Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[naizarak 4]

OP if you're using a phenomII that might be the problem. say what you want but they're a very dated platform and I wouldn't be surprised if it's bottlenecking your vid. card.

[tonygrunt 10]

I can't either max any of my cpu cores or my gfx card. Everything ultra. 2560x1440. PC specs in sig.

Game is beautiful, but would be nice to get some more fps. CPU & GPU utilization in picture (600Kb).

GPU at 55%, 6 CPU cores at 55,45,34,37,44,45%.

Will have to lower graphics settings to up my frames even though it seems like it should be able to push some more.

Edited March 6, 2013 by TonyGrunt

[Masterfragg 10]

Uh yeah, but you have i5 2500k at nearly 5Ghz which is rather top notch.. You cant expect that kind of hardware/overclock from average player. :p

My point was that I am still getting iffy cpu usage lol

I would honestly advise anyone not to overclock this much myself. I OC'ed my Phenom x4 940 and that's what killed it in the end.

I only overclocked this because I can keep the temps <60c with a Corsair H50.

Right I just played the Heli Showcase and my GPU usage was below 35% yet I was stuck at 30FPS.

This alpha does indeed have the same problem that Arma2 had. Which is a little unsettling to be honest as this does NOT bode well for Arma3 as they never truly fixed Arma2 in that respect.

I'm sure as hell not oc'ing any higher for Arma, it cost me a CPU in the past haha

[k3lt 3]

OP if you're using a phenomII that might be the problem. say what you want but they're a very dated platform and I wouldn't be surprised if it's bottlenecking your vid. card.

Most likely, but if you noticed it's in the recommended system specs and the gpu is well over recommended one, and still the fps is dropping to low 20's even with everything on Low / Off in 1680x1050 res.

And that's with multiplayer game with around 15 people (infantry, no vehicles and nobody even visible on the screen)

You think it's working as intended?

Edited March 6, 2013 by k3lt

[-=Grunt=- 10]

GPU usage to me is very good, CPU usage is not so good.

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3422/arma3l.jpg (941 kB)

My specs:

i5 3570K - 3.8 Ghz

ASUS Z77 Maximus V Gene

8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 - 1600 Mhz

Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti OC - 900/2000 Mhz (Core/Memory)

EDIT: This is during the infantry showcase.

[Minoza 11]

This is not Phenom related issue since there are people with Intel experiencing the same thing. This is well known from Arma 2 and we were told that it wont be fixed for Arma 2 but now same thing happens in Arma 3... same story over and over again.

I would be quite happy if a developer would at least say something about it...

[aop 1]

GPU usage to me is very good, CPU usage is not so good.

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3422/arma3l.jpg (941 kB)

My specs:

i5 3570K - 3.8 Ghz

ASUS Z77 Maximus V Gene

8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 - 1600 Mhz

Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti OC - 900/2000 Mhz (Core/Memory)

EDIT: This is during the infantry showcase.

High AA settings and ATOC can easilly max out the GPU. Rest of the settings have little impact on GPU utilization.

[-=Grunt=- 10]

High AA settings and ATOC can easilly max out the GPU. Rest of the settings have little impact on GPU utilization.

I was only using 4x AA with FXAA in that screenshot. What I found out that uses a lot of GPU resources is Post Processing. (Which I have disabled in that screenshot)

Disabling PP easily nets me 10 FPS.

[Masterfragg 10]

I was only using 4x AA with FXAA in that screenshot. What I found out that uses a lot of GPU resources is Post Processing. (Which I have disabled in that screenshot)

Disabling PP easily nets me 10 FPS.

Why are you using 4xAA with FXAA? Just curious but doesn't FXAA apply a blur filter on detected edges and actually degrade visuals? and isn't it negated when used in conjunction with actual AA?

On topic, I'm giving up for the night my heads killing me and I need a post midnight snack before I do anything else.

I'll continue in the morning.

(PS- You are right about the post process frame rate hit. Personally I have it at low to get rid of the worst of the blur anyway, depth of field is an unrealistic feature that makes me repeat one phrase... "Shoulda gone to specsavers soldier!".)

[Skjold 1]

I have a I7 3770k 3.6 GHz, 16 GB DDR3, Geforce GTX 670 4 GB GDDR 5 and on a 40 man server im running 20 FPS on normal settings.

