Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[Ezcoo 47]

almost no game uses more than 3gb ram, so 32 bits if fine. unless they state that they could use a lot more considering the game being able to be huge and they cant because how they coded it. at least on arma 2 the max usable is 2047.

again, at least in arma 2 the max usable vram is 2047 and ive not seen any dev stating that arma 3 can use more, so far. bf3 uses 1.5gb max if i recall correctly, and only on ultra.

you probably found yourself a memory leak.

If I remember right, I've read somewhere that A2 uses LAA (Large Address Awareness). So it could use up to 3 GB RAM on 32-bit systems and up to 4 GB RAM on 64-bit systems in theory. I can be wrong, have just a vague recollection about it being mentioned somewhere here on the forums...

[tet5uo 4]

you probably found yourself a memory leak.

Interesting. I regularly see usage above 2gb in Arma2 with Ace2 when I play that as well.

[Insanatrix 0]

almost no game uses more than 3gb ram, so 32 bits if fine. unless they state that they could use a lot more considering the game being able to be huge and they cant because how they coded it. at least on arma 2 the max usable is 2047.

again, at least in arma 2 the max usable vram is 2047 and ive not seen any dev stating that arma 3 can use more, so far. bf3 uses 1.5gb max if i recall correctly, and only on ultra.

you probably found yourself a memory leak.

Yet here we are, streaming data from the HDD because the 32bit addressing is too limiting for the engine's needs. There's always a first game to outgrow 32bit addressing and I think the RV engine might be that first.

[Leon86 13]

Yet here we are, streaming data from the HDD because the 32bit addressing is too limiting for the engine's needs. There's always a first game to outgrow 32bit addressing and I think the RV engine might be that first.

Nah, probably just a memory leak. Arma3 rarely goes over 1.2GB of ram on my system. Arma2 would at launch, but would then crash, a memleak that was fixed afaik.

[Insanatrix 0]

Nah, probably just a memory leak. Arma3 rarely goes over 1.2GB of ram on my system. Arma2 would at launch, but would then crash, a memleak that was fixed afaik.

What's your commit charge after playing ArmA 3? That will give you a idea of total memory usage. The problem is that it can only address X amount of memory addressing space due to the 32bit limitations. That includes your VRAM on your video card as well. So if your VRAM is around 1.2gb and your system memory is around 1.2gb utilized, that's a combined total of 2.4gb. You also have to factor in the Windows Kernel and various drivers and outside programs using memory as well. That will eat up even the 3gb limit of Large Address Aware. After your physical memory is exhausted, you start using virtual memory which is paged on your HDD.

So while you're seeing ArmA 2 only using 1.2gb of ram, it's not because the program only needs to use that much, but because of the addressing limitations of 32bit registers.

[tet5uo 4]

So why do I see these crazy usage numbers of 2.5gb VRAM in my hardware monitor? Is it a leak?

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

Here's an example of me using 1350mb of VRAM just in a mission spawned from the editor with 1 AI and 2 vehicles. (I made the vid to show SLI glitch in PiP rendering, but you can see some pretty high VRAM usage for 5 seconds in a SP game.)

[Insanatrix 0]

So why do I see these crazy usage numbers of 2.5gb VRAM in my hardware monitor? Is it a leak?

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

Here's an example of me using 1350mb of VRAM just in a mission spawned from the editor with 1 AI and 2 vehicles. (I made the vid to show SLI glitch in PiP rendering, but you can see some pretty high VRAM usage for 5 seconds in a SP game.)

It could be. I've never seen my GTX 480 go over 1.1gb.

[Sneakers O'Toole 2]

Nah, probably just a memory leak. Arma3 rarely goes over 1.2GB of ram on my system. Arma2 would at launch, but would then crash, a memleak that was fixed afaik.

Arma 2 ALWAYS used at least 1.5 gb of vram for me probably averaged at 1.9gb.

So why do I see these crazy usage numbers of 2.5gb VRAM in my hardware monitor? Is it a leak?

IT's fine. You will notice that if you load a big map like cherno once then come back out to the main menu, it still takes up lots of vram and yuo can reload cherno in1/7 th of the time it took you before it downloaded all the textures into vram.

[Insanatrix 0]

Just did a test with a sample mission of about 100 AI with 1 Seek and Destroy waypoint. Upon loading ArmA 3, it uses 2gb of virtual memory and during the mission it kept using more and more until it was using close to 5gb of virtual memory on top of the 1.4gb physical memory it was using. Total system memory usage by ArmA 3 alone is 6.4gb, and that's not counting the 1.1gb VRAM that was in use. That brings the total amount to 7.5gb.

Also something interesting, my GPU was so underutilized that it was switching between 3d clocks and UVD clocks. Constantly going between 405mhz and 810 mhz.

[aop 1]

The only thing the game seems to use well is VRAM.

I've seen up to 2750 MB of VRAM usage on my 3gb cards.

If only it could use my system RAM and CPU and GPU-cores at all.

Usage and allocation are two different things. Many games these days reserve almost all the available VRAM even if they are not going to use it all. Battlefield 3 does the same thing, if you have 1GB VRAM it shows almost 1GB VRAM usage in monitor software and if you have 2GB it shows almost 2GB usage.

[preloader 1]

hello boys! how going!

from the start i have a several problems of FPS! like 7 fps or 15 fps in game

my specps

XFX ati R7950 3gb core edition

Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3

AMD fx 8150 8 cores 3.6Mhz

G Skill Sniper F3-14900CL9-4GBSR x2 ( 8gb )

WDC WD1002FAEX-00Z3A0 (1 tb)

Antec 800W

Well well, i see my system from the start wokrs really bad, but for example the Bf3 runs in ultra with 40 FPs, so normal to mee...

