Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[fabio_chavez 103]

altis life is junk and should be banned by BIS, i can play arma3 MP with 70 players and 40 fps, on altis life i dont have more thatn 10 fps though.

its altis life...

[Polymath820 11]

No more calling it unoptimised give over... Arma 3 is fine, it's what people are trying to do with it... There is something built into arma 3 something called "simulation manager" when you leave an area a "client" it stops simulating that area until the client comes back so people are trying to run missions with hundreds of AI without any sort of "management" therefore the result is the FPS drops. Arma 3 from what I can see was never designed to have hundreds of AI everywhere. All being simulated at once. You'll find it in the map editor under modules "Simulation Manager" "Distance which objects will stop being rendered" default: 2000Meters. Sync your objects you want to hide with it and they will stop being simulated as soon as the client leaves the area. Thereby "Halting all the "animations, FSM's, etc. being run on peoples PC's".

That being said, I wonder if bohemia ever looked at "Unigine"

Maybe, they could talk with bohemia? Unigine is a map of 258KM * 258KM.

64,000,000 square meters. Arma 3 ? Whats more they've got a game on IOS running it... what in the heck... and yes Unigine is running REAL TIME

The amazing part of this engine is you actually see the "plants" being independent of their parent models and can distort. Shimmering similar to how real-trees do in real-life.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Polymath820
Additional

[sumusiko 10]

Please share with us your ideas for optimising the RV engine.

Hire decent coders to undo all the shit they fuked up in the code.

DayZ uses same engine as Arma 2 and 0 lag + its not even in beta yet. Yet both Arma 2 and Arma 3 always have had insane issues with fps

[bravo409 13]

I really need help ASAP. Just bought ARMA 3 and SUPER LOW FPS!!!!!!!

I bought it to play Altis Life multiplayer and joined 2 different servers with 50 pings and 50-60 players.

Average FPS: 5-10

My Ingame settings are all at MINIMUM! All Low/Disabled!!!

My Arma3.Cfg:

steamLanguage="English";
language="English";
forcedAdapterId=-1;
detectedAdapterId=0;
detectedAdapterVendorId=4098;
detectedAdapterDeviceId=26685;
detectedAdapterSubSysId=394732313;
detectedAdapterRevision=0;
detectedAdapterBenchmark=1000000;
displayMode=0;
winX=16;
winY=32;
winWidth=1024;
winHeight=768;
winDefWidth=1024;
winDefHeight=768;
fullScreenWidth=1920;
fullScreenHeight=1080;
refresh=60;
renderWidth=1920;
renderHeight=1080;
multiSampleCount=1;
multiSampleQuality=0;
particlesQuality=0;
GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1;
GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=1;----------------------change this to 4
HDRPrecision=8;
vsync=0;
AToC=0;
cloudsQuality=0;
pipQuality=0;
dynamicLightsQuality=0;
PPAA=0;
ppSSAO=0;
ppCaustics=0;
tripleBuffering=0;
serverLongitude=-9.1569004;
serverLatitude=38.679001;
ppBloom=0;
ppRotBlur=0;
ppRadialBlur=0;
ppDOF=0;-----------------------------------------------change this to 5

I can't go over 10 fps omfg

My setup:

Intel I3-3220 3.3GHZ

Radeon HD 7770

8GB RAM

500GB HDD

Also change your power management to gaming or high power find this in control panel

[MavericK96 0]

Here's a screencap of my total utilization in ArmA 3, while playing an intense mission:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-t-tEUbpsWfM/UxPv3RH8R-I/AAAAAAAAAbw/DrNfcj_coRE/w1597-h784-no/ArmA+3+Utilization.png

...Yeah.

[Furret 0]

Hire decent coders to undo all the shit they fuked up in the code.

DayZ uses same engine as Arma 2 and 0 lag + its not even in beta yet. Yet both Arma 2 and Arma 3 always have had insane issues with fps

Look at this guy right here.

[oldbear 390]

@ mamasan8 : "i3 in combination with Radeon 7770 were budget parts 2 years ago" ... it's still true, you can build a rather cheap "i3 4130/HD 7770" rig and play Arma3 on "High", Visibility=2000 m @ 25/45 FPS on solo missions and in the 20/35 FPS area in MP on a well managed server.

Here is how "i3 4130/HD 7770/8 Go 1600/SSD 256Go" works on "Infantry" showcase -> http://www.armedassault.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/Arma3_i3+HD7770_inf_1.1.jpg

And here is how it looks in game (large pic) -> http://www.armedassault.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/Arma3_i3+HD7770_inf_2.jpg

Average CPU utilization, high GPU utilization & average FPS in Single Player missions and Campaign.

