Ryzen 7 2700X

[DUMNEZO]

Is there anyone that uses this cpu to play koth or exile? If so, please tell me how many fps you get and your settings. I'm thinking of buying this cpu but couldn't find info relating arma 3 multiplayer. Thanks!

[Sgt Smash]

After seeing all the other Ryzen threads on Arma and other game forums, i would skip Ryzen and get a 8th gen i3 8350k or a i5

Unless you want to make loads of compromises now and many more down the line as it ages

[El Berl]

These threads have been complete warzones in the past so I'm just going to tell it to you straight. The i3 8350k will take that Ryzen downtown when it comes to Arma performance. Going to Intel opens up a much stronger upgrade path down the road as well.

[DUMNEZO]

Yes, in Arma Intel is definetely faster, there is no denying that but I'm going to do other stuff as well so I'm really curious what the performance of the 2700x is for example in koth with ~100 players before i make the decision to buy it.

[El Berl]

Arma multiplayer is completely FUBAR when it comes to FPS consistency. You'll get anywhere from 25 to 75 depending on whether you're inside or outside, the players' actions, your settings, and the level of action in the field.

The higher IPC of a modern Intel will raise the FPS floor in addition to what settings you can use without taking FPS dips.

[Sgt Smash]

Originally posted by DUMNEZO:

Yes, in Arma Intel is definetely faster, there is no denying that but I'm going to do other stuff as well so I'm really curious what the performance of the 2700x is for example in koth with ~100 players before i make the decision to buy it.

Going off the #1 fanboys videos on here

Lowering settings and view distances in battles outside of buildings your be looking at 20-40 at best with 100 players, But on the up side koth's player counts have been dropping loads over the last 6 months since pubg and fortnight has took most of the playerbase so you might find yourself playing on servers with less players so your fps will go up a bit

But you will have to make compromises in a lot of games not just Arma

[El Berl]

KOTH also had a great schism too so a lot of players either rage quit after the level wipe and the splitting of servers between Sa Matra, HT, and others. KOTH players are a lot more spread out now, so lower player counts will work to your PC's favor.

[El Berl]

Originally posted by Sgt Smash:

Originally posted by DUMNEZO:

Yes, in Arma Intel is definetely faster, there is no denying that but I'm going to do other stuff as well so I'm really curious what the performance of the 2700x is for example in koth with ~100 players before i make the decision to buy it.

Going off the #1 fanboys videos on here

Lowering settings and view distances in battles outside of buildings your be looking at 20-40 at best with 100 players, But on the up side koth's player counts have been dropping loads over the last 6 months since pubg and fortnight has took most of the playerbase so you might find yourself playing on servers with less players so your fps will go up a bit

But you will have to make compromises in a lot of games not just Arma

Hah, I almost forgot about DJ Shillacon.

[DUMNEZO]

Originally posted by Sgt Smash:

Originally posted by DUMNEZO:

Yes, in Arma Intel is definetely faster, there is no denying that but I'm going to do other stuff as well so I'm really curious what the performance of the 2700x is for example in koth with ~100 players before i make the decision to buy it.

Going off the #1 fanboys videos on here

Lowering settings and view distances in battles outside of buildings your be looking at 20-40 at best with 100 players, But on the up side koth's player counts have been dropping loads over the last 6 months since pubg and fortnight has took most of the playerbase so you might find yourself playing on servers with less players so your fps will go up a bit

But you will have to make compromises in a lot of games not just Arma

I cannot agree with the last sentence. With the exception of ARMA, the 2700x is roughly equal to the 8700k, which is more expensive, in games and it kills it in other stuff. Price/performance ratio is better with amd.

[DUMNEZO]

Originally posted by V. Berlioz:

Arma multiplayer is completely FUBAR when it comes to FPS consistency. You'll get anywhere from 25 to 75 depending on whether you're inside or outside, the players' actions, your settings, and the level of action in the field.

The higher IPC of a modern Intel will raise the FPS floor in addition to what settings you can use without taking FPS dips.

Yes, but by making an average you can aproximate the fps, considering the player isn't looking at the sky 24/7

[Sgt Smash]

i ecco what v said^

I remember when the list used to be two pages of 50 of high player numbers
https://www.gametracker.com/search/arma3/?query=koth&sort=3&order=DESC

[Sgt Smash]

Originally posted by DUMNEZO:

Originally posted by Sgt Smash:

Going off the #1 fanboys videos on here

Lowering settings and view distances in battles outside of buildings your be looking at 20-40 at best with 100 players, But on the up side koth's player counts have been dropping loads over the last 6 months since pubg and fortnight has took most of the playerbase so you might find yourself playing on servers with less players so your fps will go up a bit

But you will have to make compromises in a lot of games not just Arma

I cannot agree with the last sentence. With the exception of ARMA, the 2700x is roughly equal to the 8700k, which is more expensive, in games and it kills it in other stuff. Price/performance ratio is better with amd.

i can't agree with what you are saying either! i only go off raw benchmarks without untold compromises, The 8700k is on another level and worth the extra money, but also the much cheaper i3 still out performs in gaming, so price to performance still goes to intel

[El Berl]

The 8700k shreds the Ryzen in IPC and single core performance so badly it'll win in nearly every game with poor optimization or old engines like Arma. Benchmarks aside, it's the more robust option by far that depends dramatically less on multicore support, optimization, and not having legacy engines.

Think about it. In Arma, a game that DEMANDS quality instructions per click, this Ryzen is losing hard to an I3. Think about that because it says something profound about the state of AMD CPUs.

[DUMNEZO]

Originally posted by Sgt Smash:

Originally posted by DUMNEZO:

I cannot agree with the last sentence. With the exception of ARMA, the 2700x is roughly equal to the 8700k, which is more expensive, in games and it kills it in other stuff. Price/performance ratio is better with amd.

i can't agree with what you are saying either! i only go off raw benchmarks without untold compromises, The 8700k is on another level and worth the extra money, but also the much cheaper i3 still out performs in gaming, so price to performance still goes to intel

This video is pretty straightforward : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr2B0RJd7Nc
Also watch the CPU usage. The ryzen just has more power that it's not used bc of it's many cores.

[DUMNEZO]

Originally posted by V. Berlioz:

The 8700k shreds the Ryzen in IPC and single core performance so badly it'll win in nearly every game with poor optimization or old engines like Arma. Benchmarks aside, it's the more robust option by far.

Think about it. In Arma, a game that DEMANDS quality instructions per click, this Ryzen is losing hard to an I3. Think about that because it says something profound about the state of AMD CPUs.

So where are you getting your info from that an i3 beats a 2700x? I see you're an intel fanboy :)

[Sgt Smash]

There are many things your not taking into count! Graphic settings are not the same, ryzen tanks lower, video was made before 8th gen optimizations, i own the i7 6700k and the 2700x and i can tell you a lot of the videos on youtube are either misleading or made by fan boys, My intel gets more fps in every game i own with out compromise, where as with the 2700x i have to lower things like AA and so on to get it closer. as i said no compromises was the point i was making and that's is what a lot of youtube videos don't tell you, so only having or knowing someone that has them in real life testing they can't be trusted, DJ Shillacon was living proof of that lol

Side note see in GTA 5 a game that is known to be very good at fully using as many core as you can throw at it, have you wondered why it ain't using them all? Because the core it's using are slow and holding it back from using all of its cores, funny how AMD don't tell you that they just tell poeple your be better off when games can use more cores, But that shows it can't happen due to its own limitations, Just like FX range they are selling a dream about more cores in gaming