Groove_C

So it's 3600 MHz CL16 (XMP) > 3200 MHz CL14 (XMP) > 3200 MHz CL16 (XMP). But 4000 MHz CL15 > 3800 MHz CL14 > 3733 MHz CL14 > 3800 MHz CL15 > 3700 MHz CL14 > 3600 MHz CL14 > 3700 MHz CL15 > 3600 MHz CL15 > 3600 CL16 (XMP). From best to worst.

3200 MHz CL14 (XMP) and 3600 MHz CL16 (XMP) is almost the same, 3600 MHz CL16 (XMP) being slightly better and 3200 MHz CL16 (XMP) is not far from 3200 MHz CL14 (XMP). And it's only primary timings that don't matter as much as dozens of secondary and tertiary timings, so...

3600 MHz CL14 gives more FPS in Arma than 4400 MHz CL19. But if you manage to get your RAM to 3700 Mhz or 3733 MHz CL14, it's even better. Or 4000 MHz CL15. And you can't look at RAM frequency or latency separately. RAM responsiveness (nanoseconds in Aida64) depends on the combo of frequency and latency, not only from 1 of both. Higher RAM frequency is only GB/s bandwidth, not RAM responsiveness. If a game is not limited by RAM bandwidth (Arma isn't even by DDR3 bandwidth), better responsiveness gives better FPS. The better RAM responsivness, the quicker it can accept data from CPU, treat it and send it back to the CPU, so the CPU can transmit it quicker to the GPU, so the GPU can not only produce higher FPS, but also next frame will follow after the previous much sooner/more often = smoother game. If you see RAM with very high frequency, but because of this its timings are much higher, then it's not worth. Good RAM to buy, to be sure it has good memory chips for further squeezing out of additional performance, is G.Skill Trident Z (Neo/RGB) 3600 MHz 16-16-16-36.

Only playing on Altis and Malden. So can't tell you.

I wouldn't buy first wave of new Ryzen CPUs as it's always the same story, like it was with 3XX0(X), that couldn't clock that high and needed higher voltage, because early samples. I'm sure AMD will have XT revision of them to counter Intel 11th gen in March-April, which will clock even higher at stock and will not need higher voltage to do so or even lower voltage (vs. non-XT Ryzen 5XX0). Because buying a CPU that has not that good chip quality and pay a lot for it, because of the hype and because it's difficult to find one to buy... 5600/5800XT will be good. They'll be clocked as high as possible from factory, so not much left for manual OC, but it's good for people that don't know/want to OC, but still want very good performance out of the box.

I'm considering to replace my i7-4790K + DDR3 RAM with Intel 11th gen (March-May 2021) or with Ryzen 5XX0 XT, since my rig will be 7 years old in July 2021 and already shows its age since some time.

@oldbear 2666 MHz RAM has not that high bandwidth + we don't know if he had other programs open when playing YAAB. It's required to have everything possible closed other than Arma and Steam and mouse/sound/motherboard software to have better comparable YAAB results. Maybe he had his brother open with a lot of heavy tabs like youtube + antivirus scanning at the same time very deeply + considering his RAM +- "low" bandwitdh, it could have been a problem then.

Arma 1.98 + 2.00 | YAAB 1.00 (Yet Another Arma Benchmark) 1080p | standard video settings preset i7-4790K @ 5.0/4.4 GHz core/cache | 32 GB (4х8) DDR3 2400 MHz 10-11-12-18 (dual rank) (38.6 ns Aida64) | GTX 1070 Ti 2088/9600 MHz core/vRAM | SATA SSD | Win10 1909 build 18363.418 - only Arma + Steam + Razer Synapse + Samsung Mafician - CMA AVX2 malloc + Windows lock pages in memory - v-sync off - full screen (no window - because of lower FPS and higher input lag) - no mods VS. i7-9700K @ 5.1/4.8 GHz core/cache | 16 GB (4х8) DDR4 3200 MHz 14-14-14-34 (single rank) (49.6 ns Aida64) | RX 470 4 GB 1250/6600 MHz core/vRAM | SATA SSD | Win10 1909 build 18363.535 vs. i7-9700K @ 5.1/4.8 GHz core/cache | 16 GB (4х8) DDR4 4000 MHz 15-15-15-28 (single rank) (40.0 ns Aida64) | RX 470 4 GB 1250/6600 MHz core/vRAM | SATA SSD | Win10 1909 build 18363.535 At same core and cache frequency (5.1/4.8 GHz). But at XMP 3200 MHz 14-14-14-34. -9 FPS min. -9 FPS avg. vs. 4000 MHz 15-15-15-28 So RAM OC actually brings something. Actually ~10 FPS min. only by OC'ing RAM, it's not that small, in Arma. With same core and cache frequency + RAM settings as the build above, on CPUs like i7-7700K, i5-8600k, i7-8700K, i7-8086K, i5-9600K, i9-9900K(S), i5-10600K or i7-10700K, same FPS applies. RAM was OC'ed to 4000 MHz 15-15-15-28 from stock 3200 MHz 14-14-14-34 (XMP).

