More than 2 graphics cards?

[Dysentery 0]

Hi I have 2 ati 5970's and can't run maximum settings in multiplayer pvp and have good enough frame rates. And I think that even if I upgraded to 2 ati 6990's I still wouldn't be able have complete max settings in multiplayer pvp with high frame rates.. So, those are the 2 best cards on the market. So would getting 2 more 5970's allow me to do this in arma 2:OA or more than 2 of any card? If not, then I'm assuming that it's impossible for anyone to max out their settings and have high frame rates all the time in online pvp? Is this true? Or can I do it with 4?

[[frl]myke 14]

Ever thought that the CPU is limiting (yes, i know it's by far runnin below 100%) and not the graphic card?

Make a simple test: changing viewdistance, terraindetail and/or objectdetail has a direct effect on FPS = CPU is limiting.

[eosteric 10]

Don't you get it, Arma is old school, the programmer's have no idea how to utilize modern GPUs, so much happens at CPU level in this game.

Up until recently they didn't even utilize more than 2GB RAM. So yeah, old school. I wish they had better programmers.

Just check GPU utilization while playing, it's barely doing any work.

[[frl]myke 14]

Don't you get it, Arma is old school, the programmer's have no idea how to utilize modern GPUs, so much happens at CPU level in this game.

Up until recently they didn't even utilize more than 2GB RAM. So yeah, old school. I wish they had better programmers.

Just check GPU utilization while playing, it's barely doing any work.

So you surely have a way to calculate AI on GPU's. And also name which games are actually 64bit applications. There are things that can't be done by GPU and also using more than 2GB memory wouldn't help there.

So until you can come up with something better i think you better STFU & GTFO.

[eosteric 10]

Whatever you want can be done on the GPU.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/gpu-ai.html

And last I checked, more than 2gb ram does not equal 64bit application.

[Dysentery 0]

So essentially the technology or the know how to take advantage of it just isn't out there is what youre sayin. *edit* actually there probably are some crazy processors out there.. they shoulda offered that with my alienware to begin with :(. I wonder what kinda specs could handle everthing in arma with ease.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Dysentery

[[frl]myke 14]

Whatever you want can be done on the GPU.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/gpu-ai.html

And last I checked, more than 2gb ram does not equal 64bit application.

Nice link. What GPU's are supported?

And what's the point of using XXGB of Ram? ArmA 2 uses as much as it needs. What do you think actually is in the memory? Textures? They are in the VRam.

I'm sure BIS could think of a way to fill your Ram if it makes you feel warm and comfortable, fact is, ArmA 2 uses the Ram as it is needed. If more data has to be held, it uses the Ram accordingly. Just filling it up that somebody might think "cool, ArmA 2 is using all of my Ram" is nothing but pointless.

Besides this, a 32bit Windows doesn't allow a single process to use more than 2GB, except the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the header of the Application is activated (which was done in one of the previous patches IIRC) which allows to use up to 4GB Ram.

That said, ArmA 2 could use up to 4GB Ram (if available) and the reason it doesn't might be that it doesn't need it.

[eosteric 10]

Obviously it needs something more, since it could always perform better. Most people would agree that it's a very demanding game. More and better utilizing of GPU/RAM would give it a performance increase.

Not very difficult to understand.

[[frl]myke 14]

It seems too difficult for you.

GPU can't be used any better, at least not without breaking compatibility with certain Hardware (not all GPU's that are in use support CUDA, it's not a standard yet).

So BIS has to decide where to set it's focus and that is the "GPU does graphic, CPU does the rest" approach.

This ensures everyone can actually play ArmA2, how good and at which settings is another topic.

So far, a better GPU doesn't help if it doesn't have more to do. If settings that affects the GPU are maxed out, max is reached.

About the RAM, as already said, ArmA 2 already uses as much Ram as it needs. There is nothing limiting it to use 2GB or more (after that patch, there i was wrong at first) so why do you think it doesn't use more? Simply because it doesn't need it.

This brings it down to the last component: the CPU.

The only way to squeeze more out of the CPU is to make more use of multiple threads, making more runnin in parallel.

Sadly there is always some difficulty, as often enough one thread has to wait for a calculation result of another parallel running thread. So it's pretty difficult to get a real advantage of Multicore processors when threads heavily rely on each other.

As Suma said once, it would be easy to program a non-productive thread which does nothing but eating up the free resources of the CPU so everyone would see his CPU permanently at 100% workload (actually no real workload) and i guess a lot of people would be like "woah, excellent programming, it uses all cores at 100%!!!"

Maybe they should go that way, then maybe all this "bwaha, crappy programming!!!" BS would stop.

