Folk ARPS

Found this Polish site with benchmarks comparing Skylake all the way to Sandy Bridge (both Core i5 and i7), and the FX chips from AMD.

1080p Ultra settings. Tested with both default clocks and after overclocking.

Unknown GPU, benchmark sequence (couldn't figure it out from the translation).

Without OC - http://pclab.pl/art65154-14.html

With OC - http://pclab.pl/art65154-26.html

Wow, my 8350 is shit apparently.

Mabbott wrote:Wow, my 8350 is shit apparently.

My Q8400 isn't even on the list lol.

1080p is not a real resolution. Do it again in 1200p

1080p is so a real thing.
Unfortunately it's a real TV thing, rather than a real computer thing. But then the monitor makers found out that they could chop off nearly 350,000 pixels and still sell the monitor at full price and now we're stuck with it...

Did some tests of my own and my conclusion was pretty much what everyone was already saying, good FPS in arma require a strong intel CPU.

Going from a Geforce GTX 470 to a Geforce GTX 970 only got me form 35fps to 41fps on a Phenom 2 CPU. Not the kind of return one would expect from a 400 euro investment (lucky for me I just borrowed one instead of buying it).

So I guess be able to get a minimal 25fps with a full skylake upgrade which will take a wile, considering nothing else makes me feel like I needed to upgrade atm.

EDIT: Ended up not going skylake so I could reuse my ram (had a 16gb ddr3 2400MHz CL10 kit) so just got a i7 4790K instead. using YAAB benchmark i went from 19fps with my old cpu to 51fps with the new. Did a session settings on Ultra and even hit 60fps in some points. Overall arma3 become a much more enjoyable game. Probably went overkill on the CPU but i tend to multi task a lot and wanted to be safe.