Very disappointing FPS on Sandy Bridge

[Derbysieger 11]

I really wouldn't worry too much about the graphicscard. Update your drivers and then report back.

My HD4870 is slower than the GTX285 and TKOH runs great.

The old 32Bit OS could also be a bottleneck but first update the drivers

[MD500Enthusiast 10]

someone else recently had this same problem as you, he also used a very similary card the nvidia 275 or something and he upgraded to a 460 i think and problems solved.

[Axelb9 10]

-I'd change to 64 bit as depending on your Mobo -you may only be using 2.7 gigs of that ram on XP32.

-Ram is dirt cheap so pick up another 4 gigs.

-Grab a 560 ti.

:)

Fair suggestions although the RAM and OS issue could hardly cause this. The available RAM is more than enough for this game and it is a 32 biot application. It really does not need more RAM to increase FPS. If RAM is an issue it causes an OOM error and not an FPS drop or jerkyness.

Fair suggestion about the vidcard but I am not convinced as there was anothe poster here who has a weaker videocard and runs higher settings with more FPS. It will be a challenging ride to root this out thats for sure. I will need to run some synthetic benchmarks to see if my build is actually performing as it should be or not I guess. But first the driver change...

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:32 PM ----------

someone else recently had this same problem as you, he also used a very similary card the nvidia 275 or something and he upgraded to a 460 i think and problems solved.

Really? I looked up all the posts but could not find any similar. Would be happy to find the reference.

Thanks!

---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

I really wouldn't worry too much about the graphicscard. Update your drivers and then report back.

My HD4870 is slower than the GTX285 and TKOH runs great.

The old 32Bit OS could also be a bottleneck but first update the drivers

Will do. First I need to find out what drivers people use for the GTX285 nowadays...

[MD500Enthusiast 10]

so here's the thread, apparently he was using some other video card than the one i wrote

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=126674

there's a thread within that thread you might want to look at too.

[sickboy 13]

Will do. First I need to find out what drivers people use for the GTX285 nowadays...

The latest :)

[lb8068 10]

I run a sandy bridge 2500, and I get around 30-40fps...

[sickboy 13]

You also run a Nvidia GTX560 Ti with about 4 times the power of a GTX 285 :D

[Axelb9 10]

I run a sandy bridge 2500, and I get around 30-40fps...

Using which videocard?

Thx,

Alex

Edit: Ok I see - have not opened the spoiler first. Would have been surprised if you had a card like mine and ran the thing at fps. Apparently this game is a lot more GPU intensive than either FSX or Xplane that seems to be the case.

[cm. 10]

stop wasting valuable time posting when you could be updating your video drivers :)

[liquidpinky 11]

A2 has already been proven to run better with an SSD, ToH is the same engine with more candy thrown in.

I personally ran Sli 285s and they were well overclocked too, but at the end of the day they couldn't cut it with Arma any more.

The difference with the 580s is pretty much double performance in game and the settings are now screwed through the roof as well.

Get a card with a minimum of 1.5GB memory and more if you can afford it.

[scruffy 21]

When Arma 2 was released I upgraded my PC and nearly bought a GTX275. But the first benchmarks showed a Radeon 4890 beating even the GTX285 and a Radeon 4870 came close. That benchmark already used a newer driver version, so that should be at least a part of the problem. Later the Nvidia cards gained some speed with newer drivers, but I think Arma still is one of the games that swings a bit to the Radeon side on otherwise comparable cards. And it's way harder on the GPU than the FSX is ;)

My SSD is too small to fit TKOH besides Windows and Arma, but the difference when switching Arma over from the Velociraptor was easily noticeable. I guess Take on could gain even more than Arma, as you normally want more view distance here. Though not mandatory it's definitely something to keep in the back of your head for an upgrade. (Does anyone know another game that profits as much from an SSD? Apart from loading times. Maybe FSX with large scenery addons or Tileproxy)

Easy test how much your GPU limits: Disable PostProcessing and AA and put your 3D resolution to 50%. That should roughly show what the CPU can handle, and you can check if streaming is a problem by watching the time the better LODs need to load. If it's a lot faster with halfed view distance your system is struggling.

[binkster 0]

I have a gtx 285 and no problems. q9650 too. Old Graphics and processor. Most settings on normal and a couple on high and I think I run 30 to 40s. I would have to check to be sure though.

[jumpinghubert 48]

some toh settings are gpu intensive, some cpu intensive. Try lowering postprocessing and similar settings.

[Axelb9 10]

Yeah yeah yeah... lower this and that. I have included in earlier posts what modifications I made on the settings and what I have should be perfectly reasonable.

I have upgraded the driver to the most recent one and it only yielded 3-4 frames extra - frames most of the time are still under 20 and the game is unplayable. As my videocard is above the recommended card types in performance I believe there is nothing more I can do.

