Low Frames Per Second FPS with multiple video card combos. What is ur GPU usage poll

[Stryker7314 1]

In my pursuit of maximum performance from ARMA 2 OA I have tried three high end video card configurations in order to improve my fps. All three video card configurations ran at approximately 50-60% gpu utilization. I am playing online on 50 player maps. Is there a reason for this? I still have all the video cards so I can test suggestions. I have looked through the forums and other threads don't have any useful conclusive data on how to fix this problem, but it does seem to be a major problem for many. I would appreciate if a developer could chime in and let us all know what the problem is, and when it will be fixed.

My base rig consists of the following.

2500k @ 4.8Ghz

8GB DDR3 memory

Samsung 830 SSD

Graphics Cofigurations tried

Single 7970

7970 Crossfire

GTX 680

BTW, my cpu is never above 70% in game, so it's not the bottleneck.

[[frl]myke 15]

BTW, my cpu is never above 70% in game, so it's not the bottleneck.

Believe it or not, it is. Although ArmA 2 is multithreaded programmed, often enough one (or more) thread(s) have to wait for data from other threads. A waiting thread equals 0% activity. That said, although the CPU is not busy 100%, it can't deliver the required data to keep the GPU running at 100%.

A bit more info about your tests would be very welcome: what ingame graphic settings did you tested (screen resolutions, 3D resolutions, AA, AF and so on)? What were the results in FPS and GPU load with different settings?

Also remember, in MP the viewdistance is usually dictated by the server so your PC might not run at it's full capacity.

[Leon86 13]

70% is high cpu utilisation, you're cpu bottlenecked for sure.

if you really want a high gpu utilisation, put 3d res on 3840x2160, that'll "fix" it.

as for my gpu utilisation it varies between 30 and 100% depending on where I am on the map (trees are gpu heavy and light on cpu) and what's going on around me.

[Stryker7314 1]

Myke;2154525']Believe it or not' date=' it is. Although ArmA 2 is multithreaded programmed, often enough one (or more) thread(s) have to wait for data from other threads. A waiting thread equals 0% activity. That said, although the CPU is not busy 100%, it can't deliver the required data to keep the GPU running at 100%.

A bit more info about your tests would be very welcome: what ingame graphic settings did you tested (screen resolutions, 3D resolutions, AA, AF and so on)? What were the results in FPS and GPU load with different settings?

Also remember, in MP the viewdistance is usually dictated by the server so your PC might not run at it's full capacity.[/quote']

It's not the cpu, I have tried with the lowest settings, and the highest and everything in between. Also, a well coded program allows 100% cpu usage, for example other games such as BF3 that is miles ahead in visuals and amount of information processed runs all my cores at 100% , all the time and it uses 2gb of video memory, while Arma 2 uses 800mb. It is a problem with the game.

Bottom line, instead of blaming hardware that is capable of running multiple instances of this game without a problem, something needs to be done about such poor performance due to the software/coding side of the game.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Stryker7314

[max power 21]

Yeah, that's right. It's not your hardware, it's the program. I guess there's no helping you then. Shall I close the thread? Believe it or not, the community has actually done CPU usage studies before, in the three years since ArmA 2 came out, and before that for ArmA 1. The developers have commented on the hardware usage of ArmA. If you're not going to take the troubleshooting advice, there's no reason to keep the thread open. To find out more about ArmA 2 vs. hardware, you can search for threads already established.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Max Power

[[frl]myke 15]

Also, a well coded program allows 100% cpu usage,

Plain wrong. It heavily depends on the type of processing that has to be done.

for example other games such as BF3 that is miles ahead in visuals and amount of information processed

I'm curious: how do you know what amount of data is processed in BF3 compared to A2? Care to elaborate?

Also, ArmA 2 is not BF3. Just because in both you can fire weapons doesn't mean that they have the same calculations to do.

Bottom line, instead of blaming hardware that is capable of running multiple instances of this game without a problem, something needs to be done about such poor performance due to the software/coding side of the game.

Bottom line, instead of blaming a highly versatile which is capable of processing a 225squarekm large area simulanously, something needs to be done about such a ignorance due to lack of knowledge of the user.

If you really want some help, let me quote myself from my previous post:

A bit more info about your tests would be very welcome: what ingame graphic settings did you tested (screen resolutions, 3D resolutions, AA, AF and so on)? What were the results in FPS and GPU load with different settings?

[Stryker7314 1]

Wow, such unprofessional behavior by moderators on what is supposed to be a legit forum is laughable. Have a good day, and keep making excuses for the poor performance because devs are too lazy to fix.

[Leon86 13]

It's only because you're acting like an idiot.

comparing to battlefield 3 is ridiculous, smaller maps, dx11 api only, anything beyond play area looks like shit, barely any ballistics, clientside hit detection, etc. Besides, arma 2 is a game from 2009, a year before bad company 2. Scaling well to 3 cores is actually quite impressive for such an old game.

[max power 21]

Stryker7314

You obviously have no inclination to help yourself solve your problem. Thread closed :)