Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[EmirSc 10]

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.

dick...

[chongchong 1]

My specs are somewhat on the high end, and Arma 3's performance is highly questionable. About 40fps with very modest settings on the Infantry showcase. And about 30fps on the Helicopter showcase.

This is what I'm runnning arma 3 on:

i7 3930k running at 4.8ghz

16gb of Corsair Dominator GT RAM running at 2133mhz

Corsair GT SSD (Arma 3 installed on it)

3 x GTX 680 Classifieds running Tri SLI with 4gb of Vram each

Monitor running at 2560x1440

I've tried to be as specific as possible so you guys know what I'm running with.

The devs better wake up. The game might be good, but if it can barely be run by decent pc's (even at low settings) then what's the point. It's like having the most luxurious car with the most economical gas tank; if the car has to be tweaked and put on the dyno every time you want to take it for a spin, and it only drives at 20mph... then what's the point.

Now I know that this is an Alpha version, but to me, it's looking like no matter what the level of polish is, the game will still run like crap. This is a crippling issue lying deep within the game's engine, which unfortunately, I don't think it can ever be fixed. Just like Arma 2, in which I get the same crappy performance even after all these years.

Just to be clear here, 60fps and over is smooth. I know some people will argue that even 30fps is smooth, but it's not. Not even close. I'm not having a go, it's just the way things are.

I hope the devs are paying close attention to this issue, and realize that something is seriously wrong here.

[Zyromkiru 10]

Drivers are something to expect when the game is in Beta or Finished... don't expect any for this game (or any that do much for this game) before then.

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.

You sir have no idea what you're talking about. That card is not horrible and still pretty powerful. Sure it's not great compared to a newer card but who cares really?

[Akrett 1]

Hey, guys how its possible im getting same fps on all settings low to high, always 20-25fps no matter what, AA on/off, Shadows on/off etc.

i dont have problems with other games to run at least decent quality. If its only alpha issue +1, but i hope it dont will be same while release :-(

thx for reply

hoaah

my spec:

Amd Phenom II x4 550 3,20GHz

16 GB RAM DDR3

GTX 460 1GB

latest drivers 314.07

[Razorman 10]

If you are talking multiplayer the reason is the server controls all video settings not the client, so whatever you adjust will never impact the online experience.

Oh btw, sorry but your rig is weaksauce & you won't ever see much of an improvement, poor cpu (for this game ) and very poor gpu.

[metalcraze 290]

Oh come on. On my Phenom II with AIs running around I can see that the load on first core is 70-75% and on 3 other it's 35-45%, never even reaching the 50% mark.

Surely even Phenom II can be utilized better than that?

[nikiforos 450]

I would like to know the average FPS when people play online. I Get everything between 25-50 FPS and ofcourse that depends on server.

For me smooth game is everything above 45 fps.

[Akrett 1]

If you are talking multiplayer the reason is the server controls all video settings not the client, so whatever you adjust will never impact the online experience.

Oh btw, sorry but your rig is weaksauce & you won't ever see much of an improvement, poor cpu (for this game ) and very poor gpu.

ye offline i get smooth fps +-45 (for me), online based on server only 20fps

[meat_helmet 10]

Well, I just tried an old arma 2 trick after searching for fixes. Changing the 'GPU_MaxFramesAhead' from 1000 down to 1 in the config file gave me about an extra 10 frames [at a guess, not using fraps]. So going from quite hard to play frame rates on multiplayer ie. ~20-25fps it has become really smooth. Also testing the helicopter mission adds quite a few frames and although it probably drops to 30fps sometimes, the majority its quite far above it and probably 10 frames above what I had before.

For anyone that hasn't tried the config file is found at documents/Arma 3 Alpha/Arma3Alpha.cfg

It wasn't me that found it, as I said was from arma 2. I also doubt it will be a fix for everyone, but if you haven't tried it, give it a go.

[Touch Off 10]

Gave it a go a couple o days ago, no difference. Your post would have some validity if it wasn't guess work ffs.

