Arma 3 && Multithreading!!

[SnowSky 12]

SQF is extremely primitive, it reminds me of old formatting languages for word processors. And yes, it does run like utter shit because the developers have no idea how to write a multithreaded engine, and they won't because they don't want to take the monetary risk at pleasing their userbase.'

So no, its not god damn fluent when it should be because it does not scale properly. I'd probably get the same performance disabling all my cores but 3. ....

What is SQF related to the engine in this sense? btw. they are trying to switch the scripting language - but thats by the way.

Because it doesn't scale properly, it isn't fluent? I won't bet that BF3 will still use every core so "perfect multi-threaded" in 5 years running on a top system at that time.

I guess we will see that also there not everything gets fully used anymore (which is good - otherwise it would mean technology stopped becoming better).

...Here is a hint, instead of side tracking because you don't understand one extremely minor comparison that isn't even relevant to the main argument you could have gone on about something more important. ...

Are you becoming personal? If so - stop it please.

[mr.g-c 6]

I bet you $10 that they will not scale the really consuming things such as AI [...] onto other threads and I will still get the same CPU bottleneck I should not be getting.

Why should it anyway? The AI is said to be not improved significantly - OA latest beta patch state.

[rufor 1]

Why should it anyway? The AI is said to be not improved significantly - OA latest beta patch state.

Because if its still focused onto one core its crap.

What is SQF related to the engine in this sense? btw. they are trying to switch the scripting language - but thats by the way.

Because it doesn't scale properly, it isn't fluent? I won't bet that BF3 will still use every core so "perfect multi-threaded" in 5 years running on a top system at that time.

I guess we will see that also there not everything gets fully used anymore (which is good - otherwise it would mean technology stopped becoming better).

Are you becoming personal? If so - stop it please.

It can and it does, because it scales VERY well. Unlike ArmA. And yes SQF is related to the slow speed of scripts. In my opinion its best to the way Valve setup their SDK, they opensourced part of the engine for modification, HEAVILY documented it. Thus, everything is written in C++ and runs fast. However, that might not be modder friendly so Lua is still the better solution when it comes to something like arma.

Edited October 17, 2012 by rufor

[maddogx 13]

...I will still get the same CPU bottleneck I should not be getting.

So you say the CPU is bottlenecking... just out of curiosity, do you get better framerates at lower resolutions? Or are your fps the same no matter if you're playing at 1080p or 720p, for example?

[Vixente 10]

I see that a lot of people thinks multithreading (mt) is something magic that makes your game run 12731695763493 fps faster. Wrong.

If they were to know that it's not that simple to code just a simple mt app that has a considerable amount of data to manage... Even when you know your program and how to code with mt in mind, you have to be very specific and even very careful in the way or where you want mt to be used . I have done some small apps mt programming and managed to goof very easily just by not managing well my variables/objetcs/data. I can't even fathom the complexity that this awesome game (Arma) has... Overwhelming.

Apart from the difficulty of 'mt-ing' correctly, seeing a process using 4 cores at 100% and thinking 'wow, this is just very optimized', it's just bullshit. It may mean that there is something very wrong with that program. Or that there is excess overhead of threads exchanging data/locks/control/whatever.

I haven't ( and will not, after Arma all other FPS are too arcadish ) played BF3, but if it truly sets your cores to 100% all the time and the computer runs smoothly, good for you/them. That clearly means a job well done, i guess. But please, don't compare that AI-less-small-maps-arcade-multiplayer-FPS game with the almighty Arma, military simulator FPS. :P

P.S: I do agree that, as any type of software, Arma needs (and will have) constant improvements to run smoothly. I don't doubt it'll have them. Props to BI devs for that.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Vixente

[rufor 1]

I see that a lot of people thinks multithreading (mt) is something magic that makes your game run 12731695763493 fps faster. Wrong.

If they were to know that it's not that simple to code just a simple mt app that has a considerable amount of data to manage... Even when you know your program and how to code with mt in mind, you have to be very specific and even very careful in the way or where you want mt to be used . I have done some small apps mt programming and managed to goof very easily just by not managing well my variables/objetcs/data. I can't even fathom the complexity that this awesome game (Arma) has... Overwhelming.

Apart from the difficulty of 'mt-ing' correctly, seeing a process using 4 cores at 100% and thinking 'wow, this is just very optimized', it's just bullshit. It may mean that there is something very wrong with that program. Or that there is excess overhead of threads exchanging data/locks/control/whatever.

I haven't ( and will not, after Arma all other FPS are too arcadish ) played BF3, but if it truly sets your cores to 100% all the time and the computer runs smoothly, good for you/them. That clearly means a job well done, i guess. But please, don't compare that AI-less-small-maps-arcade-multiplayer-FPS game with the almighty Arma, military simulator FPS. :P

P.S: I do agree that, as any type of software, Arma needs (and will have) constant improvements to run smoothly. I don't doubt it'll have them. Props to BI devs for that.

Each to their own, I like to have some arcade style fun but I also play sims such as IL-2, Lock On and ArmA.

