Arma 3 Performance vs. Arma 2

[calin_banc 19]

100% will performance on most computers.

[Neus 11]

I've seen benchmarks where the FX 8350 absolutely crushes the 3570k at Arma 2; just about double the framerate.

I've got the FX 6300 with the MSI N560GTX-Ti HAWK and can play fine on High - Very high settings

[Droikka 1]

I've seen benchmarks where the FX 8350 absolutely crushes the 3570k at Arma 2; just about double the framerate.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/880-13/amd-fx-8350-review-is-amd-back.html

No you have not.

[scaramoosh 10]

I hope one day AMD can compete, their GPUs are good because ATI were great, however their CPUS have been dead since 2006.

[smiley_ie 7]

Let me guess, AMD cpu?

i7 950@4.1 8 gig 1600. GTX680 sig 2

[froggyluv 2130]

I've seen benchmarks where the FX 8350 absolutely crushes the 3570k at Arma 2; just about double the framerate.

Really?? Link?

[Leopardi 0]

not sure why brand has to be apart of this.... lets rephrase that to "not great CPU"... i have an AMD and expect 0 problems compared to my i5 counterparts... if he has an old out dated our mid grade CPU, its going to be the same bottleneck regardless of company

Because even the top tier AMD cpu's like Phenom II X6 1100T have twice less framerate than an i5 2500K in demanding MP missions such as Wasteland. AMD is unplayable at 20fps, Intel is smooth at 40fps+

[calin_banc 19]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1362591/gamegpu-crysis-3-final-gpu-cpu-scaling

AMD CPUs can hold their on ground if the game is programed accordingly with that architecture and it can come equal with the latest i7 CPUs. It's up to Bohemia to do that optimization code along side AMD - not the very best ultra high end i7, but still a good choice.

[Pyrophosphate 1]

http://www.behardware.com/articles/880-13/amd-fx-8350-review-is-amd-back.html

No you have not.

Indeed I have.

Really?? Link?

(Arma 2 is shown at 7:14)

The folks who made that video applied some hotfixes made by Microsoft but never released as an official update which supposedly makes task scheduling for AMD processors as smart as it is for Intel CPUs with hyper-threading. That's what they think makes up the difference in performance between their video and a lot of the other benchmarks out there.

[k3lt 3]

Interesting, anyway for the lazy here are the 2 hotfixes:

https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fhotfixv4.microsoft.com%2FWindows%25207%2FWindows%2520Server2008%2520R2%2520SP1%2Fsp2%2FFix387870%2F7600%2Ffree%2F441065_intl_x64_zip.exe&session_token=D1AUqYpsPa10U1IYZ9sJbikZ50l8MTM2MjQzMjk1NUAxMzYyNDE4NTU1

https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fhotfixv4.microsoft.com%2FWindows%25207%2FWindows%2520Server2008%2520R2%2520SP1%2Fsp2%2FFix391262%2F7600%2Ffree%2F441280_intl_x64_zip.exe&session_token=D1AUqYpsPa10U1IYZ9sJbikZ50l8MTM2MjQzMjk1NUAxMzYyNDE4NTU1

Maybe anyone could do some testing?

Edited March 4, 2013 by k3lt

[froggyluv 2130]

Indeed I have.

(Arma 2 is shown at 7:14)

The folks who made that video applied some hotfixes made by Microsoft but never released as an official update which supposedly makes task scheduling for AMD processors as smart as it is for Intel CPUs with hyper-threading. That's what they think makes up the difference in performance between their video and a lot of the other benchmarks out there.

Hmmm, I call bunk on this one :D

There saying one hotfix and now Amd DOUBLES the FPS of Intel for Arma 2........

[Pyrophosphate 1]

Hmmm, I call bunk on this one :D

There saying one hotfix and now Amd DOUBLES the FPS of Intel for Arma 2........

Two hotfixes actually.:)

With hyper-threading, Windows tries to load up all of your physical cores before it fills up the extra logical cores. The hotfixes just do the same thing for AMD processors, which have 8 physical cores, but they're in pairs that share L2 cache and floating-point units, if I'm remembering that correctly. I could see how A, not doing that could choke an otherwise well running game, and B, Intel might have paid up some cash to keep those patches from being distributed as updates, but that's a cynical view, and this isn't the place.

Summary: it could happen.

More on the point, if Arma 3 can make better use of multiple threads, perhaps we i7 users could also get a noticeable boost over our i5 brethren.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Interesting, anyway for the lazy here are the 2 hotfixes:

https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fhotfixv4.microsoft.com%2FWindows%25207%2FWindows%2520Server2008%2520R2%2520SP1%2Fsp2%2FFix387870%2F7600%2Ffree%2F441065_intl_x64_zip.exe&session_token=D1AUqYpsPa10U1IYZ9sJbikZ50l8MTM2MjQzMjk1NUAxMzYyNDE4NTU1

https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fhotfixv4.microsoft.com%2FWindows%25207%2FWindows%2520Server2008%2520R2%2520SP1%2Fsp2%2FFix391262%2F7600%2Ffree%2F441280_intl_x64_zip.exe&session_token=D1AUqYpsPa10U1IYZ9sJbikZ50l8MTM2MjQzMjk1NUAxMzYyNDE4NTU1

Maybe anyone could do some testing?

I just did on a amd phenom 2 x4 955 @3.7ghz.

As far as I can remember my normal benchmark score on benchmark 2 (the ridiculously heavy CPU one) was always 13, and about 12 without overclocking. Now it is 17.

I didn't really expect it to do anything (since I don't have as many cores as the FX8whatever), but I am currently very happy, wether it is because of randomness or because of this hotfix.

[froggyluv 2130]

I just did on a amd phenom 2 x4 955 @3.7ghz.

