Groove_C

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.

Also about the recent stupid video of Hardware Unboxed, where they said that R5 5600X is all you need, because with its 12 threads it's as powerful, if not more powerful, than 16 threads Ryzens used in PS5 and Xbox, for which most of the next gen console games will be made and ported to PC. It makes me only laugh, because on consoles, there is only the game running, unlike on PCs, where you have the antivirus, all the mouse, keyboard, RGB, streaming/screenshots/recording softrware running in parallel with the game + Discord + MSI Afterburner, Steam and all the other stuff. And you don't want all the "crap" to run on same cores/threads as your game does, since it will interfere/"conflict"/steel some ressources from those cores/threads that could otherwise have made it possible for the game to run smoother, by making all the background processes using completely other threads that the game itself. So saying that 12 threads is all you need and that for years to come, is simply isn't true. You need at leas 2 threads for all the background stuff. It reminds me of same talks about how i5 with only 4 cores back then was all you needed and that i7 with 4/8 cores/threads was overpriced and useless, but we all know how it ended being now. And Hardware Unboxed look only at FPS, which is only how fast a game runs, but not how smooth, which is what frametimes metric reflects and not FPS. Even if FPS itself is quite stable and high, its delivery can be not that stable and thus can make the game feel not so smooth. Like 1st frame is delivered after 7 ms, 2nd frame after 30 ms, 3rd frame after 15 ms and 4th frame after 25 ms, while it still results in relatrively high FPS. vs. where 1st frame is delivered after 25 ms, 2nd frame after 23 ms, 3rd frame after 27 ms, 4th frame after 29 ms. So frametime itself appears to be relatively high in the 2nd case, but stable=smooth, no matter the FPS. The result can be having +- same FPS, but in 1st case it won't feel smooth, unlike in the 2nd case. Because our brain/eyes perceive changes/variation in FPS/frametime much more than the difference between 60 and 120 FPS.

The problem is that 1080p is the resolution the majority of players still use to date + and increasing video settings, wouldn't make it impossible to compare CPUs/RAM performance, which is what Arma relies mostly on. Because with a lower end GPU, the FPS will be lower, due to higher graphical settings and we won't be able to know how much was lost specifically due to GPU or RAM/CPU weakness. I think it's possible to keep testing YAAB at 1080p standard visual settings, but increase the view distance to something more realistic, used more often in multiplayer, where maybe newer and faster CPUs and RAM could potentially outperform older systems, despite the increased view distance. Like if we use only 1600 m terrain and 1300 m objects view distance from standard settings, older systems might appear like they're not worse than much newer systems. But if you keep all the visual settings from 1080p standard, but increase the view distance to 3800/3200 terrain/objetcs that corresponds to ultra settings, the picture might be totally different, in favor of much newer and more powerful systems.

Final edit/update of my previous post.

Not everybody is super limited in terms of $$$/€€€ and not everybody plays mostly singleplayer or multiplayer, but mostly PvE/COOP or PvP, on private servers, with relatively small number of players and missions that only take few hours from start to finish or just slightly more. Play Warlords with almost 50 players, where you have to capture literally all the villages present on Altis, where the round can last more than a day or even 2, without server restart. Or play King of the Hill with 100 players, all of them present in Kavala at the same time and thousends of bullets being shot and their ballistics and impacts/damage has to be calculated + a lot of buidings being destroyed + concidering how big Kavala is. Or on a private server, where you have 100+ vs. 100+ players playing PvP event or even a PvE mission, where you have several hunderds of bots and dozens of vehicles and air. And there will be no FPS excess at all - believe me, even with 70+ min FPS in YAAB 1080p standard, since it's offline, with much less bots and vehicles/air and in a much much smaller village and just for few minutes, not for hours + 1080p standard isn't what most of players use as 24/7 settings. + don't forget that 70+ FPS min is only achieved offline and only in 1080p and only with standard settings. Online and with higher quality settings, higher resolution, with much more bots/players/vehicles/air, after dozens of sectors and after so many hours of uninterrupted gameplay this FPS number will be much lower. I try to get the min FPS as high as possible offline in YAAB (1080p standard so everybody can compare), because I know that online after so many hours of inunterrupted gamplay on a PvP server with 50 or 100 players it will be much lower than that.

He he, even Tankbuster agrees with oldbear, that nobody needs more than 30 FPS and that there is no need to have the FPS, with todays not that expensive build, that will require other people to build a completely new system several times and only the 2nd or 3rd new build at stock will give them the FPS, other people that optimize their system, have it already today, even on a not so expensive, but optimized R5 5600X. No logic at all, but ok, it's their point of view. And remember - having not less than 30 FPS min in YAAB 1080ps standard... it's offline and has nothing ot do with online long lasting missions with a lot of players/bots/vehicles/air/ballistics/destruction/damage + completely different and heavier 24/7 visual settings. So in a long lasting large and complexe multiplayer mission, the FPS will go lower than 30 of YAAB 1080p standard. That's why you need to have the min FPS as high as you can get offline in YAAB 1080p standard.

