Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[mamasan8 11]

I got arma2 a few weeks after the release back in... 2009 (?), at this time i had an E5200 / gtx260 and 2go of ram. I decided to upgrade my computer over the next 2 years, in this order :

-q6600, 4go of ram

-Gtx460, ssd

-Motherboard, I5 750, 8go of ram

The fps went from terrible to bad, the engine / servers were an issue... there was small optimisation from patch to patch and some fps gain after each upgrade but no miracle solution and i decided to cut the loss, i already had a computer able to run most of the games out there flawlessly even if it wasn't a 2000€ rig. Still, i played this game for 1000h (because it's arma2)

4 years later, arma3. My rig can still handle a lot of games but i started to think about an upgrade for the relase while playing the beta. ArmA3 was released, it run comparativly better than arma2 and it's a clear no-match when it come to graphical quality (or even day1 bugs) but... a couple of friends got really good computers, 3xgtx680, another one just got a gtx780, both got the last I5 haswell clocked at 4.5ghz+ and they barly got better fps than i do. Better quality sure, bigger screens but at the end of the day, they got a rig that cost 4 time the one i got but the fps don't scale up, we all got those "30-40fps on a good server but 20-30 is ok"

Upgrading is not going to be a miracle solution. I really hope i'm wrong, but i'm starting to think that for the next 4 years i will have to play arma3 at lowish fps no matter the upgrades.

This has been the issue ever since the original OFP.

Performance is subpar, no matter what. Once hardware catches up and makes the game playable, it is so old and looks like crap, I DON'T WANT TO PLAY IT ANYMORE.

20 Fps, that has been what I've gotten in all these games online, ofp1, arma 1,2,3. At one point I had the best graphics card released at the time, it made very little difference.

Arma 3 looks good at ultra settings but it doesn't matter when it is unplayable online. Online is what I play 99% of the time, Coop online.

I ran some Splinter Cell:Blacklist yesterday, at highest settings. FPS was 20-30, GPU utilization around 50% or more the whole time. (Seems I'm CPU-bottlenecked but I can't upgrade coz then I have to buy everything new.) Arma 3 is stuck at 20-30% GPU utilization. Every once in a bluemoon it goes to 50-90%.

Graphics settings from Low to Ultra mean nothing in terms of FPS, I get the same, online.

[Bane 1]

Windies, I hope you are talking about multiplayer 10vs10, 20vs20 games?!? From your writing I don't think we play the same game. If you are talking about singleplayer scenarios, missions and campaigns (which are not out yet) - game works ok. But if you are talking about main aspect of Arma - Multiplayer, then obviously either I am wrong or you. So please explain on what version of the playing you meant: single or multiplayer?

And totally agree with both Blaa and mama: "Upgrading is not going to be a miracle solution" and "Graphics settings from Low to Ultra mean nothing in terms of FPS". Like I said before: I am a veteran, I have bought all Arma games, I have supported dev team from the start, but they keep disappoint me with online optimizations :(

Edited September 17, 2013 by Bane
Some grammar mistakes

[Covert-OPs 10]

I've posted my specs before but my computer is pretty decked out and the game is installed on one of my two SSD's. Typically games run at well over 120 FPS, Splinter Cell Blacklist displays(on the highest possible settings) at over 250 most of the time(according to DxTory). And pretty much every game runs around the same FPS. When I play Arma offline I get well over 110 FPS but the second I do an online Co-Op or I enter a multiplayer room my FPS nose dives. Now granted I see spikes of up to 80 FPS but as people begin to join or if we're in a village/town the FPS begins to dive dramatically. I usually end up around 35 to 40 FPS and changing settings has zero affect on FPS. Interestingly enough making changes when there are fewer people in the room(or if I'm alone in the room waiting for guys to join) the changes do have an affect. But it appears something happens with the game as people begin to join that renders them useless. Maybe it has something to do with the games net code but there is clearly something wrong.

Being new to the PC landscape my limited experience has demonstrated that developers are extremely helpful and responsive. Updates seem to be plentiful and PC versions seem to have more features, etc. The BI team seemed to be that way from the outside looking in(as a new fan) and I guess I must have missed the boat on this issue. I made several recommendations to friends to get this game because it was like nothing we have ever played before. To say I am disappointed is an understatement and I'm a little embarrassed to address a few of the guys that bought the game on my recommendation because 30 FPS on a PC is quite ridiculous. For BI to not address this issue is alarming to say the least and the way the CEO has responded to some of the people in that Nvidia thread demonstrated obvious denial. All they need to do is look at my rig and see how the game plays online and they would have to realize that there is a glaring issue.

