We need AMD Ryzen Benchmarks! Share your toughts!

[oldbear 390]

This R5 3600X is a rather good Arma3 player.

I will probably go for 16 Go GSKill Neo 3600 MHz C16 when available but I still don't know if I can bought a better GPU ...

 

Same player shoot again 😎

 

 

a - frametimes

Spoiler

b - fps

Spoiler

 

 

[clawhammer 10]

On 5/7/2019 at 7:32 PM, clawhammer said:

Which preset are you guys using ? With ULTRA i get 32FPS and with low iam around 43FPS

 

Iam using Ryzen 2700x + RTX 2080.

This is the ram that i use: 2x -> F4-3200C16D-16GVKB (16-18-18-38) @2800mhz

 

Its horror that the i7 4790k i bought 2014 gets the same fps...

Wow

with Ryzen 3700X and F4-3866C18D-32GTZR iam now with 50fps at standard and 40 with High. Rams currently only run with 3600mhz and 18-18-18-38 timings. I hope that soon a new bios give me these rams with 3866. Wished to get the jucy 60FPS but no luck with that :D

[oldbear 390]

Well, for testing purpose, and comparison sake,  I am using the presets the game is displaying Standard is "Standard" and Ultra is "Ultra".

 

The minimum for testing and playing is Standard presets because when you switch to "Low", some of rendering jobs are transferred to the CPU, using "Low" means for the game engine that your graphic card is so bad it can compute shadows, particles ..., so remember never  to use "Low" presets unless you are forced to.

 

In game, I am using "Ultra" Quality but limited Visibility parameter down from 3800 m to 3200 m the value set for playing on our Clan game server.

Setting down the Visibility Overall value helps all our members to get a playable FPS level.

Even if the GPU has get some more importance since  Visual Upgrade , in Arma* the CPU is still the boss!

 

I am also using custom parameters in the AA&PP section because I fight blur, bloom and depth of field, disabling all that stuff that makes the picture blurry and  I set also sharpen filter to 100.

 

With such parameters, in game, performances on my AMD test rig [R5-3600X/Rx-570-4GB/16 GB-3200/B450M], are at the same level as the performances I am getting on my current game rig  [i7-7700K/GTX-1060-6GB/16GB-3200/Z270].

 

If you want to get a glimpse at the "Graal" some are looking for,  you must switch to an Intel high end CPU/high end Nvidia GPU combo.

Arma3 is playable and enjoyable when the FPS level currently stay over 30 FPS and that's the case on my gaming rig and on the R5-3600X based rig I have on my bench ATM.

 

I had briefly tested a build based upon a R5 2600 and found it and I found it a bit disappointing, performing more or  less at the level of my  [i7-4790/GTX-1060-3GB/16GB-1866/Z87] spare rig.

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by oldbear
English is not my maternal language, but you had already get it

[Groove_C 267]

@clawhammer 3866 CL18 is very bad for Ryzen, because Infinity Fabric can't operate at 1933 MHz (3866 MHz) and it switches instead to only half of the speed - 967 MHz, to guaranty 3866 MHz operation of RAM. And also 18-18-18-38 is really high for 3866 MHz.

What you can do, is to manually switch your RAM in the BIOS to 3600 MHz, so Infinity Fabric can run at 1800 MHz instead of only 967 MHz and without changing RAM voltage or anything else RAM related, put your RAM to operate at 16-16-16-36 instead of 18-18-18-38.

Because your RAM operates at 1.35 V, which is same voltage as for 3600 CL16 kits.

You will see your FPS will improve and latencies will go down.

[Dwarden 1125]

just remember you can manually disable the automatic 1:2 (the threshold in new UEFI bios is 1833)

so if you lucky you can run uCLK/fCLK at 1833 or 1866 or 1900 in sync

 

also i recommend Ryzen DRAM calculator 1.6 (or newer) for tweaking memory timings https://www.overclock.net/forum/28064156-post4887.html

[clawhammer 10]

i changed my F4-3866C18D-32GTZR now to 3600Mhz and 16-16-16-38 and got an FPS increase of 3 FPS. Now iam at 53 at Standard Benchmark. Still a long way to the magical 60FPS 😄

[djotacon 190]

This say all right now...

 

 

[oldbear 390]

@djotacon  I am sorry to say that we don't need a YouTube video runs with weird settings to understand that a R9 3900X is not fit to be a winner for Arma3 gaming Blue Ribbon.

Using an Intel processor of 2017 to get nearly equal performances is telling the story.

 

Nevertheless, I had previously said a Ryzen R5 3600X is a really good Arma3 fighter 😎

 

 

[djotacon 190]

1 hour ago, oldbear said:

@djotacon  I am sorry to say that we don't need a YouTube video runs with weird settings to understand that a R9 3900X is not fit to be a winner for Arma3 gaming Blue Ribbon.