As far as I can remember my normal benchmark score on benchmark 2 (the ridiculously heavy CPU one) was always 13, and about 12 without overclocking. Now it is 17.

I didn't really expect it to do anything (since I don't have as many cores as the FX8whatever), but I am currently very happy, wether it is because of randomness or because of this hotfix.

Nemesis if you don't mind -please run a few more Arma 2 benchies. THAT one your talking about is full retard and nothing humanly built can beat it. Have to admit this is all very interesting...Nice find Pyrophosphate

[NeMeSiS 11]

Nemesis if you don't mind -please run a few more Arma 2 benchies. THAT one your talking about is full retard and nothing humanly built can beat it. Have to admit this is all very interesting...Nice find Pyrophosphate

Benchmarks aren't there to 'beat', that's why I ran that one, the other one barely touches the CPU. (Also, because it is the only 1 of which I could remember the score :p )

I recently ran 3dmark, this is the old score: (Notice that the CPU ran at 3772Mhz and the GPU was clocked at 800/1050)

3DMark Score 82828 3DMarks

Graphics Score 109998

Physics Score 44424

Graphics Test 1 527.4097290039062 FPS

Graphics Test 2 437.4798889160156 FPS

Physics Test 141.03134155273438 FPS

The same test after the patch was applied: (Notice the CPU now runs at 3692Mhz, and the GPU at 790/1037Mhz, also ram is limited to an odd amount of Mhz I cant be bothered to look up))

3DMark Score 81145 3DMarks

Graphics Score 108079

Physics Score 43342

Graphics Test 1 515.33984375 FPS

Graphics Test 2 431.8417053222656 FPS

Physics Test 137.59376525878906 FPS

Conclusion: Taking the difference in clock speeds into account I would say there is pretty much no difference at all in 3dmark.

Though it is hard to say: In the case of heavy CPU usage in ArmA2 there is usually 1 thread running at ~100% and a bunch of others using 'a bit', which would probably hamper the game a lot more if that one is constantly being switched around. In 3dmark it looks like the test is made in such a way that all threads use about the same, hence not so much difference. Though I am not entirely sure about this, and I cant be bothered to remove the hotfixes and run a bunch of benchmarks, and I don't think I have any other 'pre hotifix' results laying around. Also keep in mind that I am not using the CPU the guys in that video were talking about, and I only have 4 cores anyway.

Edited March 4, 2013 by NeMeSiS

[froggyluv 2130]

Hehe, ok thanks man. I know there not meant to be beat -what I really meant was that one hits a ceiling (in my case 21 fps) and no upgrade has moved it -ever. So really it's that it's not a reliable test to gauge whether recent upgrades are helping one's Arma 2 experience.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

nvm................

[Ninami 10]

"Run as good as Arma 2" Is this a joke? Arma 2 runs horribly bad on every computer because it's horribly optimized. I agree that Alpha version of the game will definitely run better once it's released but I'm pretty sure it won't run as bad as you think. I'd bet a lot of money that Arma 3 is already better optimized than Arma 2 is today.

[Leopardi 0]

Indeed I have.

(Arma 2 is shown at 7:14)

The folks who made that video applied some hotfixes made by Microsoft but never released as an official update which supposedly makes task scheduling for AMD processors as smart as it is for Intel CPUs with hyper-threading. That's what they think makes up the difference in performance between their video and a lot of the other benchmarks out there.

If the hotfixes really worked that well, they would be in use by everyone automatically.

[Ivorystate 23]

The most annoying thing about alphas is that most people forget that they are alphas.

[Leon86 13]

"Run as good as Arma 2" Is this a joke? Arma 2 runs horribly bad on every computer because it's horribly optimized. I agree that Alpha version of the game will definitely run better once it's released but I'm pretty sure it won't run as bad as you think. I'd bet a lot of money that Arma 3 is already better optimized than Arma 2 is today.

It doesn't get the framerates of other games because it's actually doing stuff. A3 might run a little better because dx11 allows for better multithreading and lower cpu loads. But I wouldn't expect a world of difference.

[DShKM 18]

It doesn't get the framerates of other games because it's actually doing stuff. A3 might run a little better because dx11 allows for better multithreading and lower cpu loads. But I wouldn't expect a world of difference.

Exactly, the RV engine calculates everything that is going on at a specific time anywhere in your play zone. It ranges from AI moving around the map, the grass, trees, physics everything is being calculated over and over again. I'm sure that with DX11, multithreading and some nicely written code, the game will run noticeably better than ArmA 2. No one can say for sure, however, you can find out tomorrow.

[NeMeSiS 11]

If the hotfixes really worked that well, they would be in use by everyone automatically.

I thought they were new and thus not released to the general public yet?

[white 1]

Two hotfixes actually.:)

With hyper-threading, Windows tries to load up all of your physical cores before it fills up the extra logical cores. The hotfixes just do the same thing for AMD processors, which have 8 physical cores, but they're in pairs that share L2 cache and floating-point units, if I'm remembering that correctly. I could see how A, not doing that could choke an otherwise well running game, and B, Intel might have paid up some cash to keep those patches from being distributed as updates, but that's a cynical view, and this isn't the place.

Summary: it could happen.

More on the point, if Arma 3 can make better use of multiple threads, perhaps we i7 users could also get a noticeable boost over our i5 brethren.

unfortunatly its being tested and discussed on the alpha, apparently it doesnt make better use, cpu usage and fps looks the same as arma 2 (horrible).

Edited March 7, 2013 by white

[AussieStig 10]

Sorry bud, you can defend Arma 3 all you want, but the fact is, there are people like myself with specs above the 'recommended', and can barely run the game on anything other than low settings. No one expects it to run better than Arma 2, just not like shit.