[ric 1]

If you read between the lines, he said there's no "simple" solution. Fact of the matter is that a lot of things would need to be rewritten in the engine. We all know this and we all know it's not a simple task, so Maruk pretty much let the cat out of the bag without knowing it. Unless it's a simple solution, it probably won't be fixed. They probably in all honesty, don't really know how to address it or fix it either, and you know, I don't mean that as an insult to them. His statements like we are stupid or wrong for measuring our CPU/GPU utilization by reading the utilization % in the task manager or in MSI afterburner and multicore's not being the answer lead me to believe that it's something that they don't know how to do, or they just don't want to do it for whatever reasons.

It's not like technology is going to go back on itself either and suddenly produce 10-20 ghz single/dual core cpu's in the next few years. We are moving in to more core's = more power and that's what bugs me the most from his statements. It's like he expects us, as the consumer, to somehow buy hardware that does not exist to fix the problem with their software. They either figure out how to get better performance through better concurrency and parallel programming, or they keep releasing titles that can barely run on any hardware out there. Making statements that Multicore CPU's do nothing for the game when the only thing you can buy anymore are multicore CPU's, and then trying to tell us he wants to run infinite loop simulations on every core to simulate better utilization in order to appease the people having performance problems just smacks of trolling.

To fix the problems would require an effort like what is being put into DayZ, basically if you run into a system that doesn't fit the design or performance goal of your software, you rewrite it so it does. Like the AI or the physics or the general processing. I'm getting the feeling that isn't something they really want to do with ArmA though.

I spent yesterday formulating a direct but respectful series of questions for Mr Murak about the performance issues and future of the franchise that i was going to post. then i see a link to his discussion in the nvidea thread and in his first post he puts up a link to which I check out.

http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

Real Virtuality Going Multicore from 2009

Conclusion

ArmA 2 gets following improvements from running on a dual/multi core:

improved rendering performance

smarter AI

larger scenes possible (higher view distance, more objects in view, more AI units) with little performance drop, especially on multi core machines

I have alway know there was no magic bullet coming but i was hoping for something, the only thing that can be done is already known and that would be a major rewrite, they did no start it 4 years ago and its obvious they are not going to now.

As i said before it is what it is and any further discussion is pointless...there is no magic patch coming to unlock your systems potential.

[bvrettski 10]

Simply put a rewrite of the game engine should have been at the foundation of A3. It was not and yet at the same time, in theory, they have increased the overhead by adding more enterable buildings, more detail, more effects, better physics, "smarter AI" (they still seem pretty brain dead to me) and giant maps.

So it seems that what we got was a disappointing mix of old engine problems gets a new facelift...something akin to putting an old 4 cylinder engine into a new Porche 911 body. Its underpowered, clunky.....but it sure looks good parked in your driveway. It doesn't really matter if you have performance tires, killer areodynamics, and ground hugging suspension if the engine can't get up and go...

One has to wonder if they actually played the game online. Hosted a server and connected 50-100 players to it. Played it for hours. Ran different missions? Surely they saw this coming or maybe they think it was that important.

I could be wrong..time will tell and I'll be the first person to slap on the "Bohemia Interactive is #1" tee shirt if / when they actually address the issue and come up with a solution.

It too bad really. I think they had a lot of momentum going (and buzz) around the games release and it potential.... but you know what they say.... You only get one chance to make a first impression.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Bvrettski

[windies 11]

Windies, I hope you are talking about multiplayer 10vs10, 20vs20 games?!? From your writing I don't think we play the same game. If you are talking about singleplayer scenarios, missions and campaigns (which are not out yet) - game works ok. But if you are talking about main aspect of Arma - Multiplayer, then obviously either I am wrong or you. So please explain on what version of the playing you meant: single or multiplayer?

And totally agree with both Blaa and mama: "Upgrading is not going to be a miracle solution" and "Graphics settings from Low to Ultra mean nothing in terms of FPS". Like I said before: I am a veteran, I have bought all Arma games, I have supported dev team from the start, but they keep disappoint me with online optimizations :(

I'm talking about both multi player and single player. There's obvious issue's with multi player but even in single player with certain amounts of AI and depending on what the AI is doing, performance can take a massive nose dive.

[jumpinghubert 49]

I'm talking about both multi player and single player. There's obvious issue's with multi player but even in single player with certain amounts of AI and depending on what the AI is doing, performance can take a massive nose dive.

to add another thing: with lots of ai in sp the cpu-usage on my system is lower (45-50%) than in empty editor (65-70%). The same behavior since the beginning of arma2.

[k3lt 3]

You dont even need any AI for fps to nose dive, just enter major village like Agia Marina. (even in editor)

[wtornado 0]

I spent yesterday formulating a direct but respectful series of questions for Mr Murak about the performance issues and future of the franchise that i was going to post. then i see a link to his discussion in the nvidea thread and in his first post he puts up a link to which I check out.

http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

I have alway know there was no magic bullet coming but i was hoping for something, the only thing that can be done is already known and that would be a major rewrite, they did no start it 4 years ago and its obvious they are not going to now.

