Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[WalkerDown 1]

I got the helicopter showcase running well with my tweaks. Minimum FPS was 38 and average was about 50 and the game looked gorgeous.

Screenshots with FPS visible:

http://imageshack.us/a/img600/4596/ultragruffix.png

http://imageshack.us/a/img23/3048/sohighfps.png

http://imageshack.us/a/img152/1271/miracleofoptimization.png

My specs:

Core i5 2500k (stock)

GTX 570

8GB ram

Windows 7 64 bit

Same on my system, here's an OPFOR:

[Drastdevix 1]

I got same troubles, good fps in solo and unplayable in multi. And changing option (low and reduce view range) doesn't affect the fps.

Here is my config :

Win 7

I7 2.67GHz

6Go DDR3 531.98MHz

GeForce GTX 660 (asus OC).

[Minoza 11]

my answer was related to these expecting unrealistic results ... of course we are aware of the issues and get them fixed ...

This is all I needed to hear. Thank you!

[Richatu 1]

I got same troubles, good fps in solo and unplayable in multi. And changing option (low and reduce view range) doesn't affect the fps.

Here is my config :

Win 7

I7 2.67GHz

6Go DDR3 531.98MHz

GeForce GTX 660 (asus OC).

I have the exact same issue, it's really frustrating.. It barely matters what settings i play at, Reducing the view distance helps only slightly and sometimes doesn't help at all.

These are my specs:

Win 8

AMD FX 8350 8x cores @ 4.0 GHz

2GB GTX 660 Ti (EVGA).

I had the same problem with ArmA 2, except back then i was playing with a quad core 3.6 GHz processor.

I'm just wondering if the problems i'm experiencing now are because of the alpha or if it is related to my system.

[Drastdevix 1]

For my part i didn't had any problems on Arma 2.

[Sephisto 1]

I got same troubles, good fps in solo and unplayable in multi. And changing option (low and reduce view range) doesn't affect the fps.

Here is my config :

Win 7

I7 2.67GHz

6Go DDR3 531.98MHz

GeForce GTX 660 (asus OC).

Let me guess, i7 920. Overclocks like a beast, do it.

[Drastdevix 1]

I didn't understand. But my Proc is not overcklocked.

[white 1]

my answer was related to these expecting unrealistic results ... of course we are aware of the issues and get them fixed ...

are aware and are gonna try to fix it, thats all one could ask. i appreciate for taking the time to post it, and with that in order i have no doubt that it will be a great launch when the time comes. thanks!

[wasabi 1]

my answer was related to these expecting unrealistic results ... of course we are aware of the issues and get them fixed ...

Thanks!

I hope you guys focus on both Intel AND Amd Systems.

Edited March 9, 2013 by wasabi

[kazer 3]

I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling..

Given the name of the screenshots, I'm pretty sure he's joking.

That, or ARMA3 is getting released on the Wii U :P

my answer was related to these expecting unrealistic results ... of course we are aware of the issues and get them fixed ...

Very nice to hear :)

[Samsquantch 10]

my answer was related to these expecting unrealistic results ... of course we are aware of the issues and get them fixed ...

Thank you Dwarden. Finally some aknowledgement about this. It was all we needed, was to know it was being addressed.

[JRascall 1]

I too have the same problem with me being able to run at high settings on single player, but not even able to play multiplier on the lowest settings :( Some servers work fine but I've only found two.

My Specs:

Intel Core 2 Quad - Q8400 @ 2.66 GHz

nVIDIA 660 GTX - 2GB

4GB DDR3 Ram @ 1600 mhz

[kevaskous 10]

no, you CAN'T! can you jump 300 mts high if you train hard?

is not the eye, is the brain that "compute" that

30 is the max, you will not notice the difference between 40-60 or 200 fps unless you move your mouse like an epileptic, so you will may notice some ghost images at 30-40 perhaps

Horribly incorrect and you have little to now understanding of the human eye, as white pointed out, military also tested this on their fighter pilots to find they can see fluidity changes all the way up and past 400FPS. Keeping in mind they also like gamers because they tend to have the same responses as their fighter pilots, thus are easier to train.

You are a complete idiot, and have clearly only been her to complain and complain and cry and cry as if it gonna help to something. Im sure they are working on it right now. And btw, I played COD4 at 40 fps and at 120+ fps in a new computer, and didn't even notice the difference, I dont pay attention to that when Im playing the game, it doesn't even help me to get k/d from 40-1 100-20 at 40 fps to 300-1 1000-20 at 120+ fps so why even bother.... whatever don't even answer me, I know what you gonna say, kind of typical Internet character...

