Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[nikiforos 450]

I have to admit that you guys still discussing in this topic are hero's. It's good to have hopes for better performance but also to have some realistic expectations. I feel for u guys but don't expect miracles or anything to happen soon.

Keep up the good spirit.

[sXr 10]

That's mean there are no solutions :/

[nikiforos 450]

My personal recommendation is to save your energy for other things. Don't waste more money on this and just let it flow. If it happens and the game gets optimized then good, otherwise just wait for other titles to play with.

[sXr 10]

Ok thanks ;)

[nikiforos 450]

U welcome :)

[windies 11]

Just went from a Phenom II x4 965 BE @ 3.8ghz to an i5 3570K @ 4.2ghz and DDR2-800 to DDR3-1600 and there's a marked improvement however the issue's with frames dipping below 20-25 fps is still there under heavy load. One thing that's even more apparent now is that changing settings aside from Object detail and distance does absolutely nothing. I needed to upgrade anyways but if you're looking to upgrade just for ArmA and you have something that works good now, I wouldn't spend the money.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Windies

[bigsyke 10]

Here is my take on everything.

I've tried Arma3 on 3 different machines. I7 4770k, 8350, 6300. All terrible. Now, I've had other games run at 30fps and were still playable. It seems to me, and probably only me, the real killer here is a slight micro-studder, which is more apparent the longer I've played Arma3, vs other games. I've put in a ton of hours into the game, and there IS a slight micro-studder, even at 60fps.

I have everything at the lowest setting to help counter this studder, yet it isn't the gpu, its something with the multi-player engine.

It's almost as if the screen is being rendered at 60fps, but the objects are refreshed at about 10-20fps. This is more apparent while flying. This makes the game unplayable for me.

Oh, and this is with multiple FO ISP's, 40/40Mbps.

I am willing to bet this is directly related to server/client-side CPU utilization, but probably more on the server side.

[Sneakson 1]

Hi everybody, sorry for my english.

I bought a GTX 690 and I think, I have some problem on game.

When i play to "Arma III", when I launch MSI after burner, In game I can see that:

- GPU1 USAGE % >> The maximum goes to 48%

- GPU2 USAGE % >> The maximum goes to 48%, It doesn't work at those maximum

The probleme that I have 30/40fps in game and my CPU used 20/30%

But, When Im playing some other "new game" , GPU1 and 2 work to 80% >> 99%

Thanks for your help ;)

My config:

GTX 690 driver 335.23

I7 4820K 3.7ghz

16go DDR3

Universal issue.

Here is my take on everything.

I've tried Arma3 on 3 different machines. I7 4770k, 8350, 6300. All terrible. Now, I've had other games run at 30fps and were still playable. It seems to me, and probably only me, the real killer here is a slight micro-studder, which is more apparent the longer I've played Arma3, vs other games. I've put in a ton of hours into the game, and there IS a slight micro-studder, even at 60fps.

I have everything at the lowest setting to help counter this studder, yet it isn't the gpu, its something with the multi-player engine.

It's almost as if the screen is being rendered at 60fps, but the objects are refreshed at about 10-20fps. This is more apparent while flying. This makes the game unplayable for me.

Oh, and this is with multiple FO ISP's, 40/40Mbps.

I am willing to bet this is directly related to server/client-side CPU utilization, but probably more on the server side.

Never noticed what you're saying. How are the objects "refreshed"? In ARMA2 grass and trees only move a few times per second when affected by the wind which looks really strange unless you have a character moving across the screen smoothly.

Also if you believe you're having micro-stuttering measure frametimes using Fraps. Take the data into Excel or some other graphing program (I believe Frafs is a free Fraps complement that automatically draws graphs from Fraps ft data) and see if there are any spikes.

[Polymath820 11]

All of ArmA 3's issues as far as I can see are caused by:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?176411-ArmA-3-Low-FPS-%28likely-possible-reason%29

[Falconeye 10]

Hi,

do you think 4GB memory is enough for Arma 3 in 2560x1440 ?

thanks

[Sneakson 1]

Hi,

do you think 4GB memory is enough for Arma 3 in 2560x1440 ?

thanks

32-bit or 64-bit OS? Harder with 64-bit OS.

