Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[sgtsev3n 12]

YES the game is broken to a SHOCKING extent, this was established a LONG time ago.

this is fact and that needs to be fixed. no matter how much you cry because we speak out that arma 3 uses a over 10 years old engine which bugs still exist after 10 years and because you got a little fps increase (yeah, i mean little, dont tell me and everyone you got 30-50 fps with tweaking, you can tell this someone else who would believe you but not us) with tweaking does not mean that the bugs can stay in the engine and we dont care about your tweaks. yeah there is alot of stuff in arma 3 you can do, but what does it bring for me to have 100 terrains, 2000 jets, 400 helicopters, 5000 ground vehicles, ultra realistic gameplay system when i can not play the game properly.

of course when the map is empty (no units) in runs smooth in the editor, but this game is not about running on empty maps.

Problem is that most of the FPS "Tweaks" only make a difference in ideal conditions, like an empty map with no entities. Go in multiplayer and that 9 FPS is nullified or load up an actual mission and it becomes 1-2 fps which is within margin of error at best.

Basically you and JumpingHubert sound like you lower your standards until they reach a point that you can accept what ArmA is and has become and you expect and preach for others to do the same. I guess you'll have to excuse me if I don't follow suit and have higher standards. rest assured that I can live with it. Whats funny is how much you both deflect the issue while admitting the issue is real and pressing while then telling us how we should have fun with and accept a lesser product.

Mostly what I care about is not letting issue's be swept under the rug which BI is frankly becoming exceptionally good at and has become their M.O. at this point and what both of your deflective arguments and statements seek to enable.

this.

[badpr1m3r 2]

I remember when Dyslexi was still living with his parents. (Not a diss. Props to him he's come a long way.)

Anywho, back on topic.

AMD rig's get no love from Arma 3. I'm sure they know this.

Maybe they were just big intel fans and only tested it on that idk.

But as for me right now. FX 8350, R9 280x OC'ed. No joy.

[danil-ch 165]

i7-5960x is really suckes in arma :D

http://i.imgur.com/aRgtd0w.png (211 kB)

Edited September 6, 2014 by Danil-ch

[St. Jimmy 272]

i7-5960x is really suckes in arma :D

http://i.imgur.com/aRgtd0w.png (211 kB)

Hmm it's only 3.0GHz and 3.5GHz turboed so I believe that explains it.

For example i7-4790K has 4.4GHz in turbo so no wonder it's washing everything else.

Edited September 6, 2014 by St. Jimmy

[danil-ch 165]

Hmm it's only 3.0GHz and 3.5GHz turboed so I believe that explains it.

For example i7-4790K has 4.4GHz in turbo so no wonder it's washing everything else.

I know, but I was hoping at least for a some bust from +2 cores. (

Edited September 6, 2014 by Danil-ch

[mamasan8 11]

I know, but I was hoping at least for a some bust from +2 cores. (

From a single/at-most-dualcore game?

Dualcores entered the market in 2005. Its sad that we barely have games utilizing even that. Get with the times or you are out pretty soon.

Imagine if someone came along and made a war-game, sandboxy and the gameplay system were half as good as Arma. But it had the performance of BF4. I bet Arma would be dead in the water.

[sgtsev3n 12]

[bigsyke 10]

I don't think it has that much to do with CPU/GPU. Anyone who has played the game long enough will know its a networking/server issue. You can look at the ground/ocean with 60+ players on CA #3 king of the hill servers and get 18fps. You can be in Kavala on a US #1 King of the hill server and get 45fps with 80 players on.

Why would jumping on pornhub suddenly cause your FPS to go from 70fps down to 5fps? It should cause lag, but not a FPS decrease.

[sgtsev3n 12]

I don't think it has that much to do with CPU/GPU. Anyone who has played the game long enough will know its a networking/server issue. You can look at the ground/ocean with 60+ players on CA #3 king of the hill servers and get 18fps. You can be in Kavala on a US #1 King of the hill server and get 45fps with 80 players on.

Why would jumping on pornhub suddenly cause your FPS to go from 70fps down to 5fps? It should cause lag, but not a FPS decrease.

i play the game since arma 1 and the problem was already there. now, who is talking about MP ? we talk about the game itself = SP&MP. the problem is in the engine and the guy in video was in SP mode. in MP it is even worse. this problem affect the whole game which means SP, MP, Editor.

[bigsyke 10]

i play the game since arma 1 and the problem was already there. now, who is talking about MP ? we talk about the game itself = SP&MP. the problem is in the engine and the guy in video was in SP mode. in MP it is even worse. this problem affect the whole game which means SP, MP, Editor.

I think/hope everybody is talking about MP. I'm not complaining about getting 50fps in SP on ultra. I'm complaining about getting 20fps on "very low" and 500km view distance in a (30 person, no AI) MP game. It seems everybody is getting the same result. Unless that is acceptable?

[sgtsev3n 12]

I think/hope everybody is talking about MP. I'm not complaining about getting 50fps in SP on ultra. I'm complaining about getting 20fps on "very low" and 500km view distance in a (30 person, no AI) MP game. It seems everybody is getting the same result. Unless that is acceptable?

i agree with that. no matter what settings you have, performance in MP will stay low, also the FPS in SP may acceptable for the one or other, but general it could be better without the limitation and there are situations in SP where it lags too. the performance is also only acceptable when 1. the map is empty or 2. in small combat missions. when they would fix the engine, the CPU bottleneck, it would fix both SP and MP performance, so it would be a win = win situation. SP and MP players both would profit from it (and BI too, since the game would get a very good reputation and more buyers will come)

[windies 11]

I think/hope everybody is talking about MP. I'm not complaining about getting 50fps in SP on ultra. I'm complaining about getting 20fps on "very low" and 500km view distance in a (30 person, no AI) MP game. It seems everybody is getting the same result. Unless that is acceptable?

