Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[James111333 10]

I couldnt measure any signficant difference between 1600Mhz and 2200Mhz on my Ram. There was difference, 2-3FPS maybe. And for me 2-3 FPS is not an improvement, its a overall System swaying when 2-3 fps were measured. Game/Engine needs optimization, otherwise every given suggestion "how to increase fps" is a bad placebo.

There must be a significant bottleneck elsewhere on your system, most likely the IPC ability of your CPU, your CPU is very weak and dated compared to the rest of your hardware. Gen 1 I7s are certainly no slouch in normal situations but in this case seems to be a possible culprit?

I had been messing about with overclocks on my 4770k so had my RAM at 1333MHz for ages (to exclude it as possible causes of instability) As it had been like that for ages and as it's a component that doesn't make much of a conceivable difference other than in benchmarks, I didn't even think about it until reading a few posts back, I was wondering why I wasn't getting the same FPS as I had been.

I set it back up to 2000MHZ 8-9-8-24 and saw an immediate 10FPS gain which I consider is huge. I switched between 4.4 and 4.7GHz on my CPU and gained only 1 FPS. My watercooled 290x add no FPS overclocking from around ~1000MHz to 1150MHz!

I am considering picking up some much faster RAM to see if I can get it even further as ARMA looks a million times better when it passes 50FPS I see it as a gateway to true immersion with 50+FPS I wish BI could address this as immersion is what ARMA is about :)

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Yeah, but usually it shouldnt be a problem when u raise the BCLK to 105. Higher as 105 is not recommended ;)

There must be a significant bottleneck elsewhere on your system, most likely the IPC ability of your CPU, your CPU is very weak and dated compared to the rest of your hardware. Gen 1 I7s are certainly no slouch in normal situations but in this case seems to be a possible culprit?

I had been messing about with overclocks on my 4770k so had my RAM at 1333MHz for ages (to exclude it as possible causes of instability) As it had been like that for ages and as it's a component that doesn't make much of a conceivable difference other than in benchmarks, I didn't even think about it until reading a few posts back, I was wondering why I wasn't getting the same FPS as I had been.

I set it back up to 2000MHZ 8-9-8-24 and saw an immediate 10FPS gain which I consider is huge. I switched between 4.4 and 4.7GHz on my CPU and gained only 1 FPS. My watercooled 290x add no FPS overclocking from around ~1000MHz to 1150MHz!

I am considering picking up some much faster RAM to see if I can get it even further as ARMA looks a million times better when it passes 50FPS I see it as a gateway to true immersion with 50+FPS I wish BI could address this as immersion is what ARMA is about :)

Dude please, spare your bottleneck storys for other people. I know how to adjust PC´s and the whole storys. I´ll work since 20 years with Computer, a couple of years ago i managed my system to a WorldRecord in the Aquamark3 Benchmark (2xVoltmodded 7800GTX Hardmod)

Every system is different, you maybe gain your frames in one or other situation, that shouldnt match for other PC´s...

Edited July 11, 2014 by LSD_Timewarp82

[Greenfist 1863]

You guys obviously have quite beastly rigs. There's this thread, Do you have a monster pc?, where I among others wondered about how much your computer's CPU performance affects multiplayer fps. The mission King of the Hill in particular, where the server seems to lower the client fps a lot. I think everybody has about 25fps on a full server. So the question was; would a CPU with a billion jigahertz do any better?

I know it must depend on the mission, but it would be interesting to hear what kind of fps you'd get in there.

I'm sorry if this has been answered here before, somewhere among the 3400 previous posts...

[James111333 10]

Haha, OK friend, if you want to take it as a personal bash at your manhood, that's up to you. My post was intended to be constructive yet address your negativity and and downright refusal to accept other people input on RAM speeds.

Whether you are a world champion or not, it seems mindless disregard peoples real world findings. Maybe we could swap RAM because I know for certain, 700MHz is a game changer for me and although 2000MHz @ a super tight CL8 is nice, your 180MHz over my RAM would be welcomed :cool:

As for bottlenecking, I saw massive limitations on my I7 920 with 2 7950s which are significantly less demanding than 2 770s, hardly any scaling at all until I built my 4770k system unto which it transformed performance. I'm not 'preaching hearsay' I owned the same platform.

