Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[[frl]myke 14]

Because he can't and most of his arguments revolve around theatrics and hyperbole support by his own opinions that he mislabels as facts which he then passes the blame of their inaccuracy on to the reader absolving himself of all guilt or responsibility in his own mind. He doesn't even argue because he has no legitimate points, he just tries to "yell" louder.

The good thing about facts is, they remain true, regardless if you believe it or not. Also people like you claim that the game is poorly optimized yet no proof is given so far aswell. Tell me who's yelling. And no, the "fact" that A3 doesn't reach 100FPS isn't proof for a broken game nor for unoptimized programming.

[Alwarren 2767]

Myke;2682909']Fact: i've seen countless players complaining on this forum that A3 (and previously A2) runs with insufficent FPS on their PC.

Fact: after closer investigation it turned out that those players tried to play on Ultra settings with ridiculous high viewdistance on a mediocre outdated laptop.

Fact: after turning down their expectations a bit (it doesn't look that bad on normal settings) they were able to play and actually enjoy the game (unless their hardware is definately not capable).

Fact: there are people out there' date=' right now, playing and enjoying the game. Odd enough as some in here say that this is strictly impossible, the game is unplayable.

[/quote']

Fact: BIS own System Requirements page lists as a minimum requirement: Dual core CPU, Radeon HD 3830 or GeFoce 8800GT

Fact: BIS own System Requirements page lists as recommended system specs: i5-2800 or Phenom II X4 940, and a RadeonHD 7750 or GeForce GTX 560.

Now, if my system specs are FAR beyond the recommended settings, why is it unreasonable for me to expect I can run the game on Ultra settings? Why is it that on a system spec that is far beyond the recommended settings, I still get in the 10-20 FPS on some missions? The answer to that is simple: It's not me that overexpects, it is Arma 3 that underperforms. The recommended settings will never ever run the game at a decent performance, yet you go on telling people they have unrealistic expectations? Because "it doesn't look that bad on normal settings"?

No, Arma 3 is not unplayable, at least not if you have a decent system (FORGET the minimum requirements, they're ridiculous). Yet, pulling the "you expect too much" card every time someone (rightly) complains about performance issues is NOT helping the game, or the customers.

For the record, 200 AI on a map is unplayable on my system. It remains unplayable if I kill them all. You know what makes it playable again? Removing the corpses. It triples my FPS. And that should not be.

---------- Post added at 23:18 ---------- Previous post was at 23:08 ----------

Myke;2683472']I see your point but since the CPU already has more than enough free resources i stand by my point: the impact to expect is way too low to justify the additional effort.

I agree. When I updated my system (for Arma 3, actually), I did get the graphics card first. It was a jump from the RadeonHD 6850 to a GeForce GTX 660 Ti. While there was some performance gain, it was marginal compared to the jump from the Phenom II X4 945 (what the system specs call "recommended") to an Intel I5-3570k. THAT performance jump was immense. I suppose this is mostly because the Intel's single core performance is vastly superior to AMD's, and multi-core support in RV is rather limited.

So yes, I agree that the CPU is one of the major limiting factors. But there are other things. As I said in my previous post, removing corpses will vastly improve FPS in multiplayer. A corpse, it seems, has almost the same overhead as a living soldier. Something that doesn't really add up. So in case of Multiplayer, I'd say network updates are a big part of the issues.

[Sneakers O'Toole 2]

Myke;2683666']The good thing about facts is' date=' they remain true, regardless if you believe it or not. Also people like you claim that the game is poorly optimized yet no proof is given so far aswell. Tell me who's yelling. A[b']nd no, the "fact" that A3 doesn't reach 100FPS isn't proof for a broken game nor for unoptimized programming[/b].

dude, can you leave the thread please, as you only respond to fictional statements, that have nothing to do with anything anyone is saying. just... stop.

[[frl]myke 14]

dude, can you leave the thread please, as you only respond to fictional statements, that have nothing to do with anything anyone is saying. just... stop.

The very same thing i could say to other participants of this thread. But i don't.

[opendome 91]

I don't think anyones expecting 100 fps, we just want at least a stable 30 fps which I don't think is an unreasonable thing to ask. Every other game has seemed to be able to it. The evidence of an unoptimized game is changing settings has little to no effect on FPS, the game barely utilizes resources, the extremely low FPS most people experience regardless of what hardware or hardware brands they use, the fact that this thread is 321 pages long, the fact that it's been voted 2300 times on the feed back tracker (and thats just from the people who took the time to register and report feedback)

[[frl]myke 14]

So i feel i have to make some statements to clarify some things.

