I think we can all agree... optimization

[liquidpinky 11]

I have a i7, 6gb of 1800mhz ram and a Geforce 260GTX, and I have the same performance hits as Flogger.

Smoke-grenades, using night-vision, looking at trees(!) all make my fps drop a lot.

Sometimes, I load up Desert just to feel it run really smooth.

Get a GTX580, then you get returns for your money. Simples. :P

I ran 2 GTX285s in Sli, watercooled and overclocked and just one of my 580s pisses all over them and with two of them........................

Well I leave it to your imagination, but I never had to use vsynch in Arma 2 before.

I do hope it is well optimised and there are plenty of GFX options so all and sunder can play though.

[Primarch 10]

Get a GTX580, then you get returns for your money. Simples. :P

I ran 2 GTX285s in Sli, watercooled and overclocked and just one of my 580s pisses all over them and with two of them........................

Well I leave it to your imagination, but I never had to use vsynch in Arma 2 before.

I do hope it is well optimised and there are plenty of GFX options so all and sunder can play though.

How does it feel like to know already that the next generation of GPU cards has a GPU that will beat your GPU with a lower power consumption and a price? GTX 480 vs GTX 560 for an example. There will be no problem running the game from the GPU viewpoint next year. The CPU is something that will hinder but they will bet better too as the bulldozer comes out this summer and breathes life to competition.

[crazyrobban 10]

Decided it might be time to upgrade my gfx card, so I started looking...

The higher end versions of gtx580 is equal to one and half month's rent!

Sweet jebus...

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Go for an overclocked version of the GTX570, almost same performance for less money. If you overclock it yourself you can safe even more, but then you take all the risk if it goes tits up.

Ppl with an i7 and a GTX280 have no idea what they're missing tbh, ArmA2 needs a perfectly balanced system to run good. CoD or BC2 won't show you if you have a bottleneck in your system, but ArmA2 does.

I can honestly say that going from a GTX260 to a GTX460 to a GTX570 to a OC GTX570 always gave me more fps. ArmA2 is not solely CPU-bound.

Also, an SSD is needed too and i think most ppl diss the idea of buying that 'just' for ArmA2 (since COD or BC2 doesnt need an SSD).

Balance your system and ArmA2 rewards you for it. Also: don't kill the messenger. Don't blame ArmA2 for showing you the problems.

Edited May 27, 2011 by ])rStrangelove

[liquidpinky 11]

How does it feel like to know already that the next generation of GPU cards has a GPU that will beat your GPU with a lower power consumption and a price? GTX 480 vs GTX 560 for an example. There will be no problem running the game from the GPU viewpoint next year. The CPU is something that will hinder but they will bet better too as the bulldozer comes out this summer and breathes life to competition.

Deosn't bother me as it is inevitable, same with all tech really. As soon as you buy it becomes obsolete.

Power consumption wise I really couldn't give a flying ****, I don't have kids to worry about and Polar Bears are stinky nasty bastards who deserve to die. Drowning is too good for them.

I relish the updates in GPU's I hate people who hang on to ancient tech and slow down the progression of games.

I would go as far to say I hope everyone has to buy new gear to play A3, but I am not actually a selfish prick and would like everyone to be able to play it at an enjoyable level.

[Laqueesha 474]

)rStrangelove;1939287']Go for an overclocked version of the GTX570' date=' almost same performance for less money. If you overclock it yourself you can safe even more, but then you take all the risk if it goes tits up.[/quote']

What about the NVIDIA GTX 560 TI? I am seriously considering upgrading to that as a replacement GPU for my GTX 460; the GTX 560 TI is the most powerful GPU I can go without getting a new PSU (currently at 500w).

[Kirq 0]

I fully agree with OP. While I love Arma series, random FPS drops and weird mouse lag were always stoping me from fully enjoying those amazing games. And please don't tell me that it's something with my PC because I went through 3 diferent rigs since Arma 1, and no single Arma title ran really smooth on any of my rigs. IMO all arma titles were poorly optimized. I remeber that Arma2 worked on my previous rig with 15-50 FPS no matter if I set it on low or high, is it good optimization Guys? But I also have to admit that Arma2 works better than Arma 1 and Arrowhead works better than Arma 2, so there is a hope that Arma 3 will run even better.