GPU utilization seems to be not so good in MP and I don't clearly understand why.

So this "i3 4130/HD 7770/8 Go 1600/SSD 256Go" rig is not too expensive, works fine and is allowing a rather good Arma3 gaming experience.

[Sneakson 1]

Are there any ways to improve performance outside of the game settings? I'm looking for tweaks. I'd love to hear all of them and see if any one of them does anything at all. I hear a lot of talking about tweaks but doubt they do shit.

[turin turambar 0]

I have a new computer. I7 4770K, 16gb ram, amd 290x.

The game is so cpu bound that I had almost the same framerate playing at 100% 3d resolution and at 200% 3d resolution. (and my native resolution is 1920x1200).

[oldbear 390]

@ Sneakson : outside the game settings, the only path I had found so far is to use an un-parking core utility such as ParkControl by Bitsum , I am doing some tests atm on my "i7 3770/GTX 670" rig.

[Ezcoo 47]

The most important tweaks outside of the game:

1. Set your GPU to full performance mode (eg. in Nvidia Control Panel set the GPU to "Prefer maximum performance" mode)

2. Set Windows to "Best performance" mode in Control Panel

3. Make sure your cores are unparked (see OldBear's message above)

4. Disable Windows Aero theme

5. Especially if you have the game installed on HDD, make sure your anti-virus software is set to not to perform scan in the background when there's full screen application open / when CPU and/or HDD are stressed (note: this does not mean turning your AV and firewall off completely, that would risk the security of your PC)

[Sneakson 1]

The most important tweaks outside of the game:

1. Set your GPU to full performance mode (eg. in Nvidia Control Panel set the GPU to "Prefer maximum performance" mode)

2. Set Windows to "Best performance" mode in Control Panel

3. Make sure your cores are unparked (see OldBear's message above)

4. Disable Windows Aero theme

5. Especially if you have the game installed on HDD, make sure your anti-virus software is set to not to perform scan in the background when there's full screen application open / when CPU and/or HDD are stressed (note: this does not mean turning your AV and firewall off completely, that would risk the security of your PC)

So has number 1, 2 and 4 ever been shown to make a difference? :p

I guess I'll try briefly.

Edit: Windows settings and Aero does nothing, to me, however Nvidia settings Quality vs Performance is a 5% difference and using all the custom settings max/min (except for aniso and AA - let the program decide) is a 16% difference.

I'm gonna check out which settings are the ones that matter.

Edit again: Okay, I did some testing and put the measurements over in the Settings thread in General.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Sneakson

[Peter5on 10]

Here comes the truth, last server optimalizations do nothing i mean nothing change for me, its not better not worst.

That bullshit commands is only placebo...

What can change fps and strange stutter when even almost empty ssd load "somthing" and we have little freeze in multiplayer is:

I turn off all power saving and turbo modes in bios and oc my fx8350 to 4.9ghz that helps me to have steady 30 fps and more in cities on CTI server 25vs25 players. Ultra settings gtx 660

I do test leaving only one core active on 1400 mhz and its still playable ~17fps ultra settings in editor altis ;)

My friend have gtx titan and i7-4930K and have the same FPS in multiplayer EUTW CTI 25vs25

But its still very strange engine for me... They should push render to gpu and other things to cpu. Why push everything to cpu and do "strange" optimization for that component?

The good thing is there is no lags in servers so i think everybody have somthing like 30fps but everything is perfectly synced bullets and all other things.

My rig fx8350 4,9mhz, gtx 660, ssd vertex 4 256gb, 8gb ram 1600mhz

Edited March 8, 2014 by Peter5on

[mobile_medic 43]

another patch, another year, and still no meaningful progress on this issue, and BIS seems content to remain as silent as possible and allow misinformation to continue to fill the void for them.

At least be man enough to admit you won't fix it. After this many years, it's not asking too much. Put your cards on the table. Say something of substance about this issue, since it is clear you will never *do* anything of substance to attempt to resolve it.

[KEVINMGXP 20]

In all fairness I am wondering,

I was reading the comments on FB about CPU performance and FPS issues, I was planning to upgrade my rig but when I read all the comments I am better of staying with what I have.

For some reason if I have to believe what I have been reading it seems when I aim for a higher upgrade I will endure performance issues both on Video and CPU.

