I spoke with one of you about a month ago, maybe during the oil rig raid, about how you could get SO many more frames than me, when I had an i7-4790K, 4.00 GHz.
I became convinced that the i9 processor the person I was speaking to, would likely have a significant effect.
So now I’m asking: what model of Intel i9 processor was that?
I don’t remember who I talked to, but it could be either @Anarchy, @Berenton, @Baegel, @Mattdogs, @Xander, @Alex, or neither. Apologies the unnecessary tagging.
Or if someone else with high end frames will share, please do.
At this point you might just want to get a 10 series. I (and flo) both have the 10600K, and my frames don’t really drip under 50 any more even on the shittiest of maps and situations. I think I’ve dropped to 35 a few times actually, but those were dips when it got really insane.
The I9 is really only worth it if you have a heavily multithreaded workload. Games are (sadly) not heavily multithreaded. So unless you render a lot of videos or images, an I9 is probably overkill for you. I opted for the 10th generation I5 which now also comes with hyperthreading as well as very good per core performance which is important for gaming. With AMD releasing decent processors recently, the I5 10600K is priced pretty competitively!
Many thank. But after realizing that it requires new motherboard and possibly RAM to get a new processor, I can wait.
Yeah while there are certainly exceptions to this rule, generally you end up with a new motherboard if you want a new CPU. RAM can often be kept, but likely you’ll want to go to DDR 4 now
I literally switched from the very same processor to an i9-1850K. So let me share my experience. I previously had i7-4790k (didn’t overclock), DDR3 2333MHz 16GB RAM, and I had both gtx970 and rtx2080, and my game was on an HDD. Graphics cards didn’t make much of a difference, it seems Arma is so CPU hungry that I saw maybe 5fps change between those two (plus 2080 bottlenecks a little with those specs). Generally speaking desert maps were even 70fps for me when nothing was happening but generally it was 50-60; however, once shit hits the fan I would experience drops as low as 20fps so my average was… about 30? 35? Not the smoothest but at least I wasn’t skipping frames.
I now have an i9-1850K (also not overclocked, don’t have power supply to do it), RTX2080, 16GB of DDR4 RAM at 3600MHz, and my game is now installed on an M.2 drive. I haven’t played much Arma on it, I’ll admit, but I played half of the WWII campaign and I got to about 60fps on medium settings with highest HBAO setting and 2.5k view distance if memory serves me right. I don’t know how demanding those missions were because I have no comparison but the lowest it went was 50fps. But yeah it went anywhere from 130 to 60 for the most part, depends on a map. When I load into map editor with just 1 man on the map it’s 130-170 depending on a map but with the action of an actual mission it drops to an average of 70-80 I’d say.
I don’t know if this is still relevant, it’s a year old thread but I came across it and I can directly relate to that so there you go.
P.S. loading time went from 8 minutes to 40s.
P.P.S This upgrade forces you to change motherboard AND ram because DDR3 worked only up to LGA1150 if I am not mistaken. I would also try and buy 11th gen processor, newer is always better but I would mainly do it for the ability to use gen4 M.2 drives. I have a gen4 drive but have to use gen3 slot because nothing below 11th gen supports gen4 speeds. F.