I also don't understand this weird defenciveness coming from some Arma fans. "It runs bad but it's so huge and complicated, so live with it!" or "It runs great, just buy a 3000$ PC!". Don't You Guys wana enjoy it with decent FPS without buying a top high-end PC? I believe it's possible, BIS just have to change/modify engine and work a little bit harder on optimization.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

What about the NVIDIA GTX 560 TI? I am seriously considering upgrading to that as a replacement GPU for my GTX 460; the GTX 560 TI is the most powerful GPU I can go without getting a new PSU (currently at 500w).

Lets see.

        GTX460  GTX560  GTX570
Power 100%      118%     122%
Speed 100%      140%     157%

I'd say they consume about the same power, but the fps gain is significant (should be in ArmA2).

Although if you fear about 500W not being enough, it would be about time to get 700W anyway since running a PSU at its peak all the time isnt advisable.

[Primarch 10]

What about the NVIDIA GTX 560 TI? I am seriously considering upgrading to that as a replacement GPU for my GTX 460; the GTX 560 TI is the most powerful GPU I can go without getting a new PSU (currently at 500w).

You should be able to run most GPUs without problem with a 500w PSU, if you haven't got ancient hardware. Considering you are upgrading to a 560 you shouldn't have got some 140w CPU and so on. You should be able to run 6970 and a 570. Although if you wish to SLI or Xfire you need to get a 750W.

---------- Post added at 09:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------

Deosn't bother me as it is inevitable, same with all tech really. As soon as you buy it becomes obsolete.

Power consumption wise I really couldn't give a flying ****, I don't have kids to worry about and Polar Bears are stinky nasty bastards who deserve to die. Drowning is too good for them.

I relish the updates in GPU's I hate people who hang on to ancient tech and slow down the progression of games.

I would go as far to say I hope everyone has to buy new gear to play A3, but I am not actually a selfish prick and would like everyone to be able to play it at an enjoyable level.

You MUST buy the next generation gear to play A3 at an enjoyable level from what it seems.

[Laqueesha 474]

You should be able to run most GPUs without problem with a 500w PSU, if you haven't got ancient hardware. Considering you are upgrading to a 560 you shouldn't have got some 140w CPU and so on. You should be able to run 6970 and a 570. Although if you wish to SLI or Xfire you need to get a 750W.

I have a 500W PSU. Is it advisable to run a GPU that requires power higher than your current PSU?

[maddogx 13]

The maximum power a single card should draw (according to the PCIe spec) is 300W.

Up to 75W from the slot, 75W from any 6-pin plugs and 150W from an 8-pin plug.

If the card you're getting requires more than one 6-pin cable from the PSU, I would recommend upgrading to a 700W PSU.

[liquidpinky 11]

You MUST buy the next generation gear to play A3 at an enjoyable level from what it seems.

Probably, it is the convincing Mrs Liquid that this the case that is the real problem. ;)

Also, the updated GPUS may consume less power but fook me them 580s pump out way more heat than the 285s. I am tempted to now run a heat echanger to my home's heating from them instead of just PC radiators.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

The 570 needs 2 6-pin plugs btw.

[Laqueesha 474]

Looks like I will be upgrading from a 500W to an 800W PSU; thanks for your advice, mates. Here's hoping I know how to install the bloody thing. ;)

GPU in mind: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/NVIDIA+-+GeForce+GTX+560+Ti+1GB+GDDR5+PCI+Express+2.0+Graphics+Card/2146823.p?id=1218312181329&skuId=2146823

PSU in mind: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Corsair+-+Gaming+Series+800-Watt+ATX+CPU+Power+Supply/1073715.p?id=1218217267478&skuId=1073715

So, what about it? Are these good choices?

EDIT: Since I'm getting a new PSU, I'm considering getting an even more powerful GPU than the GTX 560 Ti. Currently thinking about the GTX 570.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Laqueesha

[-)rStrangelove 0]

PNY - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 1.25GB GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 Graphics Card

comes at 357 , cant you fork out 20 more?