What I have now:

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

Intel core i5-3.20GHz 4 CPUs with 8Gb ram

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti with 4Gb ram Display memory -> it dedicates around 900 MB ram and shares around 3Gb ram

my native display mode is 1920 x 1080 at 60Hz

Performance:

I do not have a lot of games on my rig, so now and then I play Silent Hunter 5 modded with open horizons II, NewUIsTDC and some graphical mods to enhance the environmental experience of the game monitoring the performance I stay around 50 to 60 FPS. Then I have also OFP, Arma Armed Assault, Arma 2 and Arma 3 for Arma 2 I do not seem to have any problems at all like with SH5 my rig runs smooth around 50 to 60 FPS running it with Blastcore, Jarheads sound mod CBA of course and CWR² and it seems that when monitoring that my CPU is not stressing to hard. I have to be honest that when I run Arma 3 that I see some CPÜ stress the FPS hits around 40 to 45 max and sometimes it drops to 35 to 30 depending on how heavy the mission is designed this is however also monitored with mods e.g. Blastcore and Jarheads Sound mod, if I measure a clean performance without mods I see slight improvements to 50 FPS max with some times a drop to around 40 fps again depending on how heavy the missions is designed. The last Game I have is Skyrim and strangely this one is the reason why I would like to upgrade my rig. It sits around 30 - 40 FPS constant and dares to crash both clean and when using mods, it also seems that this game is stressing my CPU with higher pikes just before it crashes to desktop.

What I wanted to do was upgrade my rig to an i7 4.2 Ghz with a video-card upgrade GTX 780 TI I already measured performance between my current card and this one and I need at least a 780 to see a proper difference, but I've read a lot of performance issues on Arma 3 with that kind of hardware, now I am wondering what Is the reason for it.

Why is a lesser CPU video card performing actually better then a higher end rig?

Like said I would actually want to upgrade as I seem to have some problems with Skyrim, I do not want to upgrade because of Arma 3 but when I upgrade for Skyrim with performance loss on Arma 3 then I rather want to pass for the Upgrade. I am actually running Arma 3 pretty ok for now and I rather shoos to endure some issues with Skyrim then I have to endure them with Arma 3.

Still the question stays, does It depend on the kind of hardware you shoos or are these problems reported on a mayor part of the higher end Users?

best of regards

Edited March 9, 2014 by LiquitHQ

[astral4eg 10]

i run arma 3 on intel core i5 3570k, gforce 670, 16gb ram, and i have 15-30 fps in multiplayer on low settings (in cti map)

this "feature" of Real Virtuality engine, and can't fixed :)

[aussiebobby 1]

i run arma 3 on intel core i5 3570k, gforce 670, 16gb ram, and i have 15-30 fps in multiplayer on low settings (in cti map)

this "feature" of Real Virtuality engine, and can't fixed :)

Last patch

Fixed: Berets have a correct texture

Fixed: Colors of fishing nets

Im happy that they have their priorities are in order

[stk2008 14]

yep read back through some of my comments in this thread u will see i have stated same stuff

fixed font error

realigned this

replaced texture

added this or that

I mean WTF BIS why add all this when no muppet can even enjoy it.

So its clear this will and cant be fixed other wise they would be in this very thread reassuring us fact is this is ARMA2 all over again engine limitations and it cant and wont ever be fixed.

Last patch

Fixed: Berets have a correct texture

Fixed: Colors of fishing nets

Im happy that they have their priorities are in order

[nikiforos 450]

Colors of fishing nets are very important IMO :811:

Seriously BIS is amazing and their priorities even "better"

[Sneakson 1]

In all fairness I am wondering,

I was reading the comments on FB about CPU performance and FPS issues, I was planning to upgrade my rig but when I read all the comments I am better of staying with what I have.

For some reason if I have to believe what I have been reading it seems when I aim for a higher upgrade I will endure performance issues both on Video and CPU.

What I have now:

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

Intel core i5-3.20GHz 4 CPUs with 8Gb ram

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti with 4Gb ram Display memory -> it dedicates around 900 MB ram and shares around 3Gb ram

my native display mode is 1920 x 1080 at 60Hz

Performance:

I do not have a lot of games on my rig, so now and then I play Silent Hunter 5 modded with open horizons II, NewUIsTDC and some graphical mods to enhance the environmental experience of the game monitoring the performance I stay around 50 to 60 FPS. Then I have also OFP, Arma Armed Assault, Arma 2 and Arma 3 for Arma 2 I do not seem to have any problems at all like with SH5 my rig runs smooth around 50 to 60 FPS running it with Blastcore, Jarheads sound mod CBA of course and CWR² and it seems that when monitoring that my CPU is not stressing to hard. I have to be honest that when I run Arma 3 that I see some CPÜ stress the FPS hits around 40 to 45 max and sometimes it drops to 35 to 30 depending on how heavy the mission is designed this is however also monitored with mods e.g. Blastcore and Jarheads Sound mod, if I measure a clean performance without mods I see slight improvements to 50 FPS max with some times a drop to around 40 fps again depending on how heavy the missions is designed. The last Game I have is Skyrim and strangely this one is the reason why I would like to upgrade my rig. It sits around 30 - 40 FPS constant and dares to crash both clean and when using mods, it also seems that this game is stressing my CPU with higher pikes just before it crashes to desktop.

