Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[tonschuh 3]

NVidia Beta drivers 337.50 (7 April) don't increase ARMA3 framerates.

4770K + 770 w 16GB 1600 MHz on SSD here.

Stratis: (empty Stratis hill outside Agia Marina)

322.10: 61

335.00: 61

337.50: 62

Altis: (empty Altis highest hill)

322.10: 65

335.00: 66

337.50: 66

Infantry: (60s)

322.10: 46

335.00: 46

337.50: 46

Helicopters: (60s after takeoff)

322.10: 47-48

335.00: 46

337.50: 48

Combined Arms: (60s after touchdown)

322.10: 42

335.00: 45

337.50: 45-46

Support: (60s of attack)

322.10: 37-38

335.00: 37

337.50: 39

Intro: (60s of campaign intro, heli)

322.10: 36

335.00: 37

337.50: 38

I believe 335 is WHQL?

Anyways I did 332.10 tests twice, others once and the intro only once on all drivers.

The only significant increase is Combined Arms really... gonna try that again though.

Edit: did another CA and it ended up at 45... so 335.00 may have done something but 337.50 probably not.

Basically all differences are within 1-3 fps and can be ignored.

That shows that the drivers didn't make things worse.

There is possible not much they can do via driver-optimizations, otherwise they would have done something by now, as every major game-title get's it's improvements in one stage, but after such a long period of time I doubt that we will see something from NVIDIA or AMD about it.

:butbut:

[mobile_medic 43]

so you blame us for NVIDIA making the performance worse in driver xyz?

since when we are in charge of NVIDIA driver development ?

As far as performance is concerned, your game has a lot bigger problems than whatever nvidia drivers are being released. But, always nice to have a scapegoat... of course, this would be what you respond to... Wouldn't want you to go and actually contribute actual information about what BIS is doing (or, not doing) to address the long-standing performance issues of the Arma series, or why a new release is *still* incapable of making more efficient use of modern hardware.

It doesn't matter what nvidia does to improve performance when our GPU is still going to be sitting waiting for our CPU, which is sitting around under-utilized thanks to an engine that still has all the same fundamental problems that a2 had, but with nicer window dressing...

The problem seems pretty clear. This game was built on a foundation for hardware of the last decade, rather than this one. Aside from the pretty pictures, it certainly performs and behaves like it, anyway. Nothing like having plenty of hardware horsepower sitting idle while the game takes a dump, performance-wise.

[Ckrauslo 12]

Agreed, i almost laughed and cried at the same time, when Dawrden practically said it's Nvidia responsibility....we pay a high price for something for the developers not being actually interested in listening to us, they prefer to say nothing wrong with my product it's others fault...a little too much pride

[Instynct 1]

As far as performance is concerned, your game has a lot bigger problems than whatever nvidia drivers are being released. But, always nice to have a scapegoat... of course, this would be what you respond to... Wouldn't want you to go and actually contribute actual information about what BIS is doing (or, not doing) to address the long-standing performance issues of the Arma series, or why a new release is *still* incapable of making more efficient use of modern hardware.

It doesn't matter what nvidia does to improve performance when our GPU is still going to be sitting waiting for our CPU, which is sitting around under-utilized thanks to an engine that still has all the same fundamental problems that a2 had, but with nicer window dressing...

The problem seems pretty clear. This game was built on a foundation for hardware of the last decade, rather than this one. Aside from the pretty pictures, it certainly performs and behaves like it, anyway. Nothing like having plenty of hardware horsepower sitting idle while the game takes a dump, performance-wise.

+1 Nice job summed it up perfectly.

