3D_vet

Well, seems there are some solid guesses about that... I believe the 3700x ( and the 3850x is just a.... BEAST... 16c/32t at 5.1 GHz, only 500$) is planned to be 320 US $ ( I mean...12c/24t, 5.0 Ghz, for 320$??? ). Not expensive in my book, for that range of freaking power (and after that amazing cinebench test where it even gets better results to a non overclocked 9900k, it's clear that not at the cost of consuming too much power. To say it lightly). And the rest of the gama, all that kind of great bang for the buck. I wouldn't worry bout that, but mostly on when they'll come out. It seems it could be as late as July. And I have zero data yet on when they will release (seems current latest chipsets are going to be more or less compatible) the chipset that really fully support all to full advantage.

Ryzen 3k is going to be way too much. :) Specially the higher end of it. (I really disliked some aspects of Threadripper, besides price. So, this fits quite better with my work needs....) Tons of cores. For those of us using the PC for mostly work, heck, am gonna adore it for my renders and video editing....

I agree... 6 cores are going to be really important. I mean, more cores, in general. Is difficult to see it now, but I am detecting many movements (to be sincere, more than I expected, this soon) in that direction, both in games and (very specially) in applications. Plus, a new platform has quite several benefits over using an old one. Not only in raw performance (although these advantages are often left aside, incorrectly, when estimating performance). People think is a bad thing that is just the same IPC per core, and just 2 more cores. I don't see it like that : I am amazed that they can maintain that very high ipc per core and also have more cores. Global performance of your machine in general use is a very important factor. Sooner or later you will miss being able to have some tsr running besides your game (screen corder/streaming, antivirus, online music, some download, whatever it is), even if you totally, exclusively use the PC for gaming (I don't remember a single time in my life doing so, not even in my a bit younger years, when I was crazy about the "new" genre, the FPS games (quake, counter strike, ut...)). PD: I only blame the PC when I skip an entire bunch of frames, image frozen (after a lot of hours of playing , not Arma3, it happened just ONCE) and then appears the screen of having been fragged, in whatever the game .Only then I say is the cpu/gpu fault (or the connection, or the crappy HD... )... as anything else has a trick/technique ;D . I'm doing quite well in other game , which is definitely lighter in its cpu needs than Arma3 , but I can play both of 'em with some low settings, and mostly setting the CPU priority as "low" for the game (in both cases), and I know much better the other game (Planetside 2), in which I am sort of skilled ...so.... being this an utter crap 1st gen i7, I do know there's a lot you can do before blaming the machine.... :D :D :D :D. I'd rather have an overall great workhorse machine for any use for some years (and yeah, they can last, this one is still kicking and is from 2009 ), than the ultimate gaming machine for a specific single core game, but that is just me, probably...

Sorry, next time will do so.

IMO the increase will be significant. Even being equal, is a newer platform, and mostly is 6 cores against 4. I mean, there's no contest there,if want sth future-proof in both games and applications, thinking globally, not just in Arma 3. Also, for me 'performance' is not just FPS in a game, or single core synthetic capability, is also having the machine going smoother while multitasking. And there 6 cores do quite a difference, I pretty do know this well. Is reported how just the i7 5820k did run way smoother in certain multiplayer games thanks to this, and that's a six cores, too. And BTW, one of the fav machines in the late years for mid level video editing. (high end is other stuff, but am talking about average pockets). When I render with blender cycles, I can set it to render using all the 8 threads, but sometimes I just put the enough number of threads so that it's left enough power (depends on the other task to do) to the rest of the system to at least do more regular tasks fluidly while it render (which will so obviously take more time, but sometimes is the only way). And in my tests, it affects the matter strongly: More threads = u can do more stuff at a time. I work in my home pc, and more stuff at a time = more money. So, is not 'simply' important... If only for joy, well, if not yet, sooner or later you'll become more of a heavy multitasker, as is where everything is leading, imo... and then the more cores will and already do make such a difference. And that even while am not the kind of guy that streams as I play, no twitch , no stuff....but yep, rendering, video rendering, installing stuff, hear streaming audio often being a video feed (news, tutorials which I only "hear", etc ) , having skype for team work (and a lot of people as well uses TS or whatever for game voice), or even just so that the antivirus updating takes less impact..... Indeed, I would have preferred if at least the very higher end of the mainstream line would have been 8 cores, this way Ryzen still might have an edge for me.