Try it and if there's some sort of memory issue just buy 2x4GB memory... only costs less than $100 anyways.

I'm not exactly sure how much VRAM you'll need though.

[jumpinghubert 49]

Here is my take on everything.

I've tried Arma3 on 3 different machines. I7 4770k, 8350, 6300. All terrible. Now, I've had other games run at 30fps and were still playable. It seems to me, and probably only me, the real killer here is a slight micro-studder, which is more apparent the longer I've played Arma3, vs other games. I've put in a ton of hours into the game, and there IS a slight micro-studder, even at 60fps.

I have everything at the lowest setting to help counter this studder, yet it isn't the gpu, its something with the multi-player engine.

It's almost as if the screen is being rendered at 60fps, but the objects are refreshed at about 10-20fps. This is more apparent while flying. This makes the game unplayable for me.

Oh, and this is with multiple FO ISP's, 40/40Mbps.

I am willing to bet this is directly related to server/client-side CPU utilization, but probably more on the server side.

I have the opposite experience. Do you have arma3 @SSD? Try rotational blur @ 200. What ingame settings and graphic card do you have?

[Honza1616 1]

I also have a problem with low FPS

I custom topic based but sometimes I deleted it :-/

Example:

If I set the details I have high CPU utilization of 50% and 50% GPU, 30 FPS

when I give medium detail I use 40% of CPU and GPU 40%, 33 FPS

If I set the details on low power CPU is 30%, and the GPU has 15%, 35 FPS

Why not increase GPU performance so I could have more FPS?

Why can not I have more FPS

We had 2 graphics card HD 7770 in Crossfire

someone advised me at replace with a new graphics card and we exchanged it for a different brand in the idea that AMD chips are optimized for playing Army (Nvidia) GTX 780, did not help

I bought a SSD drive and installed it Armu, did not help

I would like to ask if this problem could cause older versions of PCI-Express

I'm on board PCI-e 2.0 and

graphics card has a 3 generation

GK therefore does not use the power board when it fails to work fast enough

I think it would solve the problem board with PCI-e 3.0? It would mean i buy a new processor

Or do you think that this problem may cause a CPU?

[jumpinghubert 49]

I also have a problem with low FPS

I custom topic based but sometimes I deleted it :-/

Example:

If I set the details I have high CPU utilization of 50% and 50% GPU, 30 FPS

when I give medium detail I use 40% of CPU and GPU 40%, 33 FPS

If I set the details on low power CPU is 30%, and the GPU has 15%, 35 FPS

Why not increase GPU performance so I could have more FPS?

Why can not I have more FPS

We had 2 graphics card HD 7770 in Crossfire

someone advised me at replace with a new graphics card and we exchanged it for a different brand in the idea that AMD chips are optimized for playing Army (Nvidia) GTX 780, did not help

I bought a SSD drive and installed it Armu, did not help

I would like to ask if this problem could cause older versions of PCI-Express

I'm on board PCI-e 2.0 and

graphics card has a 3 generation

GK therefore does not use the power board when it fails to work fast enough

I think it would solve the problem board with PCI-e 3.0? It would mean i buy a new processor

Or do you think that this problem may cause a CPU?

your cpu is bottlenecking. Best choice for arma3 is a haswell 4670k and 2400er ram. Then you will have maybe 50fps and 100% gpu utilization. I was able to play with 50fps in sp-missions on very high settings and full AA/atoc on a 3570k @ 4.8 GHZ and a weak GTX 570. For arma3 a weak gpu/strong cpu combi is better than a strong gpu/weak cpu combination.

[sXr 10]

Thanks dude, thanks for your forum

I installed Arma 3 on my SSD and now i'm 70/80 fps :D

[ziffa 11]

your cpu is bottlenecking. Best choice for arma3 is a haswell 4670k and 2400er ram. Then you will have maybe 50fps and 100% gpu utilization. I was able to play with 50fps in sp-missions on very high settings and full AA/atoc on a 3570k @ 4.8 GHZ and a weak GTX 570. For arma3 a weak gpu/strong cpu combi is better than a strong gpu/weak cpu combination.