As i said before it is what it is and any further discussion is pointless...there is no magic patch coming to unlock your systems potential.

They got me this time they will never get me again.You spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars upgrading not the mention the monthly high speed internet connection of 50$ a month.

With tablets and I-pads and the new generation laptops this might just be my last gaming computer.

If BI is just thinking about just a 65$ game and that is not much to pay(not complaining about the price) and not the REAL cost of online gaming they might end up like the flight sim industry

with kickstarter fund raisers and pre-selling betas and alphas(oh wait they are already there) with few clients left with weary costumers looking on.

Just saying....

[jumpinghubert 49]

You dont even need any AI for fps to nose dive, just enter major village like Agia Marina. (even in editor)

in empty respective with few ai populated editor all fine with my system. In pine forest 40-50fps and agia marina 50-60fps without drops. Same on Altis.. maybe because unparked cores and heavily overclocked 3570k or because i am a lucky dog :p

[Leon86 13]

If the problem is that rendering takes the biggest slice in CPU time, let us lower those settings.

Proposal: add couple more graphical setting presets very low and ultra low to the game ?

In that way we could get the multiplayer part to playable framerates, and would buy you time to optimize the game.

Those presets could benefit together the poorest of the CPUs and GPUs.

the simulation and scripts are the performance killer, lowering the fidelity even more will not help much.

[maddogx 13]

I just did a test with AI groups fighting in Kavala while I was alone on the other side of the map, just north of Selakano. Monitoring the game's CPU and GPU usage.

First off, without any AI on the map, I got solid 50-60 fps while just running around doing nothing in particular. GPU usage shown at 100%, CPU hovering around 50-55%. (Makes sense, since there wasn't much for it to simulate.)

Now for the AI:

With 50 AI fighting miles away in Kavala - btw. that's 10 groups of 5 AI soldiers (5x BLUFOR vs 5x OPFOR), each with a seek & destroy waypoint - I saw my GPU usage drop to ~80% and the framerate dropped accordingly to around 40-50. CPU usage stayed the same, hovering around 50%, never going higher than 58%.

With double the AI (50v50) I saw my GPU load drop to ~60%, again with a proportional fps drop and again the CPU usage stayed the same as before.

At 75v75 AI, things became interesting. CPU load stayed consistently between 42% and 50%, GPU hovered between 40% and 50%. The framerate was an almost rock solid 25, even when looking up at the sky.

Then I added a trigger that allowed the instant removal of all AI on the map. Result: instant framerate recovery.

You can download the test mission here. Download no longer available.

Edited September 5, 2014 by MadDogX

[jumpinghubert 49]

MadDogX, thats our good old arma. :p I made nearly the same observation plus posting in the early days of arma2.

edit:

loaded your mission.

with ai: 24fps, 45%gpu, 45%cpu

without: 53fps, 99%gpu, 55%cpu

paused with ai: 56fps,.....

No chance for a 3570k @4,8Ghz :p

P.S. a similar effect of deleting ai per trigger you have with pressing pause (esc) :)

Edited September 17, 2013 by JumpingHubert

[jurrasstoil 10]

Yeah, I made a similar observation in a previous thread:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?162894-re-Beyond-recommended-requirements-Terrible-Performance&p=2497669&viewfull=1#post2497669

If you let the AI fight in an open field, the impact will be smaller.

[ric 1]

I just did a test with AI groups fighting in Kavala while I was alone on the other side of the map, just north of Selakano. Monitoring the game's CPU and GPU usage.

First off, without any AI on the map, I got solid 50-60 fps while just running around doing nothing in particular. GPU usage shown at 100%, CPU hovering around 50-55%. (Makes sense, since there wasn't much for it to simulate.)

Now for the AI:

With 50 AI fighting miles away in Kavala - btw. that's 10 groups of 5 AI soldiers (5x BLUFOR vs 5x OPFOR), each with a seek & destroy waypoint - I saw my GPU usage drop to ~80% and the framerate dropped accordingly to around 40-50. CPU usage stayed the same, hovering around 50%, never going higher than 58%.

With double the AI (50v50) I saw my GPU load drop to ~60%, again with a proportional fps drop and again the CPU usage stayed the same as before.

At 75v75 AI, things became interesting. CPU load stayed consistently between 42% and 50%, GPU hovered between 40% and 50%. The framerate was an almost rock solid 25, even when looking up at the sky.

Then I added a trigger that allowed the instant removal of all AI on the map. Result: instant framerate recovery.

You can download the test mission here.

and what is your performance online in servers over 50 like invade annex and other PvP game modes? minus wasteland/altis life etc

[jagdtiger74 10]

I was wondering if you guys could answer me a question.