It is impressive, indeed. (the size/ dimension of the work, what the script does)

are u sure of that ? I don't know why I thought the release and availability of the coffee lake desktops was expected just in October... Yes, 2 cores mores is A LOT, for many things....But that's my opinion... (Edit: I mean, even for games, a 6 cores is more future proof than 4 cores. Plus, these machines have other advantages, and pricing is gonna be pretty similar)

Sorry my late reply, work makes me check forums not as fast as I would like... Then it was that I read something from someone in a reddit-like place who was not very well informed about the matter (neither I am, obviously ). I had read about the memory issues, but quite some people say is fine now as most mother boards come with the bios updated, and anyway they recommend to check each motherboard specs to see what memory speed is recommended. Also,a lot advice g-skill memory for ryzens, dunno why. Also, that a 2400MHZ memory is safe now for the ryzens... I will not overclock anything (kind of prefer not to) whether is memory or cpu. (anyway, lately very tempted too by the new main stream six core from intel) That is very interesting data. I don't know why, I was expecting a rig like that to run worse than the G4560... 18 cores the top i9 , 16 cores amd's threadripper... this looks like the space war... yet though, there wins amd for the not-rich Joe...in my region, already the intel 10 cores is priced like the 16 cores from AMD...

Indeed, I'm holding back my purchase of a Ryzen 7 1700 (for work in a 98%) to see how this coffee lake 6 cores thing behaves, ie, if there's no probs of overheat, or whatever compatibility issue, etc. Still, 8 cores/16t is better for me for 3D rendering, so, would be a decision of trust ( I trust intel; AMD, have no experience with the brand) vs the clear advantage in video and 3D rendering of more cores at a just ok clock.... Still, right now for me, a complete tie. Obviously for gaming is all about the clock speed, but is a 2% of priority for me (don't take me wrong, I love playing).BTW, in the very low end, seen more tests with the g4560 and g4620, plus some of the i7 7100... is amazing how well served is the very low end (dirty cheap) in intel... Today I recommend basic users one of those without hesitation (ie: Office/Libre Office, casual gaming, browsing. But still even some good games if paired with a nice card (I tend to recommend the ti 1050 or 1060). The g4560 seems better in many matters than my arcane i7 860, still looses in heavily multithreaded tasks, obviously (8t better than 4))...3.5 and 3.7 mhz still worse than the 7100 3.9, among other things. But imo, very nice cheapo cpus. I understand what coffee lake is and its main characteristics, and also ice lake, which seems is 10nm and does not come till 2019 or end of 2018. But am still confused with canon lake... Is mostly 10nm but only for laptops and similar devices ? If not... why do that category so close or overlapping with ice lake ? And then you have all the Xtreme "genealogy" , a bit of a mess, imho...Anyway, the 8 cores from skylake-x seems interesting (7820x), but like double the price of a ryzen 7, lol (not counting also with a more expensive mother board and no integrated card to make the purchase in several moments/chunks like u can do in mainstream intel). So, yeah, for graphic works, for me is almost a tie between the 6c coffee lake (to be shown this 21th ?) surely launched commercially in October, and the 8c Ryzen 7. Anyone knows if it is true that the fact of having (Ryzen) the cores communicated by PCIe really slows down the machine or is somehow compensated ?

haha....not really... I have the money, I just prioritize and prefer to dedicate it to things that humanly reward me and others more..... while the machine still works, at least....