This thread is here to help the community and to build a benchmark knowledge of what can be expected from what hardware, I would love to hear feedback on my system as how to upgrade it to achieve higher framerates as ARMA is all I play nowadays and visual and audio fidelity is of utmost importance. If someone told me my RAM was holding me back, I would pursue testing methodology and a solution, not tell them how good I am at overclocking ancient hardware :butbut:

(on a side note, I have built houses for 20 years, I don't go round telling people I can build skyscrapers though lol) xx

[Serapaxson 10]

G'day, I'm experiencing low fps on a pretty beefy rig and can not trace the problem.

it doesn't matter if i put the graphics settings on low or ultra or any other option between i still get around 25 fps i have tried manually tweaking settings to no avail my system specs are

CPU:Intel i7-4770k

RAM:16gb

VIDCARD:Sapphire Radeon 7970 3gb oc vapor-x edition

HD:C:/120GBSSD

HD:F:2TB

Mobo:Gigabyte G1.Sniper 5

monitor:BENQ XL2411Z 1920x1080 running at 120HZ i have tried 144hz but no change

OS:Windows 7 64bit

I have all the latest drivers and windows updates yet still can't seem to figure it out my temps are normal and the usage on both cpu and gpu don't go above 75%

I have tried adding -nologs -nobenchmark -cpuCount=4 -exThreads=8 -high -maxMem=8192 -noPause -noSplash -world=empty to the launch parameters tried running as admin, disabling anti virus adding to anti virus exception list but nothing seems to increse the frames. It doesn't matter if i'm on a multiplayer server with one other player or 63 other players.

Any and all help will be greatly appreciated

Cheers

Serapaxson

[doveman 7]

Yes. Only the RAM. In other words, changed the RAM clock from 1600 to 1800. It should increase the memory performance, right?

I don't know much about overclocking, so I might be completely lost here and just measured a placebo. :confused:

Yes, so you've overclocked your RAM and I asked you to test it at the two different speeds and also test ArmA performance to measure any performance increase, nothing about overclocking the CPU.

[Greenfist 1863]

Yes, so you've overclocked your RAM and I asked you to test it at the two different speeds and also test ArmA performance to measure any performance increase, nothing about overclocking the CPU.

You wrote:

It would also be good to benchmark your RAM @1600, @1800 with the CPU at stock clocks and again with the CPU overclocked, as then we might see that overclocking the CPU does increase the RAM benchmark and that might be responsible for any improvements in ArmA rather than the actual CPU speed. http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/downloads/maxxmemsup2---preview.php

Having said that, I'm new to Intel but maybe it's like AMD and you'll need to overclock the NB, not the CPU as such, to improve the RAM benchmarks so you could try that (with and without the CPU overclocked) to see what makes the most difference to the RAM speed and then check if that correlates to improvements in ArmA.

Which was a reply to my post:

I ran my simple AI heavy benchmark mission multiple times on two memory speeds, the default 1600 and 1800. Results were quite conclusive as fas as I can tell.

@1600: 30-32 avg. fps

@1800: 34-36 avg. fps

The gain in fps was nearly linearly related to memory speed. It was the easiest tweak ever, just one click in bios. :) (Your mileage may vary)

Setup: 70 AI fighting in a town within 200m area. The first 60 seconds recorded.

i5-3450@3.6GHz, 8GB DDR3 1600MHz (PC3-12800) CL9 9-9-9-24

I think you may have mistaken me for someone else.

[doveman 7]

You wrote:

Which was a reply to my post:

I think you may have mistaken me for someone else.

Yes, you're quite right, I'm sorry. I obviously forgot what I wrote in my original post when I referred to it :o

Still, it would be useful if you could benchmark your RAM at the two different speeds to see how the results correlate with the fps increase you get.