Made up numbers used in examples.

Yes, i've picked random numbers on various occasions. Simply because i don't have access to the real numbers. If anyone does have them i will be happy to see them. Until then, wildly guessed numbers have to do it.

ArmA 3 is not optimized.

Well, that's a wild guess since no one here has access to the source code of the engine to verify this. From my point of view it is more likely that the fact that a CPU is used by far less than 100% has other causes than unoptimized code.

The evidence of an unoptimized game is changing settings has little to no effect on FPS

Something i can't reproduce. Changing settings either have a direct effect on FPS and/or on GPU load on my side.

ArmA 3 is poorly programmed.

Same as above. You would need the sourcecode to verify and prove this.

Game XYZ runs with XX FPS so why can't ArmA 3 do this.

Because ArmA 3 isn't Game XYZ. While it does look similar on the screen (military first person shooter) doesn't mean it can work the same way under the hood. See here:

Every other game has seemed to be able to it.

(no offence, just picked you because your post was the closest to quote from)

A corpse, it seems, has almost the same overhead as a living soldier

Also a corpse has to be tracked by the engine, be it for bullet deflection, being used as cover, change of location due to a nearby explosion....i can guess quite a few reasons why a dead soldier is still a lot of work for the engine. But i agree that the impact shouldn't be as big like a living unit. But again this is guesswork since we don't know exactly what is tracked and what not.

the fact that it's been voted 2300 times on the feed back tracker

How many people are registered on the feedback tracker? If there are 2400 registered members then 2300 is a impressive number, not so impressive if there are 50000 registered members.

[Alwarren 2767]

Myke;2683724']Also a corpse has to be tracked by the engine' date=' be it for bullet deflection, being used as cover, change of location due to a nearby explosion....i can guess quite a few reasons why a dead soldier is still a lot of work for the engine. But i agree that the impact shouldn't be as big like a living unit. But again this is guesswork since we don't know exactly what is tracked and what not.[/quote']

No, sadly we don't. I find this fact noteworthy, though,

[jumpinghubert 49]

The simple thing on this never ending story: if BIS will be able to raise performance they will do because it will expand the possibilities of this game (massive ai battles and so on) and make it more attractive. Nonstop-hysteric´s like mobile_medic or windies are zero helpful.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Myke;2683724']So i feel i have to make some statements to clarify some things.

Made up numbers used in examples.

Yes' date=' i've picked random numbers on various occasions. Simply because i don't have access to the real numbers. If anyone does have them i will be happy to see them. Until then, wildly guessed numbers have to do it.

[b']ArmA 3 is not optimized.[/b]

Well, that's a wild guess since no one here has access to the source code of the engine to verify this. From my point of view it is more likely that the fact that a CPU is used by far less than 100% has other causes than unoptimized code.

Something i can't reproduce. Changing settings either have a direct effect on FPS and/or on GPU load on my side.

ArmA 3 is poorly programmed.

Same as above. You would need the sourcecode to verify and prove this.

Game XYZ runs with XX FPS so why can't ArmA 3 do this.

Because ArmA 3 isn't Game XYZ. While it does look similar on the screen (military first person shooter) doesn't mean it can work the same way under the hood. See here:

(no offence, just picked you because your post was the closest to quote from)

Also a corpse has to be tracked by the engine, be it for bullet deflection, being used as cover, change of location due to a nearby explosion....i can guess quite a few reasons why a dead soldier is still a lot of work for the engine. But i agree that the impact shouldn't be as big like a living unit. But again this is guesswork since we don't know exactly what is tracked and what not.

How many people are registered on the feedback tracker? If there are 2400 registered members then 2300 is a impressive number, not so impressive if there are 50000 registered members.

You should really earn a medal for your hard defense. Respect dude.

[[frl]myke 14]

You should really earn a medal for your hard defense. Respect dude.

Just to have it said: i'm the last one to say that ArmA 3 is perfect as it is. But it also isn't half as sh***y as some people claim it to be. I would love to raise some settings in the video options and add a few 100 meters to the viewdistance. It's just these extreme opinions like "it is unplayable" which bothers me. According to this opinion, no one would be able to play and enjoy the game.