[Dwarden 1125]

Agreed, i almost laughed and cried at the same time, when Dawrden practically said it's Nvidia responsibility....we pay a high price for something for the developers not being actually interested in listening to us, they prefer to say nothing wrong with my product it's others fault...a little too much pride

nice twisting of words, I reacted on claim that 'some driver change' by some IVH affects performance of arma 3 in negative way

where the poster then continues with like it's our fault or responsibility for whatever IHV done or does ...

unless that IHV cooperates with us before hand, we can't react until such driver is released

now considering this driver is more like first of 'many' experiments to decrease driver overhead it's even more possible that it's not good enough for this or that title

so stop dragging together two different problems (our engine issues vs driver issues)

[Llano 11]

As far as performance is concerned, your game has a lot bigger problems than whatever nvidia drivers are being released. But, always nice to have a scapegoat... of course, this would be what you respond to... Wouldn't want you to go and actually contribute actual information about what BIS is doing (or, not doing) to address the long-standing performance issues of the Arma series, or why a new release is *still* incapable of making more efficient use of modern hardware.

It doesn't matter what nvidia does to improve performance when our GPU is still going to be sitting waiting for our CPU, which is sitting around under-utilized thanks to an engine that still has all the same fundamental problems that a2 had, but with nicer window dressing...

The problem seems pretty clear. This game was built on a foundation for hardware of the last decade, rather than this one. Aside from the pretty pictures, it certainly performs and behaves like it, anyway. Nothing like having plenty of hardware horsepower sitting idle while the game takes a dump, performance-wise.

Aaand we have a winner

+100

[windies 11]

nice twisting of words, I reacted on claim that 'some driver change' by some IVH affects performance of arma 3 in negative way

where the poster then continues with like it's our fault or responsibility for whatever IHV done or does ...

unless that IHV cooperates with us before hand, we can't react until such driver is released

now considering this driver is more like first of 'many' experiments to decrease driver overhead it's even more possible that it's not good enough for this or that title

so stop dragging together two different problems (our engine issues vs driver issues)

Again, the problem is that you choose to respond to someone giving their opinion, I'm not saying it's the right opinion either, and "fight" with them rather than responding to the valid criticism and alleviating those concerns. The real question is, why would Nvidia's effort to optimize draw calls or "DirectX" within their drivers have zero affect on ArmA 3 when it has such a global effect on everything else?

Edited April 10, 2014 by Windies

[Ckrauslo 12]

nice twisting of words, I reacted on claim that 'some driver change' by some IVH affects performance of arma 3 in negative way

where the poster then continues with like it's our fault or responsibility for whatever IHV done or does ...

unless that IHV cooperates with us before hand, we can't react until such driver is released

now considering this driver is more like first of 'many' experiments to decrease driver overhead it's even more possible that it's not good enough for this or that title

so stop dragging together two different problems (our engine issues vs driver issues)

Driver Issues? seriously ? let's take people here in this forum with the best pc (with either Nvidia or ATI) i've ever seen in my life, and they have the same problem as the rest of us, and is Driver problem.. You're delusional ....and other one... twisting?...."ofc it does have, but that's optimization done by theirs driver developers not us ..." You just shoving the responsibility to them, when it's you're company responsibility like any other company to optimize their games, to be friendly to computers in general, so you're costumers the very people you're company owes due to it's success, don't have problem like this, BI have one of the worst if not "The worst" costumer services i've ever seen....and do not come with the fallacy "Don't want don't buy...nobody forced to buy it" there are international consumer rights...

[mobile_medic 43]

New patch... same old problems

[TSAndrey 1]

Driver Issues? seriously ? let's take people here in this forum with the best pc (with either Nvidia or ATI) i've ever seen in my life, and they have the same problem as the rest of us, and is Driver problem.. You're delusional ....and other one... twisting?...."ofc it does have, but that's optimization done by theirs driver developers not us ..." You just shoving the responsibility to them, when it's you're company responsibility like any other company to optimize their games, to be friendly to computers in general, so you're costumers the very people you're company owes due to it's success, don't have problem like this, BI have one of the worst if not "The worst" costumer services i've ever seen....and do not come with the fallacy "Don't want don't buy...nobody forced to buy it" there are international consumer rights...

He's saying it's not their fault drivers cause low performance issues. He never said all performance issues are caused by drivers.

[Ckrauslo 12]

He's saying it's not their fault drivers cause low performance issues. He never said all performance issues are caused by drivers.

