Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[Leon86 13]

It's never going to matter how fast your CPU is or how fast your GPU is, the engine is completely limited by the amount of data that can pass through the SATA interface, which is limited by your Hard Drive's random read/write speed. As the I/O requirements increase due to more data needing to be streamed, it will only get worse.

If we had to wait for a lot of data from the harddrive before rendering a frame you'd be looking at seconds per frame. Clearly this is not the case.

[stk2008 14]

Has some one with vast amounts of RAM mad a RAm drive and tested I am sure some one did and made no difference there for all so removeing hard drives and page file being the bottle neck (unless off course they all so move page file to ram if this is possible) some one please test I cant or trust me I would have done by now :(

But yeah as stated I think the page file needs to be moved to ram drive or disabled for it to be a true reading

[Insanatrix 0]

If we had to wait for a lot of data from the harddrive before rendering a frame you'd be looking at seconds per frame. Clearly this is not the case.

Even a thread that has to wait 10ns can drastically affect processing time and frame rate and will also effect all other linked threads. It doesn't have to be gobs of large data but rather sequential bursts that surpass the bandwidth speeds of the interface or the capabilities of the drive itself.

---------- Post added at 15:04 ---------- Previous post was at 15:02 ----------

Has some one with vast amounts of RAM mad a RAm drive and tested I am sure some one did and made no difference there for all so removeing hard drives and page file being the bottle neck (unless off course they all so move page file to ram if this is possible) some one please test I cant or trust me I would have done by now :(

But yeah as stated I think the page file needs to be moved to ram drive or disabled for it to be a true reading

Windows will still have a pagefile on a physical drive that it will default to for fault tolerance.

[Leon86 13]

Even a thread that has to wait 10ns can drastically affect processing time and frame rate and will also effect all other linked threads. It doesn't have to be gobs of large data but rather sequential bursts that surpass the bandwidth speeds of the interface or the capabilities of the drive itself.

---------- Post added at 15:04 ---------- Previous post was at 15:02 ----------

Windows will still have a pagefile on a physical drive that it will default to for fault tolerance.

The response of a harddrive is not nanoseconds, if something has to come off the harddrive it'll be well over 10ms, 20ms if its a decent bit of data.

The pagefile is managed by windows, as long as there's enough usable ram left it's not used. At least arma2 never read anything from the pagefile until I made my ramdisk too big so there wasn't enough ram left to run the game :) anyway, long time ago.

these threads may interest you.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?88629-ArmA-2-I-O-analysis-results

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?88388-Here-s-how-I-got-ARMA2-to-perform-smoothly-using-RAMDISK

[Insanatrix 0]

The response of a harddrive is not nanoseconds, if something has to come off the harddrive it'll be well over 10ms, 20ms if its a decent bit of data.

The pagefile is managed by windows, as long as there's enough usable ram left it's not used. At least arma2 never read anything from the pagefile until I made my ramdisk too big so there wasn't enough ram left to run the game :) anyway, long time ago.

these threads may interest you.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?88629-ArmA-2-I-O-analysis-results

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?88388-Here-s-how-I-got-ARMA2-to-perform-smoothly-using-RAMDISK

At this point, believe me, don't believe me, I'm getting sick of arguing. I could point out that both those threads say that RAM is better than a hard drive and they use RAM to get around physical limitations of a hard drive, but you wouldn't believe me. I could point out that file caching takes place, so there is a bit of a buffer between the access time of your hard drive and when the thread calls for the data. I'm not sure I even care anymore at this point.

You're Winner! :rolleyes:

[Leon86 13]

but there is still arguing to be done, both here and in the 64bit thread :D

anyway, the I/O was a big problem when arma 2 launched, and it didn't cause constant low fps, but massive stutter. But bohemia sortof fixed it until there wasn't really a point in using a ramdrive anymore.

[Sevenz 10]

It's never going to matter how fast your CPU is or how fast your GPU is, the engine is completely limited by the amount of data that can pass through the SATA interface, which is limited by your Hard Drive's random read/write speed. As the I/O requirements increase due to more data needing to be streamed, it will only get worse.

