Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[jumpinghubert 49]

very nice rig, but a little bit offtopic :p.

@RyanBurnsRed

the only thing you can do is to overclock your cpu. And please check if cpu or gpu core is idling ingame.

[Bizibiz 10]

Hello everyone,

Same frustrating here, new Arma, less FPS, take a look at Outerra ... so many things to draw, and still fluid !

Here my specs, globally balance :

i5 760 (4cores @ 3.4Ghz)

GTX 760

4Gb RAM

Win7 x86

SSD for games

I have good FPS in editor, but when I move on multiplayer, it becomes 20 fps in town (even small) 30~40 out of town with important drop (to 10 fps) when having spawning sprites (explosion, smoke ...) or entity (AI...)

I try using GPU_Frames options in Arma3.cfg...

I try using launch options -cpucount etc...

I try core unpark of win7...

I try to unactivate 2 cores in BIOS : i5 760 rises to 2 cores @ 4.3Ghz...

GPU is still used by 40%

and CPU is used 70%-30%30%30% when on 4 cores and becomes 80%-80% on 2 cores

but the fps are still the same in game :(

from my point of view, I think BI use a too old engine that become the bottleneck of the game, there are no really optimization, and year after year, release after release, they increase details in their game with no engine optimization, just considering performance of hardware increase too ...

I think they are taking us for idiot, which paid for a game that don't really be design for today needs whereas they publish polished screens shots and video with hidden bad fps...

Just as example, battlefield series are great , in it category, not for all but considering performance, it's sure. Because performance is simply one of the key factor in its design...whereas BI don't want to spend time on this, and just add bricks after bricks to an old thing that will fall one day ...

At this stage I bought this game, and I can really enjoy it, because playing at 20 fps doesn't give me fun.

And I consider that in 2013 year, we don't have to tweak settings and more to reach decent performance level...

BI stands up as "modders", not professional, of their old game, since they are not skilled to improve performance above 20fps !?

Fed up about Arma serie :(

[RyanBurnsRed 1]

very nice rig, but a little bit offtopic :p.

@RyanBurnsRed

the only thing you can do is to overclock your cpu. And please check if cpu or gpu core is idling ingame.

My CPU is already overclocked. I can't overclock it any further. The problem isn't my CPU speed. The problem is the game not using my CPU properly! It's also not using my GPU as well!

[tonschuh 3]

My CPU is already overclocked. I can't overclock it any further. The problem isn't my CPU speed. The problem is the game not using my CPU properly! It's also not using my GPU as well!

Even that the ARMA-3-Engine doesn't use our CPU-Power as we would expect it, your CPU is still on the weak side, as Single-Core-Speed makes the difference, but only up to a certain level and newer CPU-Models work faster with lower Core-Clocks.

As an example:

A 2600k @4500MHz is equal in performance to a 3770k @4200MHz.

Your RAM is not really fast as well, which usually only makes a difference if you are on the hunt for higher Benchmark-Scores, but the ARMA-3-Engine works quite a bit better with faster RAM.

The amount of fps is in most cases higher with Windows-8 / 8.1-RTM in comparison with Windows-7. Game-Play is smoother as well (not as choppy).

Certain MoBo's perform better than others. As usual you get what you pay for.

@JumpingHubert:

New Benchmark's and maybe a higher OC will follow later on as I have time for it.

:)

[TheBigOne_014 16]

I have never got under 30fps in high-very high settings except PP efects are all OFF, and my rig isn't half as good a some guys have and i don't complain, i even use frpas to record, i notice a very slight micro stuttering but hardly noticeable.

My rig details

i5 2300 @ 2.8 - 3.2Ghz in turbo mode

GTX 560 in a 1680x1050 resolution

8Gb @ 1600Mhz

2x150GB Samsung HDD in RAID 0

Windows 7 x64

You can see me recording/playing here

[jumpinghubert 49]

My CPU is already overclocked. I can't overclock it any further. The problem isn't my CPU speed. The problem is the game not using my CPU properly! It's also not using my GPU as well!

