Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[Leon86 13]

The main reason for increased performance in wasteland is because the first version of the mission was a bad port, causing a lot of errors greatly reducing performance over time and eventually crashing. The newer versions cause fewer errors run better.

[tamernator 1]

The main reason for increased performance in wasteland is because the first version of the mission was a bad port, causing a lot of errors greatly reducing performance over time and eventually crashing. The newer versions cause fewer errors run better.

And ofcourse at 25th maart right after patch all servers switched to newer version of wasteland mission ? What a coincidence ! Or maybe server admins were waiting a new patch from BIS to switch to newer Wasteland Mission ? You are genius..... NOT.

Just a Facepalm, people please dont talk things u know nothing about.

Edited March 26, 2013 by tamernator

[white 1]

And ofcourse at 25th maart right after patch all servers switched to newer version of wasteland mission ? What a coincidence ! Or maybe server admins were waiting a new patch from BIS to switch to newer Wasteland Mission ? You are genius..... NOT.

Just a Facepalm, people please dont talk things u dont know anything about.

im impressed with how you can replicate the same scenario in the middle of an online game with multiple players doing their own random things and probably different time of day, n order to test your fps properly and to draw such an objective and precise conclusions from. im facinated.

Edited March 26, 2013 by white

[Leon86 13]

And ofcourse at 25th maart right after patch all servers switched to newer version of wasteland mission ? What a coincidence ! Or maybe server admins were waiting a new patch from BIS to switch to newer Wasteland Mission ? You are genius..... NOT.

Just a Facepalm, people please dont talk things u know nothing about.

just personal experience, old wasteland versions run like shit, new ones run better. patch might have had some improvement, dunno, been on the dev branch for a while now.

[asd123 1]

Get 2400mhz ram, ditch the Radeon for a GTX670 & you're good to go!

Why would i do that when my rig clearly is suppoused to run the game fine ?

Obviously there is a problem with the game engine which im asking how can i fix it ?

Recommended:

OS:Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 SP1

Processor:Intel Core i5-2300 or AMD Phenom II X4 940 or better

Memory:4 GB RAM

Graphics:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 or AMD Radeon HD 7750 with 1 GB VRAM or better

DirectX®:11

Hard Drive:20 GB HD space

Sound:DirectX®-compatible

my shit is much better than the recommended shit, and the game still runs on low fps

---

can somebody explain this to me ?

edit: just OC'd to 4.3 ghz

btw: i have an SSD but the game isn't installed on it, should i move it ? im guessing that yes >_>

Edited March 26, 2013 by asd123

[tamernator 1]

im impressed with how you can replicate the same scenario in the middle of an online game with multiple players doing their own random things and probably different time of day, n order to test your fps properly and to draw such an objective and precise conclusions from. im facinated.

1) I look at my FPS about every 3 - 5 minutes when i play Arma

2) Test was done at the same servers, with the same amount of players online and at the same places looking at the same direction

3) Yes i can not replicate the same scenario and day time, and thats why a gave you guys a RANGE OF MY FPS.And let me tell u just 1 thing, before patch i never had 35 - 40 FPS FPS at Wasteland and im sure i never had 30 FPS at Air Base before patch. There is not even test needed since i see my FPS all the time at my screen and i know its jumps range and i know that at any scenarios and at any time of day i never had 30 FPS at Air Base before the new patch.

Please learn to read and make logical conclusions.

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------

just personal experience, old wasteland versions run like shit, new ones run better. patch might have had some improvement, dunno, been on the dev branch for a while now.

I know what u talking about but it does not concern to my case since i did test just a 10 mins before new patch and 10 minutes after Patch, unless 5 -8 servers i tried did change their Wasteland missions inside those 10 minutes.

Edited March 26, 2013 by tamernator

[guusert 1]

I was talking specifically about people complaining about 6- 8- cores being underutilized, NOT that the issue didn't also exist for others with 2- and 4- cores. Why don't you try to follow my logic before ranting next time, if you can...

Why shouldn't people with 6 and 8 cores be allowed to discuss this and people with 2 or 4 cores can?

[jumpinghubert 49]

do we need a....b....b...benchmark? lol

[tremanarch 6]

do we need a....b....b...benchmark? lol

:)

i had an idea at the very start of the whole discussion: 1 minute of showcase heli doing nothing... record fps over time with fraps when the siren starts - just at start...

no one jumped on it. need same settings just use very high as overall setting vsync off... maybe 128 audio channels... 1920x1080... recruit

we just need to present some benches with this setting - i did - and the people will follow automatically.

