.

Spoiler

(Misled by articles of popular outlets, based on flawed or even biased tests; which will at any rate, right out ignore games, or at times even applications, with a performance profile such as ArmA.)


In that light -  yes,  his comments, in their own way, absolutely do contribute to the overall topic.
I would even like to add, that I honestly find it much more helpful and fruitful to discuss the edge of what's possible and could actually improve performance in regards to its upper limits rather than its lower ones.
The borders of what is considered "budget-friendly" and what's "top of the line" are always shifting - and what's changing, are not so much the lower corners, but rather what's constantly being added on top of the seemingly infinite line-up of possibilities. Most of the time, the SKUs lower down the ladder, will be nothing new, just reinterpretations of things that came before. Evaluating their respective performance against the background of other tech, which has already been on the market, and as such reviewed - really isn't that hard to do at all. To me, there's no need to try making science out of it.
When I researched what components to buy for my system back in the day, I felt truly annoyed, that wherever you go, people were spamming about "what's 'good' and 'cheap' 'enough' for BF:I/V", rather than having real¬†discussions, on actual topics, which could then lead to more broadly applicable and,¬† what at least I would call,¬†actual¬†conclusions¬†ūüė≤

Spoiler

(E.g. the roles of the various components in a system and how and especially why one product will stack up differently against another, and what that means in regards to what type of application.)

Spoiler

(This thread, at least in my point of view, will often times deliver on things that normally aren't really discussed or otherwise to be found online. If you're just looking for what's "good enough" [whatever that is supposed to be], there's plenty out there!)


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 to what Groove_C had said. He is absolutely correct in his assessment becuz my system is proof of it.

 

Spend a bit more money on the CORRECT RAM with any CPU and you can nearly max out the efficiency for ARMA 3 and CPU bound games. 

 

There is no point in buying a FAST CPU with cheap ram. Its like buying a fast cars with cheap wheels + tires. Sure the engine will go over 200 MPH but the tires will hold back the total performance.

 

It is probably better to buy MB + CPU + FAST RAM and upgrade that first, then SSD and GPU to push up ARMA performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything must be well balanced.

First of all good basis -> appropriate mobo, depending on threads count, frequency , RAM sticks count and/or capacity, frequency and latencies.

 

No sense to break the bank for the CPU and see where you can save money.

 

RAM must be good right from the start.

As you most certainly won't buy cheap RAM first, to have your rig up and running, to later replace it by better sticks.

 

You either buy only 16 GB out of 32, if not enough money and later you add same 16 GB.

Or if even for good 16 GB you don't have enough and your current PC still works and it's playable and it's been like this for years, then you won't die if you buy mobo and CPU first and then, one or 2 month later RAM you wanted.

There is really no need to buy everything at once, otherwise it can quickly escalate and you will force yourself to see where money can be saved and thus make a rather bad purchase, as saving only on the wrong end can be done.

Especially if current rig's still alive.

 

GPU, HDD, Case and PSU can always be upgraded later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, additional 100-300‚ā¨ isn't much if you're patient enough to wait 3-5 months more to have it. And you're also not forced to buy everything part by part.

You still can buy all at once, but just 3-5 months later.

Generally, when start to feel the need for a new PC, your current one still works and you plan to buy a new one, later. So you start to save money in advance.

It's not like you need to buy one exactly right now/today and sh*t, the build you want is to pricey and you need to wait 3-5 months from now on.

 

Users that tend to buy much cheaper (as they think it is), change their whole PC more often as a result. Whereas other users, thanks to their choice, keep hardware longer.

In the end, users who buy much cheaper first, spend much more money in long term, because of already 2 complete builds, instead of only 1.

Because CPU can't be OC'ed because of locked multiplier or because of mobo. RAM is slow and can't be OC'ed. And then they think to just replace RAM by better one, but they are told that this won't help them much, because otherwise RAM already in use is wasted money and you would need to try selling it on eBay and probably won't find anybody wanting it years later. And changing just RAM but no OC for the CPU is also useless.

 

I have spent more money and in more wise manner (than an average user) in 2014 + OC and thanks to this I'm able to avoid one complete/unnecessary upgrade, which combined with previous build, if it was a relatively low cost, could have cost me much more in the end, with worse game experirnce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

 

Yeah - I did the memory upgrade slow vs fast - midlife - on my last box - (2700K @ 4.7 Ghz) - and honestly - it did make a noticeable difference with Arma... The OC is still king of bang for your buck on performance though...

