Arma 2: OA: Beta Build 82282 - Memory allocator test

[Alex72 1]

Does this average for the bench marks seem low? I see other people with much faster and many have slower machines.

Here's my specs:

i7 2.93Ghz

Win 7 64

4Gb Ram

ATI 5870 1Gb(newest driver)

Some machines might have lower specs than yours but they might also run the game on lower settings. Not sure of course.

About to test this now.

[todayskiller 10]

Well, Here is what I got from running e08 or w/e. (I'll test in game later on today).

-malloc=0: 37, 37, 39

-malloc=1: 41, 37, 40

-malloc=2: 33, 33, 38

-malloc=3: 40, 42, 39

-malloc=4: keeps CTD, saying Arma 2 REINFORCMENTS has stopped working...(I don't have reinforcments). ???

So, Overall from benchmarking e08 wise, -malloc=3 seems to be the best in FPS wise, with 1 not far behind.

Like I said, I'll test in game later and check performance/smoothness/etc.

[Beagle 684]

Some machines might have lower specs than yours but they might also run the game on lower settings. Not sure of course.

About to test this now.

Some users may tweaked .cfg and command line parameters and in general may have tweaked the PCs to the maximum possible for A2 exclusivly and use "hand picked" hardware only. Most of the gain I have is made in BIOS and I usually unload the complete memory shutting down everything unnecessary to run ArmA including windows explorer. Edited June 28, 2011 by Beagle

[Alex72 1]

E08 Bench:

malloc0= 54fps

malloc1= 54fps

malloc2= 54fps

malloc3= 54fps

malloc4= CTD when entering the menu (just before)

They all seemed to work equally good until i came to nr "4" where it CTD'd (tested a few times, all CTD).

System:

cpu: i7 930 quad

mobo: p6x58d premium

video: hd 6970 2gb

ram: 6gb 1600mhz ddr3

hdd: 500gb wd black

Win7 64bit

Settings:

res: 1920x1080

vmem: default

textures: high

aniso: high

aa: off

terrain: normal

shadows: high

obj.detail: high

hdr: normal

pp: low

viewdistance: 2500

...now back to adding the new SATA3 SSD's :)

[fabrizio_t 58]

I've run the game 1 hour with -malloc=3 and no crashes.

It has been by far my longest session without problems since build 82XXX.

[SaOk 112]

Malloc 3 have worked great so far. No crashing and at the end, I think its as smooth as the previous patch.

I noticed a old bug that seem to happen less likely now, but it still happens sometimes - multiple spawned waypoints for vehicles (especially for tanks) may not always work. The vehicle always moves to first waypoint, but then it may stop at it (or next) and then ingore rest of the waypoints.

Example:

_tg1 = [[10781,9909.01,0], 45, "M1A2_US_TUSK_MG_EP1", WEST] call BIS_fnc_spawnVehicle;
_tg1wp1= (_tg1 select 2) addWaypoint [[10968.8,10697.1,0], 0]; 
_tg1wp2= (_tg1 select 2) addWaypoint [[10544.6,11055.5,0], 0]; 
_tg1wp3= (_tg1 select 2) addWaypoint [[10144.7,11341.1,0], 0];

[demon cleaner 1]

-malloc=0

Benchmark #1 felt smooth

CTD on Benchmark #1 on 2nd run

-malloc=1

Benchmark #1 felt smooth

Benchmark #2 felt smooth

-malloc=2

Benchmark #1 felt a bit sluggish

CTD on Benchmark #1 on 2nd run

-malloc=3

Benchmark #1 felt very smooth

Benchmark #2 felt very smooth

-malloc=4

Benchmark #1 felt very smooth

Benchmark #2 felt a bit sluggish

So I voted for 3

[buehgler_as 0]

I have been able to produce crashes with 4 and 2. Just like everyone else 4 CTD at game start, 2 was non-responsive after ~10 minutes and never came back. FPS performance is essentially equivalent between 0, 1, and 3. However, 1 reliably kept the working set the smallest, closely followed by 0 and 3 always seemed to end up with a significantly larger memory footprint. Based on this my vote is for 1, with the hope that being able to keep the working set smaller means less heap fragmentation and thus reduced chances of out of memory errors.

[OMAC 254]

I have not been getting any CTDs, as I have ATOC set to 0, but I haven't played the beta for very long periods.