Game definatly needs optimisation :-)

[CombatComm 10]

Does BIS have a reputation for promising things and saying theyll optimize just to get the loyal fans to buy and than give one excuse after another or something?

[Minoza 11]

I have a I7 3770k 3.6 GHz, 16 GB DDR3, Geforce GTX 670 4 GB GDDR 5 and on a 40 man server im running 20 FPS on normal settings.

Game definatly needs optimisation :-)

You have same hardware as me, and we both have same issue... reminds me very much of the very same story here (Arma 2):

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?127236-Super-low-GPU-usage-on-MP-only&p=2231510&viewfull=1#post2231510

[doveman 7]

Hmm, sounds like I'll pass for now then. Had enough faffing around trying (and mostly failing) to get ArmA2 running reasonably to want to go through all that again. Maybe I'll check it in a year or so and see if it's been optimised by then.

[ssg 1]

We noticed that ATI cards generally run this game worst than equal Nvidia card.

There is also something mysterious going on. Game runs same 25-30 fps on low and very high settings on escape from Stratis mission beginning. I tested it myself and my friend tested it also. We had vsync disabled etc. Also ArmA3 does not seem to benefit anything from crossfire. FPS was same with 1 GPU and 2 GPU.

I think this indicates that this game is really CPU dependent and currently lacks crossfire support. But then again it is just weird because I have 965BE and my friend has latest i7. I have 2x 6950 and he has 7850 ATI card. Same time our friend with GTX 580 runs game in same situation with 60-80 FPS. We both have 30 fps and nothing in video options change it expect view distance. It is only one that has any effect.

I really hope BIS will find solution for this problem.

Edited March 6, 2013 by ssg

[dsi24 12]

For the CPU count argument, should I use physical cores or logical cores (threads)?

[-=Grunt=- 10]

Why are you using 4xAA with FXAA? Just curious but doesn't FXAA apply a blur filter on detected edges and actually degrade visuals? and isn't it negated when used in conjunction with actual AA?

On topic, I'm giving up for the night my heads killing me and I need a post midnight snack before I do anything else.

I'll continue in the morning.

(PS- You are right about the post process frame rate hit. Personally I have it at low to get rid of the worst of the blur anyway, depth of field is an unrealistic feature that makes me repeat one phrase... "Shoulda gone to specsavers soldier!".)

Only having PPAA looks bad so I mix it with traditional AA.

I've found that by mixing FXAA Ultra with traditional AA actually somehow makes the textures and image much clearer and sharper compared to traditional AA + SMAA. I don't know how but it works.

[hazardsfd 10]

Postprocessing removes motion blur and its 100% sharper if (DISABLED)

VIEW DISTANCE GREATLY EFFECT FPS.

I run 2000-800-800 for the 3

[11_harley_11 0]

Whats the command to get those stats on screen?

[MavericK96 0]

Yeah, same problems here. View Distance absolutely MURDERS framerate, even moreso than in ArmA 2. Anything above 2500 or so is down in the 15 FPS range for me. Hopefully this will be addressed down the line...it is an alpha, after all.

[chrisb 196]

I have decided to get the SE version hard copy for my new A3 pc.. Always had hard copies really, don't want to break the habit for a new gaming pc..

Unfortunately this would have left me A3 deprived for a while, so to counter this, I Steamed the DDE version and put it onto my A2 pc, just so I can have a play around with the Editor.

Anyway, a sightseeing fly around.

General settings: as in ‘Quality’ tab.

Ultra

Ultra

Ultra

Standard

Standard

Very High

A little over 4000 view distance…

-20 fps hit recording with msi-afterburner on 75% quality..

Old Athlon II x 4 640, HD5850 2gb ‘Toxic’ limited edition card. I run A2 with pretty high fps with this gaming pc, have never needed to complain. Its running A3 on the ground in town at +40fps in the open +55fps, flying well all depends on VD, but not recording around 45ish fps with a 4000vd.

I didn’t bother tweaking much just went straight in, will get some more fps after tweaking, I should think..:)

Edit: I don't recommend anyone using Ultra for battles etc, not yet anyway, this is a simple test to see performance overall, not really a practical test, just fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FFWp4DyCZw

Pics on another post showing fps counter, in town, open area..