 

I built my new box over the last year and half of gathering parts - mainly due to the massive run on high end video cards by the bitcoin miners - finally brought her online a couple weeks ago... I also tried to keep costs reasonable... Not the latest and greatest - but - she should serve me well... My first CPU delid and it seems well worth the extra effort  (7700K's are notoriously "hot" chips) - clocked it at 5 Ghz - haven't seen it exceed 65C during stress tests - thanks Noctua... I'll probably clock it a bit higher...

 

Intel 7700K Kaby Lake @ 5 Ghz | Noctua NH-D15S Premium Dual-Tower CPU Cooler | Gigabyte Z270X-Ultra Gaming Motherboard | EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti SC GAMING ACX 3.0 Black Edition | (32GB) G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series DDR4 SDRAM 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory | (1) SAMSUNG 970 EVO M.2 2280 1TB SSD | (1) SAMSUNG 860 EVO 1TB SSD | (2) WD Black 2TB HDD | EVGA SuperNOVA 650W Power Supply | Phanteks Enthoo Pro Series Full Tower Computer Case | (4) Noctua NF-A14 PWM Premium Quiet Cooling Case Fan (140mm) | LG 32GK850G-B 32" QHD Gaming Monitor with 144Hz Refresh Rate and NVIDIA G-Sync

 

Regards,
Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@scottb613 7700K 5 GHz and 1070 Ti will serve you very well until A4 comes out. Even then, if A4 (updated Enfusion engine) will not use async compute (hardware present only in Vega 56/64 and new RTX) and if CPU usage will be optimized, with your 8 threads, you will still be able to play A4 very well at high graphics.

 

3200 MHz 16-18-18 is something like lower end 1866 MHz CL10 DDR3. So you still have headroom for additional FPS (without upgrading to new PC) if later you switch to something like G.Skill Trident Z Neo 4x8 GB 3600 MHz 14-15-15-35 1.4V (not yet released), which is something like very very good 2800 MHz CL11 DDR3 (latency/timings-wise).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

@scottb613 7700K 5 GHz and 1070 Ti will serve you very well until A4 comes out. Even then, if A4 (updated Enfusion engine) will not use async compute (hardware present only in Vega 56/64 and new RTX) and if CPU usage will be optimized, with your 8 threads, you will still be able to play A4 very well at high graphics.

 

 

Yep. my 8 core, 16 threads, while (very) expensive now, should serve me well for A4 too. If not, I'll be back blaming you again! ūüėĄ

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tankbuster same advise as for @scottb613 -> headroom for additional FPS (without upgrading to new PC) if later you switch to something like G.Skill Trident Z Neo 4x8 GB 3600 MHz 14-15-15-35 1.4V (not yet released).

You have a lot of time to start saving money ūüėČ

 

I already can tell you in advance, that perf/price ratio will be for sure out of place, by much. But it will be way better/cheaper solution to gain same or almost same perf as if you'd changed mobo+cpu+RAM again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

@Tankbuster same advise as for @scottb613 -> headroom for additional FPS (without upgrading to new PC) if later you switch to something like G.Skill Trident Z Neo 4x8 GB 3600 MHz 14-15-15-35 1.4V (not yet released).

You have a lot of time to start saving money ūüėČ

Absolutely, mate. I didn't have the benefit of time when choosing my parts so had to get the best that was there at the time. As it happens, I have other DDR4 machines in the house that can take the 3333 MHZ c17 RAM I'm using now when some nice C14 or C15 comes available. It's a case of being patient and watching for when something comes up on a special offer and snapping it up.

 

BTW, my 3333 Ram is using XMP1 and is at 4300 right now. But as you rightly say, that would be outpaced by some 3600 at CAS 14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me, instead of upgrading to a whole new PC, I've bought the best air/AiO CPU cooler (Noctua NH-D15) one can get, delidded my 4790K, OC'ed it from 4.6 to 5.0 GHz, replaced 4x4 GB DDR3 2133 MHz 9-11-10-27 by 4x8 GB 2400 MHz 10-12-12-31 and lowered timings best I could to 10-11-12-18 + all secondary and tertiary as well.

Cooler + liquid metal + 32 GB DDR3 2400 = 400‚ā¨ - 100‚ā¨ for sold 16 GB DRR3 - 30‚ā¨ for sold Noctua NH-D14 = 270‚ā¨. + much time spent OC'ing (in search of cool and stable values)... well... it doesn't matter. As ArmA, servers and community haven't disappeared by that time and I haven't missed anything.

Best decision ever!

