Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[gallexme 1]

i got an score of 1429 on lowest settings with my i7 920 6gb ram and AMD 6950 someone know an solution?

[Leon86 13]

did you disable pip and lower viewdistance as well? 1500 should be more than adequate for gameplay.

[gallexme 1]

everything is as lowest as possible

[asd123 1]

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

SoundirectX®-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 >_>

[froggyluv 2136]

did you disable pip and lower viewdistance as well? 1500 should be more than adequate for gameplay.

Huh. I thought VD was determined by the scenario :confused: We really should develop a full standard settings for testing or else it's totally futile.

[ProfTournesol 956]

What is your system BTW ?

Sorry i'm blind :rolleyes:

Edited March 27, 2013 by ProfTournesol

[sweez 10]

Dont trust those sites :q: , its really hard to NOT pass the test, I used an really really old laptop, and according the site it got the recommended specs to play battlefield 3... it can hardly play a browser game....

[gammadust 12]

develop a full standard settings for testing

Can't be stressed enough!

[Leon86 13]

Huh. I thought VD was determined by the scenario :confused: We really should develop a full standard settings for testing or else it's totally futile.

yeah it is, srry, other settings still seem to have an effect.

anyway, I get ~7500 on lowest settings, ~5000 on my usual settings (1000 object viewdistance, terraind and model quality high, rest wont have too much of an impact, pip off shouldn't do anything to the mark I think) Running the dev branch.

I have a core i5-750 on 4.2 Ghz, under 1500 seems very low gallexme, your cpu is probably clocked lower but 5x the score seems excessive for a 50% boost in clockspeed. running this one right? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151794-ArmA3Mark-Benchmark-your-ArmA-3&p=2356712&viewfull=1#post2356712

Edited March 27, 2013 by Leon86

[Leon86 13]

Your system probably performs very well in arma 3 compared to most other systems. Arma doesn't run at high fps as easily as other games.

this post was merged in from another topic. reaction to asd123

Edited March 27, 2013 by Leon86

[asd123 1]

Dont trust those sites :q: , its really hard to NOT pass the test, I used an really really old laptop, and according the site it got the recommended specs to play battlefield 3... it can hardly play a browser game....

It checks by the given Recommended specs. which it realy passes them.

and leon, im having about 15-30 FPS in arma 3 :( even on standard. is it normal ?

I know my GPU is kinda outdated but it still should run the game well.

[Leon86 13]

Try 1500 viewdistance, 1000 object distance, pip (picture in picture) off.

Your gpu shouldn't be an issue unless you run with aa on with a lot of trees around.

[Qaia 1]

At LOWEST settings possible for EVERYTHING, I'm constantly jumping between 10-30 FPS. My system specs:

- GeForce 660 with 2GB ram

- Phenom II x4 955 overcloced at 3.7 GHz

- 4GB system RAM

- 1680x1050 resolution

For comparison purposes, I can run BF3 maxed out and consistently get 60+ FPS.

[Leon86 13]

also if you go into editor and just put in a few units in the middle of nowhere? what missions do you get the 10 fps in?

[guusert 1]

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).

Yeah, games are generally less optimized for AMD CPU's, but most games don't even use the CPU that much. And if they do, they do it well. An AMD CPU is good enough for games too. You don't buy a good CPU for gaming. It just shoudn't bottleneck your GPU too much. Games shouldn't be less optimized for AMD, but that's not really a problem for me. The problem is that this game IS UBER-POORLY OPTIMIZED for my AMD CPU! My mother's laptop (2.6 Ghz i5-3230m+GT 645M) runs the game twice as good as my PC (Phenom II X4 955+GTX 460).

[tamernator 1]

At LOWEST settings possible for EVERYTHING, I'm constantly jumping between 10-30 FPS. My system specs:

- GeForce 660 with 2GB ram

- Phenom II x4 955 overcloced at 3.7 GHz

- 4GB system RAM

- 1680x1050 resolution

For comparison purposes, I can run BF3 maxed out and consistently get 60+ FPS.

My FPS also did vary between 10 - 30 before the last patch, but since the last patch my FPS almost never goes under 20 FPS and varies between 20 - 40 FPS (No Dev aptches btw)

[asd123 1]

At LOWEST settings possible for EVERYTHING, I'm constantly jumping between 10-30 FPS. My system specs:

- GeForce 660 with 2GB ram

- Phenom II x4 955 overcloced at 3.7 GHz

- 4GB system RAM

- 1680x1050 resolution

For comparison purposes, I can run BF3 maxed out and consistently get 60+ FPS.

