Better performance on higher settings?!

[synti 10]

Title pretty much says it all, but I want to share my strange experience in some detail.

I´ve had decent frame rates so far in OA with Normal/High-settings and pretty low resolution (1024x768, I use projector in games). However, things sucked pretty bad in big cities, even in editor with just one guy. Not an actual slide show, but far from fluent.

Yesterday I, just out of curiosity, tried Zagrabad with everything maxed out and with a resolution of 1680x1050. Result: almost butter smooth performance! Also the infamous "From Hell"-mission comes playable with these maxed out settings (it´s still bad, but you can actually play it).

How could this be? Now, my GPU is pretty good even on todays standards and propably adequate enough to play ARMA 2 smoothly. It seems to me now that if I don´t utilize all the resources of my GPU some calculations are transfered to CPU and result is immediate performance drop. Is this even remotely right?

I´m upgrading my CPU now to Phenom II X4 965 BE and can´t wait to see the results. If graphics settings are now somewhat "optimized" for my gear, things should be pretty great when I get rid of my bottlenecking dual core- processor.

Oh, and speaking of quad-cores; could someone please post a link about how the CPU-count and EX-threads settings should be in ARMA 2 and OA with quad core processor?

-------------------------------

Rig:

Core 2 Duo E7500 2,93 ghz

4 gb RAM

Club 3D Radeon 4890 Super OC

Win 7 64 bit

HDD 7200 rpm

[DeclaredEvol 10]

You know, funny you said this. Because when I have played ArmA 2, even OA... the loading of trees without more and more filters, will some what slow down the rendering and refresh rate quite a bit LOL!! Turning up you're resolution and terrain detail certainly helps, and if you can get AA on I suggest doing it. But anyways, if you are wanting to build a good computer for ArmA 2. Don't bottle neck it, you need all of you're hardware up to date with each other. If you've got a freaking i7 Extreme and you are using a old Nvidia geforce 7600gt you are asking for a horrible experience. Or if you are using a Nvidia GTX 260 with a Intel Dual Core Pentium D Processor with a 2.8 ghz. You are most likely setting your self up pretty badly. Anyways, when it comes down to playing ArmA 2, the best system you can probably get is a Dual SLI of a Nvidia 9800gtx+... they have the HIGHEST clock speeds in all categories, and even higher than the 400 series. And really there is no difference between GDDR3-5... its just a updated brand. Guys, don't go out and spend 400-500 dollars just for a graphics card that is new. Usually an SLI of older stuff works the best, and if you already have a kick ass CPU. You can run around 1,000-2,000 AI PERFECTLY.

[johncage 30]

man that is such bs i feel obligated to say something. my comp: i7 930, 8gb ram, 9800gtx+. this game is running horrid with everything updated, including beta patches. so 1000-2000 ai perfectly? give me a break. please try not to exaggerate things especially if you have never actually tried it and are just guestimating. on my high end system, not top, but pretty good, it's horrible even with 50 ai. the game is not very optimized, imho.

[goguapsy 10]

man that is such bs i feel obligated to say something. my comp: i7 930, 8gb ram, 9800gtx+. this game is running horrid with everything updated, including beta patches. so 1000-2000 ai perfectly? give me a break. please try not to exaggerate things especially if you have never actually tried it and are just guestimating. on my high end system, not top, but pretty good, it's horrible even with 50 ai. the game is not very optimized, imho.

I think he meant with SLI... You have a powerful PC, but I guess your card performance is lower than the rest..? That IS a guestimation.

[-=seany=- 5]

How could this be? Now, my GPU is pretty good even on todays standards and propably adequate enough to play ARMA 2 smoothly. It seems to me now that if I don´t utilize all the resources of my GPU some calculations are transfered to CPU and result is immediate performance drop. Is this even remotely right?

One gfx option that could cause such a phenomenon is the one for Shadows. Low and Normal shadows are calculated by the CPU where as High and Very High shadows are calculated by the GPU.