Using an Intel processor of 2017 to get nearly equal performances is telling the story.

 

Nevertheless, I had previously said a Ryzen R5 3600X is a really good Arma3 fighter 😎

 

 

Are you talking for the entire forum? or the entire internet?...

 

I post the video to show a video using the LOW SETTINGS that came with the game - do you see the video? -  and using an OC 7700k  the game cannot achive the 60 fps.

 

I find this funny when I see people posting "fantastic" fps performances using others OC's settings...

 

One point: the 7700k isn't a processor of the 2017 ... is the "CPU" of the year 2017 the difference with an 9700k is a 10% more fps...

 

You can see the power of this "old" 7700k in this video using STOCK settings:

 

 

Second point: the main upgrade of the ryzen series 3xxx is the AVX2 instructions, now this cpu i-set isnt emulated anymore and you can achive a lot of fps in the yaab test using the CMA memory allocator and the AVX2 version for free.

 

I suggest make a bench using AVX2 instructions and the 3600.

 

 

 

 

[oldbear 390]

So far, I dont' t clearly understand what are you trying to say or prove.

As I have said previously, "in game, performances on my AMD test rig [R5-3600X/Rx-570-4GB/16 GB-3200/B450M], are at the same level as the performances I am getting on my current game rig  [i7-7700K/GTX-1060-6GB/16GB-3200/Z270]".

By the way, I am only using out of the box hardware.

I believe that's it's great to be able to play Arma3 today on a full AMD build, as I had enjoyed playing Operation Flashpoint on my AthlonXP 2000+/ATI 9000 years ago, It makes me feel younger 😎

 

 

[oldbear 390]

A bit later ...

BIOS Version 1820 , updated AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA involved.

AMD test rig R5-3600X/Rx-570-4GB/B450M upgrade with G.Skill 16 GB-3600 NEO.

[oldbear 390]

To be continued ... now testing a Gainward GTX 1060 6 GB

BIOS Version 1820 , updated AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA involved.

AMD test rig R5-3600X/GTX 1060 6 GB/B450M upgrade with G.Skill 16 GB-3600 NEO.

 

[commando180 15]

so what we are saying.......... no pc is gonna get to 60 fps in arma 3 unless you want to buy high end cpu and overclock it until it bleeds!

 

I think its the case then that you can spend thousands on a high end pc but gain little fps compared to a mid range pc. Essentially the GPU does nothing to add to the performance of ARMA 3.

 

So if you want to play ARMA 3, just buy a mid range gpu (used) and buy a high end cpu and overclock it to hell!

Edited December 4, 2019 by commando180
....

[Groove_C 267]

Past a certain perf/cost level in Arma, benefits are marginal at best.

[oldbear 390]

@commando180  Well, I don't understand why you post this here. Do you intend to share with us your AMD based rig performances in Arma 3 ?

 

Before posting about mid level Arma3 gaming rigs here and on CanardPC forums : Jouer à Arma3 avec un AMD R5 2000/3000 : Armaverse Battleship, I have spent hours to test what I am calling the "Minimum Recommended" requirements, so you can find here and there tests on entry level rigs.

 

Edit : buy a mid range gpu (used) is not a good plan, in order to play Arma3 on Ultra Quality, you need to buy an entry level brand new AMD RX 590 or an upcoming AMD RX 5500.

If you can get a Ryzen R5 2600X on a B450 Mobo, it will do the job without any overclock. You will play in the 35/40 FPS range and it's OK.

 

 

 

[commando180 15]

@oldbear, i havent yet got all my ryzen 3600x parts ordered......... but if we are just talking 40-60 fps its still quite poor?

 

Unless it shows 0.1% min, how can this benchmark be compared with youtube benchmarks?

 

The results we are getting from YAAB is this minimum or average fps? In which case i want to know what is the highest fps, median and 0.1% low. Is it possible to do from YAAB results?

 

Sorry if i dont understand the benchmark results properly, but it would do with a little explanation of how YAAB is calculated.

[oldbear 390]

In fact, YAAB is not a benchmark in the ordinary sense of the word for it's an Arma3 mission used as a bench.

The mission description specify it's an ...  "About 2.5 minutes long scripted intro for measuring your average FPS. Emphasis on AI fighting performance, bullets, and explosions. The mission is very CPU heavy; you'll probably won't get much above 40 fps even on a high-end PC."

The result we are getting is an average FPS, the graph clearly shows the variations of FPS according to the events involved, the environment, the effects and the actions of the AI.

Looking at the figures on the graph, you will get highest, lowest and average FPS, not much calculation here, sorry.

But the results you are getting here are very close to what you can really get in game, variations included!

[commando180 15]

 

On 10/21/2019 at 1:33 PM, oldbear said:

To be continued ... now testing a Gainward GTX 1060 6 GB

BIOS Version 1820 , updated AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA involved.