I am able to play quite well planet side 2 (but I know deeply the game, that counts, too) with an arcane i7 860 1st gen. It has 8gb and only 2.8 ghz stock, 3.46 non overclocked - I don't overclock my machines, neither want to do that. I use the machine mostly for work, but am an avid gamer since decades, when I have time. Arma 3 is _certainly_ cpu demanding (the engine does very crazy -good- things, too), I have seen. Still, same trick that served me to play WELL Planetside 2, which was unplayable with total stalls every 5 to ten seconds, total stop of some seconds each time, to fluid enough for a mixed tactic and cqc game (not full time cqc, as that would be a bit worse). Doing same trick in Arma 3, and lowering many settings, configuring things the best I could, I was able to play multiplayer (didn't go to certain servers and playing modes that are more demanding, tho), have my frags even being quite newbie in this game. So...My point here is that there is definitely a personal threshold also. Probably this has quite less influence in Arma 3, as it eats quite some power, there's strong physical limits, but some of us can stand less fluidity , maybe for being very used to it and using tricks in fps gaming from other games. I guess for an average minimally decent experience you need to stick to the hardware bare minimums mentioned in this thread. I just happen to be weird in some stuff, and setting the two exes in low cpu priority (with a task manager alternative) in Planetside 2 am happy with what it allows me for very long hours of playing without any sort of issue (before it was more crashy, too...now... never) in planetside 2, and mostly do SOME playing in Arma 3. I was able to play regularly multiplayer games, etc. But my main interest in Arma 3 is editing, -whenever I get the free time for that!- so, is not a main issue. If anything, I'm missing a new card as is actually needed for several high polygon count modeling new software, for shaders editing, etc. But I'd be just fine even with a 1050 ti 4 GB (ideally 1060) . Pretty much decided to go for Ryzen soon, for non gaming reasons, which are more important to me. That unless Intel's new mainstream in October , 6 cores, if they don't delay that, turns out to be an outstanding machine at low price. Even so, I render I huge lot in my day to day, so, 2 cores, 4 threads more is a world of difference in rendering time, which is crucial to me (and also, will be able to work while I render), so, surely gonna be finally the ryzen. I might change my opinion around 400 times till October, tho, lol.... The cpu priority trick leads me to think that maybe the engine is counting on functionality or performance which is not a problem in modern cpus (of high clocks, of course, too), but that leaves my poor i7 860 without even power enough for the OS underneath. So, limiting that, and playing in low-mid game settings in ps2, I can tell you, a quite good experience, but just in my case.(very low performance/perception experience threshold in gaming). In arma 3, well, I could play. The issue, if there was one, was lack of playing experience in the specific game, but after a pair of months got the basic hang of it, the machine was not a problem. I guess once you get more deep into the game, you need more. Surface Pro was my heading for a portable drawing machine (and then was the iPad Pro, better for that, but still ... discarded it, too), but too small screen for drawing for my taste, and the pen has certain jitter. There's averaging and stabilization that fix that in some softwares, but often you need to draw with that off.... But is a great sketching platform.... And overall, not low powered. I don't see you mentioning the version - 1, 3, 4... - but latest ones are having a SSD disk, so, that's a good thing for general use (I dislike when there's not also a regular HD in the machine, for many reasons). And yep, low in ram, slow in cpu for gaming -imo- and the card, not enough power for 3D. But hey, am playing with sth very crappy and old, depends in your personal threshold and how you configure, things in th egame, the O. System, the machine in general, the quality of each hardware piece, even. Mostly in the personal threshold I mentioned, but that's only a very personal opinion of myself (and almost 100% not aplicable to Arma 3, but definitely yep to an enough high count of other games, specially for a non hardcore gaming. Or hardcore if can deal with it, maybe my case)... To play as most people want to play, I'd say might be impossible.