As this is a brand new build I have installed Xplane to test the performance and sure enough framerates are in the sky. There is a giant leap in performance compared to my old I7-940 @ 3,8 Ghz. Let's face it this game is way more GPU intensive then advertised. I will put this away and wait until I decide to buy a new card and sim the Dreamfoil R22 in Xplane instead which is absolutely amazing. Maybe in the meantime the game gets added a few patches here and there also.

Thanks for all the comments and help. I really wanted to play with this but buying a brand new vga card just for this when basically no other game or sim taht I use would require that purchase is a bit over the top for me.

Thanks,

Alex

Edited November 10, 2011 by Axelb9

[Derbysieger 11]

Can you post a screenshot of your graphicsettings (use FRAPS or steam) and post your TakeOnH.cfg (you can find it under Documents/Take On Helicopters)?

In case you are wondering here is an example of how TKOH runs on my system:

Keep in mind that FRAPS reduces performance by 5-10fps when I record.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Derbysieger

[jumpinghubert 48]

yes, to discuss about lack of fps without posting COMPLETE graphic settings isn´t very helpful.

[sickboy 13]

Perhaps useful to check http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=127363

[Xptical 10]

A2 has already been proven to run better with an SSD, ToH is the same engine with more candy thrown in.

I personally ran Sli 285s and they were well overclocked too, but at the end of the day they couldn't cut it with Arma any more.

The difference with the 580s is pretty much double performance in game and the settings are now screwed through the roof as well.

Get a card with a minimum of 1.5GB memory and more if you can afford it.

120GB Intel SSD here. FPS isn't any better, loading times are *slightly* reduced.

My guess is that the game uses a lot of compressed data on the hard drive. The loading times are due to the CPU decompressing data and dumping it to memory; they have little to do with actual HD transfer rates...

[Derbysieger 11]

@Xptical:

No one said fps were better with a SSD. The point is that performance is vastly improved. On a normal HDD you often get small stutter without actually loosing any fps. Especially when you turn the head very fast or when you load a map in the beginning of a mission, textures take a few moments to load.

This doesn't happen on a SSD. I'm able to use a much higher visibility in arma 2 without getting problems with stutter or textures not loading (something that constantly happened before I moved Arma 2 to the X25-M) since I installed it on a SSD.

[Axelb9 10]

Can you post a screenshot of your graphicsettings (use FRAPS or steam) and post your TakeOnH.cfg (you can find it under Documents/Take On Helicopters)?

In case you are wondering here is an example of how TKOH runs on my system:

Keep in mind that FRAPS reduces performance by 5-10fps when I record.

Here you go - this gives 14-15 fps on a 4.5Ghz system.

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:35 PM ----------

I have a gtx 285 and no problems. q9650 too. Old Graphics and processor. Most settings on normal and a couple on high and I think I run 30 to 40s. I would have to check to be sure though.

If I put everything on normal except for post processing on low and maybe texture quality on very high or high I also reach 30+fps. I guess it is object detail on very high that totally kills my fps. So the frames are OK on everything on normal but the image quality is quite rubbish.

Thanks for this comparison exercise - helped me a lot.

[bobocz 10]

Here you go - this gives 14-15 fps on a 4.5Ghz system.

.....

If I put everything on normal except for post processing on low and maybe texture quality on very high or high I also reach 30+fps. I guess it is object detail on very high that totally kills my fps. So the frames are OK on everything on normal but the image quality is quite rubbish.

Thanks for this comparison exercise - helped me a lot.

What is your graphic card, have you got last driver?

Try lower resolution so that you can see if you are gpu limited, or your cpu is overheating and throttling.

Do you have sandybridge/westmere cpu(i5/i7) or older like core duo/quad cpu?

I have same cpu (not sure what you really have?) and with same settings fps rarely goes under 24. I have a little bit lower object view distance, but your settings give me only -1 fps in some situation, not -10 fps.

Edited November 13, 2011 by BoboCZ

[Axelb9 10]

Sorry mate every single bit of info you ask is in the original first post of this thread. For the sake of others I am not repeating. I now have the lastest drivers too. The difference is that you have a 5 series Nvidia card while I only have the 285GTX.

Thanks,

Alex

[binkster 0]

Sorry mate every single bit of info you ask is in the original first post of this thread. For the sake of others I am not repeating. I now have the lastest drivers too. The difference is that you have a 5 series Nvidia card while I only have the 285GTX.

Thanks,

Alex

Something else is going on cause I own a gtx 285 and my fps is fine.

[Axelb9 10]

Something else is going on cause I own a gtx 285 and my fps is fine.

In an earlier post you wrote that most settings are on normal for you. I checked and if I out everything on normal my fps is between 30 and 40 as well. The image quality is crap though.

[jumpinghubert 48]

try to lower object view distance