 

Sure, well multi-threaded games, like BF5, benefit a lot from 8 real cores or 12/16 threads to generate more than 100 FPS all at max 1440p (RTX disabled).

But I have only 75 Hz monitor (really good one) and my 8 threads will do it.

 

Of course some 3200 CL15-16 often time can be OC'ed to CL13-14 or to 3600 CL14-15 or to 4133 CL16-17 (depending on chips' goodness).

Or some 3600 CL16-17, or some 3733/3866 often time can be OC'ed to 3600 CL14-15 or to 4133 CL16-17 (depending on chips' goodness).

Some/a lot of money can be saved this way, but very very much time and knowledge is needed.

 

So the premium you pay over the rest is for almost lowest possible timings right from the factory. Plug in -> set XMP profil in BIOS and enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Groove_C said:

So the premium you pay over the rest is for almost lowest possible timings right from the factory. Plug in -> set XMP profil in BIOS and enjoy.

 

I'm asking just out of interest, i'm not really planning to buy.

I thought about if i wanted to spend "some" money on a Ryzen 9 3900X, a MSI MEG Godlike and G.Skill Trident Z Royal silver RAM (DIMM Kit 16GB, DDR4-4800, CL18-22-22-42 (F4-4800C18D-16GTRS))

(answer was NO, not for 1800‚ā¨)

I guess the RAM has the out of the Box best CAS latency (7.5ns) and not to bad secondary latencies (9.17, 9.17, 17.5). And it¬†costs only like 500‚ā¨. ūüėČ

But what bothers me, was the thing with the infinity fabric, would that weaken the performance so much to negate all gains compared to 3600MHz CL15 (eg. G.Skill Trident Z silver/red DIMM Kit 16GB, DDR4-3600, CL15-15-15-35 (F4-3600C15D-16GTZ)) because that Ram can operate in sync with the CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@HaseDesTodes Forget about this kit, like forever.

Highest I've seen on current Ryzen was 4333 MHz and only 2x8 GB + very loose timings. Ok, may be with updated BIOSes it will improve a little bit, but not much.

16 GB RAM even today is not that much anymore. If you play ArmA for several hours and have other programs running at the same time + like several YouTube tabs, facebook, etc. - 16 GB is nothing.

 

So for me, if 2x16 or 4x8 GB used, I think that not more than 4000-4133 MHz will be doable, with loose timings + in asynchronous mode and thus much higher latencies.

So, aiming for 32 GB in long term or right from the start, it will be 1800 MHz (3600 MHz) RAM with 1800 MHz Infinity Fabric (1:1 mode) with very good timings.

 

Not only can't new Ryzen attain same RAM frequency as Coffee Lake, but the frequency that is attainable (like 4200 MHz) is by having very loose timings (compared to Intel).

Sure, now thanks to new Ryzen it's possible to go over 3600 MHz (2 sticks) and go over 3200 MHz (4 sticks) and with better timings than before. But Ryzen 3XXX is nowhere near Coffee Lake RAM frequency/timings/latency-wise.

 

If your current rig is still holding ok or slightly more than ok, I would wait for next year's Ryzen and Navi, since AMD has pushed a lot to release new 7nm stuff as early as possible and thus not so efficient, not so high frequency, no so good RAM support (even if much better than Ryzen+) + no true Navi.

Next year there will be no Ryzen 2+, but directly Ryzen 3 with improved 7nm (what it should have been right from the start if not the hurry) + true Navi, and not GCN/RDNA hibride.

No Intel and no Ngreedia now anymore and next year as well.

Intel next year with same CPUs, with just 2 more cores.

Intel new architecture 2021.

Nvidia new RTX 7nm 2021.

 

RX 5700 (XT) are very very powerful and very well priced. RX 5700 outperformes RTX 2060 Super and RX 5700 XT outperformes RTX 2070 Super, in games that use async compute and other DX12 goodies. And that with not that good optimized drivers, yet (vs. Nvidia who has more than 1k people working in this department).

+ now, RX 5700 (XT) use GCN instructions, so there is sorta overlay and therefore performance is not what it should be, but despite this very very powerful.

When next gen games will start to appear (PS5), RX 5700 (XT) will finally start/switch to use their RDNA instructions (native) and will become even more powerful than now.

 

Just watch this video and laugh about Ngreedia ūü§£

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omg... this video from "Coreteks"!

You learn more in this one video vs. watching hundreds of videos on other well known YouTube channels all combined together.

If you don't understand anything about GRAPHICS PIPELINE, then switch directly to 21:03.

DON'T SKIP! Watch and listen each word!