Thx for the respect though.

[Sneakson 1]

Fact: BIS own System Requirements page lists as a minimum requirement: Dual core CPU, Radeon HD 3830 or GeFoce 8800GT

Fact: BIS own System Requirements page lists as recommended system specs: i5-2800 or Phenom II X4 940, and a RadeonHD 7750 or GeForce GTX 560.

Now, if my system specs are FAR beyond the recommended settings, why is it unreasonable for me to expect I can run the game on Ultra settings? Why is it that on a system spec that is far beyond the recommended settings, I still get in the 10-20 FPS on some missions? The answer to that is simple: It's not me that overexpects, it is Arma 3 that underperforms. The recommended settings will never ever run the game at a decent performance, yet you go on telling people they have unrealistic expectations? Because "it doesn't look that bad on normal settings"?

No, Arma 3 is not unplayable, at least not if you have a decent system (FORGET the minimum requirements, they're ridiculous). Yet, pulling the "you expect too much" card every time someone (rightly) complains about performance issues is NOT helping the game, or the customers.

For the record, 200 AI on a map is unplayable on my system. It remains unplayable if I kill them all. You know what makes it playable again? Removing the corpses. It triples my FPS. And that should not be.

You're quite delusional.

First of all minimum specs should mean the minimum specs that the game will even start with so don't expect anything more.

Second recommended specs are entirely subjective, arbitrarily chosen because everyone has different ideas about what settings (Medium? High?), what view distance (1600? 3200?) and what fps (30? 60?) is acceptable and some things such as screen size also come into play but are never mentioned in recommended specs.

To my knowledge the ARMA3 recommended specs will let you play the game in 30+ to 60+ fps with medium-high settings in 1920x1080 and that's exactly what I would have made my recommendation, not max absolutely everything 144 fps 4K.

Everyone doesn't agree that everything max is the only acceptable, recommendable setting and some games (Crysis) can't even be maxed by any computer when it comes out.

Third 200 AI being unplayable on your system is hardly a mystery. Add 200 AI and any game will freeze. I'm guessing you only brought that up as part of the body example though.

Myke;2683724']How many people are registered on the feedback tracker? If there are 2400 registered members then 2300 is a impressive number' date=' not so impressive if there are 50000 registered members.[/quote']

A better comparison would be that upvote count compared to other issues in which case 2300 is extremely high.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716 (Low CPU/GPU Utilization, 2278 upvotes vs 21 downvotes)

Here's another one with tons of votes:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15747 (Female soldiers models should be available in the game, 1713 upvotes vs 889 downvotes)

A vast majority of tickets only have upvotes in the tens and a few break a hundred.

---------- Post added at 00:34 ---------- Previous post was at 00:30 ----------

Anyways I can tell any and all arguing in this thread is meaningless.

We're all just blowing off steam until ARMA3 hopefully gets a bit better optimized eventually so we can play bigger missions and most of all multiplayer as well as we can play small singleplayer missions.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Myke;2683724']Stuff

While i think that this thread is completely useless besides containing the anger of a bunch of people who would disrupt the forums otherwise' date=' i do think that you are being a bit overzealous in defending ArmA3's performance.

ArmA3 runs acceptable, at best. Considering the amount of CPU usage* there is definitely [i']room[/i] to increase the performance of ArmA3. Most people clearly do not understand the difficulties of multithreaded programming, hence a significant amount of whining, but still, if BI was prepared to throw a bunch of money and (mostly) time at it, they could do something about it.

But clearly, it has been decided that it isn't worth the investment, and everyone in this topic is wasting their time staring at FPS counters and hoping for some kind of magic patch that will never come. Either turn off you FPS counter** and live with it or stop playing altogether, it will never be much better than it is at the moment and everyone here is wasting their own, and Myke's time.

Game XYZ runs with XX FPS so why can't ArmA 3 do this.

The closest game we can compare it to is ArmA2. Besides PhysX i cant think of any new feature that would eat CPU time. Did we sacrifice (roughly) a third of our performance for some shittily implemented physics that cant be turned off? This is not a defensible position.

*Anyone talking about GPU usage/perfomance/whatever either has a weirdly balanced PC, or no idea what he is talking about.

**Doubles the subjective feeling of FPS after 30 minutes, guaranteed.

[windies 11]

The simple thing on this never ending story: if BIS will be able to raise performance they will do because it will expand the possibilities of this game (massive ai battles and so on) and make it more attractive. Nonstop-hysteric´s like mobile_medic or windies are zero helpful.

