Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[oldbear 390]

... and play MP on a "normal" server, seriously ?

 

[Dwarden 1125]

yes, because profiling branch (and it's performance binary) is multi-player fully compatible with main branch ...

 

since ... always (except rare cases when we break it)

[oldbear 390]

Of course, I have looked for a "performance" build and I haven't found it using BI Tools, and found it hosted on your own dropbox.

 

Here is a topic for player having trouble with Arma3 and trying to understand what is going on and what can be done to get out of trouble, I believe that advertising for an unofficial exotic build out of any official support is not the right thing to do.

[Dwarden 1125]

and yet in each of the posts with new performance build (10s maybe 100s of those already) and topic primary it clearly says it's available just also as another branch ... 

even links the BIKI list of arma 3 branches ...

 

it's exotic on purpose , who can't handle those simple steps ... better to stay away and wait for next 'main' stable

[domokun 515]

16 minutes ago, oldbear said:

Of course, I have looked for a "performance" build and I haven't found it using BI Tools, and found it hosted on your own dropbox.

 

Here is a topic for player having trouble with Arma3 and trying to understand what is going on and what can be done to get out of trouble, I believe that advertising for an unofficial exotic build out of any official support is not the right thing to do.

You can easily switch to the Profiling (Performance) build via Steam.

Simply open Steam, find Arma 3 in your Library, right-click, open the tab entitled Beta and enter the unlock code as described here:

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Steam_Branches

[oldbear 390]

That not the point.

Advertising about any a "performance" build does not help people asking for troubleshooting for their plain, standard, "normal" stable version.

From my point of view it's both irrelevant and unfair.

 

[Dwarden 1125]

w/e ... always someone unhappy no matter what written, done or given ...

 

sorry that some of us bother to get your improvements and fixes sooner than next main ...

[oldbear 390]

Let's say otherwise, I am spending hours every day explaining to novice or uninformed players what to do in order to make their game work or why it's not possible to get the performances they are expecting.

From my point of view, it's not possible for me to suggest such a troubleshooting solution in order to help them.

 

But go back to what I had registered for Arma3 on my "Pentium G4560/GTX 750Ti/8Go/SSD 250Go " based rig which seems a potential candidate for the Arma3 "Minimum Recommended" I am looking for.

 

 

[Dwarden 1125]

i know, that's why we working on the hotfix to address the biggest troubles (and 1.70 after it ;))

also new performance binaries from today https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/160288-arma-3-stable-server-168-performance-binary-feedback/?do=findComment&comment=3169574

 

[WildCatNL 0]

Not sure if this is the right place to be posting, for I'm having performance issues combined with low CPU and GPU utilization.

 

When I learned about the 64Bits version I was eager to try it out and have been running several test runs.
Because I wasn't getting much if any improvement over my previous YAAB scores with the 32Bit buil and the 1.68 was still fresh, I set arma asside for a little while to run more tests as updates got applied.

 

So few fixes later and I'm running my YAAB again and see a drop of 25% in FPS.
I can't figure out if the YAAB mod has changed being the result of this or something with Arma, for I am seeing the 25% loss now on both 32 & 64 builds.

 

From an average 40 fps score, down to 30.

1.68.141067 and the builds before had nice scores in the 40~45 range

1.68.141112 (and 1210) sticking around 28~32 range

I've reinstalled Arma 3, disabled mods, ran stock build profiling/performance builds but all had similar results a 25% drop in average FPS... 

 

Monitoring Arma more closely, I could see my I7 6700k stuck at 30%~40% utilization and my GPU was hovering around 35% usage...
It's the VRAM usage that kind stuck out on my GTX 980 Ti, it would hover around 17~22% being used. Resulting in only 1GB up to 1.3GB of VRAM being used with an additional 4.7 to spare... and this felt really low when running on 3440x1440 resolution and settings running on high & ultra settings.

As the YAAB benchmark ran and it shifts from the thermal top down view to the next scene, memory drops to 6% and climbs up to 17% again not going much higher than 22% and drops again as it switches to another scene.