[Greenfist 1863]

I doubt any benchmark software would produce any interesting results. A faster RAM is faster RAM. The most interesting part was the increase in Arma performance.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Yes, you're quite right, I'm sorry. I obviously forgot what I wrote in my original post when I referred to it :o

Still, it would be useful if you could benchmark your RAM at the two different speeds to see how the results correlate with the fps increase you get.

Well there are these benchmarks if you've missed them:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?153524-CPU-VS-RAM-Performance-amp-CPU-Threading-Benchmarked

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?166512-Arma-3-CPU-vs-RAM-performance-comparison-1600-2133-up-to-15-FPS-gain

[ruhtraeel 1]

I would be the last who would say it´s bad. I dont know if the "Playtimecounter" of Steam works correctly, but it says i passed 3000hours of Arma3 ^^ Correct, users should use parameters which they want to, as long they belive in startparameter crap and other things which they assume more fps i am okay with this... I´ll overclock since over 10years and i like to benchmark stuff, at random days i´ll go into my basement and carry my good old Mach2GT Compressorcooling Unit and plug it onto my CPU which easy reaches over 5Ghz then, with -7°C and 200W Mach2GT. I was suprised how low Arma reacts to "more Power PC", even as i´ve build for a customer a new rig with Hexacore Intel and 3xR290X TriCrossfire SSD @ Raid0, i can only say it´s sad (and which Frames i saw there) that was so confusing and ridiculous at the same time...

Meanwhile i´ve gived up on hoping for constant over 50 Frames on a full server or complex Scenario, on of last hopes was the NV 337.50 PerfDriver (we remember: BF4 42% more fps, BF3 39% more fps, and many Games more which has double digit improvement in frames. Except Arma3, 0%

And till today nothing happened to the performance, it makes me sad that such a great game is struggeling with this prehistorical Engine which seems uneditable (or whatever leads to decision not to optimize it) for the devs.

Yeah, but usually it shouldnt be a problem when u raise the BCLK to 105. Higher as 105 is not recommended ;)

Dude please, spare your bottleneck storys for other people. I know how to adjust PC´s and the whole storys. I´ll work since 20 years with Computer, a couple of years ago i managed my system to a WorldRecord in the Aquamark3 Benchmark (2xVoltmodded 7800GTX Hardmod)

Every system is different, you maybe gain your frames in one or other situation, that shouldnt match for other PC´s...

The "every system is different" explanation isn't satisfactory anymore for a lot of people, which is why we even bother to dig deep and find out exactly why this happens. Why did your system get 5 3dmark points higher than your previous run? There's a reason for that. There's a reason for everything. When you say that it's "confusing and ridiculous" as to why you get that performance, we are finding out why, and not just saying "every system is different" then leaving it at that.

For the vast majority of users here, ARMA's inefficient use of memory is the culprit behind their low framerates.

And yes, all this discussion is to dig down and find out what the exact cause of lower framerates etc, are. The point here isn't "listen to me because I have xx years of experience", or "listen to me because I can overclock my processor to x ghz". That doesn't change the reason or outcome behind all this.

On a side note, I would REALLY like to ask Dean Hall more questions regarding the new DayZ engine and how it supposedly uses RAM better. I'd like to know exactly what they're doing to improve their engine, and whether or not it can be applied to ARMA 3. He mentioned in his response that the memory fixes would allow the Infusion engine to spawn triple the amount of objects in the world/zombies, etc.

This directly reinforces my experiences; when I look at an empty field, I get great FPS. When I look at a town with many more objects, my CPU and GPU utilization both drop a lot.

