Brisse 78 Posted March 5, 2017 9 hours ago, abudabi said: @Brisse pls run a YAAB with Ultra preset 1080p(1920-1080) no mods I've got a 37.4 fps(i5 6400@4500, 8gb DDR3-2200, GTX 970@core 1444, mem 8000) Reveal hidden contents Widescreen tho 1080p Ultra (not using YAAB's standard view distance settings) 27.0fps Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
abudabi 16 Posted March 5, 2017 6 hours ago, Brisse said: 1080p Ultra (not using YAAB's standard view distance settings) 27.0fps Pretty sad actually, you decreased view distance, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brisse 78 Posted March 5, 2017 @abudabi No, I used the one that the Ultra preset gave me. Should I have used YAAB standard settings instead? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
abudabi 16 Posted March 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, Brisse said: @abudabi No, I used the one that the Ultra preset gave me. Should I have used YAAB standard settings instead? Set resolution 1080p>click Ultra>play scenarion>yaab Version 0504 Description PRIME X370-PRO BIOS 0504 Enhance memory compatibility. you using this one? from 2017/02/28 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brisse 78 Posted March 5, 2017 @abudabi 1080p Ultra + YAAB standard 28.8fps Yes, I'm using BIOS 0504. I had already prepared it on a USB flash drive before building the system so first thing I did when powering up was to flash new BIOS. I expect them to release more BIOS updates in the coming weeks though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
abudabi 16 Posted March 5, 2017 @Brisse You need to test on windows 7 x64 somehow, also overclock your dram to 3400 on next bios update Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brisse 78 Posted March 5, 2017 @abudabi Looks like my Windows 10 is properly aware of physical cores, SMT and cache, unlike what people are saying on reddit. This is what I get from coreinfo: Quote C:\>coreinfo -c Coreinfo v3.31 - Dump information on system CPU and memory topology Copyright (C) 2008-2014 Mark Russinovich Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com Logical to Physical Processor Map: **-------------- Physical Processor 0 (Hyperthreaded) --**------------ Physical Processor 1 (Hyperthreaded) ----**---------- Physical Processor 2 (Hyperthreaded) ------**-------- Physical Processor 3 (Hyperthreaded) --------**------ Physical Processor 4 (Hyperthreaded) ----------**---- Physical Processor 5 (Hyperthreaded) ------------**-- Physical Processor 6 (Hyperthreaded) --------------** Physical Processor 7 (Hyperthreaded) C:\>coreinfo -l Coreinfo v3.31 - Dump information on system CPU and memory topology Copyright (C) 2008-2014 Mark Russinovich Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com Logical Processor to Cache Map: **-------------- Data Cache 0, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 **-------------- Instruction Cache 0, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64 **-------------- Unified Cache 0, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 ********-------- Unified Cache 1, Level 3, 8 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64 --**------------ Data Cache 1, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 --**------------ Instruction Cache 1, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64 --**------------ Unified Cache 2, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 ----**---------- Data Cache 2, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 ----**---------- Instruction Cache 2, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64 ----**---------- Unified Cache 3, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 ------**-------- Data Cache 3, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 ------**-------- Instruction Cache 3, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64 ------**-------- Unified Cache 4, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 --------**------ Data Cache 4, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 --------**------ Instruction Cache 4, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64 --------**------ Unified Cache 5, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 --------******** Unified Cache 6, Level 3, 8 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64 ----------**---- Data Cache 5, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 ----------**---- Instruction Cache 5, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64 ----------**---- Unified Cache 7, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 ------------**-- Data Cache 6, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 ------------**-- Instruction Cache 6, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64 ------------**-- Unified Cache 8, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 --------------** Data Cache 7, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 --------------** Instruction Cache 7, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64 --------------** Unified Cache 9, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64 I won't be able to overclock my RAM. I'm stuck on 2133mt because I'm running four dual rank modules. They are only rated for 2400mhz CL14 in their XMP profile anyway so I'm not loosing that much by running four sticks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jubam24 2 Posted March 6, 2017 techspot Arma 3 test http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/ 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brisse 78 Posted March 6, 2017 Interesting to see that it actually does slightly better with SMT. Didn't expect that. Also interesting to see it's not that far off from 6900K which is the closest Intel equivalent. I guess Arma 3 really hates octacores :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nedflanders 12 Posted March 6, 2017 So bottom line: Ryzen is a very good allrounder that performs better than any previous AMD µArch incarnation of AMD in ARMA3 but one should have fast RAM clocks. If you only play ARMA3, and do not really do anything else with it, get the Pentium G4560 and clock it as hell. Slightly bizzare that the best solution for one of the most CPU intensive games around is a CPU for about $65. Not quite the behavior of a modern Game Engine but I am sure BIS will do what they can to optimize towards all architectures to give their costumers the best possible experience. P.S.:Well, frametimes would be a good thing to see before coming to these conclusions. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