I know that. Do you have checked if cpu-cores or gpu are downclocked ingame? Thats the first thing I check when a game runs bad. If you don´t want to check it because the engine is old then its your choice.

@NunoBasto

my newest theory: arma3 loves 1680x1050. I have same res and my arma runs superdupergood too.

@Tonschuh

let it burn!!

[TheBigOne_014 16]

@NunoBasto

my newest theory: arma3 loves 1680x1050. I have same res and my arma runs superdupergood too.

It can be a sweetspot,... :cool:

[RyanBurnsRed 1]

Even that the ARMA-3-Engine doesn't use our CPU-Power as we would expect it, your CPU is still on the weak side, as Single-Core-Speed makes the difference, but only up to a certain level and newer CPU-Models work faster with lower Core-Clocks.

As an example:

A 2600k @4500MHz is equal in performance to a 3770k @4200MHz.

Your RAM is not really fast as well, which usually only makes a difference if you are on the hunt for higher Benchmark-Scores, but the ARMA-3-Engine works quite a bit better with faster RAM.

The amount of fps is in most cases higher with Windows-8 / 8.1-RTM in comparison with Windows-7. Game-Play is smoother as well (not as choppy).

Certain MoBo's perform better than others. As usual you get what you pay for.

@JumpingHubert:

New Benchmark's and maybe a higher OC will follow later on as I have time for it.

:)

So in other words the problem is the game, not my computer.

I know that. Do you have checked if cpu-cores or gpu are downclocked ingame? Thats the first thing I check when a game runs bad. If you don´t want to check it because the engine is old then its your choice.

@NunoBasto

my newest theory: arma3 loves 1680x1050. I have same res and my arma runs superdupergood too.

@Tonschuh

let it burn!!

Did you bother reading my posts at all?

[tonschuh 3]

So in other words the problem is the game, not my computer.

Yes, you could say so, as there is only a small performance difference between an average and a high-end setup, but that doesn't apply to very old hardware.

Just have a look at my last benchmarks, which are ~3 weeks old:

Click

:butbut:

[RyanBurnsRed 1]

Yes, you could say so, as there is only a small performance difference between an average and a high-end setup, but that doesn't apply to very old hardware.

Just have a look at my last benchmarks, which are ~3 weeks old:

Click

:butbut:

My hardware is not old. This game is so full of sh*t. I look in task manager and my CPU is only being used 20-30%. I'm getting 10 fps in multiplayer. I lowered all the settings to the absolute minimum, and the fps did not change.

This means my CPU is not the one at fault, it means the game engine is a piece of sh*t. I'm so pissed off I can hardly type.

If my CPU and RAM is as slow as you said, why does the game auto detect to Ultra, then runs like sh*t at those settings, and every other setting?

Edited October 12, 2013 by RyanBurnsRed

[mobile_medic 43]

it's the game.

Isn't there another thread for hardware talk (aka, cover for the real issue)?

[RyanBurnsRed 1]

If you find it please link it.

[tonschuh 3]

My hardware is not old. This game is so full of sh*t. I look in task manager and my CPU is only being used 20-30%. I'm getting 10 fps in multiplayer. I lowered all the settings to the absolute minimum, and the fps did not change.

This means my CPU is not the one at fault, it means the game engine is a piece of sh*t. I'm so pissed off I can hardly type.

If my CPU and RAM is as slow as you said, why does the game auto detect to Ultra, then runs like sh*t at those settings, and every other setting?

Your CPU got released in Q3/2010:

Intel® Core™ i5-760 Processor (8M Cache, 2.80 GHz)

As I said, the ARMA-3-Engine gives you a better performance, if you have a higher core-clock. It uses mainly core-1 (up to maybe 75%) and less core-2 / core-3 / core-4 etc. . I can't recall to have seen someone with 99% CPU and / or 99% GPU-load in ARMA-3 over a longer period of time, as the load's and fps are always fluctuating.

Still, 20-30% of 3.6GHz are less and slower than 20-30% of 4.6GHz and in addition to this, newer CPU-Generations perform usually better / faster at the same core-clock's.