And i'm saying, the game have poor performance even when the drivers are good, they will always say is the driver fault, they've done it since A2

[TSAndrey 1]

And i'm saying, the game have poor performance even when the drivers are good, they will always say is the driver fault, they've done it since A2

But they didn't say it's the drivers fault, they said you shouldn't compare engine issues with driver issues.

[nikiforos 450]

Thing that makes me angry is that instead of getting better performance with each patch we get 0 FPS or even worse performance. Sometimes I feel like BIS does this with purpose to drive us crazy.

[Ckrauslo 12]

But they didn't say it's the drivers fault, they said you shouldn't compare engine issues with driver issues.

You didn't even read what i said simple re instated something you said previously

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:48 ----------

And they do blame the drivers

[Gera_CCT 12]

Thing that makes me angry is that instead of getting better performance with each patch we get 0 FPS or even worse performance. Sometimes I feel like BIS does this with purpose to drive us crazy.

What makes me angry is that BIS is expending too much energy on things people don´t really care at all. Come on, Zeus is a good MP tool/mode but nobody asked for that. People need/want to enjoy the game with solid 30 Fps minimum in MP for start.

[nicolasroger 11]

CKrauslo: TSAndrey is actualy right. You are totaly over reacting. You should take the time to reread what Dwarden said.

He is simply saying that BIS cannot be responsible if a driver lower the game performance. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

He even acknowledge that there are actualy engine issues (wich they are responsible for, unlike potential driver issues).

[tonschuh 3]

CKrauslo: TSAndrey is actualy right. You are totaly over reacting. You should take the time to reread what Dwarden said.

He is simply saying that BIS cannot be responsible if a driver lower the game performance. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

He even acknowledge that there are actualy engine issues (wich they are responsible for, unlike potential driver issues).

On the other hand the new drivers give plenty people a lot more fps in other major games and seem not to effect ARMA-3 - performance in a negative way.

Is it really such an unrealistic expectation to gain 5fps within a 6 month period ?

That low expectation already acknowledges the much heavier workload of ARMA-3 on a system.

I'm not expecting a gain like in BF4 etc., as I understand that the titles are not comparable, but no gain at all or even loosing some of the already very low amount of fps ?

First I thought that it were just a really unfortunate lunch of the game and had some hope that things will get sorted after some time and therefore didn't bother to bench after every update.

I expected that I would see some performance improvements every 3-6 month, even if they would be little and kept the game installed and even let it waste some of my SSD-space.

Now I start to think, that I should not only move the game back to my HDD, but completely wipe it of my system.

Let's be realistic, there is just no hope (anymore).

Money wasted, lesson learned.

Why should I torture myself (again) with a game-performance like back in the days when I just couldn't afford to upgrade my gear ?

It may be different for gamers which only played on a struggling system all their life, but if you ever saw the light at the end of the tunnel, believe me you never want to go back to the dark ages.

Come to the dark side, we have cookies.

:butbut:

[bravo409 13]

Here my be your problem if your using jsrs it is known to lower fps and could be one of the problems of the fps issue

Originally Posted by LordJarhead View Post

Well since I for myself never really play multiplayer with JSRS I dont give a damn about reddit posts. I dont made the mod for people to play multiplayer with it, for that reason there are other mods better than JSRS due to the scripting and what ever other points Nou brought up. The mod has been made for the audiophile players who just dont care so much about an FPS drop or what so ever. And improving JSRS is to most people already impossible to imagine. Sure there is always plenty of room for improvements but tbh, I really could care less sometimes

Not saying I wont work on JSRS further, I will! I just made the new Truck, heh. Actually trying out some new things and basic ideas I have. So the performance will be decreasing even more maybe^^ The new Truck3 has 41 sound effects and lays around 40~ MB just for audio size. Actually trying to see where I can go with this, and where I will come to an point the game will bring up borders ...

[nikiforos 450]

Could BIS give us a percentage of their employees actually working optimizing the game? It would be interesting to find out what we can expect or not expect from them in the near future.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Nikiforos

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

When i read that since Arma 2 are Performance problems present i would not be very optimistic. But wonders happens. Sometimes.