So if you have a modern gfx card (eg one capable of Running OA) then you should use the "High" shadow option. Choosing an option lower than this will cause worse performance in cpu bound situations, such as a lot of AI.

[Arksa 10]

So if you have a modern gfx card (eg one capable of Running OA) then you should use the "High" shadow option. Choosing an option lower than this will cause worse performance in cpu bound situations, such as a lot of AI.

Oh thanks for the info, my CPU is bottlenecking a bit atm and I'm sure my 5850 will do just fine handling a couple of shadows :).

[simo1000RR 10]

One gfx option that could cause such a phenomenon is the one for Shadows. Low and Normal shadows are calculated by the CPU where as High and Very High shadows are calculated by the GPU.

So if you have a modern gfx card (eg one capable of Running OA) then you should use the "High" shadow option. Choosing an option lower than this will cause worse performance in cpu bound situations, such as a lot of AI.

im not trying to bash on what ur saying , but r u sure? , i dont wanna change my setting in shadow to high to find out that its not true , can someone else confirm that . thanks

[[frl]myke 14]

im not trying to bash on what ur saying , but r u sure? , i dont wanna change my setting in shadow to high to find out that its not true , can someone else confirm that . thanks

This fact is true since armed assault. The lower shadow settings can't be calculated by GPU so CPU has to handle it. Obviously this has a negative effect on general performance, at least with todays upperclass graphic cards.

Shadows on high and very high use a different algorithm which can be handled by GPU which takes load of the CPU. Result: better visual quality together with better FPS in general.

No false hopes: if a PC is...well, let's say "outdated", only disabling shadows completely will have a positive effect.

And finally, why would it hurt to quickly set shadows to High and watch FPS reacting? Set the previous settings if the effect is not what you desired only takes one click and it is safe, it will not blow up your PC.

[Steakslim 1]

You know, funny you said this. Because when I have played ArmA 2, even OA... the loading of trees without more and more filters, will some what slow down the rendering and refresh rate quite a bit LOL!! Turning up you're resolution and terrain detail certainly helps, and if you can get AA on I suggest doing it. But anyways, if you are wanting to build a good computer for ArmA 2. Don't bottle neck it, you need all of you're hardware up to date with each other. If you've got a freaking i7 Extreme and you are using a old Nvidia geforce 7600gt you are asking for a horrible experience. Or if you are using a Nvidia GTX 260 with a Intel Dual Core Pentium D Processor with a 2.8 ghz. You are most likely setting your self up pretty badly. Anyways, when it comes down to playing ArmA 2, the best system you can probably get is a Dual SLI of a Nvidia 9800gtx+... they have the HIGHEST clock speeds in all categories, and even higher than the 400 series. And really there is no difference between GDDR3-5... its just a updated brand. Guys, don't go out and spend 400-500 dollars just for a graphics card that is new. Usually an SLI of older stuff works the best, and if you already have a kick ass CPU. You can run around 1,000-2,000 AI PERFECTLY.

SLI is nice and all but it isn't always an option for everyone. While some here probably do not have a mobo with enough 16x PCI-E slots to do so, some that do have those slots but they are occupied or arranged in a way that they cannot fit a 2nd gpu into their system.

[Arksa 10]

I actually went from normal settings to high and some very high graphic settings, and I tested it on the benchmark of OA:

All normal: fps 33

All high/very high: fps 28

strange...would've expected a bit bigger drop in fps.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Arksa

[Jest 10]

I have the same strange results as well.

With everything maxed, I get about 30fps or so.

When I turn stuff way down, about 40fps with action going on. Not a very big jump.

I believe turning off shadows and lowering the view distance are the major ones.

[Dynamic Echo 10]

I have the same strange results as well.

With everything maxed, I get about 30fps or so.

When I turn stuff way down, about 40fps with action going on. Not a very big jump.

I believe turning off shadows and lowering the view distance are the major ones.

And post-processing, that going from v. high to disabled is a big jump.