Yesterday I was playing on a MP server, it had a ViewSetting tool in the mouse menu and since FPS werent that great I set it so something like 2500m. While i was riding in the back of an helicopter to the AO I went into the Configuration/Video Setup to see what FPS the system was showing now. It was around 25FPS. So I started playing with my view distance and object draw settings (7500/5000 which generates 40-45 FPS in SP mode) and surprisingly enough FPS changed. So what is the ViewSetting MP Tool good for if the Configuration/Video Setup somehow interferes with it? I mean changing in the MP Tool actually changes the View Distance quite visibly?

[Minoza 11]

I use MP view distance sliders (if they're even available) only if I'm not satisfied with server defaults. I've found that autodetect in options sets 3800/3200, which is fine for me and gives me nice and steady framerates in SP scenarios avg. at 45. MP on the other hand is a tricky one, first of all, it depends a lot on the server... Let's take Invade & Annex for example, I've found like 1 or 2 servers that give me good framerate with setting of 3800 (it still uses 3200 for objects), but even those tend to give me nasty drops from time to time. That's when I use MP mission sliders (it overrides view distance setting in options) to increase/drop view distance until satisfied with framerate vs. visuals.

Hardware:

3770K @4.4GHz

GTX670

16GB

SSD

Edited September 18, 2013 by Minoza

[maddogx 13]

and what is your performance online in servers over 50 like invade annex and other PvP game modes? minus wasteland/altis life etc

No idea; I haven't joined any large public MP games since alpha (only small private coops). I do know a group of Wasteland players who are constantly complaining about performance, but that's about it from me as far as MP performance goes.

My personal interest right now is getting the AI performance issues sorted.

Edited September 18, 2013 by MadDogX

[nikiforos 450]

I was considering to upgrade my GPU from GTX 570 to GTX 770 but I changed my mind. Since the CPU bottlenecks the GPU it make nosense to upgrade my card.

As soon as the AI is involved I would get the same FPS as with my old GPU.

Hardware:

i5-2500K @4.3GHz, GTX 570 , Samsung SSD EVO 250GB, Ram 8 GB

Edited September 18, 2013 by Nikiforos

[PuFu 4600]

I just did a test with AI groups fighting in Kavala while I was alone on the other side of the map, just north of Selakano. Monitoring the game's CPU and GPU usage.

First off, without any AI on the map, I got solid 50-60 fps while just running around doing nothing in particular. GPU usage shown at 100%, CPU hovering around 50-55%. (Makes sense, since there wasn't much for it to simulate.)

Now for the AI:

With 50 AI fighting miles away in Kavala - btw. that's 10 groups of 5 AI soldiers (5x BLUFOR vs 5x OPFOR), each with a seek & destroy waypoint - I saw my GPU usage drop to ~80% and the framerate dropped accordingly to around 40-50. CPU usage stayed the same, hovering around 50%, never going higher than 58%.

With double the AI (50v50) I saw my GPU load drop to ~60%, again with a proportional fps drop and again the CPU usage stayed the same as before.

At 75v75 AI, things became interesting. CPU load stayed consistently between 42% and 50%, GPU hovered between 40% and 50%. The framerate was an almost rock solid 25, even when looking up at the sky.

Then I added a trigger that allowed the instant removal of all AI on the map. Result: instant framerate recovery.

You can download the test mission here.

Nice overview and test mission there maddogx. Maybe you should upload it to the tracker, just for the sake of being..."a responsible user"

[Dwarden 1125]

we already have the mission (maddox sent me that) , it will be analyzed ... ;)

[xendance 3]

we already have the mission (maddox sent me that) , it will be analyzed ... ;)

Awesome, hopefully you can increase AI performance even though modern battlefields tend to have no more than 100 soldiers per 1 km front line. Simulating those 100vs100 battles would be awesome :P

[maddogx 13]

The mission is nothing special; it literally took <5 minutes to make and test. Still nice to know someone is looking at it. :D

Of course 150 AI is quite a lot, but the framerate hit is already noticable (though not as bad) with just 50.

[Vigil Vindex 64]

I find it hard to believe that we are 200 pages into this thread and we are still acting like this is some sort of mysterious intermittent issue that requires a repro mission submitted. For real? I guess BIS never try to play with 100+ AI because they know it cannot be done without crippling fps.

[maddogx 13]

I find it hard to believe that we are 200 pages into this thread and we are still acting like this is some sort of mysterious intermittent issue that requires a repro mission submitted. For real? I guess BIS never try to play with 100+ AI because they know it cannot be done without crippling fps.

You're not wrong, but this attitude isn't really helping anyone. If they ask for data and repros, the best thing is to give them data and repros.

Snarky comments won't get the game fixed.