There are instances in SP where performance tanks, though nothing like MP issue's. Usually it stems from lots of units, though honestly I don't think 100 active units should really be too much to ask of the engine to be able to handle in SP. If I create a mission with civilians and ambient life and hostile and friendly units, I can easily surpass 100 active units without breaking a sweat. Most missions you see are devoid of civilian life and ambien animal life, for one thing because there's no easy module for implementing it like there was in ArmA 2. Also though it's because it would create even more performance problems.

I agree though the majority of the problem is in MP.

[MavericK96 0]

i7-5960x is really suckes in arma :D

http://i.imgur.com/aRgtd0w.png (211 kB)

Jesus, that is really sad. As others have mentioned, it's likely due to the fact that the game barely supports multithreading, and raw clock speed is always going to win out.

It's never been more apparent than in that benchmark.

[bangtail 0]

Jesus, that is really sad. As others have mentioned, it's likely due to the fact that the game barely supports multithreading, and raw clock speed is always going to win out.

It's never been more apparent than in that benchmark.

Not sure why anyone is surprised by this - the 5960X is not a 'gaming' CPU (That's not to say you can't game on it, it's just not the best choice).

Some gamers buy them because they think: Most expensive=best (or they simply like to wave the e-peen while totally ignoring the fact that someone who spent thousands of dollars less than them actually has a faster machine where gaming is concerned).

The 4770/4790K are much better choices (both CPU wise and platform wise) if all you are doing is gaming.

[MavericK96 0]

That may be, but it's still marketed as an "extreme" processor which means it's targeted toward a good amount of the hardware enthusiast community. In any case, a newer architecture, 8-core CPU should definitely be able to run things faster...however with ArmA we see that's not the case. Even the 5930K version is worse than the previous generation of CPUs in ArmA 3.

[bangtail 0]

That may be, but it's still marketed as an "extreme" processor which means it's targeted toward a good amount of the hardware enthusiast community. In any case, a newer architecture, 8-core CPU should definitely be able to run things faster...however with ArmA we see that's not the case. Even the 5930K version is worse than the previous generation of CPUs in ArmA 3.

You mean Intel is full of sh!t?

Yah, that is true as well.

Check out this pile, straight from the horses ass:

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/35774-intel-takes-credit-for-three-way-4k-gaming

As the author points out, it's the 4 GPUs that provide the horsepower, not the CPU ;)

[benmjt11 10]

i have a issue of every time i start this game and click multiplayer starts loading the server's its goes to 100% cpu useage and game crashes Any ideas why ?

[romanshell 11]

You should know stuff like this does not matter. Even if Arma is using 50% of each core that should be about the max it needs, especially considering some of your rigs. If you understood the inner workings of computers you would know this by now. BI just has a crappy game where you can max at 60+ fps on ultra and then if you get on any server with like 20 or more players, you'll get like ~20 or less fps even on Lower. If they had someone who knows how to do real optimization the issue would have been fixed about 10 years or about.. 3 games ago.

Keep on dreaming. 60+ fps.. on an Arma online server. It'll happen one day.. until then they're just ignoring you and taking your money for their crappy singleplayer mil-sim. No one even looks here and they never have, except for like Dwarden to ban people like me for telling the harsh truth as if it's trolling.

(or let's be real about it: some kids they hired as moderators-without-pay to give them the idea that they're important or something).

Edited September 25, 2014 by romanshell

[EXpMiNi 1]

I'm glad to see you ban people complain about your non optimisation and you don't still spent your money to fix that.

Btw, my rig : 970GTX, Bi Xeon 3.2Ghz (32 threads), 72Gb of Ram and SSD Samsung 840pro.

I can't reach 60fps without trouble with that.

[Greenfist 1863]

I'm glad to see you ban people complain about your non optimisation and you don't still spent your money to fix that.

He was banned for having multiple accounts on these forums. It's against the rules.

You CPU is a bit slow but if you can get 60fps with a little trouble then you're one of the lucky ones. Some people struggle with 30fps.

[fabio_chavez 103]

whats the fastest CPU for arma right now on the market? which has the highest bare clock speed and performance per clock and in terms of absolute performance?

[MavericK96 0]

I would guess if you can get a 2600K or something newer up to 5 GHz, that'd probably be the best for ArmA right now. Raw clock speed seems to be everything for this game.

[Gera_CCT 12]

whats the fastest CPU for arma right now on the market? which has the highest bare clock speed and performance per clock and in terms of absolute performance?

I have a 4790k and i am VERY happy with it in ArmA 3. Even in MP. I had a Q6600.

[fabio_chavez 103]

I have a 4790k and i am VERY happy with it in ArmA 3. Even in MP. I had a Q6600.

i have a x3220 and thats not the answer to my question :}

[jumpinghubert 49]

Hi Fabio,

http://i.imgur.com/aRgtd0w.png

and fast ram of course, 2600er upwards.