Well, apparently literally nobody needs to have 70+ FPS min instead of 70+ FPS avg and that with the same CPU and that today and not in several years, with a new stock build. Apparently people should literally better waste their money to buy a whole new system already in few years, instead of OC'ing and still keeping their current system for at least few years more, with very good FPS, equal or even slightly better than next gen hardware at stock. Or being "happy" about even lower FPS after some time, in newer and more demanding games, since the system was build so much on budget, even when financially it was possible to invest only marginally more, for it to be much much better vs. not so much higher cost. Really "good" advice - build a budget system and in few years build another budget system, and in few more years do it again. Such "clever" approach will result in much more money wasted on 2-3 mediocre systems than what only one and much better system would have cost, for only marginally more $$$/€€€. And I'm not talking about buying a better or more expensive CPU, but about OC'ing what you already have and in order to do this, invest marginally more on better RAM and cooler and a solid, yet not expensive motheboard. This will give you at least few years more of life on your current system and will push back the time, when you will need to build a completely new system, which will cost a lot of money. A good example is my 2014 system that despite 8 threads and despite only DDR3 and only 2400 MHz, thanks to OC, gave me same FPS that oldbear's 5600X only in 2021, being a completely new build and not only one build since 2014, while I'm on the same build since then. He went to an i7-7700K, then to R5 3600 and now R5 5600X , while all this time, until today I kept my 2014 system. And even if he's still using his i7-7700K as main system, it doesn't change the fact that a stock R5 5600X from 2021 is needed to have only same performance as my 2014 OC'ed system. It's not to say how bad his build is or how good my build is. It only shows that I made the right choice in 2014 and invested in the right components, for only marginally higher cost. And by doing so, I saved really a lot of money, since it's still the same system.

And especially if something is better/fine for you, it doesn't mean it is for other people, sicne everybody is different.

You can't simply say that nobody needs/wants higher FPS, while talking for yourself. People see numbers and they decide. They don't need to be told what is better or not for them.

And your problem is that you tend to generalise, by saying: the real needs of the players. When you write something, it's only your opinion and don't speak for everybody/majority. Because I also don't say that majority overclocks. I only show what can be achieved by OC'ing and what is required to achieve this. So people looking at this, decide themselves, if stock performance is fine for them or if they want to CO and if it's worth, for them. And what really makes me lough is that you say that 20-25 FPS min and average more is interesting only theoretically, but has no practical interest, which is really sad to read, because you push your opinion as if it's everybody's opinion. And if 20-25 FPS more, in a game, where FPS is not particularly high to play PvP, is not of much practical interest for you, well, I have nothing to say anymore then.

Just saying/confirming that this is not a problem of settings, but rather what you get at stock, which is correct. Also what you're saying is your own point of view and it's ok. But not everybody has same point of view or requirements. If you're fine with only 45 FPS or if you don't play much online and not much PvP and not competitve, good for you. I play a lot online, PvP, competitive and you want your FPS to be as high as possible. And also if I pay money for hardware, I want everything it can do. I don't want to leave performance on the table. I buy hardware for it to work for its money, not for it to relax. So your point of view is as valid as mine, but they are diffferent, because we play in different ways and have different requirements.

As you can see here, some are even doing 5.0 GHz on R5 5600X and only 51 ns responsivness of RAM in Aida64. Don't know about the cooling for all of this. This results in more than 70 FPS min and around 100 FPS avg in YAAB 1080p standard, using CMA AVX malloc.

You have exactly the same avg FPS as @Horus at 1080p standard. Then it might be that this is the FPS one can get with stock R5 5600X + midrange 3800/3600 MHz RAM.

Found one. So 70 FPS min and 98 FPS avg., using CMA AVX malloc. So the problem is your CPU frequency and your RAM, as you can see.

no, but as Arma doesn't benefit even from 8 threads, it's obvious that 12 or 16 threads add 0 FPS. Only CPU frequency and RAM tuning can increase FPS in Arma. There are people with 5600X close to 4.8 GHz boost or higher and 53 nanosecs RAM in Aida 64 and that explains very well 20-25 FPS difference.

If you think that it's 4 threads more of 5800X that add so much more FPS, it's not the case. It's higher boost per core and good RAM OC.

This is exactly what I was thinking about and wrote about it. Almost 60 ns in Aida64 and that's after optimising + relatively low 5600X frequency. That explains your 20-25 lower FPS vs. some other people also with Ryzen 5000.

Of course, only slightly better min FPS with 11900K vs. 5800X comes with a price and power draw that many will find very hard to justify, no doubts, but everyone buys different stuff. Some want min FPS to be as high as possible, for what they find ok to spend money on. Others simply want the highest min FPS possible and can spend substantially more money to achieve this and it's also ok.

So since we both have a GTX 1070 Ti, lets test Arma at real video settings, like very high and not just at standard settings, once I have my other 11900K, even if I always play at 1440p ultra.

Like I said, the picture is different once you use 24/7 real settings. I've already seen games' tests, where depending on resolution and video options, Ryzen 5000 traded places with Intel.

Sure, there is no binning for 11700K, 11600K and all the others, but that's also the reason why I don't buy them.

And I never said that 5800X is supperior to 5600X. I said only that 5600X is the lowest quality AMD has and it's true, vs. the top models.

Well, Intel has always had differences in IMC max capabilities between the models and one can find a lot of proof of it. i7 CPUs, when i9 didn't even exist, could hit higher RAM frequencies than i5 CPUs, on average and that with the same RAM kit and mobo and that for dozens/hundreds of CPUs manually binned.

Well, 11900K is also binned, like 5950X, unlike the lower end models. That's why I bought it, for lower stock voltage, to be able to have lower temp/power draw at same or even higher frequency, since I'm on air + I want to extract everything possible from the architecture, considering the cooling I have.

There are 2 types of CPUs. Those, that don't match the requirements to become a certain model and those, that match all the requirements, but the market says it's too expensive and too many cores and the customer doesn't have so much money and doesn't need such a CPU, so let's disable some stuff, but quality of what remains, remains the same, top quality. But for different models, there are and always have been different voltage for frequency and IMC requirements. It's like when you buy a 5950X, the probability that you won't be able to undervolt it as much as other, lower models is much greater, because it already requires less voltage for same or higher frequency, so you can't downvolt as much, because the default voltage is already low enough. And this is what you are paying for. You're not paying only for more cores/cache, but also for better quality chips, on average, not all of them.