i7-7700 (non-K) boosts to only 4.0 GHz all cores. GTX 1050 Ti is to play at not higher than 1080p resolution at normal/standard video settings. I suppose that RAM capacity and speed + lack of SSD might be the problem in first place.

Good enough, but if more $$$ available, look for one with better CPU/cooling. The problem with laptops is mainly cooling, to maintain max advertised frequency.

Have seen yesterday during the nVidia presentation that their GPUs can load data from SSD directly into the GPU, bypassing completely CPU cache and RAM. It will also be present in AMD RDNA 2 GPUs, since this technology is part of DX12.2 and not exclusive/proprietary to nVidia or AMD. Well, maybe AMD and nVidia will have slightly different ways of implementing/using it. This will for sure give a second life to older CPUs with low cache bandwidth, also Intel CPUs (not only old ones) not having as much cache as Ryzen + will give a second life to DDR3 RAM and also will alleviate the importance of expensive high freqeuency and low timings RAM, which is good for us all. Now let's see how it will be in reality vs. theory. RTX 3070 slightly beats RTX 2080 Ti, for $499 founder's edition (no taxes), but only 8 GB vRAM and only GDDR6. I think there will be Ti or Super versions later, to counter AMD RDNA2, with double vRAM (16GB) and also GDDR6X. Maybe with slightly more Cuda cores as well. In 2021 Micron will have double capacity of GDDR6X chips, since now it's only 1 GB per chip, thus 24 chips for 24 GB RTX 3090. So expecting later better prices, performance and availability.

If you already have it, maybe no, unless you still can return it or can sell it and buy 3600 16-16-16-36.

3600 MHz 16-16-16-36 RAM is really good. Anything with higher timings than 16-16-16-36 for 3600 MHz is not recommended.

NH-D15 is fine for good OC of 12 threads.

@oldbear maybe you are right, concerning availability. But concerning L3 and architectural stuff it's already known that there will be no CCXs, only CCDs and that it will not be monolithic. One CCD up to 8/16 cores/threads and also 32 MB L3 per CCD. So it will be unified L3 cache, if not more than 8 cores. But specifically for Arma, I would rather buy an i5-10600K than R7 3700X or R5 3600.

@oldbear well, when it's like >6 months until release, ok. But It's only few month, so I would wait. + His current setup is not the end of the world, so that he needs to upgrade really right now.

@opus132 wait for Ryzen 4000. It will be more powerful than 10th gen Intel. Just few moths left. And if 'im right, it will consume/heat less.

Zen 3 will finally support at least 4000 MHz RAM in 1:1 mode and RAM latency finally will be <50 ns. Frequency will be like 200 MHz higher. There will be no CCXs, but still Infinity Fabric to connect CCD(s) to I/O DIE. So still not monolithic.

@Valken don't buy anything. Just wait a few months for Zen 3.

Need to see if they can be OC 'ed higher than stock and how high. With less cache and same frequency as 3xxx they're less powerful. So need frequency to compensate. Otherwise i7-10700K.

@Valken need to wait for real tests of Renoir APUs. They have better inter-core latency than Zen 2, accept even higher clocked RAM (in 1:1 mode), but they have even less cache than Intel CPUs. Need to see the frequency they can do.

