04-17-2015, 07:06 PM
I'm no expert at hardware and RV engine technicals but i know that gaining frames in Real virtuality is mainly held by computation done by the CPU, whereas in most games it is the opposite where the GPU rendering capability holds back fps not the CPU's capacity.
I once heard someone tell me i should overclock my cpu(a 3570k) to at least 4.0ghz or else Arma would hold back my now dead Gtx 670. So Arma is a CPU based game engine that relies on CPU core speeds significantly more than most games. Look at the story of this guy https://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/di...ideModal=1. There is no way you would get such a high fps percentage increase just by upping your CPU speeds with any other game.
This begs the question, that are there system bottlenecks inherent in your systemwhen running arma 3, caused leaving your CPU running at stock speeds(assuming it is at least a quad core), and if so, what levels do you raise it to without compromising the integrity of your PC in the long term.(excluding enthusiast level builds eg: SLI 980, Titan X....)
I once heard someone tell me i should overclock my cpu(a 3570k) to at least 4.0ghz or else Arma would hold back my now dead Gtx 670. So Arma is a CPU based game engine that relies on CPU core speeds significantly more than most games. Look at the story of this guy https://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/di...ideModal=1. There is no way you would get such a high fps percentage increase just by upping your CPU speeds with any other game.
This begs the question, that are there system bottlenecks inherent in your systemwhen running arma 3, caused leaving your CPU running at stock speeds(assuming it is at least a quad core), and if so, what levels do you raise it to without compromising the integrity of your PC in the long term.(excluding enthusiast level builds eg: SLI 980, Titan X....)
![[Image: CPU_01.png]](http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/712/bench/CPU_01.png)