Hah, hysteric. Made my day kid, thanks.

[tonschuh 3]

While i think that this thread is completely useless besides containing the anger of a bunch of people who would disrupt the forums otherwise, i do think that you are being a bit overzealous in defending ArmA3's performance.

ArmA3 runs acceptable, at best. Considering the amount of CPU usage* there is definitely room to increase the performance of ArmA3. Most people clearly do not understand the difficulties of multithreaded programming, hence a significant amount of whining, but still, if BI was prepared to throw a bunch of money and (mostly) time at it, they could do something about it.

But clearly, it has been decided that it isn't worth the investment, and everyone in this topic is wasting their time staring at FPS counters and hoping for some kind of magic patch that will never come. Either turn off you FPS counter** and live with it or stop playing altogether, it will never be much better than it is at the moment and everyone here is wasting their own, and Myke's time.

The closest game we can compare it to is ArmA2. Besides PhysX i cant think of any new feature that would eat CPU time. Did we sacrifice (roughly) a third of our performance for some shittily implemented physics that cant be turned off? This is not a defensible position.

*Anyone talking about GPU usage/perfomance/whatever either has a weirdly balanced PC, or no idea what he is talking about.

**Doubles the subjective feeling of FPS after 30 minutes, guaranteed.

Why didn't they move the PhysX-Part to the GPU, if it overloads the CPU ?

We don't even have the option to choose the CPU or GPU.

[oldbear 390]

@ TONSCHUH : Using Phys X in Arma3 is possible because Nvidia has understand at last they must stop all the fuss with PhysX being only usable on their GPU and get more money allowing it to be playey on all CPUs.

So we can get some Phys X enhancements in Arma3 even if we have an AMD video card.

@ NeMeSiS : BIS is spending dev time on optimization and better multithreaded programming, the last achievement being 1.18 update.

The game is running in a well, more than an acceptable way on a well balanced mid/high rig. I am playing Arma3 every days for hours on

- "i7 3770/ GTX670OC/ 8Go/ Arma3 dedicated 128 Go SSD"

- "i3 4130/ HD 7770/ 8Go/ 256 Go SSD"

I must say that while I am fighting I have not an eye on the dedicated screen monitoring performances. At the moment, from my point of wiew, Arma3 is playable and enjoyable with such rigs in SP and MP as well.

On the other side, Arma3 "Minimum" specs are a bad joke. Of course, the game will run on an rig based upon a "Athlon II X2 250/GS 450", but trying to play in "Low" around 20 FPS on Altis or around 15 FPS in MP is far from being enjoyable ... even if you are getting 100% CPU utilization.

From my point of view the Arma3 "Recommended" specs are in fact the true minimum even if I believe BIS underestimate Arma3 video needed level. The "Standard" video level you can reach with a HD 7750 is not enough to fully enjoy the game but at the "High" level the game starts to be enjoyable.

[nikiforos 450]

@ NeMeSiS : BIS is spending dev time on optimization and better multithreaded programming, the last achievement being 1.18 update.

All my clan members have a different opinion about the 1.18 update. We got the opposite results , maybe you are the lucky one. Performance has deteriorated with last stable patch and if you search you will find alot of people with the same thoughts.

[k0rd 3]

You're quite delusional.

First of all minimum specs should mean the minimum specs that the game will even start with so don't expect anything more.

Second recommended specs are entirely subjective, arbitrarily chosen because everyone has different ideas about what settings (Medium? High?), what view distance (1600? 3200?) and what fps (30? 60?) is acceptable and some things such as screen size also come into play but are never mentioned in recommended specs.

To my knowledge the ARMA3 recommended specs will let you play the game in 30+ to 60+ fps with medium-high settings in 1920x1080 and that's exactly what I would have made my recommendation, not max absolutely everything 144 fps 4K.

Everyone doesn't agree that everything max is the only acceptable, recommendable setting and some games (Crysis) can't even be maxed by any computer when it comes out.

Third 200 AI being unplayable on your system is hardly a mystery. Add 200 AI and any game will freeze. I'm guessing you only brought that up as part of the body example though.