2013-03-26 14:52:30 - arma3

Frames: 1852 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 30.867 - Min: 27 - Max: 37

2500k 4.5 ghz - 8gb ram (1600) - 560ti 1gb vram (clk: 905mhz, mem: 2120mhz, shd: 1810 mhz) - ssd - win8 - 0.52 stable (no start params) - nvidia: 314.21

Edited March 26, 2013 by tremanarch

[antoineflemming 14]

New SITREP, Operations paragraph:

OPERATIONS

Your Player ID (visible in the profile settings) may have changed to be longer. This is not a bug. Please update your Squad's XML indexing if you use it for multiplayer.

Performance optimizations, anti-cheat solutions, Dedicated Server packages and tool releases are all in progress. They are big tasks and once we have specific deployment dates, we will share those.

That's all I've been wanting for now. Acknowledgement that they are working on optimizing performance. Satisfied.

[gammadust 12]

Hopefully those when they come will solve the problems a chunk of us are having, and if my current pretty satisfying performance benefits from it, even better.

[white 1]

New SITREP, Operations paragraph:

That's all I've been wanting for now. Acknowledgement that they are working on optimizing performance. Satisfied.

hope it will be a high % so overclocked 4ghz+ processors wont be the only ones with semi-acceptable framerates. optimizations in general are expected obviously.

Edited March 26, 2013 by white

[helo 10]

I created a benchmark mission to test different settings in ArmA 3:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151794-ArmA3Mark-Benchmark-your-ArmA-3&p=2356610#post2356610

[jumpinghubert 49]

many many thanks helo! :)

[white 1]

I created a benchmark mission to test different settings in ArmA 3:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151794-ArmA3Mark-Benchmark-your-ArmA-3&p=2356610#post2356610

very nice, great job. thats helps a lot into stardardizing the way people test their fps to post here.

mine: http://imgur.com/oCMcdct

my ingame options: http://i.imgur.com/4TvDyFx.png pip off, post on standard, aniso ultra and aa 2x + atoc trees+grass.

my specs are below on my sig.

Edited March 26, 2013 by white

[helo 10]

I actually hoped BIS would have provided one benchmark mission with the alpha release to enable us a standaridzed and relaible testing of settings.

[gammadust 12]

^^ me too, we'll have to make do with this one until then ;)

[tet5uo 4]

Nice one man. We should decide on some common settings to run this with so that good comparisons can be made.

[helo 10]

ArmAmark has been updated so that you can paste the final results easily where ever you want :) .

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151794-ArmA3Mark-Benchmark-your-ArmA-3&p=2356712&viewfull=1#post2356712

[Razorman 10]

OFPMark is 7011.21

Thanks!

[dnk 13]

Too bad. The game is fucked and sure enough, its not my fault.

And I'm saying it actually is partially your fault for buying fringe equipment and then expecting every developer to code appropriately for it. It's like buying a supercar and expecting the local mechanic to be able to repair it and source parts for it. Then saying "it's not MY fault you can't fix my car. Stupid/lazy mechanic."

What is your goal/end game here? Obviously if there are 100 pages in this single thread your opinion is meaningless and the wider majority are having fps issues.

"End game"? :D To destroy the universe, of course.

Its not just AMD users you fool.

Never said it was. Just because someone says "A is a problem" doesn't preclude "B is a problem". You will come up against this sort of logic many times in your life, so it's best to learn now that someone taking issue with one detail does not mean they disagree with everything you say. It will save you and others much trouble. I have little patience for people who read into my arguments everything and anything they want to because they're on full tilt over an issue and can't handle any sort of criticism. Sorry if I talk down a bit, but I'm going to be blunt when you waste my time and put words in my mouth.

My point was that AMD users are likely to have more issues than Intel users, here and in general, due to their purchasing less common products (and those products generally being poorer quality for gaming).

The rest of your post I don't disagree with. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that some people have issues with under-utilization. Forgive me for not repeating this in every post of mine. You know, you can help prevent this on your side by buying more mainstream products on your next build. With infinite hardware combinations to deal with, developers and such can't always get it right for everyone. Ensuring you have a fairly common setup also helps ensure that you get covered by performance tweaks, "optimizations", and bug patches.