Then you're terrible, as I was a CoD4 promod professional for over a year I can tell you right now you have zero idea what you're on about. At lower FPS I could scope you so quickly you'd never have seen the shot take place, there is a reason CS professionals and leagues demanded use of 120hz monitors, it really is that simple. If you want to live in your bubble that's fine, plug your ears and la la that's fine too, but do realize you're not the world, just because it doesn't help you, doesn't make it not help anyone else.

eye doesnt see fps like cameras, 24 is the minimum for our brain to perceive pictures as continuous motion but in fact our eyes can notice 400fps or more. there is celar difference between 100 fps and 30 fps, to me 30 fps is choppy and broken. playable but it isnt smooth. around 60 fps its smooth enough so it plays great, but 80-120 fps is completely smooth to me. thats the kind of fps i play on fast paced fps games like counter strike, hard reset (where theres a lot of shit going on and the difference on fps becomes clear) and others.

this 30fps human eye crap is a myth.

people do jum higher with training but of course theres a limit, but about the eye, its more about learning how to perceive the difference than training the eye to go higher. btw, theres a reason there are 120hz-144hz gaming monitors. although your reflexes is something its proven you can train to get a lot faster.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Thank you kind sir, I do not say thing just to say them. Hence why i got a low post count though have been around years, i don't waste my time with tribble.

[MavericK96 0]

Let me guess, i7 920. Overclocks like a beast, do it.

While that won't fix the underlying problem...yes, definitely. I got mine almost to 4 GHz and it makes a HUGE difference in ArmA 2.

[kklownboy 43]

...I was a CoD4 promod professional...

Really? That will be sig for sure lol...

Hey Mr "Promod" ...What has this to do with the original topic?

I can play this game effectively in COOP, with 20+ FPS... no problem. PVP its nice to be Vsync, and that is easy to achieve on my rig. I limit my CPU to its four physical cores (i7), and had them all the at same on usage. It was unusual to see that. But then i turn off C-states and EIST (no turbo) in my Bios, so my CPU is four cores @ 4.2... Been running the game @ 2048/1536, 8AA, ultra bla bla , PP-verylow, no ATOC, 2kVD....100% shadows, 22fps on Air base, 75fps looking up, 30/40/50fps playing around the map. 75 to 175 AI, 3 to 8 players in MP, game runs great. Can only get better.

When you have low usage, or low frames there is a Bottle neck, A 6870 at 1080p is a Bottle neck. A 660/560ti "pie in the sky" version is a bottle neck at 1080p.... Having to share 6 physical cores on a AMD is just lame, and a bottle neck. Less than 3.8ghz is asking for a Bottle neck.... That all be said they will make the game better, BUT you guys do have unrealistic expectations with the midgrade gear you run.

[k3lt 3]

BUT you guys do have unrealistic expectations with the midgrade gear you run.

I'm well over recommended specs, and most of the time my fps is in low 20's or even 1x.

Dont tell me about midgrade gear when my cpu in Arma3 has nearly same temps as in Windows when idling and that says alot about utlilization.

And all i am expecting is stable 30+ fps on Standard settings @ 1680x1050 res in most situations, is that unrealistic expectation?

If that's unrealisitc then maybe devs should consider changing recommended specs to something like i7 3770k and GTX Titan.

Edit:

Looks like even i7 3770k might be not enough for now which atm is a top notch CPU from Intel.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2625&nbn=3#bugnotes

So what about stop trolling, please?

Edited March 8, 2013 by k3lt

[wasabi 1]

Really? That will be sig for sure lol...

Hey Mr "Promod" ...What has this to do with the original topic?

I can play this game effectively in COOP, with 20+ FPS... no problem. PVP its nice to be Vsync, and that is easy to achieve on my rig. I limit my CPU to its four physical cores (i7), and had them all the at same on usage. It was unusual to see that. But then i turn off C-states and EIST (no turbo) in my Bios, so my CPU is four cores @ 4.2... Been running the game @ 2048/1536, 8AA, ultra bla bla , PP-verylow, no ATOC, 2kVD....100% shadows, 22fps on Air base, 75fps looking up, 30/40/50fps playing around the map. 75 to 175 AI, 3 to 8 players in MP, game runs great. Can only get better.

When you have low usage, or low frames there is a Bottle neck, A 6870 at 1080p is a Bottle neck. A 660/560ti "pie in the sky" version is a bottle neck at 1080p.... Having to share 6 physical cores on a AMD is just lame, and a bottle neck. Less than 3.8ghz is asking for a Bottle neck.... That all be said they will make the game better, BUT you guys do have unrealistic expectations with the midgrade gear you run.

20FPS+ in Coop...

Ok, please explain one thing very clearly, why does only 30% of our cpu and 30% of our gpu get used ?

Second, explain to me why i got the same fps´s on arma2 with my old Athlon X2 6000+, 4GB Ram and a HD 4870 that i have with my current Rig ?

Third, why dont the fps´s change no matter what graphic settings we are on?