AMD test rig R5-3600X/GTX 1060 6 GB/B450M upgrade with G.Skill 16 GB-3600 NEO.

 

 

So that means, highest was 107 fps and average of 60 fps and lowest 42...... based on what i can see. 

 

ok makes sense..... good ! then there is progress with ryzen?

[commando180 15]

what would be useful is if i can see a 1080p, 2k and 4k comparison......... i need to see how much GPU plays a part at high resolution and if theres an impact on FPS.

[oldbear 390]

In fact GPU still play a secondary role of support, compared to that of the CPU.

From my own tests, playing a R5 3600X, all entry level cards such as RX 550, RX 460, GT 1030 are used up to 100% and are bottlenecking the CPU when trying to play in Ultra Quality. A RX 570 or a GTX 670 are used from 80% to 100%, bottleneck is near. The GTX 1060 6 GB is so far the best card I have tested. I am not getting such level of performance with a RTX 2060 or a RX 5700.

 

Just done some YAAB runs with the RX 5700 currently on the benchtable ...

 

 

... the level of performance in this test is the one I can observe in game in MP on the dedicated server of my Clan. You can get a glimpse at my custom parameters on my tests, the main item being the 3500 m Overall Visibility.

 

[OFF topic =ON] I am buying all the hardware I am using for my test and for the moment, I can not afford to buy a screen in 1440p [OFF topic =OFF]

[Tankbuster 1746]

My experience is, and I have 3 machines running Arma here, is that at 1080 GPU doesn't make a great deal of difference. Once you get past 1080, then the GPU becomes more important. I now have a GTX 1080 purely because my main monitor is 2560 by 1440. The old GTX 970 wasn't even close to making this work.

[commando180 15]

So it seems a GPU is also indeed important.

 

However, on this thread 'Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications?' it appears that GPU does nothing, but this could just be down to 1080p performance where the CPU is working its hardest. It would be useful to know still if a 2080 ti and a 1070 still delvier the same performance at 4k........ i suspect that the 2080 ti will still hold itself well and the 1070 will drop down and die?

 

Has anyone tested gpu's running at 4k? With ryzen in particular?

[Groove_C 267]

R7 3700X ~4.2 GHz (SMT on) (Auto -> no PBO)
2x8 GB DDR4 3600 16-16-16-36 1.35 V @ 14-15-15-35 1.35 V via Ryzen DRAM Calculator
X570 Aorus Elite
GTX 1080
SSD
Windows 10 + BIOS up to date
Launcher mods + browser, Discord, Skype, Teamspeak etc + all known background programs/processes off

YAAB 1080p standard
Run 1: min 43 avg 65,4 (4219 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 2: min 42 avg 63,8 (4222 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 3: min 43 avg 63,5 (4206 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)

YAAB 1080p ultra
Run 1: min 33 avg 50,8 (4191 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 2: min 36 avg 50,1 (4189 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 3: min 35 avg 48,7 (4202 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)

YAAB 1440p standard
Run 1: min 41 avg 63,1 (4206 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 2: min 38 avg 64,9 (4226 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 3: min 43 avg 63,1 (4214 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)

YAAB 1440p ultra
Run 1: min 31 avg 48,1 (4206 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 2: min 34 avg 47,1 (4196 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)
Run 3: min 31 avg 41,8 (42017 MHz avg CPU frequency all cores combined)

[oldbear 390]

YAAB Ryzen R5 3600 / AORUS B 450I-Pro WIFI / INNO 3D GTX 1650 / Corsair Vengeance LPX16 GB 3200 C16 /Samsung 500GB SSD M.2 NVMe  on Iiyama ProLite E2282HS 1080p monitor. All involved items are brand new and just out the box, the only tweak is to set the XMP DDR4 profile.

 

My personal modification is the replacement of the standard AMD Wraith Stealth cooler with an AMD Wraith Prism purchased separately. From my point of view,  the R5 3600 requires a more efficient cooling if the main use is Arma3 gaming (what else ... ?).

 

 

In game, playing my "2 vs 1" test mission on Pyrgos involving around 120 AIs on continuous fight a glimpse on HWiNFO monitoring

 

 

From my point of view, here, the GTX 1650 allows the display in 1080p, but, the "Custom" settings* used for this mission include in addition a limitation of the effects of rendering of light on water.

A GTX 1660 or an RX 5500 XT would be more suitable for the job.

 

The tests were done with a configuration built in a rather crowded Kolink Satellite PC case

 

Edit : "Custom" parameters according to the Old Bear method

 

 

 

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

I finally got a 5800x to play with.

 

Its not a great overclocker RAM wise and i only reach 3733MHz RAM stable, but its already very fast. The mid 70 fps results were from my 3300x.