Has ANYONE experienced an ACCESS VIOLATION crash upon exiting A2 CO?

That's the only time I get crashes with the latest beta, and with ToH preview.

Also, the uninstaller doesn't work for this beta, as was the case for the last two betas.

[Alex72 1]

Since the beta is installed separately in a folder there is no need for the uninstaller. Just delete the beta folder by hand. The shortcut stay the same and points towards the beta folder even after manual deletion.

Its easy to do it this way as you can call a good beta folder "beta_OLD" and keep it while installing a new. So you dont have to install beta's back and forth.

About to test the beta some more. I only did the benchmark wich doesnt show how it runs a while.

[Zipper5 74]

OMAC - I've been getting ACCESS_VIOLATION crashes launching, exiting and within A2CO with these new betas. You aren't the only one. I don't believe it has anything to do with the Take On Community Preview, as I was getting them before I ever installed it.

[neokika 62]

-malloc=0: 29fps

-malloc=1: 28fps

-malloc=2: 25fps

-malloc=3: 28fps

-malloc=4: Crash

All but 4 seemed pretty stable.

_neo_

[gabe_ruckus 5]

I've got the "cannot find turn.coeff/m119" and other vehicle type errors popping up from the title screen on again. This happens with this beta and the last one, and I can't turn any vehicles in game, nor can the AI. I'm not the only one having this problem, am I?

[OMAC 254]

OMAC - I've been getting ACCESS_VIOLATION crashes launching, exiting and within A2CO with these new betas. You aren't the only one. I don't believe it has anything to do with the Take On Community Preview, as I was getting them before I ever installed it.

Thank heavens, Zipper5. I apologize for harping on this crash - I was worried that I had messed up my settings and/or profile.

You wrote in your other post, "I guess Take On has had the same changes recently which causes these errors." That makes sense to me. I don't understand what you mean by "I don't believe it has anything to do with the Take On Community Preview." I think that the recent OA betas and the ToH preview (beta) have the problems which cause the access violation. Let me know if you disagree.

Alex72,

So the non-functional uninstallers are a new "feature"? Removing (or renaming) the beta folders is easy, but uninstallers are included with the betas - it's a little odd that they don't work now, no?

[Zipper5 74]

Ah, what I meant was I do not believe it was introduced solely by the use of the Take On Community Preview.

[OMAC 254]

Ah, what I meant was I do not believe it was introduced solely by the use of the Take On Community Preview.

Got it. Thanks. I agree.

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

malloc

0 - 48/49 bench e08, no crash

1 - 48/50 bench e08, no crash

2 - 47/48 bench e08, no crash

3 - 39/40 bench 1, 48/50 bench e08, no crash, smooth

4 - 48/crash "reinforcements"

Edited June 29, 2011 by OMAC

[Guess Who 10]

First things first: please excuse the following wall of text.

Did a test run yesterday but didn't have the time to test for stability on the long run; so this is for performance only. First: malloc=4 doesn't work on my system. Arma crashes instantly when loading the menu scene on Desert.

My system:

i7 920 at stock speed (2.66 Ghz) / Intel X58 mainboard

6 GB triple channel 1600 Kingston memory

5870/1GB GPU at stock speed

Samsung SSD 120 GB

Win7 x64 w/SP1

Arma running on mostly very high settings except for HDR and AA on NORMAL and post processing on LOW at 1920x1200.

Frame rate, memory usage and other parameters monitored with ATI Tray Tools.

Test mission (CPU and MEM heavy):

BIs Warfare, personal edit, full scale on Takistan; fixed starting loation west of Loy Manara.

Recruiting 3 guys, calling in helo transportation, helo transfer to north eastern strongpoint of Chardarahkt, jogging down to the city center and finally jogging through the town back west to the western most strongpoint. ALICE, SILVIE and Ambient animals activated.

Observations:

- After mission start and around the base there is not much of a difference between the three options. Frames start at 50 going down to low 20s when activity starts. Only difference is in memory usage: option 0 and 1 start with lower than 600 MB, option 2 starts with over 900 MB and option 3 at 750.

- On the helo transfer passing Loy Manara and Chardarahkt there is a significant drop down in fps to the low 20s in all options except for option 3. With #3 fps stayed in the 30s. Same happens when I got near the town of Chardarahkt, when the civvis in the town are activated (city center is on the eastern outskirts, not in the town!).