[Laqueesha 474]

)rStrangelove;1939366']PNY - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 1.25GB GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 Graphics Card

comes at 357 ' date=' cant you fork out 20 more?[/quote']

I have roughly $510.00 USD cash to spend. Sales/consumption tax is six percent. Please keep in mind that I'm not going to be purchasing these over the internet but rather in person at the establishment. PSU is set in stone, GPU is still being considered. Cheers.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Laqueesha

[crazyrobban 10]

Smack!

Back at the office with a GTX 560 Ti.

Specs are about the double of what I have at home now.

Can't wait to get home and connect this new beast! :)

[Leon86 13]

this topic is completely derailed

[Primarch 10]

this topic is completely derailed

No, we are talking about how to "optimize" the game. Buy a new computer.

---------- Post added at 01:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------

Probably, it is the convincing Mrs Liquid that this the case that is the real problem. ;)

Also, the updated GPUS may consume less power but fook me them 580s pump out way more heat than the 285s. I am tempted to now run a heat echanger to my home's heating from them instead of just PC radiators.

Do you wish to try getting the same performance out of the 285's than the GTX 580's? Nah, what I mean is that the performance-power-heat ratio is increasing exponentially.

[Maio 293]

A small note :

A 300 -330 ( I cant remember the exact sum ) euro upgrade got me from a 25-28 FPS to 40-45 FPS .

I changed my mobo , cpu , ram , DVD-RW and headset ( the last 2 are not crucial ) .

Old cpu : x2 athlon at 2.8 --- new x4 955 Pheno at 3.2

mobo : gigabyte S series (something from 2006 ) --- new gigabyte 770T

ram : 4 GB ddr 2 at 800 ---- 4 GB ddr 3 at 1333

Before this I upgraded my GPU and PSU but I got a minor FPS increase (around 5 or so ... )

That budget 300'ish upgrade made all the difference .

So if you are planing to upgrade focus on CPU, mobo and RAM and you will get past some of the "optimization" problems .

Edited May 27, 2011 by Maio

[Flogger23m 2]

Ouch!!

Specs?

AMD 965

4GB PC2 6400

GTX 260 Super Clocked

Vista 64bit

Sadly, the trees and now smoke kill the frame rates so much. If it wasn't for those two damn thing I could probably get a good 30-40 frame rates in very large battles with the settings almost maxed out. :p

[max power 21]

Call it what you want, but a simple tree degrading that much performance can't be normal.

Like wise, after turning back some settings, now smoke effects cause serious performance degradation. I used to run it fine with lots of smoke grenades going off, now a single one will drop my frame rates from 60 to 10.

Running betas?

[pathetic_berserker 4]

No bitchn' without posting specs and settings.

Posts about fps drop are useless without further information. May also help to note what you are expecting to get performance wise

And blanket claims that A2 is not properly optimised are garbage. There are enough folks here happy with what they get out of the game.

PS does this thread actually belong in an A3 forum. We only have A2 to bitch about and there are other places for that. So how can anybody talk sense about a game that isnt released.

[MulleDK19 21]

Then every single FPS guide or link on Google must be wrong...

I only assumed that most people agreed that ArmA 2 runs worse than it should, at least with all the people I've talked to.

It's very well optimized. Not Bohemia's fault that you think your hardware specs are sufficient.

You obviously have no idea about the resolution of the textures, terrain details, etc. in this game, when you crank it to the max. Not to mention the hundreds of objects, bushes, trees, roads, buildings and power lines leading to millions of objects.

And that's excluding the rendering of characters, vehicles, vehicle simulation, handling of character movements, the sound system, the AI, the weather and ballistics.

[Steakslim 1]

There's also the issue of possible bottlenecks in your hardware. I know my cpu at stock will bottleneck my gpu (i do plan on upgrading from my q6600 to a new sandy bridge cpu sometime after the new year :D ), and so I just overclock it a little to loosen it up a bit. ArmA2 and a few others run quite smooth afterwards. There was also the issue with Vista and the 30fps cap in ArmA2 that I never did figure out and run Windows 7 now anways. I chalk that one up to Vista just being...Vista. Funny that ArmA2 has a way of exposing slight issues with my PC that requires a bit of fine tuning that I wouldn't have noticed in other games.