Brisse

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.

@djotacon It seems you are confusing IPC with single threaded performance. They are not the same thing.

@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.

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

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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 :)

@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.

@abudabi 1080p Ultra + YAAB standard 28.8fps Yes, I'm using BIOS 0504. I had already prepared it on a USB flash drive before building the system so first thing I did when powering up was to flash new BIOS. I expect them to release more BIOS updates in the coming weeks though.

@abudabi No, I used the one that the Ultra preset gave me. Should I have used YAAB standard settings instead?

1080p Ultra (not using YAAB's standard view distance settings) 27.0fps

@dwarden -exthreads 7 + -corecount 8: 29.9fps -corecount 12: 30.2fps -corecount 16: 28.9fps -corecount 20: 29.9fps -enableht: 28.3fps

Don't have options for HPET or SMT in my UEFI. Asus have hidden these settings on this mobo for some reason :S Tried disabling HPET in Windows though. It's actually disabled by default in Win 10, but I had enabled mine at some point because I needed it for a specific thing I was doing. After that I just left it enabled. I disabled it again with the command "bcdedit /deletevalue useplatformclock " but I saw no difference in performance while running YAAB. Nothing significant anyway. I was like a percent above previous bench but that might have just been random. I might try some more of dwardens suggestions later when I have time.

Tried the tool @dwarden linked. Disabled core parking and frequency scaling. Didn't do anything for performance. YAAB is still really choppy and averages around 30fps.

This is with YAAB running. Cores marked with red are always parked. The one in orange goes on and off.

Haven't tried unparking them yet, but I did check in task manager while running YAAB and there are always three or four cores parked, so it's effectively running as a quadcore :) Utilization is also low on those cores which are actually active. The most saturated thread is doing about 60%.

Doesn't seem to have done anything. Still averaging around 30fps.

Ryzen 7 1700X PRIME X370-PRO 4x16GB DDR4-2133mhz 15-15-15-36-51-2T (frequency is limited due to using 4 dual rank modules) R9 Fury YAAB with it's standard settings at 1440p yielded 30fps average. Similar settings on my previous FX-8350 gave around 24fps but I'm not 100% certain the settings and game version is the same so that's not an apples to apples comparison. I find that YAAB seems to run like crap, but subjectively I have gotten a huge boost during normal gameplay. I ran the auto detect settings and the game set itself to about double the view distances I used to run previously, and it still runs much smoother on the Ryzen than the FX. I know some games have run better with SMT off so I was interested in testing that, but I actually couldn't find an option for turning SMT off in my UEFI :/ Also read about some issues where Windows parks cores when it shouldn't, and having HPET active has negative performance impact. I didn't bother working around any of these as I hope they will be fixed by software updates. I know proffesional reviewers worked around these issues by disabling HPET and setting Windows power management to high performance. Edit: Tried to tick "Enable Hyper-Threading" in the launcher. Lost 8% in YAAB, but not sure if it's due to the setting or simply due to the random nature of YAAB.

Slight correction: A3 is reliant on IPC*frequency which is where Kaby Lake really shines.

I've got news for you. Ryzen wasn't exclusively designed for Arma. It looks like it's going to be an awesome performer for those of us who actually use our PC's for more than just gaming, while still being perfectly viable for gaming, but of course it won't beat Kaby Lake in gaming. I expect to build a Ryzen system next week. I might try some Arma benchmarks then, but I don't expect to see any different results from those already posted. The results posted above are perfectly in line with Ryzens single core performance, which is what matters in Arma 3.