If you need more info's beside the over 200 pages in this thread, which you didn't read, otherwise you would already know certain things, then you can get them in plenty other similar threads here, which are only examples:

I give up - Arma 3 not worth playing because of poor FPS

GTX TITAN SLI OC (2000€) = 30 / 25 fps

Should I expect low FPS?

Will my PC run Arma3? What CPU/GPU to get? What settings? What System Specifications?

Arma 3 CPU vs RAM performance comparison 1600-2133= up to 15% FPS gain

Losing interest in the game - terrible performance with (mid) high end rig.

ArmA 3 Performance Tweaks and Settings Guide

... and there are many more, but I don't want to do all the work for you. So please be active and educate yourself a bit on the matter, because it doesn't really work or help you in ARMA-3, to assume things or to compare it with other games.

The main problem in SP is the (amount) of AI, which is very heavy on the CPU, combined with certain Quality-Settings, as certain Settings are more CPU or more GPU demanding. You can't dedicate a GPU for PhysX, as it's CPU-only in our case here.

There are additional problems in MP, like bad scripting and bad server performance or i-net-connection-lag.

:bounce3:

Edited October 12, 2013 by TONSCHUH

[RyanBurnsRed 1]

Your CPU got released in Q3/2010:

Intel® Core™ i5-760 Processor (8M Cache, 2.80 GHz)

As I said, the ARMA-3-Engine gives you a better performance, if you have a higher core-clock. It uses mainly core-1 (up to maybe 75%) and less core-2 / core-3 / core-4 etc. . I can't recall to have seen someone with 99% CPU and / or 99% GPU-load in ARMA-3 over a longer period of time, as the load's and fps are always fluctuating.

Still, 20-30% of 3.6GHz are less and slower than 20-30% of 4.6GHz and in addition to this, newer CPU-Generations perform usually better / faster at the same core-clock's.

If you need more info's beside the over 200 pages in this thread, which you didn't read, otherwise you would already know certain things, then you can get them in plenty other similar threads here, which are only examples:

I give up - Arma 3 not worth playing because of poor FPS

GTX TITAN SLI OC (2000€) = 30 / 25 fps

Should I expect low FPS?

Will my PC run Arma3? What CPU/GPU to get? What settings? What System Specifications?

Arma 3 CPU vs RAM performance comparison 1600-2133= up to 15% FPS gain

Losing interest in the game - terrible performance with (mid) high end rig.

ArmA 3 Performance Tweaks and Settings Guide

... and there are many more, but I don't want to do all the work for you. So please be active and educate yourself a bit on the matter, because it doesn't really work or help you in ARMA-3, to assume things or to compare it with other games.

The main problem in SP is the (amount) of AI, which is very heavy on the CPU, combined with certain Quality-Settings, as certain Settings are more CPU or more GPU demanding. You can't dedicate a GPU for PhysX, as it's CPU-only in our case here.

There are additional problems in MP, like bad scripting and bad server performance or i-net-connection-lag.

:bounce3:

I know very well when my processor was released dude. You don't have to inform me.

I'm not going to change my processor for a poorly optimized game. Every other game I play runs just fine on my processor, therefore I have no reason to get a new one.

As for your links and useless statement afterwards, I have already tried many suggestions, fixes, this that and the third.

27% GPU usage, 30% CPU usage. Kiss my ass. It's the game, not my processor. Doesn't matter if it was released in 2010 or not, it's still a good processor. Not everyone has money to spend like you and then belittle people for having hardware 3 years old. I'll still use my processor until 2015 at LEAST. Hopefully in the future BI will optimize the game more by then huh?

I'm done with this thread, I'll get no help from here.

Also, I won't read more than 10 pages of a thread. I don't have the patience for it. Just people repeating the same thing over and over again and the occasional douche that says "Your computer is old, get a new one scrub. My PC is an i7 2600K at 4.6 GHz with a GTX 680 SLI and 16 GB of 2400mhz RAM and i get 60 fps on so and so settings."

Bye.

[tonschuh 3]

I know very well when my processor was released dude. You don't have to inform me.