I'm having the same problem, does anyone know how to deal with it ?

[Razorman 10]

Yeah, games are generally less optimized for AMD CPU's, but most games don't even use the CPU that much. And if they do, they do it well. An AMD CPU is good enough for games too. You don't buy a good CPU for gaming. It just shoudn't bottleneck your GPU too much. Games shouldn't be less optimized for AMD, but that's not really a problem for me. The problem is that this game IS UBER-POORLY OPTIMIZED for my AMD CPU! My mother's laptop (2.6 Ghz i5-3230m+GT 645M) runs the game twice as good as my PC (Phenom II X4 955+GTX 460).

PLEASE study a little more, Arma3 & ALL of it's predecessor's require massive cpu power to run well, this game(simulator) over the years has been the driving factor for my upgrades, the rig in my sig was put together only 3 weeks ago in readyness for this game.

Sad but true for those running mid range cpu's in that you will never see great performance unless running very low res & even then you will be limited/bottlenecked by a slow cpu, study cpu's, it's NOT all about 6 cores & ghz, it's about l2/l3 cache sizes & bandwidth for memory (everyone forgets about memory/bus speeds it seems).

I wish you could all have great performance so i could kill ya asses online ;) But sadly A3 is not the game for you if you are new to the series on a midrange rig/setup, hoping for change but not required here.

Thanks for my 0.02c

save some money & then upgrade/build a rig with the biggest baddest cpu possible for you. (allways Intel ;) )

Edited March 27, 2013 by Razorman

[Touch Off 10]

Same rig as you razorman. The game isn't running as well as it should given those spec.. Are you putting say 20-30+ AI down and watching your FPS fall? notice how when you lower the graphics settings there really isn't a huge impact?

Same CPU. A very good CPU and it would seem ARMA3 isn't making the most of its power.

I really can't see what the difference is with ARMA2 and this when it comes to CPU requirements. Graphically,yes...obviously...but the rest? Swimming? Fish? Animations?

I'd probably be happy without the crappy ragdoll that's just poorly implemented and also without the 'improvements' to AI and just leave it as a graphical overhaul of ARMA2. The same highly annoying bugs that were in that (ARMA2) engine are still in this one.

I'm sorry to say that these improvements aren't really all they're cracked up to be, for me. You can differ that's fine. I'm just voicing my opinion, like an arsehole that we all have.

For me it's just better looking, that's all. nicer lighting. And lowering GPU settings leaves me with negligible difference in performance of the game compared to what I could be running in ARMA2 in terms of AI, with again, very subtle difference, if any, as to how intelligently the AI functions. Voice is better, yes, but not much. In a way I kinda like the stupid voice system of flashpoint. Animations...physics...I dunno, it's all highly overrated as to how much this is a wild improvement over the last game, yes it's early days but I've played this game for 10 years. I play the game how I believe it's meant to be played and create missions for myself and a few others using basic scripting alongside the general availability of what the editor has to offer with a few clicks. I miss a good story behind it, too. I don't think BIS know what the hell this game is meant to be now, evidenced by the seemingly bolted on aspects for improvements.

That said.............

.My point to this is I hope these are areas they're going to work on and polish and people with even the more moderate rigs that you feel are lacking in juice will be able to find that their systems were adequate, it was just the tweaking at the engine's core that was the issue and the finalising of the endeavour to fulfil their goals to create something special. At the moment, and I don't want money back or anything like that but, I'm just not convinced.

nobody else does games like this, but that's where the competition element just might well have been what was needed over the last 4-5 years while this game was in development.

Don't buy new rigs yet. Be patient. Mine is a good, mid to high end system and I'd bet money on the possibility that if BIS had reworked major parts of their code without concentrating on what is essentially just eye candy, this game would be running like a dream on these sorts of systems and damn well on lower/near spec PCs, too. How it feels when you're shooting a gun with only a few AI and all the gfx turned down is more enjoyable at the moment than having more AI and a moderate level of GFX. For me, that should be the goal. A balance between the things that make ArmA what it is, the ability to have a decent set up of infantry and vehicles and a visually respectable look and feel. I think they went for look and feel and it didn't quite work out due to the inherent difficulties in working with the engine as it is.