Edited March 6, 2013 by ChrisB

[Pyrophosphate 1]

Whats the command to get those stats on screen?

Those stats are from a program called MSI Afterburner, not from the game itself.

It's worth noting that there is no totally reliable way to measure CPU usage, at least partly because the CPU itself is doing the measuring. It's also worth noting that there are potential bottlenecks other than the CPU and GPU, even though that's what most people focus on. In any non-trivial program (or a program like Prime95 that is specifically designed to get as much work out of the CPU as realistically possible), the processor spends a lot of time just waiting around for things like thread locks, timers, data from RAM (as mentioned), data to and from the GPU, hard drive, etc. They don't have to wait long (anywhere from 10-20 clock cycles to a few milliseconds), but that time adds up. That can't easily be avoided because the CPU is so much faster than other parts of the system.

So if everybody is hitting a 25-30 fps limit in some area with different CPU and GPU combinations, try looking at memory speeds, see if that makes a difference. Trying to pinpoint exactly where different bottlenecks lie could be helpful to the developers for knowing what it is they're trying to optimize.

Also, not saying anyone in particular around here thinks this way, but it's sort of implied a lot (especially on the steam forum once DayZ got popular). There is no magical "optimize" button. The developers do not just sit down and "optimize" the game, and the game does not hit these bottlenecks because they, for whatever reason, chose not to sit down and optimize it. There are certain kinds of optimizations that are relatively obvious and painless to implement, like not drawing things that are behind the player, but those are few, and any game you've ever heard of already uses them, and the Arma engine has been using them for over a decade, I can almost guarantee that. Basically, saying the game "isn't optimized" doesn't help anybody with anything.

[GioGimic 10]

Disable Shadows or Put Them on High, Yes sounds odd but for me the game lags when its on low on high and off im fine.

[ruhtraeel 1]

I am getting decently mediocre performance. I have everything maxed out (view distance at 3000, other distances default) except for AA (2x), with SMAA at Ultra. In the infantry showcase, I average 29-35 FPS walking down the valley, and then around 20-30 FPS when I can see the town.

Edited March 6, 2013 by ruhtraeel

[h.IV+-I.esus- 10]

My experience with the ARMA III alpha regarding performance so far:

~22-33 fps on average, depending what's on screen.

50% overall CPU usage.

35% GPU 1 usage.

22-35% GPU 2 usage.

Latest Catalyst drivers and CAP profiles.

My main hardware is as follows:

Core i7 920 d0 @ 3.4GHz

6gb Corsair 1600MHz DDR3

Crossfire HD6950 2gb

Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5

Ingame settings:

Everything on 'very high' where available, except Post Processing at low, AA 2x + FXAA.

View distances default.

1920x1080, vsync on (about to try it off).

Strange that it's not using both more CPU and GPU to their actual potential to give me more frames.

I know it's alpha and all, but 90% of the time things like this don't get fixed (or... half-fixed) until years after release... if at all.

Hopefully BIS jump on this because it's a pretty big issue.

EDIT:

Turned off vsync and dropped the view distance to around 1600 and I'm getting 40-50fps on average, mostly in the lower 40s.

CPU usage is now 65-75%.

GPU usage on both GPU sits around 65% also.

How strange.

Edited March 6, 2013 by h.IV+[I.esus]
More information

[nsix 10]

I have a i7 920 @ 3.8Ghz

16GB DDR3

GTX 670 @ 1300 Core, 1800 Memory

I have played at Ultra settings and Low. I get the same frame rate more or less with either setup. I have started my own dedicated server as well as joining other users servers. At first my video card is going at 1300/1880 but then it suddenly drops to 1/3 the speed. Yet I get the same frames at full speed as I do at 1/3 speed. No idea WTF is up.

I'm running Nvidia 314.07 drivers

Here are my stats at Low

[ IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qG1F7ji.jpg[/img]>100kb

Here are my stats at Ultra

[ IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4FfKSTA.jpg[/img]>100kb

This is what my card is capable of doing. Last night while playing Natural Selection 2 the game had my card maxed out. But this is today via FurMark. Same stuff, just less memory usage than NS2.

Would love for this game to become optimized. I'm loving it so far.

Here is my dxdiag info.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14476639/DxDiag.txt

Edited March 6, 2013 by [FRL]Myke