[eosteric 10]

Man, you don't understand anything.

It's weird how all other games manage to utilize the GPU more than Arma 2 right? Run any other game and measure utilization of your GPU and you'll find it can often run at near 90% load whereas Arma 2 it's at 5%.

And there's lots of graphic stuff in Arma 2 not happening at GPU level, proof? Because a lot of the graphic settings you change, don't affect performance one way or the other, and doesn't change GPU load when measured.

And no, using all threads of the CPU is not difficult. That's why so many applications and quite a few games do that.

Again, weird how everyone else manages to do things easily that Arma 2 doesn't do at all.

And the way you check for proper usage is by running any game with just two cores enabled instead of four, and check the performance decrease.

And I haven't seen a single game yet using four cores heavily not drop in performance when you run it with just two cores.

Sounds like this Suma dude is just making excuses.

What he's saying is a bullshit line, he's implying that, oh, the competition, they way they've done it is fake, it's just bullshit, and illusion. Well, it's not. And again, the proof is, run the game in two or single core mode and you'll see the performance drop. And this Suma should stop talking smack about arbitrary competition, and instead do what they've been doing for a long time.

You too.

The engine used is just shit, and Bohemia probably wishes they could just scrap the whole thing, and they will too. You have noticed it barely has physics right? And how shit an exploding vehicle looks, they mostly just change texture. Not to mention buildings. There's no graphically dynamic systems at work at all in this game, except for particles, but they suck as well, compared to just about any other game. This game looks great at a stand still, a screenshot, moving, it looks and behaves like all simulators have come to, sub-par. I know it's far fetched to expect say Crysis level shaders, and Bad Company 2 level destruction, but if this game had at least some of the effects of either of those games it would that many times greater.

Just vehicles exploding in a fairly realistic way would be a great addition, and proper vehicle physics so when driven they behave in a realistic way.

Just to mention one thing. And all the countless bugs like flying vehicles, hovering items, explosions throwing cars up in the air about 10 times, things getting stuck in loops, etc. It's falling apart at the seams.

But just wait and see, Arma 3 or Arma 4 engine will be built from scratch. The 3D rendering part at least. And all the other CPU tasks they will distribute properly between all threads.

If you don't believe that, then wait and see.

I don't believe they suck as programmers, I just think they've been living too long in the past. They've probably discussed this, new engine stuff a lot of times, but maybe it has come down to resources, or they've just felt it wasn't necessary. I think they will make a new engine and we'll see that it not only looks better but performs much better as well.

Edited March 21, 2011 by eosteric

[vohk 10]

Run any other game and measure utilization of your GPU and you'll find it can often run at near 90% load whereas Arma 2 it's at 5%.

And there's lots of graphic stuff in Arma 2 not happening at GPU level, proof? Because a lot of the graphic settings you change, don't affect performance one way or the other, and doesn't change GPU load when measured.

Without joining the party, I'd like to cheerfully point out that my version of A2/OA quite happily uses 80-99% GPU during normal gameplay (a pair of 5850s, crossfire). Also, I notice a very immediate correlation between most video settings in game and GPU usage. I think you might have something odd going on.

edit: oh, right, that wasn't the point of the thread.

Hi I have 2 ati 5970's and can't run maximum settings in multiplayer pvp and have good enough frame rates. And I think that even if I upgraded to 2 ati 6990's I still wouldn't be able have complete max settings in multiplayer pvp with high frame rates.. So, those are the 2 best cards on the market. So would getting 2 more 5970's allow me to do this in arma 2:OA or more than 2 of any card? If not, then I'm assuming that it's impossible for anyone to max out their settings and have high frame rates all the time in online pvp? Is this true? Or can I do it with 4?

I can run everything on VH @1920x1080, other than Post Processing (low/normal), AA (normal/high) and HDR (high), with quite comfortable frame rates. I do have to turn it down a few notches on extremely cluttered missions, but it's pretty rare. I have a i7-860 (running at 3.8GHz), 2x5850s, 8GB DDR3-1333 and a 1TB 7200RPM drive. What's the rest of your system like, CPU/RAM in particular?

Definitely do not go get more 5970s. Crossfire and SLi are not anywhere near 100% efficient. The second card generally boosts performance by ~60-70% and it goes down from there. As is it, each of your 5970s are essentially 2x5870s on a single board. That's 4 total GPUs. The last thing you need is more GFX power.

Edited March 21, 2011 by vohk

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

And again, the proof is, run the game in two or single core mode and you'll see the performance drop.

Why would you run the game in a single core?

