Groove_C

@Mahatma Gandhi but then again, 5600X is the lowest quality there is, among X CPUs. So the chance that it will also need a much higher voltage for a given frequency and the max frequency won't be that high + Infinity Fabric quality...

when it's about money, 5600X is the only possible candidate. Maybe 11600/11700K as well, since they cost less than 5600/5800X, but I think they will have problems with IMC and will require a very high voltage (temp/power draw) for target frequency vs. 11900K.

Well, power draw is critical for some and not so much for others. 11900K was doing few min FPS more and that's without tuning RAM to the max possible, since I had the CPU for only like a day or less and only 3733 MHz, not 3866 MHz and no 100 MHz BCLK increase to something like 102 MHz.

Again - avg is not relevant for A3. You can have it as high as you want, but if min FPS is low/lower, who cares if avg is 95-97 or 98-101. You won't see/feel a difference between 90 or 100 FPS, but you will when min FPS is low/lower. Also the lower the settings (resolution/quality), the "better" Ryzen is, due to it's cache. But nobody plays at such settings. Once you go for 24/7 settings, the picture is different. And since you also have a 1070 Ti, like me, we will benchmark at Ultra settings, once I get the new 11900K. Lets maybe compare max FPS and 720p and very low settings, where Ryzen will be even better, but again, nothing to do with real 24/7 settings.

well, only 1 run makes me feel like so + who cares about avg FPS only if it's the min that counts, in Arma, considering how low it can be. And yes, not every 5000 can do 3866 or 4000 MHz and not many of them can boost close to 5.0 GHz. I don't care about 98-101 FPS avg, if min FPS is lower than on Intel, which it is, even if not by much.

With the next 11900K sample I think I will do maxt 5.0 GHz all cores, avoiding 5.2 GHz, even if it's just for 2 best cores out of 8. Because the last 100-200 MHz require a much higher voltage and thus result in very high temp and power draw. I hope CPU's memory controller will be able to do 3866 MHz, to compensate for 100-200 MHz lower CPU frequecy, in order to have same FPS. RAM, when OC'ed, doesn't get nearly as hot as the CPU and doesn't consume nearly as much.

Do you have Aida64? Your resluts are very low considering your system - 20-25 FPs avg. less in 1080p standard than what I've see other people doing with Ryzen 5000. My 2014 Intel system with DDR3 is just 10 FPS behind your 2021 system. I think it's because your 5600X doesn't boost much + your RAM is slow, because RAM frequency and just few first timings isn't telling everything.

@Valken10700K isn't a good value, since the additional performance vs 4790K, in Arma is very small, but you still pay for motherboard, CPU and RAM. Even if it's cheaper than 5800X, it's a lot for almost no noticeable performance increase. 5800X is the only way, if you want noticeable performance increase and 16 threads.

Don't have my bad 11900K anymore, but kept the motherboard, for now. Will buy another 11900K and give the last chance to Intel, in hope, that the sample I will receive, is much better than the previous, so that it requires much lower voltage for a given frequency and can do 3866 MHz RAM. This way it could potentially do 75-77 FPS min in YAAB 1080p standard and I still could cool it good enough with my Noctua NH-D15S. Otherwise I switch to a R7 5800X + B550 MSI Unify X motherboard.

Yes, but not a lot, unless you further tune it manually.

Crucial Ballistix 2x16 GB 3600 MHz 16-18-18.

They exist with and without RGB and in different colours. It's not the best RAM, but you get a lot for your money.

@Valken 2x16 GB Crucial Ballistix 3600 MHz 16-18-18 is all you need and MSI B550 Tomahawk board.

8$ more for 5600X for much much better performance in Arma and other games. Not very hot and doesn't consume much + PCI-E 4.0 for the GPU and M.2 SSD.

Actually no, an i7-10700K costs more than a R5 5600X and performs much worse in Arma. Even an i9-10900K that costs even more, still performs much worse in Arma.

My i9-11900K sample is the worst one can get. Requires very high voltage, heats a lot therefore and can do only 3733 MHz RAM. This R7 5800X sample is one in a million, since it can hit close to 5.0 GHz mark and do 4000 MHz RAM. Otherwise, majority of Ryzen 5000 can reach only like 4.8 GHz and max 3800 MHz RAM. But my really really bad i9-11900K manages to do few FPS min more than this golden sample R7 5800X. So if I had a better quality i9-11900K, it could require much much lower voltage, would have been much much cooler and would have done 3866 MHz RAM no problems and min FPS would have been even higher. Don't forget that the guy with R7 5800X has only 1 run that shows 101 FPS and it's only average. I consider that the minimum FPS is more mportant, since that is what lower than this it won't drop. + the guy could have run YAAB so many times, hoping for a short FPS jump and only 1 lucky run out of like 10 or more runs he has made a screenshot of it. My min and avg FPS you can see being confirmed by several runs in a row. But even on my screenshot you can see that min FPS jumped from 72 to 76 in the last run. So I could have made a screenshot of this last run only and present it like it's the normal FPS I get consistently, which is not the case, since Arma is so Arma...

CPU and RAM can be further optimized. Just not enough time has past to be able to do it. Rocket Lake can't do 3800 and 4000 MHz RAM in gear 1 (1:1), only 3733 or 3866 MHz. Considering my CPU sample is one of the lowest quality there can be, its memory controller can't do 3866 MHz. Otherwise RAM sticks themselves have no problem to do 3866 MHz CL14. And with 3866 MHz CL14 FPS would have been even higher. Now need to further tighten RAM timings and maybe it's possible to give some cores 100-200 MHz higher frequency and need to see what can be done with the voltage and temperature. 3733 MHz CL14 results in 37.9 ns in Aida64 (gear 1 = 1:1)

Switching to better RAM could further help you with FPS and no only in Arma. Delidding could help you drop the temp up to 17-20°C.

Received a very very bad CPU sample. Never seen such bad CPU before and that for almost 600€ + almost 500€ motherboard. I won't keep such a crap for so much money. I will get rid of it and wait on my good old i7-5775C for Ryzen with V-Cache.

What is the exact model of the motherboard you have and RAM model as well?

As one can see, on 8700K and 7700K screens, there is one main thread that chokes and other threads are loaded only partially. That's why core frequency is key and as fast RAM as one can afford, to unleash the CPU and GPU power.

Arma, baby, here I come...

@logan357 as you said it yourself - it's not well multithreaded and relies mainly on few cores, thus you need as high frequency per core as possible. It helps a lot, believe me. Also only 3000 MHz RAM and most probably with relatively high timings adds to your problem, since slow RAM slows down the CPU and GPU. 8700K is a very good CPU, when it runs it 4.8-5.0 GHz. Arma is how it is, but with appropriate hardware (not necessarily expensive) and tuning of it, Arma runs very well.

Well, Arma 3 from then and now is not the same as well - it's more demanding than before, as well for CPU as for the GPU. And 7700K is not a bad CPU, at 4.8-5.0 GHz, but without OC, it's frequency is not particularly high, which is what Arma needs. + 32 GB RAM is only the amount, not its speed/pefromance. It's like saying that you have whopping 2 TB harddrive, but without mentioning that it's not a SSD and that it works only at 5400 rpm and has only 8 MB of cache. Tell us what are the specs of your RAM. Probably something like 3200 MHz or maybe even lower, with high timings, which bottlenecks your CPU and GPU.

GTX 1070 Ti Strix Advanced Binned OC with modded vBIOS, so GTX 1080 level. RTX 4000 is what I'll wait for.