Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[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.

[MavericK96 0]

That chart basically just shows that more clock speed = faster in ArmA 3.

[fabio_chavez 103]

i allready read into the ram thing a while back and for the next system im going for fast ram, but id also like to know what, in absolute terms, including desktop friendly overclocking, is the fastest CPU available.

[St. Jimmy 272]

That chart basically just shows that more clock speed = faster in ArmA 3.

Yep those CPUs needs to be clocked on the same level to really see which one is the best for Arma 3.

[neodammerung 8]

but id also like to know what, in absolute terms, including desktop friendly overclocking, is the fastest CPU available.

Hard to say, not all the same CPU overclock the same :

I have a 3770k, I managed to push it to 4.5GHz stable, a friend of mine has the same CPU and he managed to push it to 4.8GHz stable, there's good batches and "less good" ones.

[jumpinghubert 49]

difficult to find actual arma3 benches with different cpu´s @ same clock so these benches are better than nothing. I saw a bench @ same clock somewhere and it shows haswell has a little bit better arma3-fps per clock than ivy.

@neodammerung

the newest haswells haven´t the overheating problems of the ivy i´ve heard. I had to remove the heatspreader and put the cpu under water to be able to overclock my 3570k to a good level.

Edited September 26, 2014 by JumpingHubert

[tonschuh 3]

Yep those CPUs needs to be clocked on the same level to really see which one is the best for Arma 3.

Just judging from synthetic benchmark scores, the differences are roughly like:

2600k => +10% => 3770k => +10% => 4770k => +3-10% => 4790k

2600k => +23% => 4930k / 5820k => +15% => 6790k (?)

Older Games gain less than future games. ARMA-3 is more on the older side.

When doing 3D-Mark-Benches, then a 2600k @4500MHz is pretty much equal to a 3770k @4200MHz.

Newer CPU-Generations are usually harder to OC, but there are some exceptions which are not really cheap and therefor not really worth to consider for a game like ARMA-3.

:)

[Gera_CCT 12]

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

:confused:Maybe not. ArmA engine likes high clock speeds and better single core performance, that´s why the 4790k fits well.

[jumpinghubert 49]

After a couple of months I made helo´s altis benchmark again with actual dev version: From 48fps down to 42fps. Congrats BIS!

edit: hmmm...now I have constant 47 again, so its within mesuring tolerance :p

Edited September 27, 2014 by JumpingHubert

[tonschuh 3]

After a couple of months I made helo´s altis benchmark again with actual dev version: From 48fps down to 42fps. Congrats BIS!

Thanks for the update !

:)

[Furret 0]

After a couple of months I made helo´s altis benchmark again with actual dev version: From 48fps down to 42fps. Congrats BIS!

edit: hmmm...now I have constant 47 again, so its within mesuring tolerance :p

First run caches many of the art assets as they're used, this means its prone to stuttering that causes momentary frame loss, lowering your FPS result.

The second run is a much more accurate representation.

[jumpinghubert 49]

First run caches many of the art assets as they're used, this means its prone to stuttering that causes momentary frame loss, lowering your FPS result.

The second run is a much more accurate representation.

thats true in general. But after a certain arma3 build some months ago I had no stuttering already with first run. But it seems to be changed again so I made second and third run with good results :). 1 fps less is ok for me.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

1 fps less shouldnt be ok for anyone, where is the logic there, the devs patched the game a couple of months between your benchmarks and instead gain some performance due the further processing of the game you lost frames?

Thats not acceptable in my opinion but it´s just my thought.

And thank god we have Seagulls now Ingame and 2 transport helo´s are incoming next. WOW. Not.

[fabio_chavez 103]

im not really smarter than before but thanks for the effort ;)