Jump to content

Groove_C

Member
  • Content Count

    904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

252 Excellent

About Groove_C

  • Rank
    First Sergeant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If you can do 3900 MHz CL14, it's even better than 3866 MHz CL14. But both are better than 4000 MHz CL15.
  2. Well 4000 and CL15 is only the frequency and only the first of several dozens of timings. Also, just so you know, 3866 CL14 outperforms 4000 CL15, requires less voltage and only 29x multiplier (with 100:133) instead of multi 40 (100:100), which is harder for the memory controller. So it's just a nice number )))
  3. Well, you don't tell us your RAM temp, room temp, RAM timings and frequency. RAM voltage alone means nothing. Even 65°C is a perfectly working temp for RAM, but Samsung chips can start to have errors even past only 35°, if you go for very high frequency and very low timings.
  4. @Valkenyes, a fan than cools RAM to not higher than 40°C. And less than that when ambient temp 18-22°C. Each of my RAM modules have temp sensors. I also downclocked my RAM from 3960 MHz to 3866 MHz, so it requires much less voltage, RAM and memory controller inside the CPU reach much lower temperature and FPS difference is only marginal. You can measure it, but can't feel it. So not worth the stress for the hardware.
  5. Just don't forget that for such performance you would need such hardware and even having all off this, won't be enough to reach such FPS, without a lot of knowledge and patience to tune everything to the last MHz and lowest doable timings - it's on the limit of doable even if it's still on air. So expectations have to be lower than that.
  6. Yes, >30 FPS and also not less than 30, is what's needed, to enjoy the game and no need for very expensive hardware to achieve this. You are correct. But if much much higher FPS can be achieved, even if only through more €€€/£££/$$$ and with a lot of knowledge/hard work/time and the person wants that or at least feels the "need", why not. Nothing wrong with that.
  7. So your wife/girlfriend shouldn't approve the upcoming upgrade, since you already have 30+ FPS 🤣
  8. No, as @oldbearsaid, 30 FPS is plenty, for Arma - no need for 60+.
  9. very high temperature of 5600X was 100% not a problem with your Noctua cooler, because a CPU like 5600X, considering its TPD, is nothing for your Noctua cooler.
  10. If R5 5600X was throttling, then i7-10700K would have been the better choice. It's more powerful than R7 3700X, per core, because at stock it has 4.7 GHz boost all cores, instead of 4.3-4.4 GHz of 3700X. And it has also 16 MB L3 cache, like 3700X, but in one piece, not 2x8 MB + much much better RAM responsiveness. And your Noctua wouldn't have had any problems to cool it, because of one big central DIE. But I imagine you already had AMD motherboard, so a new Intel motherboard wasn't really an option.
  11. That's the problem with Ryzen CPUs construction - they can't effectively transfer heat from DIE to heatspreader, because the DIE is very very small, because of 7 nm and not located in the center, but the power that's inside it is very high. It's not so obvious on Ryzen 3000, only because their frequency is not that high. That's why I prefer Intel. Because they have their DIE in the middle and it's much much bigger, so more surface to spread heat across and better heat transfer to the cooler + much better memory responsiveness. But yes, 14 nm makes them consume more electricity.
  12. Well, that's to be expected, because it's a laptop CPU and its frequency is relatively low, compared to your 9900K, despite it also having 16 threads and 16 MB L3 cache. + 3200 MHz CL16 in a laptop is not the same as 3200 MHz CL16 in a desktop PC, because it's only the frequency and the first of many timings. The rest of the timings are way higher on laptop RAM than on desktop PC RAM, which further reduces the performance. So one shoud never directly compare laptops vs. desktop PCs. A 5800X desktop CPU on the other hand has 32 MB L3 cache, instead of only 16 MB and also boosts higher than your 9900K, as exemple.
  13. Well, if you have built a system just for Microsoft Flight Sim and unless you didn't already have 3700X, then it was a really bad choice, because it's as single core as Arma and works best with highest frequency possible, instead of threads count. A 5600/5800X would have been the way to do it, if that is when you've build your current Flight Sim system. But if you've built it when Ryzen 5000 weren't even released or available/in stock, then a 10600K/11700K would still have been a better choice for it than 3700X.
  14. I suggest you to wait until the end of the year or until spring before upgrading. An i7-11700K will be rather a sidegrade than an upgrade, since it still has same 16 threads and 16 MB L3 cache, just like your i9-9900K, but it runs at 100 MHz lower frequency than your i9-9900K and consumes and heats much more. So wait to see what AMD has to offer in spring.
×