- While jogging back west through the town, frame rate drops to the mid 20s in the center an raises again up to mid 30s when leaving town at the west side for all options but #2. Best and most stable frame rate here with option 3. Memory usage for option 0 and 1 was still below 1GB while option 3 was slightly above. With option 2 the memory usage raised above 1.2 GB already in the town; when mem usage got to 1.2 GB the frame rate dropped below 20 to 15 and stayed below 20 for the rest of the test, even when leaving the town.

Conclusion:

The winner is "-malloc=3". Over all best performance, smoothest gameplay and less terrain streaming influence on performance than the others. Imagine me totally surprised that this would have so much influence on performance. Well, after all I'm not a programmer ...

I will take a stability test on the weekend for sure. Normally Warfare crashes for me after 3 to 4 hours of continuous gameplay. After all these years I can even smell it comming! :D

[todayskiller 10]

First things first: please excuse the following wall of text.

Did a test run yesterday but didn't have the time to test for stability on the long run; so this is for performance only. First: malloc=4 doesn't work on my system. Arma crashes instantly when loading the menu scene on Desert.

My system:

i7 920 at stock speed (2.66 Ghz) / Intel X58 mainboard

6 GB triple channel 1600 Kingston memory

5870/1GB GPU at stock speed

Samsung SSD 120 GB

Win7 x64 w/SP1

Arma running on mostly very high settings except for HDR and AA on NORMAL and post processing on LOW at 1920x1200.

Frame rate, memory usage and other parameters monitored with ATI Tray Tools.

Test mission (CPU and MEM heavy):

BIs Warfare, personal edit, full scale on Takistan; fixed starting loation west of Loy Manara.

Recruiting 3 guys, calling in helo transportation, helo transfer to north eastern strongpoint of Chardarahkt, jogging down to the city center and finally jogging through the town back west to the western most strongpoint. ALICE, SILVIE and Ambient animals activated.

Observations:

- After mission start and around the base there is not much of a difference between the three options. Frames start at 50 going down to low 20s when activity starts. Only difference is in memory usage: option 0 and 1 start with lower than 600 MB, option 2 starts with over 900 MB and option 3 at 750.

- On the helo transfer passing Loy Manara and Chardarahkt there is a significant drop down in fps to the low 20s in all options except for option 3. With #3 fps stayed in the 30s. Same happens when I got near the town of Chardarahkt, when the civvis in the town are activated (city center is on the eastern outskirts, not in the town!).

- While jogging back west through the town, frame rate drops to the mid 20s in the center an raises again up to mid 30s when leaving town at the west side for all options but #2. Best and most stable frame rate here with option 3. Memory usage for option 0 and 1 was still below 1GB while option 3 was slightly above. With option 2 the memory usage raised above 1.2 GB already in the town; when mem usage got to 1.2 GB the frame rate dropped below 20 to 15 and stayed below 20 for the rest of the test, even when leaving the town.

Conclusion:

The winner is "-malloc=3". Over all best performance, smoothest gameplay and less terrain streaming influence on performance than the others. Imagine me totally surprised that this would have so much influence on performance. Well, after all I'm not a programmer ...

I will take a stability test on the weekend for sure. Normally Warfare crashes for me after 3 to 4 hours of continuous gameplay. After all these years I can even smell it comming! :D

Just got my test runs done also, pretty much same results (on different maps and what not though)...but yeah, -malloc=3 is the best, stable, smooth, and no CTD's...and steady FPS.

[kremator 1065]

I bet -malloc=3 is what we have at the moment :)

[Steakslim 1]

If that's the case I can see Suma laughing maniacally.

[suma 8]

all we missing now are commandline switches -DirectX/-OpenGL and -xAudio2/-OpenAL :D:cool:

Are you? That is strange, as -openal still works for me (though with some quirks). :j:

[ANZACSAS Steven 395]

These sort of alterations would prolly be well tested on a large to very large terrain with meduim to very high veiwdistances.

These two factors,terrain size and viewdistance have always been a big challenge

for the Arma engine from way back.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

3 is working the best for me, at this point in time. 4 fails spectacularly.

[ast65 10]

I still get crashes with this beta (ltcmalloc=3) when running custom addons or mods :(

[mr_centipede 31]

I also got best option with malloc=3... though with warFX blastcore, I still got the same crash... before loading mission or after exiting the mission. as for me it was Benchmark 01 in Chernarus