[frl]myke 14 Posted May 20, 2011 Why would you want to keep it in vram at this point? Aren't increasingly common 8-16 GB ram arrays enough? Wasn't this a cause of ARMA 2's poor performance? Hmm...maybe because textures are handled by the GPU so having them as close as possible to it would make some sort of sense? Todays GPU's can handle this load easily, the weak point is still the CPU, which doesn't has any interest of the textures. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wamingo 1 Posted May 21, 2011 but I'd be surprised if ... Having steam, and using steam, are different things. And the survey is opt-in. But I won't dispute that probability. You could imagine the figure for existing arma players to be higher than the mean, even. Perhaps. I stand by my original contention, however, that steam survey doesn't accurately represent potential customers. If you're right, and that a big "if" those people wouldn't be able to run Arma3 anyway, or even Arma2 ... X64 CPUs have been around for quite a while now. Sorry if I misunderstand you, but what is being referred to is the operative system, not the CPUs. ~50% of steam users have a 32bit OS. So they can't run 64bit apps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dunedain 48 Posted May 21, 2011 Ok, my bad then. :rolleyes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Punisher5555 0 Posted May 21, 2011 A similar thing could be accomplished without needing to switch to x64 - arma could have it's own built-in implementation of a ram disk with it's configuration set through the UI. That would be nice but just make the change and be done with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Madus_Maximus 0 Posted May 21, 2011 A similar thing could be accomplished without needing to switch to x64 - arma could have it's own built-in implementation of a ram disk with it's configuration set through the UI.That would be nice but just make the change and be done with it. Wouldn't that involve an OS level work around and rely entirely on how much RAM you have beyond what the game generally needs? The easier option is to just get an SSD. Problem solved. The main issue in performance is down to how fast the stuff can be sent to the GPU and so on, and that bottleneck is 99% of the time the storage device. An SSD will reduce this bottleneck substantially, just like a RAMDISC does, because it's the same concept. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leon86 13 Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) Steam stats are steam users only. Believe it or not, there are many who don't use steam... ... yet. ;) And steam users are among the heavy end of of the enthusiast spectrum, so you can easily imagine the real number of 64bit potential customers is spectacularly lower. aaand I'm not so sure that the switch to 64 bit code is all that big. I think BIS's main worry is that (far) less than 50% users isn't good enough. well, they're forcing you to run windows vista or 7, there's no reason to get a 32 bit version of those os'es, besides the licence isnt fixed on 32 or 64 bit, so you can upgrade for "free". I dont run arma through steam either but I have to have it for gtr evo and the total war series. Edited May 21, 2011 by Leon86 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
