Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[Holden93 12]

I remember being pleasantly surprised with my PC's performance on Arma II. Then I tried to play on the actual Chernarus map and my frames were cut in half. If I'm not mistaken all we've seen are data from Stratis, which is the small map. I think all these FPS numbers are going to go right out the window once everybody's on Altis. By the way, I hope I'm wrong here!

Chernarus I think had the worst performance in the entire ArmA series.

[Valken 622]

http://i.imgur.com/4f1ZHzC.png

as you can see we slowly optimizing :)

Anyway you can also run a SLI or CFX test to see if it helps?

I have to LOL that you are running a 4.5 GHZ Ivy Bridge as your test setup. :D At least I know where you guys are shooting at.

[Ezcoo 47]

Anyway you can also run a SLI or CFX test to see if it helps?

I have to LOL that you are running a 4.5 GHZ Ivy Bridge as your test setup. :D At least I know where you guys are shooting at.

The benchmark in his post is actually made by me, it's not "official test setup": http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS&p=2434324&viewfull=1#post2434324 Unfortunately I own only that GTX 670, so I'm unable to test SLI or CrossFire with my build. I can't see much sense in that though, because NVIDIA or AMD haven't started optimizing their drivers nor creating SLI or CFX profiles for Arma 3 yet, they'll begin optimizations and proper multi-GPU support then when full game is released AFAIK.

[Uncle_Gravy 10]

What settings should I realistically run with a:

3770k 4.40Ghz

8gb 1600Mhz

GTX770

[Ezcoo 47]

What settings should I realistically run with a:

3770k 4.40Ghz

8gb 1600Mhz

GTX770

You have almost similar setup to mine, a little better though. You can get a pretty good idea of your FPS from my chart (the blue bars): http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?152866-Development-branch-discussion/page285&p=2434128#post2434128 Remember that the game is being optimized all the time and FPS will increase over time. On the other hand, the FPS in multiplayer is remarkably lower than in singleplayer, so if you like high FPS, you might have to drop your settings a little bit to keep FPS high in multiplayer.

Do you have a SSD drive? If you don't have one, it's really worth it to get it especially with high-end build like yours, hard drives are nowadays the bottleneck of PCs and SSD improves the situation a lot. Eg. Kingston V300 120 GB is very cost-effective SSD at least in Europe, have tested it and can recommend it. Install Windows, programs and most important games like Arma 3 on it and enjoy the stutter-free experience in game and almost nonexistent loading times. Eg. I installed that Kingston V300 120 GB to neighbours new PC, installed Windows and crucial programs on it and it booted to desktop in less than 10 seconds :) If you want slightly better but more expensive one, Samsung 840 Pro (not Samsung 840!) is probably the best "regular" SSD on the market nowadays.

[Uncle_Gravy 10]

Cheers for the reply, I have an 60gb Intel SSD, which is mainly O/S and programs, I will be getting another SSD "soon" hopefully a 120gb when a decent price appears, also need a HDD to replace my 7year old SataII drive.

[Juicy87 1]

I upgraded my PC this weekend. My PC Build:

- Intel I5-4670K 3.4 GHZ (not yet OC'd, need to replace PSU for that, which I will do soon.)

- 128 GB SSD

- Radeon HD 7870 2gb Joker Card Tahiti LE

- Gigabyte Z87-D3HP,s1150 Motherboard

ARMA III performs amazingly well. between 50 and 60 fps in Multiplayer. Settings: a mix of High, V-High and Ultra.

Like most of us know: It's all in the processor speeds.

[Sneakson 1]

Cheers for the reply, I have an 60gb Intel SSD, which is mainly O/S and programs, I will be getting another SSD "soon" hopefully a 120gb when a decent price appears, also need a HDD to replace my 7year old SataII drive.

Samsung 840 120GB for $100+ or 250GB for less than $200 right now is both among the very quickest, stable and big for the buck.

[WalkerDown 1]

Maybe at 8ghz I can overcome the engine's bottleneck and actually maintain a playable experience. :) In other words, this game will only ever use less than half of the recommended cpu, or the cpu of the majority of players. OC is not the answer (even though I'm already running at 4ghz on a processor (and gpu) exceeding the recommended specifications). A consistent 30+ is not too much to ask.

Difficult for me to comment on any improvement (or lack thereof) in performance with the beta, since I've been experiencing a persistent stutter and random crashes that were both introduced with the move from alpha to beta.

This will never happens, and ironically we're going for the opposite: slower clock speeds (to reduce the temperatures) but multiple core: 6-cores and 8-cores at slower speeds will be the standard. So develop and release a game nowadays that is so clock-dependent, instead of concentrate all the effort into optimizing the multithreading to use efficiently ALL the cores available, is plain stupid. And it is especially wrong when you know that you're game won't run good enough, nor today, nor tomorrow, for the 80% of the CPUs out there (including the top-end ones). It looks like that whenever the attention given to the issue, only few have realized how serious is the problem, and how badly it will affect the players when the game will be released, and when it'll be too late for a "last minute patch". We don't need minor work-around, we need a definitive solution, even if it will requires you to re-design completely the engine.

[rebornnarsil 10]

Is there anyone who has constant 40+ FPS even with lots of AI? Or it's just currently impossible to achieve? I'm just curious. With OC'd i5-2500K (which I think is a very good gaming CPU atm) me and every other person should get 40+, but we do not.