I'm not going to change my processor for a poorly optimized game. Every other game I play runs just fine on my processor, therefore I have no reason to get a new one.

As for your links and useless statement afterwards, I have already tried many suggestions, fixes, this that and the third.

27% GPU usage, 30% CPU usage. Kiss my ass. It's the game, not my processor. Doesn't matter if it was released in 2010 or not, it's still a good processor. Not everyone has money to spend like you and then belittle people for having hardware 3 years old. I'll still use my processor until 2015 at LEAST. Hopefully in the future BI will optimize the game more by then huh?

I'm done with this thread, I'll get no help from here.

Also, I won't read more than 10 pages of a thread. I don't have the patience for it. Just people repeating the same thing over and over again and the occasional douche that says "Your computer is old, get a new one scrub. My PC is an i7 2600K at 4.6 GHz with a GTX 680 SLI and 16 GB of 2400mhz RAM and i get 60 fps on so and so settings."

Bye.

It's here not a competition about e-peen's or something, but you asked at the end how to improve things and I only gave you some suggestions how to do so.

Believe me, I'm pretty much p****d off about that issues as well, but I didn't upgrade my rig only for ARMA-3, as I play most likely like you plenty other games.

Some user's here are happy with 25-35fps and think that the game is very playable or just don't bother as much as others.

I think that the game is not very enjoyable with such low fps, even that it is not a fast paced shooter and just stopped playing it.

If your other games run fine for you and if you are able to move on from ARMA-3 and are able to except the financial loss, then there is no need to upgrade your hardware.

But if you have sleepless nights, because you waited so long for ARMA-3 to be released and get mood-swings, because you just have to play this game, then I showed you some options to come closer to your goal.

It's simple as that.

My rig was not build at once this way, but got upgraded several times, before it reached the current state, as I have no money-tree in my backyard either and compared to other rig's it's only average.

It's not someones fault, that you get upset when someone is showing you which kind of performance you can expect with certain setup's. There are no better info's out there, than sharing real-world experiences from real-users which are sitting in the same boat, because everything else is just plainly guesswork and doesn't help much.

As this is not a COD / BF - Forum, there is no real e-peen show-off existent.

:bounce3:

[jumpinghubert 49]

Did you bother reading my posts at all?

sorry, i´ve overread that you´ve logged the gpu-clock. Are you logging cpu-clock ingame too? Simple question.

[RyanBurnsRed 1]

It's here not a competition about e-peen's or something, but you asked at the end how to improve things and I only gave you some suggestions how to do so.

Believe me, I'm pretty much p****d off about that issues as well, but I didn't upgrade my rig only for ARMA-3, as I play most likely like you plenty other games.

Some user's here are happy with 25-35fps and think that the game is very playable or just don't bother as much as others.

I think that the game is not very enjoyable with such low fps, even that it is not a fast paced shooter and just stopped playing it.

If your other games run fine for you and if you are able to move on from ARMA-3 and are able to except the financial loss, then there is no need to upgrade your hardware.

But if you have sleepless nights, because you waited so long for ARMA-3 to be released and get mood-swings, because you just have to play this game, then I showed you some options to come closer to your goal.

It's simple as that.

My rig was not build at once this way, but got upgraded several times, before it reached the current state, as I have no money-tree in my backyard either and compared to other rig's it's only average.

It's not someones fault, that you get upset when someone is showing you which kind of performance you can expect with certain setup's. There are no better info's out there, than sharing real-world experiences from real-users which are sitting in the same boat, because everything else is just plainly guesswork and doesn't help much.

As this is not a COD / BF - Forum, there is no real e-peen show-off existent.

:bounce3:

Okay. Your previous posts in this thread prove otherwise to me.

sorry, i´ve overread that you´ve logged the gpu-clock. Are you logging cpu-clock ingame too? Simple question.

My CPU's clock speed is consistent. Do you want a screenshot? I'm more than happy to take several if you want to see for yourself.

[jumpinghubert 49]

Okay. Your previous posts in this thread prove otherwise to me.