The game runs not as good as it could be, but at least playabe in SP.. I think this is due to the fact that this game is horribly coded/memory leak, whatever. As soon as a bunch(~10AI´s) are moving the game breaks down to its knees

You can also see alot of high end Intel users have the same problems.. Thats kinda of a paradox you got there, speaking of 20 fps´s in coop and 22 on the airbase, even i get the same. And playing around on the map(i assume Editor) i too get 60fps+

Also theres been quite a few games with this phenomenon, skyrim is the best example(20 fps+ just because of a simple fix that stated "removed bottleneck code") and suddenly my cpu and gpu were both at full 99% usage, bethesda then added this to a patch without even mentioning the original creator of the fix, i guess nobody remembers that... Same with max payne 3, disco scene, while jumping out of the window on the floor, 20 fps .... Just installed mp3 a few days ago and now im getting 50+ fps at the same scene ... What is it about that ? I know it is still an Alpha, and i will give it time... BUT Bohemia did this three times now(ARMA1/2/OA).. Im just kinda sceptical, sorry

[jaloko 1]

I'm well over recommended specs, and most of the time my fps is in low 20's or even 1x.

Dont tell me about midgrade gear when my cpu in Arma3 has nearly same temps as in Windows when idling and that says alot about utlilization.

And all i am expecting is stable 30+ fps on Standard settings @ 1680x1050 res in most situations, is that unrealistic expectation?

If that's unrealisitc then maybe devs should consider changing recommended specs to something like i7 3770k and GTX Titan.

Edit:

Looks like even i7 3770k might be not enough for now which atm is a top notch CPU from Intel.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2625&nbn=3#bugnotes

So what about stop trolling, please?

I agree with you, they better change it before real release or there might be legal problems for them. I wonder what his idea of "Unrealistic" is. with my computer i expect 30 on high and nothing lower and that's asking nothing because there are other gfx intensive games than this i run on 60.

[daze23 1]

Dont tell me about midgrade gear when my cpu in Arma3 has nearly same temps as in Windows when idling and that says alot about utlilization.

that's what I noticed. for a game that's supposed to be so CPU heavy, it doesn't run my CPU temps too high. a few other recent games, like Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 (not to use those cliche examples, but I honestly noticed this about both of them) on the other hand really get my CPU hot, while at the same time letting my GPU perform at 99%. I'm not an expert on these matters, but that seems to say those games probably use more CPU (probably better use of multi cores as well), and there's something else limiting Arma 2/3

edit: these symptoms, along with the fact that extreme overclocking seems to be the only thing that helps, really point to it not effectively using multi cores.

Edited March 8, 2013 by daze23

[wasabi 1]

theres nothing more to say ... if the full retail or the future patches doesnt cure at least a little bit of the problem, i leave future arma titles forever, with me probably trying to get my money back but failing... im not asking for super fluid 60+ fps gameplay with ultra settings but at least 30+ gameplay all times on standart, i mean im above the recommended requirements.. It already breaks down at the heli showcase with a bunch of ai´s moving, even on 800x600/lowest rendering. I love this games gameplay and i do know its in alpha im just asking for what we deserve

Edited March 8, 2013 by wasabi

[Sephisto 1]

BIS should hire John Carmack.

[Qweets 1]

Man you guys complain so much, it is a friggin alpha, the game has a LOT of things left to be put in and polished. Generally in alpha's they haven't even begun the optimization phase yet, that is generally in beta I believe.

[MavericK96 0]

Man you guys complain so much, it is a friggin alpha, the game has a LOT of things left to be put in and polished. Generally in alpha's they haven't even begun the optimization phase yet, that is generally in beta I believe.

Again, the exact same issues are in ArmA 2 and have been for years. People just want to make the issue well-known in the Alpha stage of ArmA 3 to hopefully avoid the same problems.

The devs have already acknowledged the issue, so that's all we really need to hear for now.

[jaloko 1]

Man you guys complain so much, it is a friggin alpha, the game has a LOT of things left to be put in and polished. Generally in alpha's they haven't even begun the optimization phase yet, that is generally in beta I believe.

To many people like you say that, let me tell you something, Arma 2 was in alpha as well, with the same problems arma 3 is having, i hate you new gen people that have played arma for like 2 months and think they know it all, you don't because arma 1 was like this and arma 2 as well, now arma 3 is showing the same signs, all of them had an alpha so do research before complaining about people complaining.

[Raklodder 1]

my answer was related to these expecting unrealistic results ... of course we are aware of the issues and get them fixed ...

Dear Dwarden,

I signed up for Arma 3's Alpha on March 5th, like many others, in order to find issues, report them back and help the development of your product, and however unlikely it may seem, this performance and/ -or utilization issue needs to be a top priority case, since it's affecting us all, or we the true fans of your franchise, will suffer in the end from more bad performance and mostly stutter, which we have already endured for the past ten years. I'm not here to judge, bash nor damage Bohemia Interactive's interest, but you and your supervisors have to understand my concern, because why else should we bother playing ARMA at all?

/Raklodder