[Guest Melone]

I am playing on two wasteland servers with mostly 40 or 46 players. My graphic options are set to ultra (autodetect), just vsync is off. And on this two servers I get different values for gpu usage. On one server I "only" get a gpu usage of 75% with a frequently stuttering every second, and on the other server I get a gpu usage of 98% with 40-60 fps in the city "agia marina" without stuttering, smooth playing, sometime tearing occur but that doesnt bother me at all. In both cases the cpu usage is 18 to 23 % (checked by playclaw). I suppose that the stuttering and low gpu usage has something to do with bad server setting.

cpu: i7 3930k @ 3,8 GHz

gpu: hd 7970 oc / 1680*1050

ram: 16 gb DDR3 1600 quadchannel

board: asus p9x79 ws

os: win7 64 bit

bios: optimized default settings loaded

Seems that my graphic card is limiting, 98% usage is possible, so I m thinking of replacing it by gtx 780, cpu has enough power to fire better graphic cards.

[jazar 10]

I get OK performance with the i7 2600 (non-K) @3.4ghz and the HD6770. Should I think about upgrading the HD6770?

[Furret 0]

Your FPS is tied to the servers' FPS. A better, more power server = better FPS for you.

If you get a decent FPS value in the editor/single player mission, you're fine.

EDIT: If you want a decent boost to FPS(in single player), turn SSAO down and FSAA off.

[antoineflemming 14]

Your FPS is tied to the servers' FPS. A better, more power server = better FPS for you.

So true. Who here has a Dell laptop and runs the game on ultra settings, a lot of AI and effects going on, and the game runs just fine or close to fine (high settings maybe)? Because I'm thinking about getting a new Dell laptop (I know desktops are better but need the laptop) with a good CPU (3.4+ GHz).

[omerc 10]

So true. Who here has a Dell laptop and runs the game on ultra settings, a lot of AI and effects going on, and the game runs just fine or close to fine (high settings maybe)? Because I'm thinking about getting a new Dell laptop (I know desktops are better but need the laptop) with a good CPU (3.4+ GHz).

Never buy a gaming laptop. I have seen far too many burned off laptops after 2-3 years of gaming at my work as PC repairman.

[Furret 0]

To fit a CPU into a laptop it needs to be severely neutered to operate within the tiny heat limits available. Game on a desktop and get a cheap laptop for portability.

[jazar 10]

My performance in SP is pretty strange with the specs in my last post. It depends where my character is looking. Forests, water, and other random things seem to drag down FPS, while everything else seems smooth. My settings are all over the place, no AA or AF, but high textures, and low everything else, it works the best for me, which is something that dissapoints me a bit about my PC mostly, but I still get immersed in the game ;). I'm told that the HD 6770 is a piece of junk, is this true, should I upgrade, or does my processor need an upgrade? In response the gaming laptop question, always take a desktop over a laptop, laptops are for well, portable gaming, desktops are still the best way to go.

[Furret 0]

Try changing shadows to Standard, that'll force them on to your graphics card.

SSAO to standard or even off.

the 6770 isn't a particularly amazing card, http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

as you can see its pretty low down on the chart.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Furret

[TSAndrey 1]

It depends where my character is looking. Forests, water, and other random things seem to drag down FPS, while everything else seems smooth.

Water is an insane FPS drainer. Just by looking at it, my FPS drops by half!

[Ezcoo 47]

Water is an insane FPS drainer. Just by looking at it, my FPS drops by half!

I had the same issue before but it's the opposite to me now. When I look at the water, the more water there is in my FOV the more my FPS increases... On sea I can have almost insane FPS, 60-100 FPS on server with lots of AI with video settings maxed out , but when I look at an area that has lot of objects, eg. Agia Marina or the airfield, my FPS drops a lot instantly. For example, if I'm above the airfield on the sea, I get easily over 100 FPS in editor when I look to west (to the sea), but when I turn 180° and look at the airfield and Agia Marina, my FPS drops to about 30.

[TSAndrey 1]

I had the same issue before but it's the opposite to me now. When I look at the water, the more water there is in my FOV the more my FPS increases... On sea I can have almost insane FPS, 60-100 FPS on server with lots of AI with video settings maxed out , but when I look at an area that has lot of objects, eg. Agia Marina or the airfield, my FPS drops a lot instantly. For example, if I'm above the airfield on the sea, I get easily over 100 FPS in editor when I look to west (to the sea), but when I turn 180° and look at the airfield and Agia Marina, my FPS drops to about 30.

People usually say Agia Marina, the airfield have the lowest FPS. For me, everything with water has low FPS....

[benedykt 10]

I have no problem with performance of ARMA 2. It runs very smoothly on my PC but if it comes to ARMA 3 it is possible to me to play with AllInArma mod only with average FPS 14-15. Playing on Stratis is not possible. Is BI still working on optimization of Arma 3?

[k3lt 3]

I have no problem with performance of ARMA 2. It runs very smoothly on my PC but if it comes to ARMA 3 it is possible to me to play with AllInArma mod only with average FPS 14-15. Playing on Stratis is not possible. Is BI still working on optimization of Arma 3?

They announced some kind of blog (over month ago) with explanation about performance optimizations they are planning (?), so i dont think anybody knows except the devs. (which are not really communicative about abyssmal performance issues)

And there is still no blog mentioned above.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

1 of devs replied here basically saying "we are aware and working on this".

So we are in the dark.

[Dwarden 1125]

either the work or the blog ... we chose the work ;)

[TSAndrey 1]

either the work or the blog ... we chose the work ;)

When will the blog come out? It's about time for it to come out. I don't think people mind waiting for optimization, but they need assurance that it will happen.