My CPU's clock speed is consistent. Do you want a screenshot? I'm more than happy to take several if you want to see for yourself.

i head trouble with downclocking some cpu cores/coreparking/idling. Then I made thousands of workarounds to get the cores ALL @ max clock playing arma3. Thats why I asked.

[RyanBurnsRed 1]

My CPU speed doesn't change. It's always at 3.6 GHz. I literally meant that I'd show you my CPU and GPU stats in the game if you wanted.

Also my CPU cores were never parked in the first place.

[windies 11]

To put it bluntly Ryan, unless you want to upgrade to an i7 3980X or something along those lines, or you're willing to put up with frequent dips into the low 20's or even lower in FPS, the problem is not going to be fixed. Many of us have tried to stress to the developers that there is something wrong, our hardware is not being used to it's full potential, and all we get in response is how we're looking at the wrong issue's. We should be looking at pure performance instead of hardware usage.

I mean my CPU is like 9 degree's cooler when running ArmA 3 than running Path of Exile or Battlefield 3 or any other game. Usage is 50% lower. But again, try saying that to the developers and it's nothing but smoke and mirror's, "this is not the performance monitor you should be looking at" kind of response. Those games aren't trying to do what BI does, so therefor they can make better use of our hardware :rolleyes:.

According to Suma and Dwarden, the only way they can make use of current gen hardware like other engines do, is to run endless mathematical loops ala prime95. That seems to be their go to response to people asking why the RV engine sucks at multithreading/parallel processing.

[RyanBurnsRed 1]

I guess that's that then. It seems Arma 3 will be the last game I buy from this company. If they can't make a proper game, then they don't deserve my money.

It's a shame though. Arma is pretty fun when it's not running at 10 fps, which usually lasts for a few seconds at a time anyway.

I came here to say that I give up. I apologize for arguing. I was so pissed when I first came here when I realized how poorly this game used my system's resources. When I played Arma 2, I always thought it was my system that wasn't good enough. Then I read that the engine wasn't optimized very well. When Arma 3 was announced, I hoped that the engine issue would finally be fixed...only to see that it's no better. Disappointment all around. I regret buying the Alpha copy for me and a friend. I could have spent that money on a game that actually uses my system to perform properly...

Cya guys. I'm gone.

[Prodavec 10]

A lot of performance in multiplayer is eaten by retarded scripters, not BIS. Open some MP mission from community, it's written very shitty with a lot of loops, waitUntil's, spam with publicVariable, bad algorythms, no garbage collection and script errors (even on mission start!), .etc. It's not BIS fault! How can BIS help in that situation??? They can't stop community scripters to make shitty code.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Prodavec

[TSAndrey 1]

A lot of performance in multiplayer is eaten by retarded scripters, not BIS. Open some MP mission from community, it's written very shitty with a lot of loops, waitUntil's, spam with publicVariable, bad algorythms, no garbage collection and script errors (even on mission start!), .etc. It's not BIS fault! How can BIS help in that situation??? They can't stop community scripters to make shitty code.

Servers shouldn't be able to impact anyones FPS in the first place.

[Zorg_DK 10]

Servers shouldn't be able to impact anyones FPS in the first place.

Indeed, and for some reason on many mp servers graphics look worse than in SP.

[windies 11]

A lot of performance in multiplayer is eaten by retarded scripters, not BIS. Open some MP mission from community, it's written very shitty with a lot of loops, waitUntil's, spam with publicVariable, bad algorythms, no garbage collection and script errors (even on mission start!), .etc. It's not BIS fault! How can BIS help in that situation??? They can't stop community scripters to make shitty code.

It's not just scripting. It's the AI, it's the PhysX, It's everything in a server that has to be calculated twice both by the server and by the client. It's a combination of A lot of processing work to be done, and then a bad network syncing model for the amount of data needing to be processed and sent across all clients, and exacerbated by the fact that no matter if it's a client or a dedicated server, the game just does not fully utilize our hardware like it should for the best performance.

It's funny that BI is willing to use the community as both a scapegoat for their performance issue's, and then as their savior when it comes to content issue's.