Anyways, I'm not saying locking every single thread up is a good idea. I was simply referring to Frostbyte 2's scaling capability compared to ArmA's. But yeah.. if ArmA scaled well over multiple cores I would have a massive FPS increase. Because at the moment one of my cores is locked to near 100% utilization when playing warfare and that is inefficient considering the amount of stuff that happens in a Warfare game at any given time and all of ArmA's simulations. I personally would prefer ArmA scale over all of my cores properly.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

rufor your argument seems completely rutted.

You seem to have some difficulty seeing that that the way the cores are use has more to do with the requirements of the game than the outcome of your experience.

How about you post your specs and setting so you can get some help with your perfomance issues instead of this "I'm not listening, coz I gota whinge in my bonnet" attitude

Im my experience BF3 doesn't use any more than 4 cores, A3 will concentrate on 1 or 2 but get some use out of 5 maybe 6. But I still find it irrelevant because BF3 is a completely different type of gaming experience, in terms of scope it has nothing on Arma whatever the engine.

[mach2infinity 12]

So what's the consensus here about the most likely bottleneck for ArmA? Usually it's the CPU's core speed right?

Am I right in saying that the devs do not feel the games in the past and possibly in the future (ArmA 3) does not justify the use of using over a certain number of cores (3/6)?

[rufor 1]

rufor your argument seems completely rutted.

You seem to have some difficulty seeing that that the way the cores are use has more to do with the requirements of the game than the outcome of your experience.

How about you post your specs and setting so you can get some help with your perfomance issues instead of this "I'm not listening, coz I gota whinge in my bonnet" attitude

Im my experience BF3 doesn't use any more than 4 cores, A3 will concentrate on 1 or 2 but get some use out of 5 maybe 6. But I still find it irrelevant because BF3 is a completely different type of gaming experience, in terms of scope it has nothing on Arma whatever the engine.

Well I disagree completely. ArmA3 should scale per number of CPU cores available.

Frostbyte 2's CPU scaling, keep in mind I'm not doing anything I have it in window mode while I'm taking a screenshot of the cpu usage graphs.

That is scaling.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

So what's the consensus here about the most likely bottleneck for ArmA? Usually it's the CPU's core speed right?

Am I right in saying that the devs do not feel the games in the past and possibly in the future (ArmA 3) does not justify the use of using over a certain number of cores (3/6)?

Actually the most likely bottleneck for ArmA is in a word everything. But in a good way because the limits of graphics, view distance and numbers of AI are so high with the RV engine it is reletively easy for people to push settings beyond thier machine limits. And then complain because they don't know what they are playing with.

Second the devs have already stated that they will always be looking at ways of improving the way any number of cores are used, check the dev replies in the first few pages of the thread.

[batto 17]

Well I disagree completely. ArmA3 should scale per number of CPU cores available.

Frostbyte 2's CPU scaling, keep in mind I'm not doing anything I have it in window mode while I'm taking a screenshot of the cpu usage graphs.

http://i.imgur.com/EQ2T4.png

That is scaling.

What processor?

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Well I disagree completely. ArmA3 should scale per number of CPU cores available.

Frostbyte 2's CPU scaling, keep in mind I'm not doing anything I have it in window mode while I'm taking a screenshot of the cpu usage graphs.

http://i.imgur.com/EQ2T4.png

That is scaling.

Frostbite2 or BF3's interpretation of it? If your only purpose here is to sell frostbite 2 then say so, but I find it a bit OT.

Still the scaling is just an effect of the questions the game is asking, in FB2's case a lot of rendering eyecandy stuff that didn't exactly make BF3 a standout gaming experience for my money.

And still no specs and settings?

[batto 17]

And still no specs and settings?

Doesn't matter. It seems like there is currently no 8-core desktop processor.

rufor, your lame rant is driven purely by fetish for IT buzzwords like "scaling" (fresh one) while you have no idea what are you talking about. Go read thread from beginning to figure why.

[rufor 1]

Doesn't matter. It seems like there is currently no 8-core desktop processor.

rufor, your lame rant is driven purely by fetish for IT buzzwords like "scaling" (fresh one) while you have no idea what are you talking about. Go read thread from beginning to figure why.

Ahaha, if you really want to say Zambezi isn't a proper 8 core processor.. you're very very uninformed. I was waiting for you go smash to your assumptions and say something stupid. Hehe, you're the best!

There are 8 cores in Zambezi, with 4 shared modules containing a FPU and L1 cache each. It is a proper 8 core processor. Now, enough with your stupid Intel fanboy shit and back to the topic at hand. It does not scale as well as other games such as Battlefield 3 and I hope they make RV4 scale properly among 6 core+ processors as that is generally a good thing to do if you want your software to work properly among all systems.

My specs:

XFX, AMD Radeon 6870

AMD Zambezi 8 core, I have each cores clock speed set at 4.45Ghz and the proper voltage for each core. It passes a 6hr Prime95 without a BSOD so my overclock isn't the issue

ASUS Sabertooth 990FX mobo

1TB Seagate disk drive.