BULLSHIT!

BULLSHIT!

BULLSHIT!

BULLSHIT!

don't speack if you don't know nothing about cpu bottlenenecking!do you think you must have an 4.8ghz oc processors to run this shitty game?NO!you are wrong

I have an intel core i5 2500k considered one of the best cpu on the market,overclocked to 4.1ghz,with an nvidia 780 overclocked to 1018mhz

you say"on sp i was able to play with 50 fps"thanx!the game only work on sp the problem is the mp!all this post speack about mp probem and you write this bullshit about sp!

Good why i bought this game...why

[nikiforos 450]

i5-2500k @4.1 bottlenecking? No way . Recommending people to spend money instead of telling BIS to optimize the game is the wrong path to go.

Your i5-2500k is good enough to run this game and ofcourse if you could push your overclock a little more to 4.3 would be better.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Nikiforos

[windies 11]

Haswells are worse overclockers than IB and SB If that's the route you wanna go. I'm running i5 3570K @ 4.5ghz now and it still runs pretty rough in multiplayer and large SP missions with lots of AI. I suppose I should upgrade to Haswell as well right since obviously my CPU is bottlenecking? :rolleyes:

[Sneakson 1]

He's got an AMD Phenom II X6 1075T not a i5-2500K or 3570K... his CPU is absolutely definitely bottlenecking a 780.

[jumpinghubert 49]

He's got an AMD Phenom II X6 1075T not a i5-2500K or 3570K... his CPU is absolutely definitely bottlenecking a 780.

congratulations for reading carefully :D

@windies

thats wrong, ivy isn´t better to overclock than haswell and only sandy better than ivy & haswell because since ivy intel uses rubbishy thermal paste between heatspreader and core. I removed the heatspreader on my 3570k to be able to overclock it to 4.8.

@ziffa

welcome to the forum lol

[teilx 4]

Recommending people to spend money instead of telling BIS to optimize the game is the wrong path to go.

1+

yeah overclocking +lower lifespan and spend money for only one game .........only dump

Please stop such advices :D

[jumpinghubert 49]

please be less ignorant teilx

IF someone wants higher fps in arma3 what we will tell him?

a) Impossible! Its the engine, you can´t get better fps.

b)BECAUSE the engine isn´t optimized you have to compensate it with better cpu-power IF you want better fps in arma3.

Answer a) is a little bit religious, answer b) more pragmatism. Its an individual descision how much it is worth to get better performance in arma3. With good cooling the lifespan argument is bullshit ;)

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Correct.

Lifespan argument is really bullshit. My i7 runs since years with more voltage and this 4200Mhz. And a year ago my cpu runs with over 5000Mhz for a couple of months (cooled by Mach II GT then) and it still works...

[Honza1616 1]

I want to say that I use my PC for work where it is needed the most cores in the processor with the highest clocking

and unfortunately processors from Intel, for example, do not meet the 4 cores with 3 Ghz ....

now has a PC processor with 6 cores 3Ghz, by buying processors from Intel would reduce the performance of my PC

I found one site where tested graphics Arma 3

used to test a range of processors from Intel and AMD, the tests used the same graphics card as I have and I was surprised by the performance of AMD FX-8350 compared with Intel I7-3770K fall was only about 5 FPS

1980x1080px settings Ultra, GTX 780

I7-3770K - 48 FPS

FX-8350 -43 FPS

In addition, this processor is compatible with my board

So What's your view on FX-8350 processor, would be a better choice?

web in my language, (in Czech)

for the translation I have added a link from Google translate: D

CPU test here....

GPU test here....

EDIT:

Now I looked at the prices and think i over more powerful CPU to be

AMD FX-Series X8 FX-9370 or AMD FX-Series FX-9590 X8 is a difference in performance GHz

so should I have increase the FPS, is not it?

Edited April 19, 2014 by Honza1616

[teilx 4]

cooling the lifespan argument is bullshit

yeahh all pro's.lol.. overheating is only a bad sideeffect and there are much more reasons for decreasing cpu performance by OC

after years. lose warranty and stock specifications are indeed baseless xD