Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

94 Excellent

About Groove_C

  • Rank
    Staff Sergeant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Some players get kicked several times at once when connecting.
  2. +++ Definitely needs to be checked by somebody!
  3. I know what I'm doing. I run YAAB as many times as needed. If 3 results in a row are close enough, I make the average of them. If not, I let run YAAB more and then just drop results that are to fare ahead and/or behind from the rest of already available results. I can run YAAB 5-7-9 times to have the average and remove "suspicious" runs.
  4. So basically it's not just about huge pages by itself, but the combination of huge pages with AVX2 maloc dll.
  5. @Dedmen My findings: No FPS difference between: Intel malloc (no admin + no huge pages launcher) vs. Intel malloc (huge pages launcher) Intel malloc (no admin + no huge pages launcher) vs. Intel malloc (admin + huge pages launcher) Intel malloc (no admin + no huge pages launcher) vs. Intel malloc (admin + huge pages windows + huge pages launcher) 1-2 FPS difference between Intel and cma_x64 AVX2 (admin + no huge pages windows). 6-7 FPS difference between Intel and cma_x64 AVX2 (admin + huge pages windows).
  6. I've tested with 7 runs per AVX and per AVX2.
  7. I have tested a lot of mallocs through the years, starting with A2. And huge pages gave me "better" FPS only within the margin of error. But despite "same" FPS, it really helped on Altis, in the beginning, when it was lagging/stuttering and textures were loading not fast enough without huge pages and fred41's malloc solved this issue for me back then. But AVX and especially AVX2 really boost FPS. If not all CPUs support AVX and AVX2, why not include those mallocs in the list of the launcher with Intel's by default, that supports not higher than SSE, like now? Several mallocs are already in the list as not default. Lets add AVX and AVX2 to the list of available ones.
  8. @Dedmen It's not because of large pages, because large pages already enabled. It's because of AVX2 actually. @ruPal already told, that testing the default cma_x64 dll with large pages enabled via "secpol.msc" and as admin gave him same FPS as with BI Intel default. With AVX 4 FPS more and with AVX2 9 FPS more. What is difficult to understand here?
  9. I have large pages checked with Intel default one. If I only change from Intel's default to cma_x64 and keep or recheck large pages in the launcher -> same FPS. Selecting to launch arma3_x64.exe as admin, enabling large pages support via "secpol.msc" and having "cma.ini" in Arma 3 folder, @ 1440p ultra FPS increases from 44 to 50-51. A friend, using the AVX2 dll with an i5-4570 3.4 GHz all cores + 1x8 GB RAM DDR3 1600 MHz CL11 + GTX 1060 6 GB @ 1080p ultra now has 28-29 FPS instead of 24.
  10. 7 FPS more in YAAB @ 1440p ultra with my config using AVX2 dll.
  11. 1070 Ti is difficult to find and 1660 Ti has only 6 GB, whereas I have always 8 GB fully loaded on my GTX 1070 Ti @1440p ultra. So RTX 2070 because of 8 GB. I know one guy who has a Radeon VII with 16 GB vRAM and @1080p ultra he hits more than 9 GB vRAM usage. So no 6 GB, sorry.
  12. I wrote /1440p if you can't see it. Buying only 4 cores today for years to come is not a good decision.
  13. i5-9600K/i7-9700K + RTX 2070 + 3200/3600 MHz RAM is the max one should buy (currently) to be able to enjoy ArmA only at its maximum (FPS + visuals) in 1080p/1440p. Or if used: i5-8600K/i7-8700K + GTX 1070/1070 Ti/1080/1080 Ti. OC the CPU to 5.0/4.7 GHz core/cache @ air, OC the GPU to 2000+ MHz and OC the RAM and/or lower the timings. > 5.0 GHz, > 8 cores/threads, > RTX 2070, > 2050 MHz GPU and > 4000 MHz RAM there are almost no gains, but the cost is astronomical. For max visuals but less FPS, but still very well playable: r5 2600 + 3200 MHz RAM + RX 580/590. For high visuals but less FPS, but still very well playable: r5 2600 + 3200 MHz RAM + RX 570. For high visuals and well playable FPS: r3 2200G + 3000 MHz RAM + RX 570. For normal visuals and playable FPS: r5 2400G + 3000 MHz RAM.
  14. Here is a video as proof for 66.2 FPS @ 1440p ultra. So his results are correct. Before it was 66.7 FPS. By the way, it was achieved with 5.3/4.9 GHz core/cache and not as mentioned before (5.2/4.8 GHz) Before his upgrade from 8700K 5.0/4.5 GHz core/cache 3800 MHz 15-14-14-34-350-1T and a GTX 1080 Ti 2100 MHz he achieved 67.4 FPS @ 1080p ultra vs. 69.4 with the current build. So like I said before, RAM frequency combined with very very tight primary, secondary and tertiary timings is what makes this huge difference, because ArmA is very latency sensitive.