Brisse

Member
  • Content count

    1172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

71 Excellent

About Brisse

  • Rank
    Master Gunnery Sergeant
  1. @dwarden For CPU-Z benchmark I can answer right away, but only for stock CPU clock speeds. BIOS 0504 (2133mt 14-14-14-35-50-2) ST: 2010 MT: 18067 BIOS 0507 (BETA) (2400mt 14-14-14-35-56-2) ST: 2010 MT: 17938 Multithreaded CPU-Z bench is down very slightly, but game performance seem noticeably better across the board. Sorry I don't have more benchmarks at this time. Should have done a few more for reference before updating the BIOS. And yes, they did add an SMT switch in the new BIOS :)
  2. I've been in contact with Asus regarding some BIOS feedback, and they sent me a beta version to try out. Not only does it contain some really useful fixes and enhances, but it also lets me run my memory at full XMP speed, which was a bit of a surprise considering I run four 16GB dual rank modules for a total of 64GB which is worst case scenario if you want high memory speed. Official support is only 1866mt with such a configuration, but I could previously run them at 2133mt with the latest public bios version 0504. Now, with the beta (0507), I can run them at their full speed of 2400mt. YAAB gains with new bios and full memory speed: 9% better average frame-rate.
  3. Good. Back when I had an FX-8350 it used to set it to 1200 I think, which was more or less unplayable. I always lowered it to 800m manually which makes the game ugly but playable. Sadly, the low object distance is necessary on those CPU's. Now, with the Ryzen 1700X, autodetect sets it to 1900m and yet the game runs so much better than with the FX on 800m.
  4. @djotacon It seems you are confusing IPC with single threaded performance. They are not the same thing.
  5. @kremator Try a different browser. Anyway, the screenshots illustrate how the terrain setting has a huge impact on foliage rendering distance. It's basically the setting you are asking for, but it's already there.
  6. Low vs standard https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/juxtapose/latest/embed/index.html?uid=968ce9dc-0bd1-11e7-9182-0edaf8f81e27 Standard vs. high https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/juxtapose/latest/embed/index.html?uid=9dc87b16-0bd2-11e7-9182-0edaf8f81e27 High vs. very high https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/juxtapose/latest/embed/index.html?uid=b431826c-0bd2-11e7-9182-0edaf8f81e27 Very high vs. ultra https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/juxtapose/latest/embed/index.html?uid=c70620be-0bd2-11e7-9182-0edaf8f81e27
  7. @Evil Organ Ground foliage render distance is determined by the "terrain" setting, so it's not like it's going to be the same for everyone.
  8. What sort of systems are you people running? I used to have an FX-8350 and was forced to run restrictive view distances, and the popping was pretty bad then, but after the Ryzen 7 1700X upgrade it's pretty much a non issue.
  9. It has nothing to do with AMD vs. Intel or Nvidia physx/gameworks. The reason the FX doesn't work well in Arma is it's poor single threaded performance. The FX is best in embarrasingly parallel tasks. In Arma, you are better off with a cheap dual core with strong single threaded performance.
  10. They have a tradition of releasing on Thursdays, and they have been saying a release this week is likely, so don't be surprised if the update lands later today.
  11. I did, but I saw no significant difference in Arma 3. It's interesting to see what happens when you switch between balanced and performance profiles though. In balanced, it seems to stack as many threads as possible on as few physical cores as possible, while using logical cores before physical cores so that it can park as many cores as possible. I bet this is great for energy efficiency while not giving up too much performance. In performance, there's no core parking and no downclocking. Threads are first and foremost put on it's own physical core before putting them into the extra logical cores only if the physical ones are already saturated. Probably less energy efficient, but faster.
  12. Didn't plan to run my 1700X overclocked, but you know how it is, I just had to try anyway. This overclock made YAAB to go from around 30fps before overclock to 32.6fps after overclock.
  13. @aliquis Note that those 27fps are not representative for normal gameplay. YAAB is a very heavy benchmark, and with the same settings I normally see 50-60fps during normal gameplay. If you are purely looking for the best CPU for Arma, then AMD has nothing to offer right now. You should stay away from any 8-core CPU unless you need a powerful CPU for other stuff besides Arma.
  14. Interesting to see that it actually does slightly better with SMT. Didn't expect that. Also interesting to see it's not that far off from 6900K which is the closest Intel equivalent. I guess Arma 3 really hates octacores :)
  15. @abudabi Looks like my Windows 10 is properly aware of physical cores, SMT and cache, unlike what people are saying on reddit. This is what I get from coreinfo: I won't be able to overclock my RAM. I'm stuck on 2133mt because I'm running four dual rank modules. They are only rated for 2400mhz CL14 in their XMP profile anyway so I'm not loosing that much by running four sticks.