clawhammer 10 Posted March 6, 2017 Around 11:30 is an ArmA 3 Benchmark Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aliquis 0 Posted March 6, 2017 On 2017-03-05 at 11:40 AM, Brisse said: 1080p Ultra (not using YAAB's standard view distance settings) 27.0fps 22 hours ago, abudabi said: Pretty sad actually, you decreased view distance, right? What's sad the the BI engine which mostly just use one thread in this case. Sure the performance of each individual core could be better but Arma 3 is a bad benchmark of a multi-core processor but of course the best benchmark for Arma 3 performance. 27 FPS is terrible. I have the old Arma bundle and they had the new one which if one don't count the old Arma 1 and Arma 2 is just a bit cheaper than Arma 3 on Steam at best price but then again the Steam bundle with Apex edition offer yet more discount so the new Arma bundle doesn't seem worth it for something like me who already have the old ones and don't need / have much value of more Arma 2. However I haven't bought Arma 3 because all expansions aren't released yet and I assume it will be cheapest with everything together (but will I even enjoy it?) But with a performance of 27 FPS .. Is it even worth bothering with no matter how much content and at what price? Since they unlikely will change the engine and just release the next Arma instead maybe Arma 3 is a no-go for me regardless? It's sad. I've heard about the low performance before but I didn't knew it was because the game didn't took much advantage of modern processors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aliquis 0 Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) 21 hours ago, Brisse said: @abudabi Looks like my Windows 10 is properly aware of physical cores, SMT and cache. What is this beast?! Logical to Physical Processor Map: *--- Physical Processor 0 -*-- Physical Processor 1 --*- Physical Processor 2 ---* Physical Processor 3 Logical Processor to Cache Map: *--- Data Cache 0, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 *--- Instruction Cache 0, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 *--- Unified Cache 0, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64 **** Unified Cache 1, Level 3, 2 MB, Assoc 1, LineSize 64 -*-- Data Cache 1, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 -*-- Instruction Cache 1, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 -*-- Unified Cache 2, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64 --*- Data Cache 2, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 --*- Instruction Cache 2, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 --*- Unified Cache 3, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64 ---* Data Cache 3, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 ---* Instruction Cache 3, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 ---* Unified Cache 4, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64 Has someone released the kraken?! .. yeah. I haven't tried running Arma 3 on this Phenom X4 9850 @ 2.7 GHz. Is the G4560 a better Arma 3 CPU than the Ryzen 7 1700? Oh, you already had a test with it.. So basically on par. Oh well, it cost 1/5-1/6 as much. I kinda wonder whatever I should get G4560 instead and then just wait for a 6 core coffee lake main-stream processor if there is one released. I so wish I had bought the i7 5820K as I thought I should autumn-Christmas 2014 when the SEK was strong and the USD weak and there was $150 cashback on processor + motherboard .. Wouldn't had cost more than Ryzen 7 1700 + B350 motherboard today and given me 2-2.5 years of much better performance. Interesting to see that it actually does slightly better with SMT. Didn't expect that. Also interesting to see it's not that far off from 6900K which is the closest Intel equivalent. I guess Arma 3 really hates octacores :) Yeah, brought up to 3.9-4.1 GHz the difference can't be all that much. The problem is of course that the i7 7700K can be brought up to 5+ GHz and have a higher IPC. Edited March 6, 2017 by aliquis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aliquis 0 Posted March 6, 2017 5 hours ago, nedflanders said: So bottom line: Ryzen is a very good allrounder that performs better than any previous AMD µArch incarnation of AMD in ARMA3 but one should have fast RAM clocks. If you only play ARMA3, and do not really do anything else with it, get the Pentium G4560 and clock it as hell. Slightly bizzare that the best solution for one of the most CPU intensive games around is a CPU for about $65. Not quite the behavior of a modern Game Engine but I am sure BIS will do what they can to optimize towards all architectures to give their costumers the best possible experience. P.S.:Well, frametimes would be a good thing to see before coming to these conclusions. Ryzen L1, L3 and memory performance is lower than Intels. However depending on how the processor is used currently it may be even worse because of the split L3 cache and if Windows move threads between the two core clusters resulting in data no