[TheBigOne_014 16]

This topic is HUGE!!!

Low CPU utilization & Low FPS was started in 03-05-2013 and has, Replies: 2,868 | Views: 364,815 | Followers: 28

And then i go to these other rather banal topics like:

Arma 3 STABLE server 1.14 "performance binary" feedback was started in 12-11-2013 and has, Replies: 222 | Views: 38,954 | Followers: 16

Arma3 and the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag (memory allocation > 2GB) was started in 09-10-2013 and has, Replies: 333 | Views: 31,944 | Followers: 12

STEAM performance troubles and how mitigate them was started in 03-06-2013 nad has, Replies: 59 | Views: 18,105 | Followers: 1

and a topic of no intrest at all:

ArmA 3 Performance Tweaks and Settings Guide was started in 09-21-2013 and has, Replies: 32 | Views: 9,652 | Followers: 2

and i found a

I look at this numbers an i see it's 3,7x more important to the comunity to complain than trying to solve/mitigate the problems of this simulator, HEY it's 2x more important to see how to mitigate STEAM performance problems than ArmA 3 problems!!!

This reminds me of a video i posted on my FB.

I see people complainig about the RV4 engine that has the same problems than the Arma 2 engine, and it sucks, and Bohemia dosen't do anything to improve the performance,... well it's an heavy engine and in need of optimization, but i see reports of 60-70 even 80 FPS in Single Player mode,... (i have 40-50 with my rig) Multiplayer mode it's bad, but i have a few questions for the complainants:

- Are you helping BIS to improve server performance by testing the performance binary servers and giving feedback to the developers!?

- Are you helping Fred41 to improve his memory allocator!?

- Are server admins using the "tweked" settings to improve server performance!?

- Are server admins using the profiling binary and sending the .rtp's data back to the developers!?

- Are mission makers making missons with the possibility to use an HC!? (HC=Headless Client)

And for the new guys to A3:

- Are you using a bunch of heavy mods like JSRS and expecting to have the same performance!?

- Are you expecting to have 60fps in a map like Altis, with 60-70 players, and an huge amount of objects and scripts like "Altis Life" mission and similar missions!?

Dwarden works is ass off to help and improve multiplayer FPS, today he has already launched 1.16 Performance Binary! Why do i have the feeling that 80% of you/us don't knows that!?

I think you should inform youselves before attaking developers, and see what is being done! You are having about 800MB of bug fixes/addons/features every month, i don't know anyother game where you have this kind of commitment from the game producer!

You are right when you complain of the lack of performance from RV4 engine, and that we should not have to use this tweaks and workaround's to improve the A3 experience! But it's possible to improve with a bit off effort from your/our side! And i'm absolutlly shure BIS knows that and it's trying to find a way to correct it!

Peace! ;)

[sgtgunner 10]

+1 Well said and articulated. There is work on the community side for sure. Though, I think you are right, most folks do not have the background to check this or test this.

From my observations it mostly consists of the statement of "I am only getting this FPS and why?". I think that a consolidated testing guide is required for folks to do a good job of testing and providing the necessary accurate feedback.

[antigoon78 10]

You are having about 800MB of bug fixes/addons/features every month, i don't know anyother game where you have this kind of commitment from the game producer!

+1 really +1!

[Sneakson 1]

This topic is HUGE!!!

Low CPU utilization & Low FPS was started in 03-05-2013 and has, Replies: 2,868 | Views: 364,815 | Followers: 28

And then i go to these other rather banal topics like:

Arma 3 STABLE server 1.14 "performance binary" feedback was started in 12-11-2013 and has, Replies: 222 | Views: 38,954 | Followers: 16

Arma3 and the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag (memory allocation > 2GB) was started in 09-10-2013 and has, Replies: 333 | Views: 31,944 | Followers: 12

STEAM performance troubles and how mitigate them was started in 03-06-2013 nad has, Replies: 59 | Views: 18,105 | Followers: 1

and a topic of no intrest at all:

ArmA 3 Performance Tweaks and Settings Guide was started in 09-21-2013 and has, Replies: 32 | Views: 9,652 | Followers: 2

and i found a

I look at this numbers an i see it's 3,7x more important to the comunity to complain than trying to solve/mitigate the problems of this simulator, HEY it's 2x more important to see how to mitigate STEAM performance problems than ArmA 3 problems!!!