Minimal system requirements:

Dual Core CPU

[[frl]myke 14]

Because a lot of the graphic settings you change, don't affect performance one way or the other, and doesn't change GPU load when measured.

Depends on the used GPU. On a Enthusiast GPU the GPU indeed often has not a lot to do. But try the same on the lower ends GPU's and all of a sudden every change will have immediate effect on the FPS and GPU is runnin at nearly 100%.

So you say whoever has lower end GPU's shouldn't be able to play ArmA 2 at all? I think this would drop the sales dramatically.

Sounds like this Suma dude is just making excuses.

This "Suma dude" is the Lead programmer and there is probably no one knowing the RV engine better than him.

explosions throwing cars up in the air about 10 times

Aye, i know. ArmA 2 is the only game with such physics behaviour...oh, wait:

HY1XX5X93H0

[eosteric 10]

Why would you run the game in a single core?

How slow are you? Who said I would? One poster made a claim about games could be "faking" utilization of multiple cores, I said as a test, just run the game in single core and you'll see the performance drop and know it's not just some faked shit.

Come on, keep up. Don't make me have to type the same thing twice just because you can't read everything posted.

Oh, and Myke, great, your game is perfect. Too bad the rest of us isn't playing your immaculate conception of a unique release. You seem so infatuated that you're blind to the game's and engine's faults. And there's a lot. OPF/ARMA series have always had a reputation of being filled to the brim with bugs. And changelogs are proof of this as well.

Edited March 21, 2011 by eosteric

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

oh my, the insults you must lay towards everyone here, you may go away and come back when you make a better game for us to play.

[domokun 515]

How slow are you? Who said I would? One poster made a claim about games could be "faking" utilization of multiple cores, I said as a test, just run the game in single core and you'll see the performance drop and know it's not just some faked shit.

Come on, keep up. Don't make me have to type the same thing twice just because you can't read everything posted.

Oh, and Myke, great, your game is perfect. Too bad the rest of us isn't playing your immaculate conception of a unique release. You seem so infatuated that you're blind to the game's and engine's faults. And there's a lot. OPF/ARMA series have always had a reputation of being filled to the brim with bugs. And changelogs are proof of this as well.

Seems like your sarcasm has blinded you to the fact that Myke never suggested the game is perfect and to the fact that OFP/ARMA series have always been known for their sandbox environments rather than their competitors' railroad limitations. Such open environments are MUCH more ambitious than scripted sequences so inevitably they will be buggier. But in case your impaired vision hadn't noticed, BIS also offers unparalleled support of their products. Look no further than Dragon Sinking.

[Dysentery 0]

The thread wasn't really meant for people to argue about something else. Just asking what specs are required to get high above and beyond max settings in large scale pvp.

[dmarkwick 261]

How slow are you? Who said I would? One poster made a claim about games could be "faking" utilization of multiple cores, I said as a test, just run the game in single core and you'll see the performance drop and know it's not just some faked shit.

Come on, keep up. Don't make me have to type the same thing twice just because you can't read everything posted.

Oh, and Myke, great, your game is perfect. Too bad the rest of us isn't playing your immaculate conception of a unique release. You seem so infatuated that you're blind to the game's and engine's faults. And there's a lot. OPF/ARMA series have always had a reputation of being filled to the brim with bugs. And changelogs are proof of this as well.

Some people like to focus on what the game cannot do. Others like to focus on what it can do :) as such, no other game or game engine comes even close, regardless of their apparent excellence at GPU + CPU utilisation, to what ArmA2 does right out of the box. Until even one other game engine can do anything like what ArmA2 does, I'd hold off levelling comparisons and assumptions based on watching graphs, it's true ArmA2 could be optimised, but I'd lay money on your assesments based on watching gadgets being not entirely accurate or helpful :)

[[frl]myke 14]

The thread wasn't really meant for people to argue about something else. Just asking what specs are required to get high above and beyond max settings in large scale pvp.

New or more Graphic cards wont help you as actually the CPU is limiting. I actually don't know if there is a faster CPU available at this time as i don't follow Intel products closely.

[eosteric 10]

Some people like to focus on what the game cannot do. Others like to focus on what it can do :) as such, no other game or game engine comes even close, regardless of their apparent excellence at GPU + CPU utilisation, to what ArmA2 does right out of the box. Until even one other game engine can do anything like what ArmA2 does, I'd hold off levelling comparisons and assumptions based on watching graphs, it's true ArmA2 could be optimised, but I'd lay money on your assesments based on watching gadgets being not entirely accurate or helpful :)

I hear you. But there's no need to focus on what the game does right. I play the game and enjoy it. I try to bring attention to things that needs fixing so it'll be even better, so it can reach it's full potential.