At the post by the developer.

let us first analyze and fix it :) then we will see/talk more ;)

Analyse and fix what? Surely you could have realised this sooner, in the last I don't know, 10 years?

[meat_helmet 10]

Your post would have some validity if it wasn't guess work ffs.

It helped for me mate... Its gonna take 2 mins for anyone to try. What do you want a series of charts and diagrams? :icon_rolleyes:

[Maj. Gastovski 7]

This issue is currently the #1 highest voted on the tracker and has been assigned. (Link)

Make sure to vote it up. ;)

Well, that's a good start. Voted up.

[daze23 1]

it's just frustrating when everyone that picks up a few frames comes here claiming they found a "fix"

[-=Grunt=- 10]

I just overclocked my i5 3570K to 4.2 Ghz... Chopper showcase still running at 20-40 FPS. Really low CPU usage and the GPU not being used a lot.

I used an on-screen display to measure it through-out the mission and here is the amount of CPU and GPU usage I've got:

1st core: 70-80%

2nd core: 40-50%

3rd core: Stays around 30%

4th core: Same as 3rd core

GPU usage was moving about from 60% to 80%. Feels like AI congests the processor so much that the processor bottlenecks the GPU... Since in multiplayer and the editor without much AI, my GPU usage is at 99%.

My specs:

Intel i5 3570K @ 4.2 Ghz

ASUS Maximus V Gene

2 x 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 Mhz

7200 RPM 1TB Seagate Barracuda

Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti OC

[NeuroFunker 11]

Here is my little optimization guide, for optimal balance for performance/quality:

First - my rig is:

Intel Core i5 2500K clocked @4,4ghz.

12GB 1333mhz DDR3-RAM

GeForce 670GTX 2GB clocked at 1,2ghz gpu.

128GB SSD + 1TB HDD (Arma is installed on SSD obviously)

Win 7 Ultimate x64.

Second - now lets start the game, and open "Video Options" in game:

Tab - BASIC.

Resolution, gamma, brighness, interface size aren't important, lets begin with Visibility:

Overall - i have set to 2,8k (how far the terrain renders, very CPU dependent)

Object - to 1,8k (how far the objects [buildings, trees, stones] on terrain renders, CPU dependent)

Shadow - 200m (must be cpu dependent don't see any FPS changes if set to minimum)

Next Tab - Rendering:

Rendering Res - 100% (your display resolution, GPU dependent)

Vsync - enabled (GPU dependent)

Antialiasing - 8xAA (makes your image smooth, very GPU dependent)

PPAA - FXAA Ultra (this one actually sharpens your image, in my taste makes better visibility at distances, no fps hit, GPU dependent).

AtoC - All trees + grass. (improves trees and grass rendering, no fps hit, GPU dependent)

Postprocess Quality - Normal. (even with my clocked geforce 670gtx, it kills my FPS to 30, if set over normal parameter, very GPU dependent)

HDR Quality: Standart (at low, image looks more contrast, but overbloomed, CPU dependent, can't see FPS difference between low and standart)

Anisotropic Filtering - Very High (GPU dependent, no FPS hit)

PiP (Picture in Picture)- Ultra (quality of car mirrors, no fps change to me, cpu/gpu dependent?)

Dynamic Lights - Ultra (lighting quality, can't see differences if on low)

Next Tab - Quality:

Texture Qualty - Ultra (Very GPU dependent, Not for GPU's with less then 2GB VRAM)

Obects Quality - Standart (Very CPU dependent, next to view distance)

Terrain Quality - Standart (Very CPU dependent, next to view distance)

Clouds Quality - Ultra (can't see fps difference if set to low, gpu dependent?)

Shadows Quality - High (this one is interesting, if set lower then high, it gets very CPU dependent, and looks ugly and kills my performance, however, if set to high, it is GPU dependent)

Particles Quality - Very High (GPU dependent, can't see fps differences)

I did spend few hours for tweaking, and found out, this offers imo. best balance of quality/performance, but i can't guarantee you, it will run well on your rig as well. You can use this as basic you could tweak on your own. If you have weak gpu, try lower all gpu dependent settings.