What I wanted to do was upgrade my rig to an i7 4.2 Ghz with a video-card upgrade GTX 780 TI I already measured performance between my current card and this one and I need at least a 780 to see a proper difference, but I've read a lot of performance issues on Arma 3 with that kind of hardware, now I am wondering what Is the reason for it.

Why is a lesser CPU video card performing actually better then a higher end rig?

Like said I would actually want to upgrade as I seem to have some problems with Skyrim, I do not want to upgrade because of Arma 3 but when I upgrade for Skyrim with performance loss on Arma 3 then I rather want to pass for the Upgrade. I am actually running Arma 3 pretty ok for now and I rather shoos to endure some issues with Skyrim then I have to endure them with Arma 3.

Still the question stays, does It depend on the kind of hardware you shoos or are these problems reported on a mayor part of the higher end Users?

best of regards

Oi! Stop it and let me save you some hundreds of bucks yeah?

First of all: nice computer. You might be able to sell it around $500 or a bit more than that even. I had lots of interest in my old machine which is similar and naturally the most interest was in the CPU and graphics card. 560 Tis sell all the time for $150 used in Sweden anyways. So don’t just dump it somewhere although it would naturally be even more cost-efficient to let someone else have it cheaper, a friend or so. I’m guessing you didn’t buy it for $500.

Second: if you are to upgrade you should be looking at an i5-4670K, a 760/770 and Windows 8 (and SSD?).

The i7 is not quicker than the i5 in any way. The 780 Ti is also something you should seriously consider before you buy it. A 40% performance increase over the 770 at double the cost. If you have 30 fps in a game you’re going to go up to about 40. If you already have about 50 fps in something you’re going to skyrocket out into the 60-plusses where you’re going to need a new monitor. I think cards like the 780 Ti are made for bigger screens or 120 Hz screens. The 760 and 770 are both much more cost-effective, about equally so.

Third: everyone has performance problems. It’s not caused by high-end machines at all.

Finally compare my old and new machine in my signature and you can see approximately the improvement you’re going to see in ARMA between your old machine and what you’re going to get so you can decide yourself if you think it is worth it. I wouldn’t upgrade for ARMA, unless I played it a whole lot.

[Instynct 1]

TIP: don't upgrade your RIG if you're only doing it for this game.

Specs:

i7 4770k @ 4 ghz

2x GTX 780 Ti

Singleplayer: 100fps @ 1440p maxed

Multiplayer: 45 fps everything on lowest (dips to 20-30 fps in cities)

[dr death jm 117]

TIP: don't upgrade your RIG if you're only doing it for this game.

Specs:

i7 4770k @ 4 ghz

2x GTX 780 Ti

Singleplayer: 100fps @ 1440p maxed

Multiplayer: 45 fps everything on lowest (dips to 20-30 fps in cities)

wow... bis needs to fix some stuff ... my computer is 4 years old nothing compared to yours ... I get same problem.

[Sneakson 1]

TIP: don't upgrade your RIG if you're only doing it for this game.

Specs:

i7 4770k @ 4 ghz

2x GTX 780 Ti

Singleplayer: 100fps @ 1440p maxed

Multiplayer: 45 fps everything on lowest (dips to 20-30 fps in cities)

Maxed? All settings maxed? 100 fps at 1440p doesn't sound bad at all if you're saying all settings are maxed. Then again you've spent 4 times as much on graphics cards as I have.

Multiplayer is just as bad for everyone probably though.

[SYH 10]

this is the last time i fall for the heart instead of the brains when the PC gaming is concerned..

ridiculous

[Instynct 1]

Maxed? All settings maxed? 100 fps at 1440p doesn't sound bad at all if you're saying all settings are maxed. Then again you've spent 4 times as much on graphics cards as I have.

Multiplayer is just as bad for everyone probably though.

Yes... that's single player. Dips to 80-90 in cities.

I think it's pretty apparent they gave up on multiplayer performance before the game even released.