Please, if you're going to be here, please contribute more than just bashing everyone who's got an issue with the game.

Believe I've posted a few long ones about my own experiences, including graphs and such.

Here

My GPU Load still drops down from 99% after some time playing (usually 10 to 20 mins), and that's when I experience severe FPS drops.

I get a 10-20% drop with heavy AI (but only when fighting) too. It correlates with lower FPS. This happened in A2, though, and it's definitely improved in A3, so I'm not complaining as much because, you know, I expected it. Expecting total engine overhauls with smaller studios is setting yourself up for disappointment, and it creates unrealistic demands on the developers. I think they've already done a lot with the new engine, buggy as it is in alpha, but yes I do hope they can improve performance further. Many of the issues people are calling them out on here, though, are "generalizing personal anecdotes", like that it isn't coded for multicore systems, when clearly it can run just perfectly fine on a quadcore, etc.

Because I disagree with these statements doesn't mean I don't believe the individuals are having problems, or that these problems may be endemic (but they may not as well, see below). But I will input my own experiences as well to give another side to the discussion and critique poor logic as I see fit, including defending people who are being told to leave because they dare to have different experiences.

Why shouldn't people with 6 and 8 cores be allowed to discuss this and people with 2 or 4 cores can?

They can, but we shouldn't use 3% fringe hardware as a base for the engine's limitations. If all the people discussing 6 and 8 cores in this thread actually have them, then well it just goes to show how an extreme minority can overrepresent itself on forums where the "silent majority" steer clear of the discussion, partially because they don't have the issues and partially because people tell them to "leave and stop bothering us and disagreeing with us", as has happened to me now twice at least.

If you have a 6/8 core system, my above comments towards Planetside apply to you as well.

[antoineflemming 14]

And I'm saying it actually is partially your fault for buying fringe equipment and then expecting every developer to code appropriately for it. It's like buying a supercar and expecting the local mechanic to be able to repair it and source parts for it. Then saying "it's not MY fault you can't fix my car. Stupid/lazy mechanic."

Well this would be a great example if the majority of the problem was the car. But it's not. The majority of the problem is the engine, hence why we've actually seen some improvement after patches. The local mechanic didn't design the car anyway. The real analogy is buying a supercar that uses a faulty engine made by another manufacturer. While you can't blame everything on the other manufacturer (in this case, BIS), more likely than not, the problem the car is having is due to the faulty engine, and not as much on the car being a supercar.

If the issue was only 6 and 8 core PCs not working with Arma 3, with all 2 and 4 core PCs working fine, then the problem would be the "supercar". But 4 core PCs don't work fine. So the issue isn't that a PC has 6 or 8 cores. It's the RV engine's detection and utilization of the cores that's the primary problem.

Look, I'm not telling you to leave or anything. But just like you say there are users who are telling those who have no problems to leave, there are also those who are telling those with problems to essentially "shut up and stop whining" simply because those users aren't having problems. And the fact is, we cannot say whether the majority of Arma 3 players are having problems or not having problems.

[froggyluv 2136]

^^^ Yes but isn't using a 2.20ghz processor like bringing the worlds smallest hammer to work on that engine :p

[tremanarch 6]

Amdahl's law and Gustafson's law

"A program solving a large mathematical or engineering problem will typically consist of several parallelizable parts and several non-parallelizable (sequential) parts. [...]" - its not just a linear increase in performance when you use more cores.

in reality it depends heavily on the task itself if has more or less parallelizable parts. and thats if the cpu is really the bottleneck. I still think that somehow sth. else is the bottleneck. because why is it in ArmA 2 Editor I come from 80+ fps to 20 fps when zooming into a forest on empty chernarus with no AI - no Objects no anything at all? Sth. with that streaming process that utilizes CPU, and must run sequential is maybe the bottleneck.

we really need the engines source code or better a diagram to be able to really comment on this. otherwise all we can do is blackboxing... and with so many ppl talking fantasy its just not helpful. what we know is: it helps to have high clock on CPU, it does not help to have many cores. So all those multimedia notebooks optimized for Mail and Office wont work good, but Overclocked systems will work good atm.

Edited March 27, 2013 by tremanarch

[Leon86 13]

^^^ Yes but isn't using a 2.20ghz processor like bringing the worlds smallest hammer to work on that engine :p

It'll turbo to 3 GHz when only loading 2 cores. should perform quite well in a3, especially for a notebook.