Very interesting points... I read now some parts now of those articles... What I hadn't considered is purchase now a ryzen 7 or the 1600(x), and if Thredripper (or the 1800x) could be installed in a b350 or x370, do so a bit after released.... using the same board is a bit of less cost, and I didn't know it was going to be "only" 800 bucks or so...I mean, it's 16 cores, 32 threads (the wonders Blender Cycles would do with that) that must be a total beast... (not for gaming, but surely in that department should be decent, just for the brute force...) I for one am not too interested in the lowest Ryzen gen.... Unless they have some surprise hidden. Too under powered, but yep, who knows... maybe they position a ryzen 3 at the right price and power. I was seeing tho, yesterday, a certain inconvenience with Ryzen platform. Yes is great for a mixed focus (work/some gaming) , but does not allow that great thing of purchasing first the cpu and be for some months (only working) with an integrated card in the mobo/cpu, Then purchase a 1060 or 1070. With ryzen you need to add to the first cash push a card, and even if a low one , is money all in one shot, and mostly I hate to throw money away, as a low end card is very hard to sell in second hand, in my experience at least. Yet though, if I get some sudden high cash gig or sth, after seeing tests in one of those articles, seems that a very round solution for almost everything is indeed the Ryzen 1800x. Even the article writer concludes a bit that is a good solution for its value, if I got it right. If you see the tests graphs, the 1800x is a tough contender, if you think about the performance/price ratio (not total absolute power). And a cpu for 900 or 800 bucks ( i9 has been priced aggressively cheap, imo, for what it would have been expected in that range with Intel, maybe is something to thank AMD for, I guess. ) . And yep, seems the infos intel is dropping now are not about improvised platforms, just it might be giving more anticipation to the news and release times than it was planned. My 2 cents: the AMD move is good for both platform users. (ie, some price reduction and anticipation in Intel ) Yet though, I'm curious.. coffee lake is just some months away, (maybe October/November?)... Wouldn't be more interesting the coffee lake architecture and its mainstream price for a six core? (of course, not if single threaded wouldn't reach 4.2-4.5 in stock, for games, i guess.). But yep, you said near future :) (August, I think). I'm reading that indeed the 7740x (btw, 112 W TDP instead of 91W of 7700k) is thought to replace the 7700k. Also, that thanks to ryzen, it could be same price than 7700k, (or slightly higher), and, interestingly, reduce at same time the 7700k price ! This would be interesting for me, as I am always about the price/performance ratio. Am I reading it wrongly, or the 7740X mother board needs to be new, and more expensive ? (not sure if refers to base ram). And seems it has not integrated graphics (digging it at Intel's page...disadvantage -in my view, and for enterprise environments (seats)- I guess, compared to the 7700k). Ouch, nevermind, I was thinking all the time in -k not -x (Skylake-X). That range never had integrated graphics and is a more expensive and different mobo, i guess is a way to make the hardcore mainstream user to jump into the pro platform, to fight back ryzen. Anyway, ryzen, -X, 8th gen or next year's cannon lake, will all require a new board, so... Not sure how reliable is the source, but seems the 7740X might come at 339$. If that's true, is a really good price. Source. And really, i dunno if I can trust the source, as my interest there would be in the six core, but how come can that price just 389$ ? Is Ryzen having such impact? :o To me that one would be a sweet spot in many ways. (not for hardcore gaming). Core i7-7800X (3.5GHz), 6 cores/12 threads, $389 If an old 5820k (but first hand, still in stocks) costs right now quite more... I don't understand. Maybe is to compensate the cost of a new mobo as they want these gamers moving to the new platform (X299 ?), again, thanks to Ryzen... It seems you can pre order any of the -X series in 2 days from now.... I really don't understand Intel's strategy. They have a new technology, let me paste the freaking new name, Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 and they don't put it in any cpu till 599$ and up, the 7820x (3.6 stock). WHY. I mean, turbo's benefit is mostly for gamers, why not putting it in the 7740x, would be a definite direct punch to AMD. It seems this new tech allows to have two, not just one core running at max clock.IMO that might be a real game changer, if I understood it well.

It seems that for maximum performance in-game, is all about 7700k (as said often, for Arma 3 but also others very cpu dependent), 7600k or some other in the line. But for having a slightly decent game performance (maybe not so much in Arma3, but I am fine with even crappy performance, I'm used to play so) but really good performance -for people like me doing 2D/3D/video work (I guess there are modders around here), or even just playing and streaming, I don't do that, but I'm a heavy "multitasker"- the 8 cores Ryzen 7 1700 reveals as very interesting (that or wait the intel mainstream six cores 8th gen in autumn (I'd probably prefer that for safety, but...now), or even just grab the 3.6 Ryzen 5 1600x now...(six cores, 3.6GHz stock, 4GHz turbo, I believe. Seems more focused on games, as 1700 is more for work)). They are both, 1700 and 1600x, at good price, specially for 8 and 6 cores. Way too many choices. Finally some competition back among the two brands. This can only be good for us.. And from my POV, is indeed better for intel, to push things a bit more...

Had the cash now for a new pc, but I believe I am going to wait (maybe October) ... It seems it's very soon incoming the X series of Sky and Kaby lake (but that would surely go past my budget), and at second half of Autumn, Coffee Lake, 8th gen, main stream with a six core , 12 threads in the i7 range (ideal for my needs). Prices to be similar to Kaby's... If that is true, for a work/gaming machine it'd worth the wait for me. Also Cannon Lake (too many lakes in little time, lol...) in 2018 (a bit too late for me). Supposedly this 8th gen (Coffee) is a 30% in performance, but I hardly believe any of these statements... All this sounds to me as a reaction to Ryzen, somehow...(from what i have read, specially in content creation(rendering...)/productivity fields that machine is having acceptance). Thinking of going AMD...not for that 12 cores threadripper thing (as also intel's core i9 will be out of my budget, too), as would neither go for an enthusiast cpu... -due to cost- but if that 8th gen 6 core i7 is really mainstream as announced or ryzen goes down in price once the other new cpus are released.. then, one of the two would be, I don't care if is intel or AMD. 6 cores at a nice price, decent performance (~ i7 main stream is fine for me, specially if reaching 4.2 ghz)

Oki, thanks. From reviews it seems is a bit above the 4560 (and 4620 a bit above 4600, no surprise),and quite a good performer for that range. Thx anyway.