opus132

It definitely ended my life.

Do i really have to change so many or are there "key" ones that matter most? Since i have to go by trial and error it would cut time if i could start with the more important ones.

So i tried the first method here, using the "safe" option in the Ryzen DRAM calculator and the PC didn't even post, i had to clear the CMOS. Not encouraging as a first try: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/clbvod/guide_overclocking_your_ram_from_one_noobie_to/

Well, i thought i was locked out as all the seconary and teriary timings are stuck in auto but i just figured out you can change them somewhere else in the BIOS menu. It's kinda of confusing because they had to remove every graphic in the bios to make room for the support of newer CPUs and now it's a mess to find anything. To be honest i'm also getting crosseyed just by looking at them:

Well, a straight run on the diagnostic in CTR tells me i have a golden sample but i'm not sure that counts, everything is in default i think you need to at least tune something, right? Tried my friend's RAM. Three tests, no OC, and i got 68, 69 and 70 FPS. So i gained a couple of FPS, about 4 or 5. I also tried Cinebench and i basically gained nothing there. Definitely not enough to justify replacing what i have. I suppose if i really tried i could match the results of oldbear, with new ram and tuning through CTR but to be honest i think what i have is good enough. Definitely better than what i used to have on the 2600. I think the game is perfectly playable now.

Well i did run the test at 1080p so that's out. I'll look into CTR. Is the diagnostic safe? I'm not sure i want to risk damaging the CPU just to see how far i can push it and even if i only get a bronze rating i may just keep it. I'm not really planning to OC (i'm broke can't afford to mess around with expesive parts, heh) i just want to make sure everything is in order.

Well, at this time i'm simply trying to figure out why i am behind oldbear. We have the same CPU and a similar GPU we should be roughly the same. I'm concerned i may be losing performance because of something else.

Ha yes, i forgot i was at 1440p. I followed what you said, and i got 64 FPS. This is with precision boost overdrive and game boost off. I'm going to borrow my friend's memory and see what difference that actually makes.

Ok, i think there's something wrong with my configuration. I tried running the test in standard by pressing S while the benchmark was running and i got 51 FPS. So i tried manually setting the game to standard from the graphic options, and i ended up with 61 FPS. What kind of memory do you have? Perhaps primary timings do make a difference, or else something is wrong with my BIOS configuration.

Seems i'm unable to tune anything, possibly because i'm running this on a B450 board and the bios may be limited in what i can do. Everything appears to be set on auto and i can't change any of the secondary or tertiary timings. I think i'll settle with this. A friend of mine has some 3600 CL16 memory i'll see if i can convince him to bring it over to do some test, just for curiosity's sake.

So i turned the game boost on and set the memory to 3800 using the memory try it option and i got 41 FPS. That's inspiring. [EDIT] Turned off game boost and reset memory to XMP2 and tried Precise Boost Overdrive, set on "enabled". No gains, i'm back to 43. This isn't fun. At least pretend i'm making a difference damn you. Guess i have to set down and try a proper OC of both CPU and memory and see how much i can get out of what i have.

5600x here, with 16GB RAM 3600 18-22-22-42 and the CPU on default (no OC or anything else) i get around 43 FPS on the YAAB map on Ultra settings. With my previous 2600, i would get around 30 FPS, 33 if OC. How much would i stand to gain if i got better RAM? If it's only a few FPS more, i may decide to stay like this. If it's like 10 FPS, i could be compelled to upgrade to get close to the 60 FPS sweet spot. I mean i could do it now by tinkering with the graphics but hey, it's the principle of it. Ho BTW resolution is 1440p and video card is Red Devil 5700 XT running on the "quite" bios.

Seems to me that unless AMD delivers some major improvement with their upcoming CPUs the only option for this game is still Intel (with all that that entails. Expensive motherboards, expensive coolers etc). It's uncommon to see Arma 3 in modern reviews but check the performance in Microsoft Simulator, a game i assume is as CPU reliant as Arma 3 is probably for similar reasons: It's sad because i like what AMD is doing and i'm also disappointed at how lazy Intel has become but you have to look at it from a practical point of view i guess. For myself, i refuse to play at anything less than 60 FPS. I just can't deal with 30 FPS and even dips below 50 FPS annoy me, and with my Ryzen 2600 i get dips below 20 FPS on some maps so i gave on playing the game until i upgrade.

Well, my memory is 3600 18-22-22-42. Worth changing it with Intel as much as it is with Ryzen?

Is memory speed as important in Intel as it is in Ryzen?