AMD athlon X2 6400+ running game slow

[Baz 0]

why is my CPU running this game so slow? I should be getting better performance this is a 3.2 ghz dual core. For what my PC specs are the game is not running well.

[maddogx 13]

why is my CPU running this game so slow? I should be getting better performance this is a 3.2 ghz dual core. For what my PC specs are the game is not running well.

What does the rest of your hardware look like?

• Graphics card
  
• RAM
  
• Motherboard
  

Also, what operating system are you using? (XP/Vista/7)

Have you updated the game to 1.59/1.09?

What in-game settings are you using?

[Baz 0]

HD 6950

4GB Corsair DDR2 RAM

Asus M2N-E mobo

Win 7 64 bit

game is using latest patch + beta patch

trying to use "normal" preset ingame settings... In streets of zargabad I get 20 FPS but at the airfield im getting like 40+

[BasileyOne 10]

depend desired FPS.

actually Arma2 seriously benefited from multi-core CPU. not only frequency.

3x 4x CPU will improve gameplay noticeably.

on six-core CPU's, impact not impressive for now, but persist.

[Baz 0]

Actually i tried increasing page file size manually to 8gb and put it on HDD not being used... I also did this:

http://guy.dotnet-expertise.com/PermaLink,guid,e7b62d65-9567-408f-8c21-5963fb7b227e.aspx

says vista but it works in win 7 as well... Seems like it did make some difference in performance doing those two things... I used to have FPS at airfield at 40 FPS and then it shot up to 60 with those changes. However, I still am only getting around 20 FPS in combat inside of zargabad with view distance in mission at 300

[BasileyOne 10]

also try increase both MaxWorkingSet registry tweak.

and try iopagelocklimit tweak.

Edited April 17, 2011 by BasileyOne

[maddogx 13]

I used to have FPS at airfield at 40 FPS and then it shot up to 60 with those changes. However, I still am only getting around 20 FPS in combat inside of zargabad with view distance in mission at 300

Zargabad is a performance killer at the best of times, heavily CPU dependent. Even on my quad core, performance in Z-bad drops significantly when there's a bunch of AI running around.

Btw. here's a little tip: if your shadow setting is on normal, try setting it to high or very high. That should free up the CPU a bit and might actually increase performance.

also try increase both MaxWorkingSet registry tweak.

Can you elaborate on this? A google search only brought up MaxWorkingSet in a programming context, nothing concerning the registry.

[Baz 0]

I talked to Dwarden a while ago about this and here is possible causes he lists:

22:10 Dwarden well

22:10 Dwarden your DX9 results seems ok

22:10 Dwarden so this leads to

22:10 Dwarden driver incompatibility + gpu vs oA

22:10 Dwarden some issue with OA vs 69xx

22:10 Dwarden or bios setting wrong

22:10 Dwarden or something i can't pinpoint

22:11 Dwarden or just plain too weak cpu (but seems really weird)

my 3d mark results:

http://3dmark.com/3dm06/15588257

http://3dmark.com/3dmv/3042661

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/947782

scoring high marks on similar systems with DX11 & 10 but scoring the as one of the worst on DX9... Which Arma 2 CO is a DX9 game

Edited April 15, 2011 by Baz

[celery 8]

Dual core is an absolute minimum for gameplay resembling something else than a slideshow. Quad is recommended.

[Baz 0]

yes, well my dual core is clocked at 3.2 ghz, which should be sufficient there are other dual cores at slower clock speeds at 2. something ghz that are running the game better than mine

Edited April 15, 2011 by Baz

[killswitch 19]

why is my CPU running this game so slow?

Because today, that CPU is a slow CPU. It's a 2004/2005 era CPU core. (I feel your pain - I have an even slower one, a X2 5200+ at 2.6 GHz)

I should be getting better performance this is a 3.2 ghz dual core. For what my PC specs are the game is not running well.

Have a look at this chart and see where the old X2 6400 lands. :(

[Baz 0]

I'm apt to want to get an upgrade, but Dwarden saying that its just plain weird for the CPU I have to perform so badly in the game makes me suspect that it is some kind of problem that is not as simple as my hardware sucks the big one.

22:11 Dwarden or just plain too weak cpu (but seems really weird)

New to our test protocol, Arma 2 is configured with all settings at a max including max visibility (10 km), which brings the configurations to their knees. Resolution stays at 800x600 to avoid the graphics card impacting on performance. To gauge performance we measure the framerate during a well-defined movement after having loaded a saved game. Note that you must disactivate HT or force the affinity for this game, as you’ll lose 15 to 20% of fps otherwise and it will suffer from rather disagreeable lags.

10 KM VD will bring any midline PC to its knees... Imho if im infantry i don't need any more than 1k

system requirements lab:

Arma 2 Operation arrowhead:

CPU

Recommended: Intel Core i5 or AMD Athlon Phenom X4 or faster

You Have: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6400+

Arma 2:

CPU

Recommended: Intel Core 2.8 GHz / AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster

You Have: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6400+

CPU Speed

Recommended: Intel Core 2.8 GHz / AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster

You Have: 3.2 GHz Performance Rated at: 7.2 GHz

Thinking about changing my CPU to this:

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0355997

should I get that and upgrade just my CPU and keep all my current components? I'm using an Asus M2N-E mobo, it should support socket AM3 with updated BIOS... It would be a cost effective upgrade and would be the highest ranking benchmarked AMD CPU on that link you had... And the price is not too bad. And considering that I don't need to upgrade mobo or my DDR2 RAM would add to the cost benefit.