G'day, I'm experiencing low fps on a pretty beefy rig and can not trace the problem.

it doesn't matter if i put the graphics settings on low or ultra or any other option between i still get around 25 fps i have tried manually tweaking settings to no avail my system specs are

CPU:Intel i7-4770k

RAM:16gb

VIDCARD:Sapphire Radeon 7970 3gb oc vapor-x edition

HD:C:/120GBSSD

HD:F:2TB

Mobo:Gigabyte G1.Sniper 5

monitor:BENQ XL2411Z 1920x1080 running at 120HZ i have tried 144hz but no change

OS:Windows 7 64bit

I have all the latest drivers and windows updates yet still can't seem to figure it out my temps are normal and the usage on both cpu and gpu don't go above 75%

I have tried adding -nologs -nobenchmark -cpuCount=4 -exThreads=8 -high -maxMem=8192 -noPause -noSplash -world=empty to the launch parameters tried running as admin, disabling anti virus adding to anti virus exception list but nothing seems to increse the frames. It doesn't matter if i'm on a multiplayer server with one other player or 63 other players.

Any and all help will be greatly appreciated

Cheers

Serapaxson

Try overclocking your RAM, and telling ARMA to use larger page files for less page swapping using Fred41's malloc fix.

Edited July 11, 2014 by ruhtraeel

[Serapaxson 10]

The "every system is different" explanation isn't satisfactory anymore for a lot of people, which is why we even bother to dig deep and find out exactly why this happens. Why did your system get 5 3dmark points higher than your previous run? There's a reason for that. There's a reason for everything. When you say that it's "confusing and ridiculous" as to why you get that performance, we are finding out why, and not just saying "every system is different" then leaving it at that.

For the vast majority of users here, ARMA's inefficient use of memory is the culprit behind their low framerates.

And yes, all this discussion is to dig down and find out what the exact cause of lower framerates etc, are. The point here isn't "listen to me because I have xx years of experience", or "listen to me because I can overclock my processor to x ghz". That doesn't change the reason or outcome behind all this.

On a side note, I would REALLY like to ask Dean Hall more questions regarding the new DayZ engine and how it supposedly uses RAM better. I'd like to know exactly what they're doing to improve their engine, and whether or not it can be applied to ARMA 3. He mentioned in his response that the memory fixes would allow the Infusion engine to spawn triple the amount of objects in the world/zombies, etc.

This directly reinforces my experiences; when I look at an empty field, I get great FPS. When I look at a town with many more objects, my CPU and GPU utilization both drop a lot.

Try overclocking your RAM, and telling ARMA to use larger page files for less page swapping using Fred41's malloc fix.

G'day

I tried fred41's malloc fix and it didn't seem to make much difference at all, how would i go about overclocking my ram ? how much by etc i have not had any experience overcocking as i have not felt the need too :confused:

I have also noticed that arma 3 auto detects my graphics settings to low and i can't seem to get a stable fps even on that :confused: :mad:

Cheers

Serapaxson

[Furret 0]

G'day

I tried fred41's malloc fix and it didn't seem to make much difference at all, how would i go about overclocking my ram ? how much by etc i have not had any experience overcocking as i have not felt the need too :confused:

I have also noticed that arma 3 auto detects my graphics settings to low and i can't seem to get a stable fps even on that :confused: :mad:

Cheers

Serapaxson

If you're experiencing bad fps in multiplayer games then your computer is likely not the problem.

BI are working on improving this problem but it'll take time.

If you open up the editor, load stratis, place one player character down and you experience poor performance, then it's your PC at fault.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Furret

[aussiebobby 1]

G'day

I tried fred41's malloc fix and it didn't seem to make much difference at all, how would i go about overclocking my ram ?

Serapaxson

Are you prepared to get BSOD,buy new mobo and cpu cus your bios is locked,buy new ram cus you fried it?

I think we have things ass about.

BIS should be fixing the performance issues not us.

[doveman 7]

I doubt any benchmark software would produce any interesting results. A faster RAM is faster RAM. The most interesting part was the increase in Arma performance.

It would be very useful as we could then compare RAM benchmarks across platforms to see if the same results on AMD and Intel produce similar performance in ArmA. We could also establish what benchmark results translate into acceptable performance in ArmA, as the RAM benchmark will be affected by NB speed, not just the RAM Mhz, so it's not simply a matter of saying DDR3-1800Mhz will produce acceptable performance.