When i play arma 3 the first time, really i cant play, 7/15/10 fps every time.

Testing testing testing i find my GPU always work to the 25%! And a friend tell me gigabyte and Ati have a issue if the mobo have avalible the USB 3.0 options...

so i put the usb 3.0 disable, test the game, and ON again ( in the bios ) and KABOOM!!! the game have now in very high 35 fps with a good moments with 50 fps ( Single player ) a incredible difference

may be this can help some players!

and sorry my bad redaction.

Regards boys

[oliver_ssa 1]

I did a small test last night, edited a mission with 80+ AI and i played in the preview for a short time and had no problem what so ever (30-40 fps), when i played online (hosting the mission) with arround 10 friends, i got (7-15 fps), then i quit.

[tet5uo 4]

Also something interesting, my GPU was so underutilized that it was switching between 3d clocks and UVD clocks. Constantly going between 405mhz and 810 mhz.

Yeah, mine do this as well. I had to check the "prefer maximum performance" in the drivers to make sure they stay at 3d clockpseeds in the game at all times.

[magicool 10]

make sure to add a note here the more ppl this problem have the more attention it gets by the devs http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

[simjedi 10]

I did a simple test run just flying around in the KA for about a half an hour to get a average of both CPU and GPU.

My target fps that I think is still very playable is 40fps and I have a frame rate limiter in place and try to adjust my settings to keep it pretty much there. The only thing that can get my GPU usage up to 100% is Post Processing effects at maximum, but I disable that due to Motion Blur and Depth of Field that I don't like but other wise it's solid. Any other higher settings just drains fps without any added GPU pecentage rise.

I was really surprise at my CPU reading as it had a big spike up to nearly 4.5GHz. Only using mainly the one core and the others not so much.

This is not a complaint post as I've played ArmA for long enough to know it's capabilities, just hoping for them to optimize it even more than they have already for the Alpha so I can turn up even more settings...:)

Usage:

GTX580 Classified 3gb

Settings

Edited March 15, 2013 by SIMJEDI

[froggyluv 2136]

I'm not sure I full understand what a memory leak is but one thing is for sure: The higher my Resolution 2560x1440 and the higher I jack the 3d Resolution (currently at 200%) - the Vram usage rises respectively. I just upgraded from 680 2gb to Titan 6gb and Vram would fluctuate between 1.2-2.2 on the 680 but now (at that resolution) peaks close to 3gb. If i lower the 3d screen res to 100%, Vram usage goes down.

Also should add that VD and Texture detail are cofactors in this.

Edited March 15, 2013 by froggyluv

[Insanatrix 0]

I'm not sure I full understand what a memory leak is but one thing is for sure: The higher my Resolution 2560x1440 and the higher I jack the 3d Resolution (currently at 200%) - the Vram usage rises respectively. I just upgraded from 680 2gb to Titan 6gb and Vram would fluctuate between 1.2-2.2 on the 680 but now (at that resolution) peaks close to 3gb. If i lower the 3d screen res to 100%, Vram usage goes down.

Also should add that VD and Texture detail are cofactors in this.

Higher resolutions = larger memory consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_leak

[white 1]

Higher resolutions = larger memory consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_leak

i also believe filters like AA which run entirely inside the gfx card also use a chunk of videoram. more AA, more videoram used.

[daze23 1]

i also believe filters like AA which run entirely inside the gfx card also use a chunk of videoram. more AA, more videoram used.

yep, it has to do with how AA works. is basically renders the scene a higher res and then downsamples it

[Insanatrix 0]

i also believe filters like AA which run entirely inside the gfx card also use a chunk of videoram. more AA, more videoram used.

true, but then he was referencing jacking the 3d resolution up, not messing with Anti Aliasing, hence my response.

[wasabi 1]

New ATI Beta Driver is out ... Any news on FPS ?

[Imortalpig2 1]

Hope I can run the game, this thread really helped me out a lot. Thanks

[EmirSc 10]

New ATI Beta Driver is out ... Any news on FPS ?

its a engine problem not a driver problem.

[shadylurker 0]

its a engine problem not a driver problem.

Honestly though your video card is horrible. I have a Q6700, upgraded from an ATI 6850, to a 7870. Night and day difference. Not trying to be a dick.

[meat_helmet 10]

I don't know if this has been covered before in this thread but I'll post it anyway.

I know that all the ARMA series have been pretty hard on the CPU, and the reasons I have heard have been to do with the fact that the AI is so advanced and all the objects it needs to load/unload. While I have been testing I noticed that when in the editor, with just a player in a helicopter my CPU cores stay at about 80%,0%,40%,0%,40%,0%,0%,40% [cpucount is at 4 - i7 920, 16gb ram and HD7970]. I figured that this was just all the objects loading/unload etc while flying around [no AI present].

The strange thing is that I then landed, turned off the engine and just left the view stay in the same place, and my CPU stayed in basically exactly the same load on all cores...

I have all quality settings on very high or ultra, 2xAA and view distance at about 1700. What am I missing here, what is the CPU doing all this time if not working out AI paths/behavior, loading objects, physics or working out trajectories?? Is the engine just rendering alot of graphics on the CPU? Even at alpha stage without optimisation, I don't understand what the CPU could be doing?