But I was thinking about making a whole new system with a Core i7 2600K LGA 1155 CPU

But should I do that you think to make arma 2 playable or should I just wait and buy a new PC. I have had my PC for a few years I just upgraded my GPU to a Radeon HD 6950

Edited April 16, 2011 by Baz

[Baz 0]

also try increase both MaxWorkingSet registry tweak.

and try IoLockLimit tweak.

how do I do this... I need more info google is coming up dry for me.

And what exactly do these tweaks do?

[BasileyOne 10]

how do I do this... I need more info google is coming up dry for me.

And what exactly do these tweaks do?

first tweak - increase limit of threads[handy for multi-core PC's/Servers], active.

second - [dramatically]increase amount of RAM, used for IO ops["in short"].

and thus - give solid throughput performance boost.

both made by creating[don't forget to backup you registry tree or edited part at least]non-existent[by default]entries in Windows registry.

and yes, you can find details by googling this tweaks names.

probably you find SGI or IBM -made articles, describing how they use[among other things]this to tweak their servers.

[Baz 0]

how exactly do I increase these?

[NeMeSiS 11]

says vista but it works in win 7 as well... Seems like it did make some difference in performance doing those two things... I used to have FPS at airfield at 40 FPS and then it shot up to 60 with those changes. However, I still am only getting around 20 FPS in combat inside of zargabad with view distance in mission at 300

Typical CPU limited behaviour, and it makes sense. The frequency doesnt say shit about the speed of your CPU unless you compare it to other CPU's of the same series, so '3.2ghz' doesnt really mean anything comming from a x2. Also, if you are CPU limited you can practilly higher your settings without any FPS loss, as lower settings just make your GPU idle and wont increase your FPS in any way.

I went from an overclocked x2 4200+ to a PhenomII 955 and the difference is enormous even if i would disable the extra 2 cores while the difference in clockspeed marginal.

Edited April 17, 2011 by NeMeSiS

[mrcash2009 0]

I have similar CPU (to my shame) ... although make sure you are setting shadows to "high" (so that its then sent to gpu not cpu) .. turn ATOC off completely, set AA to "low", try setting in your start up "-exThreads=0".

I can confirm with 3 gig + duals you will see a hit no matter what with alot of enemy groups, especially anything using ambient civvy module ... OA civvy module on Zagrabad alone with is like a punch in the face for my CPU let alone enemy running around.

OA hits CPU due to the open building and calculations so zargabad is an FPS slut :)

I realy need to upgrade CPU, although with a GTX260 that I have and settings Im still sucking decent enough life out of it. Im hitting the wall about now with mods I have, although I prefer small skirmish missions and Spec OPs/Night so I dont hit my CPU too often with how I like to play. Although If I go online with say a Bon Inf Takistan mission with 20 players, or OA campaigns last mission in zargabad, ot a SP warfare mission 20 minutes onto it, those are the times I start to browse PC upgrade sites. Before anyone asks, I have far more priority things to spend money on than a pc at the moment, seeing as Arma2 isnt the main thing I use it for :)

Edited April 17, 2011 by mrcash2009

[BasileyOne 10]

how exactly do I increase these?

in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Session Manager\Executive sub-section of you system registry

add dword entries:

"AdditionalCriticalWorkerThreads" to 16[Decimal] for 4x CPU. or 8 for 2x

"AdditionalDelayedWorkerThreads" to 16 [Decimal] for 4x CPU. or 8 for 2x

in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management sub-section

add dword entry "IoPageLockLimit" and set it to 2147483648 [Decimal] for dedicating 2Gb Ram to IO[for example. tune it upon you needs/resources/testing result]

messing with LargeSystemCache isnt very recommended, esp for ATi users[cause horrific IO intereference with possible disk and network dataflow loss, due to bug in ATi developers heads. officially confiremed as "feature" by ATi from ~appx 4.11 driver ages].

[Baz 0]

how much RAM do i need to dedicate for IoPageLockLimit I have 4 GB DDR2 physically on my system

[BasileyOne 10]

how much RAM do i need to dedicate for IoPageLockLimit I have 4 GB DDR2 physically on my system

probably try 1Gb[leaving room for OS itself]. ie 50% of numbers, above.

btw even 256 Mb had noticeable impact, compared to default[512 Kb :-P]

p.s.

may not work in some Windows versions[ie WinXP SP2/SP3, WinVista pre-SP2 , Win7 beta's/RC's].

[maddogx 13]

Is this IOPageLockLimit tweak really valid? From what I've been able to glean from Google, it seems it is no longer used as of Windows 2000 SP1.

The Microsoft Technet site only lists it under the Windows 2000 registry reference. Then there's this post, explaining how it is no longer even read by the system anymore.

I smell a fish here.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Is this IOPageLockLimit tweak really valid? From what I've been able to glean from Google, it seems it is no longer used as of Windows 2000 SP1.

The Microsoft Technet site only lists it under the Windows 2000 registry reference. Then there's this post, explaining how it is no longer even read by the system anymore.

I smell a fish here.

Isnt that the case with 99% of all registry 'tweaks'? :p

[killswitch 19]

Baz, start saving up for that 2600K. Think of ArmA II as a large caravan, and the X2 6400 as the Renault 5 in this

.

It's time to take Old Yeller out back...

(Or try the $198 Phenom II X4 variant)

Edited April 19, 2011 by Killswitch

[sickboy 13]

ioPageLockLimit is supposedly a myth since Windows 2000 SP1: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/25684-registry-myths-1-iopagelocklimit/

upd: lol - manned by MDX ~1 hour :O :P

[maddogx 13]

ioPageLockLimit is supposedly a myth since Windows 2000 SP1: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/25684-registry-myths-1-iopagelocklimit/

upd: lol - manned by MDX ~1 hour :O :P

You know it, baby. ;)