2x 64GB SSD's in RAID0.

4x2GB of DDR3-1600 totalling 8GB.

Antec 620HCG.

Edited October 17, 2012 by rufor

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Yeah all of 8 cores yet shown to be out gunned buy intell still

clippity clop!

specs and settings?

Or does the possibitlity of some sound settings advice and a possible improvement in your A2 experience shame your current rant too much.

[batto 17]

Ahaha, if you really want to say Zambezi isn't a proper 8 core processor.. you're very very uninformed. I was waiting for you go smash to your assumptions and say something stupid. Hehe, you're the best!

There are 8 cores in Zambezi, with 4 shared modules containing a FPU and L1 cache each. It is a proper 8 core processor. Now, enough with your stupid Intel fanboy shit and back to the topic at hand. It does not scale as well as other games such as Battlefield 3.

Apologies, didn't know about Zambezi. I'm not Intel fanboi.

[rufor 1]

Yeah all of 8 cores yet shown to be out gunned buy intell still

clippity clop!

specs and settings?

Or does the possibitlity of some sound settings advice and a possible improvement in your A2 experience shame your current rant too much.

Its people like this that piss me off, Zambezi has more potential processing power then any i5 processor out there if utilized properly. See, BF3.. all cores are utilized thus gets better framerate then even high-end i7's while costing about $100. I render HD videos, Zambezi does it in the quickest amount of time, theres a example.

Apologies, didn't know about Zambezi. I'm not Intel fanboi.

Its okay, I thought you were pulling a "herp derp buy intel even though they price gouge all their CPUs" shit like the person I quoted above. Sorry if I came out blunt I thought you were purposely trolling.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Like I said your argument is rutted, you only focus on the fluff you know about or can find some response to, and have refused any assistance to put that knowledge into any sort of context.

My comment was an obvious troll, hence 'clippy clop'

But still you evade posting specs and settings.

I wont presume to able to help you as i'm more the green intel type, but if you find the courage to step forward I'm sure you'll find help.

I'm off to find something ON topic.

[Minoza 11]

Its people like this that piss me off, Zambezi has more potential processing power then any i5 processor out there if utilized properly. See, BF3.. all cores are utilized thus gets better framerate then even high-end i7's while costing about $100. I render HD videos, Zambezi does it in the quickest amount of time, theres a example.

Its okay, I thought you were pulling a "herp derp buy intel even though they price gouge all their CPUs" shit like the person I quoted above. Sorry if I came out blunt I thought you were purposely trolling.

Bolded is simply not true.

[rufor 1]

Like I said your argument is rutted, you only focus on the fluff you know about or can find some response to, and have refused any assistance to put that knowledge into any sort of context.

My comment was an obvious troll, hence 'clippy clop'

But still you evade posting specs and settings.

I wont presume to able to help you as i'm more the green intel type, but if you find the courage to step forward I'm sure you'll find help.

I'm off to find something ON topic.

You know, I did post my specs and trolling isn't really allowed on these forums.

Bolded is simply not true.

It is true ;) Once again, its a software fault if the software can't take advantage of my processing potential.

[Minoza 11]

You know, I did post my specs and trolling isn't really allowed on these forums.

It is true ;) Once again, its a software fault if the software can't take advantage of my processing potential.

Knock yourself out:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

Even i5 kicks the shit out of it, slower here and there with multithreaded apps, but still holding up good. When it comes to rendering pretty much anything, AMD can hide, trust me, been there. If you render stuff, i7 is the way to go, so even if games did make a good use of multithreading, Intel would still be a better option.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Minoza

[rufor 1]

Knock yourself out:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

Even i5 kicks the shit out of it, with multithreaded apps. Your argument is invalid. When it comes to rendering pretty much anything, AMD can hide, trust me, been there.

Thats why you don't run at default clock speeds, and in those benchmarks.. AMD beat out the i5 on all the applications that properly utilize all 8 cores, plus its cheaper. Anyway, this is pretty off topic. The point was ArmA3 better scale properly as more then 6 cores is still the future no matter how efficient your CPU is.

Plus, those benchmarks are most likely pre-windows update that fixed some issues with Bulldozer & Windows. The hardware is fine.

Edited October 18, 2012 by rufor

[Minoza 11]

Well if that's the only point then I agree, but you said Arma 2 scales like crap, which may not necessarily be true, it might be that there is nothing more to offload to CPU, and performance issue may lay somewhere else.

[rufor 1]

Performance could also be bottlenecked by SQF's poor performance, this makes me really hope A3 supports JVM.

[Deadfast 43]

Performance could also be bottlenecked by SQF's poor performance, this makes me really hope A3 supports JVM.

Here we go again. I'm going to assume you at least partially know what you're talking about and that by "poor performance" you mean the scheduler limit. Newsflash, it is there for a reason - to avoid scripts taking a toll on the performance.

I'd suggest that instead of posting here about how to do scaling properly you actually go and try to do some proper scaling yourself. You'll find that concurrent programming is a bit more complicated than creating n threads, where n is the number of CPU cores.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Deadfast