Not sure why you are saying this because it is matter.

"Faster cpu" does increase your fps.

faster hdd/ssd never improved my fps in arma.

Maybe its smoother with a ssd/ramdisk than a HDD but the fps doesn't change at all while increasing your cpu clock increase your fps for sure.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Sevenz

[simjedi 10]

Did anyone tried this application?

Its for CPU limited games.

I tried it and my default is 1.000ms. Even though the programs webpage says you can only lower down to 1.000ms in the free version, it allowed (get it while you can) me to adjust down to .500ms.

It did not change a thing.

1.000ms on top and .500ms on bottom.

Click for full size.

Start of Helicopter Showcase. All A.I. allowed to move off screen before ending

[daze23 1]

edit... off topic

Edited March 21, 2013 by daze23

[antoineflemming 14]

Can we please stick to the topic at hand? Valve and Steam are not the issue in this thread.

[gammadust 12]

:j: those were 4 pages and 2 days without no one mention it... :confused:

[el_muerko 0]

What I find odd about this issue is how irregular the performance hit can be, I can stand on the road looking one way and have 20fps with a CPU load of 60% per core, then look the other way and have 10fps with a CPU load of 50% per core, this would suggest the bottleneck is not the CPU.

But I can change a wide variety of GPU settings such as draw distance, render resolution and AA, all which I'd think should increase or decrease my FPS but seems to have little to no effect. I don't envy BIS trying to debug this issue.

[aop 1]

What I find odd about this issue is how irregular the performance hit can be, I can stand on the road looking one way and have 20fps with a CPU load of 60% per core, then look the other way and have 10fps with a CPU load of 50% per core, this would suggest the bottleneck is not the CPU.

That is exactly what happens when the engine is bottlenecked by one CPU thread. Everything else stalls when the engine is waiting that thread to complete it's tasks.

[tet5uo 4]

One thing we really need so that we can get accurate feedback is some kind of official benchmark. It would need a common quality/resolution setting in it so that we can all have something valid to compare.

[antoineflemming 14]

What I find odd about this issue is how irregular the performance hit can be, I can stand on the road looking one way and have 20fps with a CPU load of 60% per core, then look the other way and have 10fps with a CPU load of 50% per core, this would suggest the bottleneck is not the CPU.

But I can change a wide variety of GPU settings such as draw distance, render resolution and AA, all which I'd think should increase or decrease my FPS but seems to have little to no effect. I don't envy BIS trying to debug this issue.

The fact that those should-be GPU-dependent settings don't change anything should tell you that the issue is the CPU, or rather the engine's use of the CPU.

[el_muerko 0]

That is exactly what happens when the engine is bottlenecked by one CPU thread. Everything else stalls when the engine is waiting that thread to complete it's tasks.

The fact that those should-be GPU-dependent settings don't change anything should tell you that the issue is the CPU, or rather the engine's use of the CPU.

Here's hoping they fix the CPU issues then, because I'd be able to run the game at some awesome GFX settings if that was the case.

[guusert 1]

Here's hoping they fix the CPU issues then, because I'd be able to run the game at some awesome GFX settings if that was the case.

I hope they actually realize that like this the game is unplayable for most people. They have to fix it.

[Xtri 10]

I don't think it's going to happen. It's the same engine as Arma 2 just with new shit in it.

[drakedaeron 13]

I respect the work of Bohemia, they made a great game even if he is only in Alpha, but he would be time when they move to repair their engine.

[ric 1]

I don't think it's going to happen. It's the same engine as Arma 2 just with new shit in it.

this is what i have read from some of the long time arma2 folks :( this is not a bug or "tuning" problem it is a more fundamental issue :(

[guusert 1]

this is what i have read from some of the long time arma2 folks :( this is not a bug or "tuning" problem it is a more fundamental issue :(

Seems legit. They keep hiding. I'm going to get my money back. Biggest game rip off ever. You should be responding as fast as possible. Your community is going mad. This is the main priority. Drop everything you're working on right now and fix this first. Take your time. Even though you were going to release this in 2012 lol This is going to be your downfall if you don't do something about this.

