ruPal

-hugepages do nothing for me. No influence on performance with tbbmalloc or cma.

After triple run with system reboot in between, I got: CMA default: 66,9 (65,1; 67,1; 68,6) CMA AVX: 66,3 (67,4; 64,8; 66,7) CMA AVX2: 67,2 (70; 66,2; 65,6) CMA vs CMA AVX vs CMA AVX2 delta is less than 1%. As we see the most FPS boost gives custom malloc with large pages support itself, not AVX or AVX2 instructions. Personally, I choose AVX2 because it gave me absolute maximum - 70 FPS. Not sure but maybe CMA default and AVX may provide the same results in more runs. But still AVX2 gave me 69 and 70 FPS, CMA default and AVX gave me 68,6 max. P. S. I think (didn't test), that there is no large or huge pages support in default arma 3 tbbmalloc, -hugepages parameter do nothing. So if you want play with large pages you have to run custom malloc. If somebody can check and test that, please do.

Personally I don't trust your results. If you do so, you won't refer to my result in your post and write 7 minutes later that you have tested it by yourself 7 times. I have made second test run AVX vs AVX2 (didn't test default CMA vs Default CMA), but won't post results here. Don't want people to trust my results and want them to run test by themselves. Actually, I got contraversary results.

In my situation, fred41's malloc gave me 2-3 FPS on FX8350 system. When I had 30-40FPS it was a good boost. What about AVX and AVX2, more tests needed. I run only 1 YAAB test per default and AVX mallocs without PC restarts in between. More tests needed. Too early to give such conlcusions. Just run different mallocs yourself and test. To get proper results you will have to reboot PC when malloc switch because of large pages specific.

It is a pity that BI just through that flag in without any instructions about that. I used fred41's malloc and knew that large and huge pages are need more work to do to work because of that. Also it is pity that you are unable to check if hugepages enabled, like in fred41's malloc and _blub malloc, where you may check that in logs.

Yeap, I knew that. Tested with BI huge pages and CMA huge pages AVX2. The first one gave me 60FPS and last one 69FPS. Also tested other CMA (default and AVX) versions. But the most performance boost was with AVX2 version (default - the same as BI, AVX - 64FPS). Thank you for admin privileges clarification, will try. Btw, @Dedmen, did you try SuperMalloc https://github.com/kuszmaul/SuperMalloc?

Just in case AVX2 version of CMA gave me incredible FPS boost from 60 to 69 in YAAB on Standard preset. Intel Skylake CPU. Thank you, @_blub

To all players, try xtbbmalloc avx2 version from here http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=31217 That malloc gave me incredible 9 FPS boost, read installation/usage section carefully, especially Remarks (admin rights, secpol.msc). UPD: Btw, you will have to run game old style method with exe shortcut (with startup parameters). I just don't know how to run Arma3 with admin privileges from arma launcher.

Pretty interesting, than you must have heavy lags on your build with 1440p ultra with 8Gb only.

Well, 1070TI/1660Ti is totally fine for ultra ARMA 3 then. No need in RTX2070. Not as bad as you think. 4 cores are very good for Arma. As you can see from here https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/ more than a half of steam users have 4 cores CPU. It is OK for at least 2 more years. And in 2 years you may upgrade platform to new 5-7nm CPU. Btw, after messing around with mallocs and memory overclocking, here is what I got on Standard preset: Pretty impressive for: i5 6400@4.5Ghz, 3Ghz CL15 DDR4 and stock gtx1070ti.

False statements. No need in RTX. Maximum settings - gtx 1070 fully cover ultra settings. Probably, even RX580 8Gb will be fine for 1080p, even gtx1060 wih 6Gb may be fine (not sure if 6Gb of VRAM is enough for 8xAA) About CPU wrong too. 8350k with overclock to 5Ghz totally fine too. That will give you 64 FPS in YAAB.

I need Standard settings test if it will be 85+ FPS, I am gonna throw my PC to the window. Btw, no need for camrip, Nvidia Shadowplay will be fine. As I can see from statistics, difference between ultra and standard setting is in margin of 17 FPS his is 22 FPS.

I think, that tester misunderstood the settings. Probably, he tested on LOW and STANDARD instead of STANDARD and ULTRA. Then 3 - 4 FPS boost is appropriate compared to old results (69FPS vs 66FPS).

Looks like wrong results. It is 22 FPS (32%) more compared to other 9900K result, but overclocked only 10% on CPU and 16% on memory higher. That is impossible result. May I ask for video proof with all settings set on video plus YAAB run?

No, there will be no updates. Sorry.