Yeah, I'm also strating to spend less and less time searching for latest tech info/specs/capabilities. It must be due to my age and my preferences chaning more towards spending time on more useful things. So if one doesn't want to spend months/years researching in order to spend less $$$ and OC for free, for added perofrmance, one sure can buy much better stock hardware, but this can cost considerably more. But time is money. So you pay more, to be able to spend your time one things you like and not on things you have to do, because you decided to spare money on hardware and have to tinker a lot afterwards. Otherwise, if comapring stock vs. stock, sure, newer CPUs are much better, since almost 5.0 GHz stock all cores and more cores/threads and accepting better RAM makes a noticable difference vs. older stock hardware.

Actually your i7-7700K can win vs. R3 3300X, R5 3600(X) or R7 3700/3800X, in Arma. It's just that you have it at pretty conservative core and cache frequency of only 4.5/4.2 GHz + only 3200 MHz 16-18-18 RAM. Your i7-7700K can do 5.0-5.1/4.7-4.8 GHz core/cache without problem at more than acceptable temperature and voltage (that will work for years), all of this while still being air-cooled (Noctua) + very good 3600-4000 MHz RAM with very low timings. The only thing that must be done, is that it must be delidded, because of cheap Intel thermal paste, between the CPU DIE and its copper cover (IHS), that must be already rock hard now or transformed into dust. This cheap thermal paste from Intel used from 3rd until 8th genereation of CPUs included makes the CPU temperature ~20°C worse than with solder, like it was until 2nd generation and came back starting from 9th generation. So once your i7-7700K is OC'ed to the moon, there is 0 benefit, in Arma, from an i7-9700K, i9-9900K, i5-10600K, i7-10700K or i9-10900K, even if also OC'ed to the moon. Since maybe 100 MHz more (5.1-5.2 GHz) than your i7-7700K and maybe with RAM that's 133-400 MHz faster (4133-4400 MHz) won't be a big deal. Especially not worth the price of a new mainboard + CPU + RAM. Not even talking about Ryzen 3x00(X).

@oldbear it's really easy to fix your "problem". In the BIOS, in Ai Tweaker tab, you have an option called ASUS MultiCore Enhancement and if it's on Auto or Enbaled, it forces the CPU out of its stock/original specifications, by making all cores work at boost frequency that is normally allowed by Intel only for 1-2 core(s) and not for all + this option also boosts the voltage to much higher/exagerated values. Your CPU all cores max boost, as specified by Intel is 4.4 GHz. 4.5 GHz is only for 1-2 core(s). So just Disable ASUS MultiCore Enhancement to make your CPU work as specified by Intel. Also make sure, that CPU Core Ratio (under ASUS MultiCore Enhancement) is set to Auto. But there are also other things to check for, so when you're not playing or not using any other CPU heavy programs, the CPU can clock down to just 800 MHz on desktop, to heat/consume/degrade less, when not needed. 1. In the BIOS, in Ai Tweaker tab, scroll down to Internal CPU Power Management and there, make sure that Intel SpeedStep is Enabled. Also make sure that Turbo Mode (under Intel SpeedStep) is Enabled. 2. In the BIOS, in Advanced tab, in CPU Configuration, scroll all the way down to CPU Power Management Configuration and there, make sure that Intel SpeedStep is Enabled. Also make sure that Turbo Mode (under Intel SpeedStep) is Enabled. 3. In the BIOS, in Advanced tab, in CPU Configuration, scroll all the way down to CPU Power Management Configuration and there, make sure that CPU C States is set to Auto or Enabled. 4. In Windows, in Alimentation et mise en veille, in right upper corner click on Paramètres d'alimentation supplémentaires -> Modifier les paramètres du mode -> Modifier les paramètres d'alimentation avancés, scroll down to Gestion de l'alimentation du processeur and there in état minimal du processeur, enter 19%, since 18.18% is 800 MHz out of 100% that represent 4400 MHz stock boost all cores. Because if you don't set the energy plan in Windows to 19%, everything you've done in the BIOS will be ignored, since you'll be in Windows and it's Windows power plan that overtakes it all. Having done all of this, you will have your CPU resotred to its original frequency and voltage, being cooler and also consuming/degrading less + no 4.5 GHz on the desktop for no reason.

@oldbear what's the core and cache frequency of your i7-7700K?