Edited March 21, 2013 by guusert

[Razorman 10]

The "Fundamental" issue is this engine requires heavy horse power in the cpu dept.

I have it luckily & the game runs very well, A2/3 as well as the original OFP, all of them have used this game engine & variants of it since 2001, this game engine was developed originally as a mil sim for training in rl warfare.

It calculates everything everywhere in real time, ballistics, leaves, shit u even can follow the same bird for miles & there are hundreds of them.

If your cpu is weaksauce you will suffer, & it's not all about core clock mhz, research before shouting that my 4....ghz only get 30fps (which is good in A3 terms).

There are tweaks that can be done by the user to improve performance but ultimately cpu is king in Arma series.

Brilliant game, excellent devs.

[Minoza 11]

nah, it's all fine. AS for ATOC killing performance, try turn off post proces off and try turn atoc on, maybe in combo this causing fps drop.

OMG it was exactly that! I can't believe it... I turned Post to Normal and no more issues with ATOC when scoping, 4xAA...

[guusert 1]

The "Fundamental" issue is this engine requires heavy horse power in the cpu dept.

I have it luckily & the game runs very well, A2/3 as well as the original OFP, all of them have used this game engine & variants of it since 2001, this game engine was developed originally as a mil sim for training in rl warfare.

It calculates everything everywhere in real time, ballistics, leaves, shit u even can follow the same bird for miles & there are hundreds of them.

If your cpu is weaksauce you will suffer, & it's not all about core clock mhz, research before shouting that my 4....ghz only get 30fps (which is good in A3 terms).

There are tweaks that can be done by the user to improve performance but ultimately cpu is king in Arma series.

Brilliant game, excellent devs.

Bitch please -.-

I am wasting my time typing this. Just because you are a rich fag and you only care about yourself, doesn't mean you should say the devs should ignore the problem and screw anyone who has a moderate CPU.

It doesn't run well. Why do you think this huge thread is here in the first place?

" all of them have used this game engine & variants of it since 2001, this game engine was developed originally as a mil sim for training in rl warfare." Unrelevant information. I have no idea what you are aiming for.

And who exactly is saying "my 4....ghz only get 30fps"?

You'd say that the devs would make use of your engine since this game is so CPU dependant. But they're doing it wrong.

Or remove the birds and disable pretty much everything that is CPU dependant, so it's not like an ArmA game anymore? Make it CoD lol

Those tweaks you are talking about barely make any difference, if any.

These devs are not ok. Even two of them have been in jail for making photo's of a military base in Greece (how stupid...).

Yeah, brilliant unplayable game!

Edited March 21, 2013 by guusert

[white 1]

The "Fundamental" issue is this engine requires heavy horse power in the cpu dept.

I have it luckily & the game runs very well, A2/3 as well as the original OFP, all of them have used this game engine & variants of it since 2001, this game engine was developed originally as a mil sim for training in rl warfare.

It calculates everything everywhere in real time, ballistics, leaves, shit u even can follow the same bird for miles & there are hundreds of them.

If your cpu is weaksauce you will suffer, & it's not all about core clock mhz, research before shouting that my 4....ghz only get 30fps (which is good in A3 terms).

There are tweaks that can be done by the user to improve performance but ultimately cpu is king in Arma series.

Brilliant game, excellent devs.

we have people with 3960 and titan complaining about low performance, anyone with half a brain notices it, so stop with the stupid. and there is no "30fps is good in a3" ppl just say that because they have no choice when the first core on the cpu is bottlenecked and noone can buy a 6ghz cpu.

average 30fps in arma behaves the same as 30fps in any other fps´s. BAD.

and btw, devs already recognized the issue. so if you dont want better framerates, keep posting nonsense.

Edited March 21, 2013 by white