This reminds me of a video i posted on my FB.

I see people complainig about the RV4 engine that has the same problems than the Arma 2 engine, and it sucks, and Bohemia dosen't do anything to improve the performance,... well it's an heavy engine and in need of optimization, but i see reports of 60-70 even 80 FPS in Single Player mode,... (i have 40-50 with my rig) Multiplayer mode it's bad, but i have a few questions for the complainants:

- Are you helping BIS to improve server performance by testing the performance binary servers and giving feedback to the developers!?

- Are you helping Fred41 to improve his memory allocator!?

- Are server admins using the "tweked" settings to improve server performance!?

- Are server admins using the profiling binary and sending the .rtp's data back to the developers!?

- Are mission makers making missons with the possibility to use an HC!? (HC=Headless Client)

And for the new guys to A3:

- Are you using a bunch of heavy mods like JSRS and expecting to have the same performance!?

- Are you expecting to have 60fps in a map like Altis, with 60-70 players, and an huge amount of objects and scripts like "Altis Life" mission and similar missions!?

Dwarden works is ass off to help and improve multiplayer FPS, today he has already launched 1.16 Performance Binary! Why do i have the feeling that 80% of you/us don't knows that!?

I think you should inform youselves before attaking developers, and see what is being done! You are having about 800MB of bug fixes/addons/features every month, i don't know anyother game where you have this kind of commitment from the game producer!

You are right when you complain of the lack of performance from RV4 engine, and that we should not have to use this tweaks and workaround's to improve the A3 experience! But it's possible to improve with a bit off effort from your/our side! And i'm absolutlly shure BIS knows that and it's trying to find a way to correct it!

Peace! ;)

We can't solve anything. Only complain and hope for the devs to work on it.

The video you linked to is bullshit. I skipped through it and saw Game Booster, NVidia settings and startup parameters that all are bullshit and do absolutely 0.

You also missed this one:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147391-Will-my-PC-run-Arma3-What-CPU-GPU-to-get-What-settings-What-System-Specifications (133k views)

That's where most settings discussions have taken place which is all we really can do now.

That thread and this one shows me that we believe it is 50x more important to discuss performance than look at some guide written a year ago. Because we all already know everything about the settings and there's nothing else we can do there.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Sneakson

[TheBigOne_014 16]

We can't solve anything. Only complain and hope for the devs to work on it.

The video you linked to is bullshit. I skipped through it and saw Game Booster, NVidia settings and startup parameters that all are bullshit and do absolutely 0.

You also missed this one:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147391-Will-my-PC-run-Arma3-What-CPU-GPU-to-get-What-settings-What-System-Specifications (133k views)

That's where most settings discussions have taken place which is all we really can do now.

The video is bullshit!? Have you tried!?

Did you hear why he said to use Game Booster!? I'll write it down for you! GB its to clean and defregment RAM so the Memory Allocator made by Fred41 can work 100%,(ups,... sorry you didn't get to that part) and beacause many players don't have updated chipset/soundcards drivers that leads to lower performance.

Do you know that if you use exTheread startup parameter you increase the amount of computation on you CPU (if you have a good one you take advantage of it).

Man,.. i just had an epiphany! You know nothing about ArmA! You landed here about an year ago,... and your post splashes your ignorance,... take an advice from someone with 5 years of Arma experience,... read/whatch and learn!

P.S. - And another thing! This topic http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147391-Will-my-PC-run-Arma3-What-CPU-GPU-to-get-What-settings-What-System-Specifications (133k views) shows your way of thinking!!! "More FPS just go to you local hardware store and buy a better PC."

Edited April 11, 2014 by Nuno Basto