I hope you enjoy, good looking and smooth runing arma, and can't wait for BIS to optimize our game more further. :)

Peace,

Neuro.

[k3lt 3]

FYI Terrain Quality is GPU dependant, i dont think it uses any CPU at all.

I'm completely CPU bottlenecked (to the point where i have to use 1km view distance/500m object distance), and changing this setting had 0 impact on my performance, it just increased GPU usage and GPU VRAM usage. (basically it improves terrain texture)

Dynamic Lights - Ultra (lighting quality, can't see differences if on low)

You will see difference at night

PiP (Picture in Picture)- Ultra (quality of car mirrors, no fps change to me, cpu/gpu dependent?)

Now get into vehicle, you will notice difference trust me

Edited March 16, 2013 by k3lt

[aop 1]

*snip*

Lot's of text but no solution to the problems discussed in this thread.

Try spawning some BLUFOR and OPFOR squads in Agia Marina or go play 40-60 player TDM and come back with your fantastic optimization results.

ArmA 3 runs like crap. It's currently one of the worst running games bar some flight sims like X-Plane 10 or Prepar3D (atleast in them you can get good performance by lowering the graphics settings a bit). To get smooth 40-50 fps in ArmA 3 you need to have something like 5GHz+ Intel CPU. My i5 2500K@4.3GHz isn't enough.

[NeuroFunker 11]

FYI Terrain Quality is GPU dependant, i dont think it uses any CPU at all.

I'm completely CPU bottlenecked, and changing this setting had 0 impact on my performance, it just increased GPU usage abit and GPU VRAM usage increased. (basically it improves terrain texture)

not really, first it increases grass rendering distance, second it "rounds" up the hills and stuff, so they have more complex geometry, and as my knowledge, geometry likes CPU.

Dynamic Lights - Ultra (lighting quality, can't see differences if on low)

You will see in night time..

Alright, affects that your performance?

PiP (Picture in Picture)- Ultra (quality of car mirrors, no fps change to me, cpu/gpu dependent?)

Now get into vehicle, you will notice difference trust me..

yes, i will see difference, it will render less pictures in second, but that doesn't improve my performance, but still looks good at maximum details

[k3lt 3]

not really, first it increases grass rendering distance, second it "rounds" up the hills and stuff, so they have more complex geometry, and as my knowledge, geometry likes CPU.

Did you even read my post? I'm CPU bottlenecked to the point where i have to use 1km view distance/500m obj. distance to get any decent fps so trust me i did good research on CPU bottlenecking settings, and setting Terrain Quality to ultra had 0 impact on performance except increased VRAM usage.

Go figure.

yes, i will see difference, it will render less pictures in second, but that doesn't improve my performance, but still looks good at maximum details

For me it halves fps in vehicles, with interior view.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Lot's of text but no solution to the problems discussed in this thread.

Try spawning some BLUFOR and OPFOR squads in Agia Marina or go play 40-60 player TDM and come back with your fantastic optimization results.

ArmA 3 runs like crap. It's currently one of the worst running games bar some flight sims like X-Plane 10 or Prepar3D (atleast in them you can get good performance by lowering the graphics settings a bit). To get smooth 40-50 fps in ArmA 3 you need to have something like 5GHz+ Intel CPU. My i5 2500K@4.3GHz isn't enough.

then it's something wrong with your rig? I can play fine on 60 man full wasteland server. Average 30 fps. It depends on server hosting, of course there are servers, where you have 5 fps, but you simply leave them and look for better ones?

[sethos 2]

FYI Terrain Quality is GPU dependant, i dont think it uses any CPU at all.

Actually, it does use CPU.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Sethos

[NeuroFunker 11]

Did you read my post? I'm CPU bottlenecked to the point where i have to use 1km view distance/500m obj. distance to get any decent fps, and setting Terrain Quality to ultra had 0 impact on performance except increased VRAM usage.

Go figure.

Well, it's obviously i did, i guess with your low view distance, rising up terrain quality, doesn't change much, as with 3km view distance.

