Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[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 ;)

[MavericK96 0]

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

It's what I said above: more clock speed = faster in ArmA 3.

It doesn't matter if you have the latest and greatest, if you are running at 3.5 GHz or so, an older processor running at 4 GHz+ is still likely going to be faster in ArmA 3. So it all comes down to how well you can overclock, or just buy the processor with the fastest stock speeds (looks like the 4790K is pretty good).

[fabio_chavez 103]

It's what I said above: more clock speed = faster in ArmA 3.

It doesn't matter if you have the latest and greatest, if you are running at 3.5 GHz or so, an older processor running at 4 GHz+ is still likely going to be faster in ArmA 3. So it all comes down to how well you can overclock, or just buy the processor with the fastest stock speeds (looks like the 4790K is pretty good).

im aware of these things, i run a x3220 on 3,6 ghz, if the mission/server is optimized i can have really playable fps on ultra in multiplayer. I personally find that 99,9% of hardwaremarketing aimed at gamers is deception and i like to use my hardware as long as possible, since most games now adays are made to run on a playstation anyway.

Unfortunately in the case of arma and its specific hardware demands and the global trend of CPU technology evolution dont go along very well because arma needs more ghz while Intel doesnt give more ghz but CPUs for smartphones....

all im asking for is a 6ghz CPU so that i can upgrade my system finally.

[jumpinghubert 49]

im aware of these things, i run a x3220 on 3,6 ghz, if the mission/server is optimized i can have really playable fps on ultra in multiplayer. I personally find that 99,9% of hardwaremarketing aimed at gamers is deception and i like to use my hardware as long as possible, since most games now adays are made to run on a playstation anyway.

Unfortunately in the case of arma and its specific hardware demands and the global trend of CPU technology evolution dont go along very well because arma needs more ghz while Intel doesnt give more ghz but CPUs for smartphones....

all im asking for is a 6ghz CPU so that i can upgrade my system finally.

buy the newer haswell because of its better overclocking ability (better heatsink between heatspreader and core-cpu) and google for good cooling...maybe watercooling.

[fabio_chavez 103]

buy the newer haswell because of its better overclocking ability (better heatsink between heatspreader and core-cpu) and google for good cooling...maybe watercooling.

afaik they rarely hit 5ghz and thats a marginal gain, especially considered the price.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

all im asking for is a 6ghz CPU so that i can upgrade my system finally.

Hahahahahaha, that was a good one. Made my day ^^

6Ghz is clearly not to reach for users with conventional cooling methods, even with a MachIIGT or Vapochill Lightspeed (Compressorcooling CPU for below 0°C) this should be hard to reach...

[jumpinghubert 49]

afaik they rarely hit 5ghz and thats a marginal gain, especially considered the price.

I assume 4,8 GHZ in combination with 2800er ram plus the malloc tweak and you will get significant better minimum fps than all cpu´s before sandybridge. Thats all you can do. Maybe its not much...but its also not nothing :p.

What cpu do you have?

Edited September 29, 2014 by JumpingHubert

[Wili 1]

I think is a pity they keep releasing more content for a bad game and trying to get more money from it.

I enter each 3 months to take a look at the performance, I play for a few minutes and then I leave the game thinking why I'm playing a shooter where I can't aim properly?

I don't think they are on the right direction, game should be still beta until performance is fixed.

[fabio_chavez 103]

I assume 4,8 GHZ in combination with 2800er ram plus the malloc tweak and you will get significant better minimum fps than all cpu´s before sandybridge. Thats all you can do. Maybe its not much...but its also not nothing :p.

What cpu do you have?

4,8hgz intel is crazy expensive considering its too much for any game but arma, for which its not enough.

i run a 2,4ghz intel xeon3220 at 3,6ghz and a radeon hd 6970hd, it almost runs arma still a little too good (except altis life where i have ~1 frame per minute) to replace it with a very expensive upgrade that is oversized for everything but not even perfect for arma... id rather buy a CPU that is overpowered for everything AND arma, because some day it will be an old CPU just like my X3220 was overpowered in 2007 and can still rock 100fps in titanfall in 2014.

[jumpinghubert 49]

4,8hgz intel is crazy expensive considering its too much for any game but arma, for which its not enough.

i run a 2,4ghz intel xeon3220 at 3,6ghz and a radeon hd 6970hd, it almost runs arma still a little too good (except altis life where i have ~1 frame per minute) to replace it with a very expensive upgrade that is oversized for everything but not even perfect for arma... id rather buy a CPU that is overpowered for everything AND arma, because some day it will be an old CPU just like my X3220 was overpowered in 2007 and can still rock 100fps in titanfall in 2014.

ok I had to google for your cpu. It seems to have similar per clock speed (in games) with my good old Q6600.

[MavericK96 0]

So given that RAM speed seems to make a difference for ArmA 3, has anyone upgraded to Haswell-E and tried DDR4 yet? I'm curious if it makes a significant difference.

[tonschuh 3]

4,8hgz intel is crazy expensive considering its too much for any game but arma, for which its not enough.

i run a 2,4ghz intel xeon3220 at 3,6ghz and a radeon hd 6970hd, it almost runs arma still a little too good (except altis life where i have ~1 frame per minute) to replace it with a very expensive upgrade that is oversized for everything but not even perfect for arma... id rather buy a CPU that is overpowered for everything AND arma, because some day it will be an old CPU just like my X3220 was overpowered in 2007 and can still rock 100fps in titanfall in 2014.

I hope that you are not considering "Titanfall" a hardware-hungry / demanding game.

As COD got released in 2003 and has not changed much over the years, it's normal that a CPU from 2007 is still able to run it.

;)

[bangtail 0]

So given that RAM speed seems to make a difference for ArmA 3, has anyone upgraded to Haswell-E and tried DDR4 yet? I'm curious if it makes a significant difference.

Yah I'm on the 5960X with Tri SLI 980s.

ArmA 3 feels a little better, but is still limited in the usual places.

In other games and apps, it's a beast.

I don't think that DDR4 is going to be worth the money just for A3 tbh, if it is making a difference, it's not a significant one imo.

The limitations of the engine transcend any amount of serious horsepower you throw at it unfortunately.

I love the X99 chipset, probably one of the best Intel chipsets to date.

Edited October 3, 2014 by BangTail