 

In short: Ngreedia to increase performance, compresses data much more and thus has worse image quality (proven!) + they have more than 11k people working on graphics vs AMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

@HaseDesTodes Forget about this kit, like forever.

Highest I've seen on current Ryzen was 4333 MHz and only 2x8 GB + very loose timings. Ok, may be with updated BIOSes it will improve a little bit, but not much.

 Well, at least it's listed in the QVL (https://de.msi.com/Motherboard/support/MEG-X570-GODLIKE#support-mem-19), so i guess it is supposed to work. (that's why i picked it for this)

 

I actually plan now, to wait a bit until the prices of the X570 mainboards drop a bit. i'm not really willing to pay more then 1200‚ā¨ for a "highend" CPU, MOBO, RAM combo. maybe 1400‚ā¨.

nevertheless, i'm not planning to wait another year. (i am thinking to replace my i5 4670K with shitty MOBO and RAM since about Ryzens came out first.

I'd really like to have some more cores sometime soon.

 

As for the amount of Ram: i was thinking about 32GB, but since i have never experienced (or at least not noticed) to fill my Ram to more than 12GB, i decided against it.

But thinking about how long such a system is supposed to run, i might give it an other thought.

Or i get a PCI-E 4 SSD, so the swap file is at least connected with max speed. ūüėČ

 

 

Oh, and i'm not sure if you skipped the answer to my question, or i have just overread it, but would the 4800 CL18 ram now be faster with a Ryzen 3000 or not ūüôā

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, HaseDesTodes said:

 Well, at least it's listed in the QVL (https://de.msi.com/Motherboard/support/MEG-X570-GODLIKE#support-mem-19), so i guess it is supposed to work. (that's why i picked it for this)

Oh, and i'm not sure if you skipped the answer to my question, or i have just overread it, but would the 4800 CL18 ram now be faster with a Ryzen 3000 or not ūüôā

 

Well, I've checked the list of this mobo and if you'd have looked at it better, you would have seen, that 3866-4800 MHz RAM is supported by this board only for not more than 2x8 GB.

So if you buy such a kit, later you won't be able to add another 2x8 GB sticks with same frequency/timings to it, thus forcing you to buy slow additional RAM and clock your super sticks down to the specs of the lower end kit you add.

3733 possible with 4 sticks, but worse specs than 3600.

+ all beyond 3600 will work in asynchronous mode, which will result in very high latencies and worse bandwidth.
So best solution for Ryzen 3XXX to buy 1800 MHz (3600 MHz) sticks and use them with Infinity Fabric at 1800 MHZ, in synchronous mode (1:1)

But you can always spend 500‚ā¨ for 16 GB 4800 CL18 just for the bling and live with 16 GB only, 4eveR ūü§£

 

Actually I don't even see 3600 CL15 supported, not even 2 sticks. Only 3600 CL16.

Good sticks support is only for 4x8 GB 3200 CL14, for this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

 

Well, I've checked the list of this mobo and if you'd have looked at it better, you would have seen, that 3866-4800 MHz RAM is supported by this board only for not more than 2x8 GB.

 I've never claimed anything else, nor gave any space for interpretation about that i was aiming for 16GB. So why are you bringing this up again?

 

11 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

So best solution for Ryzen 3XXX to buy 1800 MHz (3600 MHz) sticks and use them with Infinity Fabric at 1800 MHZ, in synchronous mode (1:1)

ok, thanks for your answer

 

11 minutes ago, Groove_C said:

But you can always spend 500‚ā¨ for 16 GB 4800 CL18 just for the bling and live with 16 GB only, 4eveR ūü§£

¬†or i'll get myself an I7 5775C and kill it while delidding. ūüėõ

 

no seriously, i wouldn't buy the ram for that price, nor a MOBO for about 800!!!!‚ā¨, just to be able to operate it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With RAM and mobo you have now, i7-5775C wouldn't have helped much, if at all. Because only people who will OC it to the moon buy it. And they already have very good RAM and mobo. Without very good RAM and proper OC, which requires proper mobo and cooler, no point in buying it.

I'm still willing to buy it though.

 

What would have helped you a lot is switching to 3700X, or perhaps 3800X with 2x8 GB 3600 MHz RAM and same kit of 16 GB later.

There are a lot of decent X570 boards out there. Like Gigabyte X570 Elite or MSI Gaming Pro Carbon WIFI.

 

Definitely no 3600X, so you don't feel the need to upgrade prematurely, like with your i5-4670K, whereas most other users with i7-4770K/4790K/6700K/7700K don't feel the need, for now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

√ó