Ghaleon4

Thank you for the feedback Tankbuster! I know that the Arma community is sensitive to frame-rate complaints. Indeed, this is a simulator that is operating with a lot of overhead that conventional games just don't have to deal with. That's why I didn't barge in here to ask about how to play at 1440p or 4k at 144hz --but I really can't deal with the screen tearing on fixed-pixel displays. Maybe if we were all still using CRTs I could manage, but I can't do it on a panel. The rest of my machine is built with a GTX 970, a 500 gig Evo and a 4TB evo. I've learned that the spot in the single-player campaign that tanked my frame rate is the city of Kavala, and they say it's one of the worst spots in the game. Can anyone run this area of the game with moderate view distance at 50 fps?? I've played with 50 VSync (see my first post above), and it's sublime. Look, I'm already getting the sense from here and on Reddit that I'm going to have to defend my aspirations. Here it is: I don't think it's too much to ask to be able to use my TrackIR to scan the east horizon while I crouch-walk north to the next tree -and dips in the frame-rate are like being stricken with sudden bouts of blindness. I can't track objects or see if anything is moving in this scenario if the damned frame rate isn't steady or if I've got instances of tearing flickering all over the screen. Remember, I'm scanning things 1km away with the naked eye, right? Simulator?? And don't get me started on the joy of 'aiming'. If I wanted this kind of random outcome to my carefully-planned actions, I'd just play some D&D. So if it's not steady enough for me to be an effective infantryman, then I'm not playing this game and I'm saving my $700 for another generation.

@Tankbuster Yes, but did any of them run the single-player campaign at a solid 60? Happy Sunday to the U.K.!!!

Oh man, if someone doesn't write back and stop me, I'm going to drive to my Best Buy and get a *friggin'* 10700k. They didn't have the i5 in stock, but they've got this i7. For god's sake, is this a bad idea or a ticket to Arma heaven!? If I'm right, I could be up and running by tomorrow morning... Edit: Okay, impulse denied. They've barely closed (at 8 on a saturday) But they open at 10am tomorrow morning. Now about that memory. BestBuy has the following: pc4-28800 (3.6ghz) 18-22-22-42 pc4-25600 (3.2ghz) 16-18-18-36 I did the math and both of these would seem to have a 'True' latency of 10. I searched locally, and can't find anyone that'll sell me 3.6Ghz with a CL of 16. I'd have to wait for shipping, and I have zero patience after this whole 3080 fiasco! For this impulse purchase to go through, I'll have to settle for 'slightly' compromised memory speeds. Can someone confirm whether or not I'm already over the hurdle so maybe it doesn't matter?

Okay, here's what I've broken my choices down to, I think. No Memory considered yet... Socket 1151 Asus Prime Z390-A $179 + i9-9900k $300(Microcenter?) = $479 Socket 1200 Asus Prime Z490-A $211 + i5 10600k $274 = $485 Asus Prime Z490-A $211 + i7 10700k $380 = $591 This....is the confusing part that I was afraid of. A choice between an i9, i5, and an i7? Across two socket types!? I found these based on reviews and charts, but what do these mean for ARMA 3? And the future of my PC?? If someone could confirm/deny that the i5 10600k is more than enough for single-player campaign 1080p 60fps, '3km view, 1500 obj' throughout, then I'll use this as the less expensive stepping stone to Socket 1200. Then maybe I'll win that i7 later in a contest or something lol, right? So long as I can play this game -well- in the meantime. <- If this ain't possible, ever, on any setup, someone just tell me now. : p Thanks again!!!!!

I hope that my repeat posts are okay. I don't have any techy friends to bounce this stuff off of. And Hell, I guess you just eat an elephant one bite at a time, right?? I really think I've boiled it down to two contenders between two sockets/chipsets. Socket 1200 / z490 i5-10600k (Supports Hyperthreading) $270 Socket 1151 / z390 i9-9900k $300-400 They both support DDR 4, and they'll both fit the existing Corsair h100i AIO that I've got. Up 'till now, this exercise has been motivated 100% by Arma 3 -with the goal of finding a configuration with the highest single-core speed and IPC. Now I need to consider other things outside of Arma, like features on the motherboard and which memory to buy. Motherboard: I like Asus for some reason, and I liked the philosophy behind how they built my Maximus VII Hero (entry-point mobo for good overclocking). Is there a modern-day equivalent to what this board used to offer? This 'Prime' (entry level) Z390 board from Asus seems to match/exceed the features of my current board -and onboard audio doesn't matter, 'cuz I'm a dork that already owns an SB AE-5 add-on card. I'm definitely going to overclock whatever I get...but it's going to be HARD to compare motherboard models and prices across two chipsets I think. Here goes more research...I'll be back!

Oh man, one last bit that I forgot! Another option would be for me to max out this motherboard with the fastest CPU I can get. Socket 1150. Is that worth looking into, or should I stick with the above plan (previous post) and do a new platform? I just wanna play the single player campaign at 1080p 50/60hz until a new GPU becomes realistic/possible... Edit: Just did some research. I guess the fastest 1150 CPU is the i7-4790k. Can THIS get me a *solid* 60fps at 1080p in the single-player core/dlc campaigns? Another edit: I just discovered that i5 CPUs now support hyperthreading, and so maybe I can look at a socket 1200 i5-10600k ... Urg, this is overwhelming and uncertain.

HELLO EVERYONE! First post! Specs CPU: i5-4690k @ 4.5Ghz RAM: 16Gig DDR3 2400 Storage: 4TB Samsung Evo GPU: nVidia GTX 970 I just discovered Arma 3 a couple of weeks ago. I was floored. Dumbstruck and filled with excitement, I pressed forward with moderate view distance settings and Vsync enabled @ 50hz. Glorious, I thought. And then I left Altis. My heart sank at the same pace as my framerate when I climbed over that god-danged hill after the beach. 40 FPS. All view settings down to 500, and STILL 40 fps. DEFINITELY unplayable at 50 Hz, and I can't deal with screen tearing. Tried 1080i (30hz), it was smooth, but the latency was unbearable. Sigh...upgrade here we go. This is a big forum thread. I've gone back a few pages to see what everyone is talking about, and the most important thing I've learned so far is that clock speeds, IPC, and System Bus performance are the priority. I'm not made of money but I have a little bit to spend. I was going to upgrade my GTX 970 to a 3080 with this cash, and I have a lot of older games that would benefit greatly if I waited for that. Was also going to wait for PCIe 4.0 to reach Intel platforms before I did a whole new rig. Then I realized how sublime this game is and my priorities have...changed. I feel like if I can get a new CPU/Mobo/RAM and adequate bus performance, I could just play this on my 970 at 1080p for like...a year before I got bored. Plenty of time to re-save the $$$, right?? You can't even get a new GPU right now anyways... SO, with that said, I think I'm an Intel fan-boy. I hear Ryzen is faster, but I'm going to have just as hard a time getting one of those as I did a 3080. Groove_C (and others), I think, have confirmed in previous postings that the newest model of given CPU is not necessarily the fastest for this game. If that's true, and due to cost, I think I'll stay away from socket 1200 and maybe get an.....(wait for it)...i9 9900k (socket 1151). Did I do good??? 'Cuz if so, the next thing I need to figure out is motherboard/memory. Thank you for reading!!!