[MavericK96 0]

I'm still seeing significantly low framerate after the new patch(es), even with all of the proposed "tweaks" (TBB Malloc, Large Pages, etc.).

[tonschuh 3]

Just as a quick example of the different RAM performance, here's my Phenom II X4 955 running 16GB DDR3-1600@9-9-9-24:

http://s15.postimg.org/qot3et353/Maxx_MEM2_12729.jpg

and here's my I5 4670k running 4GB DDR3-1333@9-9-9-24 (it's actually rated for 1600 at those timings but I haven't got it booting at that yet):

http://s3.postimg.org/rb4bqrsa7/Maxx_MEM2_12725.jpg

As you can see, copy and read speeds are about double, whilst write is about triple. So if ArmA is as dependent on RAM performance as people have said, clearly it's going to perform better with Intel CPUs.

Here is mine from almost a year ago:

... and here some additional info's:

Which Memory Vendor Leads Overclocking ?

:)

Edited July 15, 2014 by TONSCHUH

[doveman 7]

Here is mine from almost a year ago:

... and here some additional info's:

Which Memory Vendor Leads Overclocking ?

:)

Thanks, very interesting.

It's a shame the Maxxmemm results don't show the RAM and NB settings. Where you using different RAM or settings when you did the Aida64 test, as that is quite a bit faster?

[nikiforos 450]

I'm still seeing significantly low framerate after the new patch(es), even with all of the proposed "tweaks" (TBB Malloc, Large Pages, etc.).

Worse or the same FPS as before?

[tonschuh 3]

Thanks, very interesting.

It's a shame the Maxxmemm results don't show the RAM and NB settings. Where you using different RAM or settings when you did the Aida64 test, as that is quite a bit faster?

That were the same settings, but as usual every tool differs a bit and both are the best results out of several runs.

I will evtl. do new benches soon, as I plan to upgrade my sys a bit and maybe do another fresh install, but it all comes down to my tax-return (fingers crossed).

:)

[Greenfist 1863]

I have the same FPS as before, or maybe 2-4% better.

There doesn't seem to be any such engine changes in the patch notes that might increase/decrease performance. Mostly new content and data fixes.

[MavericK96 0]

Worse or the same FPS as before?

Seems about the same, if not worse. Of course, it depends on mission.

[Guest]

anyone else having bad performance with multiplayer at King Of The Hill ? my rig is just struggling to keep framerate at least 25fps in citys but in open areas like deserts,fields and mountais ect. frames are just and just playable over 40.

my rig:

i7 4770K 3.5Ghz

Nvidia GTX 670 2Gb

8Gb of ram

Windows 7 64bit

hdd harddrive

no matter what settings i play with, doesn't impact frames that much. texture & objects are giving most of the performance impact when dialing them all the way up with visibility distances at overall 2500 object 1500 and shadows 100.

is this problem with engine,serverside,server used mods or what and is there anything to do about it ?

[TSAndrey 1]

anyone else having bad performance with multiplayer at King Of The Hill ? my rig is just struggling to keep framerate at least 25fps in citys but in open areas like deserts,fields and mountais ect. frames are just and just playable over 40.

my rig:

i7 4770K 3.5Ghz

Nvidia GTX 670 2Gb

8Gb of ram

Windows 7 64bit

hdd harddrive

no matter what settings i play with, doesn't impact frames that much. texture & objects are giving most of the performance impact when dialing them all the way up with visibility distances at overall 2500 object 1500 and shadows 100.

is this problem with engine,serverside,server used mods or what and is there anything to do about it ?

MP isn't a realible way to test FPS. FPS in MP depends on server, server uptime, mission, mission optimization and etc.

[James111333 10]

Did anyone else see an FPS gain in the last update? I play a steam workshop helicopter training mission a lot ( I mean a lot) and have gone from 45FPS to 60FPS in the same area with V sync on so locking it at 60, V sync off and I get 72 FPS everything maxed out with very long draw distances etc ( I forget the number but it doesn't seem to impact FPs that much when I lower the slider anyway)