[postal vending machine 10]

Here is my little optimization guide, for optimal balance for performance/quality:

First - my rig is:

Intel Core i5 2500K clocked @4,4ghz.

12GB 1333mhz DDR3-RAM

GeForce 670GTX 2GB clocked at 1,2ghz gpu.

128GB SSD + 1TB HDD (Arma is installed on SSD obviously)

Win 7 Ultimate x64.

Second - now lets start the game, and open "Video Options" in game:

Tab - BASIC.

Resolution, gamma, brighness, interface size aren't important, lets begin with Visibility:

Overall - i have set to 2,8k (how far the terrain renders, very CPU dependent)

Object - to 1,8k (how far the objects [buildings, trees, stones] on terrain renders, CPU dependent)

Shadow - 200m (must be cpu dependent don't see any FPS changes if set to minimum)

Next Tab - Rendering:

Rendering Res - 100% (your display resolution, GPU dependent)

Vsync - enabled (GPU dependent)

Antialiasing - 8xAA (makes your image smooth, very GPU dependent)

PPAA - FXAA Ultra (this one actually sharpens your image, in my taste makes better visibility at distances, no fps hit, GPU dependent).

AtoC - All trees + grass. (improves trees and grass rendering, no fps hit, GPU dependent)

Postprocess Quality - Normal. (even with my clocked geforce 670gtx, it kills my FPS to 30, if set over normal parameter, very GPU dependent)

HDR Quality: Standart (at low, image looks more contrast, but overbloomed, CPU dependent, can't see FPS difference between low and standart)

Anisotropic Filtering - Very High (GPU dependent, no FPS hit)

PiP (Picture in Picture)- Ultra (quality of car mirrors, no fps change to me, cpu/gpu dependent?)

Dynamic Lights - Ultra (lighting quality, can't see differences if on low)

Next Tab - Quality:

Texture Qualty - Ultra (Very GPU dependent, Not for GPU's with less then 2GB VRAM)

Obects Quality - Standart (Very CPU dependent, next to view distance)

Terrain Quality - Standart (Very CPU dependent, next to view distance)

Clouds Quality - Ultra (can't see fps difference if set to low, gpu dependent?)

Shadows Quality - High (this one is interesting, if set lower then high, it gets very CPU dependent, and looks ugly and kills my performance, however, if set to high, it is GPU dependent)

Particles Quality - Very High (GPU dependent, can't see fps differences)

I did spend few hours for tweaking, and found out, this offers imo. best balance of quality/performance, but i can't guarantee you, it will run well on your rig as well. You can use this as basic you could tweak on your own. If you have weak gpu, try lower all gpu dependent settings.

I hope you enjoy, good looking and smooth runing arma, and can't wait for BIS to optimize our game more further. :)

Peace,

Neuro.

Excellent little guide!

I've got a very similar rig, and my settings were set-up almost identically (Object distance was at 1100, Shadows at 100, SMAA instead of FXAA).

Hopefully this will help some of the newer players to the ArmA franchise sort out their performance issues. (Although some tweaks on the developer side are still sorely needed)

[NeuroFunker 11]

Excellent little guide!

I've got a very similar rig, and my settings were set-up almost identically (Object distance was at 1100, Shadows at 100, SMAA instead of FXAA).

Hopefully this will help some of the newer players to the ArmA franchise sort out their performance issues. (Although some tweaks on the developer side are still sorely needed)

thank you! :)

Personally i find FXAA better, since it sharpens the image a bit, and makes it better to see things at distance. SMAA for some reason, does unsharp the image a bit, just look at trees and bushes at distance, and compare them both.

[postal vending machine 10]

thank you! :)

Personally i find FXAA better, since it sharpens the image a bit, and makes it better to see things at distance. SMAA for some reason, does unsharp the image a bit, just look at trees and bushes at distance, and compare them both.

I see what you mean, but the smoothing of SMAA is quite pleasing to me close up, and slightly disguises LOD changing on infantry at long distances. Guess it's up to personal preference (opposed to ArmA 2's FXAA vs SMAA where SMAA was straight-up superior).