[Razorman 10]

Good post, appreciate the detail, your rig is not the same though, is your i5 @ 4.4ghz? Your memory is slower/less & gpu weaker?

Overall i get the slowdowns with 30+ ai, everyone does but realistically knowing the engine & game as i do i'm very happy.

Arma3 Mark score 7000+ whats yours?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151794-ArmA3Mark-Benchmark-your-ArmA-3

Utilization of the cores is not the magic bullet to fix performance.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Razorman

[guusert 1]

PLEASE study a little more, Arma3 & ALL of it's predecessor's require massive cpu power to run well, this game(simulator) over the years has been the driving factor for my upgrades, the rig in my sig was put together only 3 weeks ago in readyness for this game.

Sad but true for those running mid range cpu's in that you will never see great performance unless running very low res & even then you will be limited/bottlenecked by a slow cpu, study cpu's, it's NOT all about 6 cores & ghz, it's about l2/l3 cache sizes & bandwidth for memory (everyone forgets about memory/bus speeds it seems).

I wish you could all have great performance so i could kill ya asses online ;) But sadly A3 is not the game for you if you are new to the series on a midrange rig/setup, hoping for change but not required here.

Thanks for my 0.02c

save some money & then upgrade/build a rig with the biggest baddest cpu possible for you. (allways Intel ;) )

I don't need to study ArmA. When the makers of a game themselves say I can run a game with my system (system requirements) I will be able to, or I will get my money back. A friend of mine bought SimCity for freaking $80 for his Mac PC. So after downloading the game it appeared to be a .exe file. Apparently the Mac version isn't even made yet!!! You think he should study about how retarded EA is before buying a game? I don't think so?

Why do you think I made this post in the first place? Why do you think this thread is here? This game IS for me. I should at least be able to run it at 30 FPS. Bohemia just has to get their lazy asses to work or they need to employ other devs/let them do a cursus. Whatever they might have to do, like this it's unacceptable. I have better than the recommended system specs and I can't even run this game on LOW settings at more than 15 FPS! I don't see myself getting 30 FPS since they don't give a shit about performance and ArmA 2 has this problem too. Stop saying that we need to upgrade our rigs. This is not necessary. I'm not going to adapt to this situation. This is not my problem. It's Bohemia's. You are a really silly person if you can't understand that.

Edited March 27, 2013 by guusert

[callaway 0]

Why do you think I made this post in the first place? Why do you think this thread is here? This game IS for me. I should at least be able to run it at 30 FPS. Bohemia just has to get their lazy asses to work or they need to employ other devs/let them do a cursus. Whatever they might have to do, like this it's unacceptable. I have better than the recommended system specs and I can't even run this game on LOW settings at more than 20 FPS! Stop saying that we need to upgrade our rigs. This is not necessary. I'm not going to adapt to this situation. This is not my problem. It's Bohemia's. You are a really silly person if you can't understand that.

Considering the devs have admitted to the issues, people have performed repeatable test showing the same results, the engine is old and well-known to have issues and many, many modern games don't have these problems, don't listen to trolls calling for us to upgrade.

[Pyrophosphate 1]

Yes, if you have not done so already, overclock your CPU. That's the best way to improve performance in Arma.

... your rig is not the same though [...] Your memory is slower/less & gpu weaker?

For Arma and pretty much any other game out right now, 8gb of RAM is functionally identical to 16gb of RAM, and it was shown several (dozen?) pages back that memory clock speed has virtually no effect on the game's performance.

And how do you figure Touch Off's 670 is weaker than your 670?

Also, with what settings did you manage 7000+? With an i7 2600k at 4.5ghz, 8gb 1600mhz RAM and a 7870 at 1050/1200, I get between ~2900 (ultra preset + vsync) and ~8200 (low preset).

[callaway 0]

Has ayone ever seen Arma use more than a 1-1.5 gigs of ram? Not me. Normally it's 750-900 or so.

[Leon86 13]

Has ayone ever seen Arma use more than a 1-1.5 gigs of ram? Not me. Normally it's 750-900 or so.

Arma might use more than it shows, arma memory use that shows in task manager is what it needs currently. Still, 4GB should be "enough" if you dont keep other programs open.

http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/85-breaking-the-32-bit-barrier