A better comparison would be that upvote count compared to other issues in which case 2300 is extremely high.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716 (Low CPU/GPU Utilization, 2278 upvotes vs 21 downvotes)

Here's another one with tons of votes:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15747 (Female soldiers models should be available in the game, 1713 upvotes vs 889 downvotes)

A vast majority of tickets only have upvotes in the tens and a few break a hundred.

---------- Post added at 00:34 ---------- Previous post was at 00:30 ----------

Anyways I can tell any and all arguing in this thread is meaningless.

We're all just blowing off steam until ARMA3 hopefully gets a bit better optimized eventually so we can play bigger missions and most of all multiplayer as well as we can play small singleplayer missions.

I rarely disagree with you - but I think in this case "high" settings would give more performance than "medium-high" with recommended specs. (just to offload some of the work to the GPU)

[Varanon 892]

You're quite delusional.

This statement alone disqualifies everything you said.

I wonder when you people can come up with arguments instead of slander or insults. People like you you make this forum such an unpleasant experience.

[Alwarren 2767]

You're quite delusional.

Woa, who can argue with such eloquence. Seriously, if you can't start a counterargument without an insult, maybe you should not post at all.

First of all minimum specs should mean the minimum specs that the game will even start with so don't expect anything more.

That is bollocks and you know it. Minimum specs is where you can actually run the game, on lowest settings, and maybe with some hickups. In order to launch it, you need much less than that.

Second recommended specs are entirely subjective, arbitrarily chosen because everyone has different ideas about what settings (Medium? High?), what view distance (1600? 3200?) and what fps (30? 60?) is acceptable and some things such as screen size also come into play but are never mentioned in recommended specs.

"Recommended" means that the maker of a game "recommends" this hardware as a good system to run the game. This is true for every game I have ever seen.

To my knowledge the ARMA3 recommended specs will let you play the game in 30+ to 60+ fps with medium-high settings in 1920x1080 and that's exactly what I would have made my recommendation, not max absolutely everything 144 fps 4K.

As usual you are missing my point entirely. What I was saying is

1) There are situations where performance drops to unplayable levels, with no obvious reasons. Dropping graphical details does NOT get you better performance, in fact, graphics details are irrelevant n such situations.

2) I was arguing against the "unreasonable expectations" argument. Every defender makes it appear as if any performance issues are caused by users that expected too much, which is not true.

Besides, your knowledge is false. I had the recommended specs before my current machine. It was unplayable. 30+ to 60+? Are you kidding me? Showcase Helicopters was around 15 FPS for me, The infantry showcase rarely climbed above 25. And these are typical scenarios according to the description. I quit playing the campaign and waited for my new system because it was simply flat-out unplayable.

So how can you say *I* am delusional if you don't even have the slightest clue what you are talking about?

Third 200 AI being unplayable on your system is hardly a mystery. Add 200 AI and any game will freeze. I'm guessing you only brought that up as part of the body example though.

Reality check. 200 AI is not much. Each APC already has three crew. Back in the early days of Arma 2, someone made a video with 1200 AI. The matter of fact is that for anything that looks like a moderately large battle, 200 AI is actually the lower minimum.

Now, of course you can lower that number arbitrarily to "prove" your point, but that doesn't make it any more true.

And as a well-meant advice, just wanting something to be X doesn't make it X. I am now nearing 750 hours in Arma 3, I enjoy it immensely, I've done missions and addons and productivity tools for it , but that doesn't mean I have to beat my head against the wall until I believe that everything is fine and dandy when there are OBVIOUS problems. I am not claiming it is unplayable, I am not claiming it is broken beyond repair, in fact, I do think that most of the time it runs fine on my system. However, there are issues, and those issues cannot be simply waved away by "you are delusional" and "your system is not ready for Arma 3". And the sooner people like you acknowledge that the sooner this forum will start to look like discussion again instead of the insult fest that is festering here right now.

[oldbear 390]

@ Nikiforos : you don't get me right, I repeat "BIS is spending dev time on optimization and better multithreaded programming, the last achievement being 1.18 update."

It doesn't mean the result we got while playing now is the same we got during intensive testing sessions under Dev supervision on test servers. Devs have done a lot of work as said here "... The server-side algorithm that determines what messages to resend and to which clients, has been optimized and rewritten to use additional CPU cores. Together with a client-side optimization of network message computations, these changes should provide a noticeable boost to framerates in multiplayer sessions."