longer being accessible in the correct L3 cache. I don't know if that's a problem for Arma 3 but if it's something which happen then simply stop moving threads between the clusters will have some positive performance impact at-least as far as memory access goes. It's basically NOT the most CPU intensive game. It's just one of the most demanding games in regard of core performance due to how it's been constructed. It's not CPU intensive. It's single core intensive :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brisse 78 Posted March 6, 2017 @aliquis Note that those 27fps are not representative for normal gameplay. YAAB is a very heavy benchmark, and with the same settings I normally see 50-60fps during normal gameplay. If you are purely looking for the best CPU for Arma, then AMD has nothing to offer right now. You should stay away from any 8-core CPU unless you need a powerful CPU for other stuff besides Arma. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tankbuster 1746 Posted March 6, 2017 18 minutes ago, Brisse said: @aliquis Note that those 27fps are not representative for normal gameplay. YAAB is a very heavy benchmark, and with the same settings I normally see 50-60fps during normal gameplay. If you are purely looking for the best CPU for Arma, then AMD has nothing to offer right now. You should stay away from any 8-core CPU unless you need a powerful CPU for other stuff besides Arma. Unless those 8 cores are all putting out way more than 4.5 GHZ :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
abudabi 16 Posted March 6, 2017 How many threads single Arma 3 server is going? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
o5_ 7 Posted March 7, 2017 Recently I've read about a lot of communities doing what ive been doing for ages and thats creating several instances (threads) of the game and using affinity to bind them to separate cores (like server and headless clients). It's for this very reason I've considered replacing 2 of my headless client pcs with 1pc with a ryzen processor. What do you guys think? Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aseliot 2 Posted March 7, 2017 You should keep in mind that people have reported a more stable framerate while using Ryzen, but Arma 3 is just a special case anyway. I wouldn't buy a processor specifically for this one game because you are going to be dissapointed no matter what you get. I don't see any frame dips on most charts and the ones that do show the 1 percentile frame dips show those of Ryzen being a lot higher fps. So it means less frequent stutters, but it might not be the case with this particular game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nedflanders 12 Posted March 8, 2017 On 3/7/2017 at 10:02 AM, aseliot said: You should keep in mind that people have reported a more stable framerate while using Ryzen, but Arma 3 is just a special case anyway. I wouldn't buy a processor specifically for this one game because you are going to be dissapointed no matter what you get. I don't see any frame dips on most charts and the ones that do show the 1 percentile frame dips show those of Ryzen being a lot higher fps. On 3/6/2017 at 5:00 PM, aliquis said: Ryzen L1, L3 and memory performance is lower than Intels. However depending on how the processor is used currently it may be even worse because of the split L3 cache and if Windows move threads between the two core clusters resulting in data no longer being accessible in the correct L3 cache. I don't know if that's a problem for Arma 3 but if it's something which happen then simply stop moving threads between the clusters will have some positive performance impact at-least as far as memory access goes. Don't get me wrong guys, I think that Ryzens performance in general application and games including ArmA3 along with an outstanding pricetag makes Ryzen a very attractive piece of Hardware for all of us. I only said that if you are on a budget and all you want is a box that plays ARMA3 the best you can get for a minimum investment, there is no way around the HT enabled Pentium. --> here is mine waiting for an mITX Board ;-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aussiebobby 1 Posted March 11, 2017 Its not looking good so far in the Benchmark Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vigil Vindex 64 Posted March 11, 2017 44 minutes ago, aussiebobby said: Its not looking good so far in the Benchmark I think the interesting thing in this video is that on the i5 we see all the cores are all equally being used and never maxing out, yet in the other two we can see core 1 reaching high usage and the other cores being minimally used. I doubt the x64 builds will fix this. I think if we could get Arma to make full use of all the available cores that would be "splendid". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dunedain 48 Posted March 11, 2017 That's just the Windows thread scheduler doing its thing. The Real Virtuality, afaik, only supports two simultaneous threads. I've had my I5 3570k for five years already... I've been meaning to upgrade for a whole year already, had huge hopes for Ryzen. I guess I'll just wait and see if six core Coffee lake are worth the money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aussiebobby 1 Posted March 11, 2017 24 minutes ago, Vigil Vindex said: I think the interesting thing in this video is that on the i5 we see all the cores are all equally being used and never maxing out, yet in the other two we can see core 1 reaching high usage and the other cores being minimally used. I doubt the x64 builds will fix this. I think if we could get Arma to make full use of all the available cores that would be "splendid". If you skip to 3:20(flying),you can see how bad the i5 is shuttering. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