My answer was to somebody telling BIS wasn't working on optimization and multi-threading. It wasn't about the results in-game. In our Clan, we have experienced neither "boost" nor "drop".

Edited May 6, 2014 by OldBear

[jumpinghubert 49]

Hah, hysteric. Made my day kid, thanks.

do you have nothing to learn for school? :o

[R0adki11 3949]

This is a a warning, we don't appreciate insults, name calling or slander on the forums. Any further behaviour will result in the appropriate punishments.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Myke;2683752']Just to have it said: i'm the last one to say that ArmA 3 is perfect as it is. But it also isn't half as sh***y as some people claim it to be. I would love to raise some settings in the video options and add a few 100 meters to the viewdistance. It's just these extreme opinions like "it is unplayable" which bothers me. According to this opinion' date=' no one would be able to play and enjoy the game.

Thx for the respect though.[/quote']

Of course its not a bad game. Its really cool through the whole modding community, i by myself played 2300 Hours (so says steam) and a bad game isnt played this time by me. The frames are of course always not bad but there are some or other situations where i have to ask myself: "whats going on, why are the frames dropping so hard now" when not much happens on screen. I´ve made some several tests and figured out that deleting of dead bodies have bring me the most frames back in a game.

Greets

[Sneakson 1]

Woa, who can argue with such eloquence. Seriously, if you can't start a counterargument without an insult, maybe you should not post at all.

That is bollocks and you know it. Minimum specs is where you can actually run the game, on lowest settings, and maybe with some hickups. In order to launch it, you need much less than that.

"Recommended" means that the maker of a game "recommends" this hardware as a good system to run the game. This is true for every game I have ever seen.

As usual you are missing my point entirely. What I was saying is

1) There are situations where performance drops to unplayable levels, with no obvious reasons. Dropping graphical details does NOT get you better performance, in fact, graphics details are irrelevant n such situations.

2) I was arguing against the "unreasonable expectations" argument. Every defender makes it appear as if any performance issues are caused by users that expected too much, which is not true.

Besides, your knowledge is false. I had the recommended specs before my current machine. It was unplayable. 30+ to 60+? Are you kidding me? Showcase Helicopters was around 15 FPS for me, The infantry showcase rarely climbed above 25. And these are typical scenarios according to the description. I quit playing the campaign and waited for my new system because it was simply flat-out unplayable.

So how can you say *I* am delusional if you don't even have the slightest clue what you are talking about?

Reality check. 200 AI is not much. Each APC already has three crew. Back in the early days of Arma 2, someone made a video with 1200 AI. The matter of fact is that for anything that looks like a moderately large battle, 200 AI is actually the lower minimum.

Now, of course you can lower that number arbitrarily to "prove" your point, but that doesn't make it any more true.

And as a well-meant advice, just wanting something to be X doesn't make it X. I am now nearing 750 hours in Arma 3, I enjoy it immensely, I've done missions and addons and productivity tools for it , but that doesn't mean I have to beat my head against the wall until I believe that everything is fine and dandy when there are OBVIOUS problems. I am not claiming it is unplayable, I am not claiming it is broken beyond repair, in fact, I do think that most of the time it runs fine on my system. However, there are issues, and those issues cannot be simply waved away by "you are delusional" and "your system is not ready for Arma 3". And the sooner people like you acknowledge that the sooner this forum will start to look like discussion again instead of the insult fest that is festering here right now.

I was just saying you are delusional because you seem quite misinformed about what min/rec specs mean. They don't necessarily mean anything at all, for the reasons I mentioned.

Run the game = start it. That's quite obviously what I meant.

Recommended specs are subjective, just as I said.

Yes, sometimes there are CPU exertion drops.

No, not all issues are caused by unrealistic expectations.

No, my knowledge is not false because I to my knowledge my old computer Q9550/560 Ti is quite comparable to the recommended specs and it was very playable.

According to both Passmarks searchable CPU list and Futuremark those CPUs are very close and the 560 Ti I wildly assumed is similar to the 560 and I haven't found anything suggesting otherwise.

Reality check: 200 AI is much in any game regardless of what ARMA2 could do. StarCraft II will lag with 200 units on-screen, Half-life 2 used to lag with more than a few, I bet even Doom would have slowed to a crawl if you put 200 AI in it back in the 90s.

I'm not sure why I would lower that number or how that would prove my point.

[Alwarren 2767]

You know what, nevermind. Why waste my time trying to "discuss" with you?