 

Lowering settings shows only a minor improved ment and increasing settings does reduce FPS scores somewhat, but nothing major, memory VRAM utilization remains pretty much unchainged and it sticks at around 17~22% of VRAM memory used.

I would imagine that textures get loading in VRAM and stay loaded in VRAM if space is available instead of having to recall upon them from system memory, similar to other video memory related assets.
 

 

Quick system spec's
Intel I7-6700k @ 4.00GHz

Sabertooth Z170 Mark 1

16GB Memory

GTX 980 Ti 6GB

SSD's

[Llano 11]

I haven't played Arma 3 in a while now.. so.. Is there any performance boost since the 64-bit upgrade?

[TheMasterofBlubb 10]

@Llano not a FPS boost but more same FPS on much(!) more viewdistance.

I jumped from my acceptable 30FPS(Multiplayer) on 3.5km on 30FPS on 12km

 

Edit: For that improvement you need a huge amount of RAM

[sawe 10]

This seems promising, maybe useful on Arma aswell? 

 

[NigerJones 0]

The only way to get better FPS on those servers with 100 players where you get lowered FPS is to properly upgrade your hardware. Arma devs have just shown they ban a lot of users thru the year who used graphs proving they  actually lost efficiency over time and all they do is update the "fun stuff" such as the graphics engine, add more content thru their existing addon system, etc. yet those things are already implemented fine while the core engine code suffers from bottlenecks. We know it's not the engine because other games are now putting over 100 players in one place and suffering minimal framerate loss. All the rumors and stuff they said are basically debunked simply because no one else bothered before and yet now we're seeing games with properly made engines put up insane performance for their size, detail, and player counts. I recently went from PhenomII 1090T to a Ryzen 1600X (full cpu/motherboard/ram upgrade) for only like 100$ net cost after selling my old stuff, and the same areas I got 20 fps in before now give me 40-50 fps. We know for sure it doesn't matter if you put "Ultra" or "Low" since it uses a low amount of the GPU. It might change frames by like 1 or 2. It's the only way if you are suffering low fps, there's no magic fix other than cranking down view distance to an unplayably low amount. The only time you should really mess with these pseudo-settings (fake results settings) is if you have like a 2000$ machine and you aren't sure why it's not performing well.

 

They literally accept this solution because I think Bohemia Interactive tend favor bad gamers with lots of money to support their game which is smart from a marketing perspective (get the dumbest pools to say "this product is great", make youtube videos, and promote their games). Not to mention those who bought the way overpriced Intel CPUs years ago, as a huge waste of money as it is from their end, they probably overspent like 500-1000$ roughly in costs to get something you can now get for roughly 200$ or less if you sell old parts; but they still have that larger FPS which lets them react properly in the same time many players will suffer at 20 fps (barely playable). It's kind of like giving people who spend money a monopoly indirectly because their programming skills were terrible and it worked out perfect for them.

[rowdied 44]

1 hour ago, NigerJones said:

The only way to get better FPS on those servers with 100 players where you get lowered FPS is to properly upgrade your hardware. Arma devs have just shown they ban a lot of users thru the year who used graphs proving they  actually lost efficiency over time and all they do is update the "fun stuff" such as the graphics engine, add more content thru their existing addon system, etc. yet those things are already implemented fine while the core engine code suffers from bottlenecks. We know it's not the engine because other games are now putting over 100 players in one place and suffering minimal framerate loss. All the rumors and stuff they said are basically debunked simply because no one else bothered before and yet now we're seeing games with properly made engines put up insane performance for their size, detail, and player counts. I recently went from PhenomII 1090T to a Ryzen 1600X (full cpu/motherboard/ram upgrade) for only like 100$ net cost after selling my old stuff, and the same areas I got 20 fps in before now give me 40-50 fps. We know for sure it doesn't matter if you put "Ultra" or "Low" since it uses a low amount of the GPU. It might change frames by like 1 or 2. It's the only way if you are suffering low fps, there's no magic fix other than cranking down view distance to an unplayably low amount. The only time you should really mess with these pseudo-settings (fake results settings) is if you have like a 2000$ machine and you aren't sure why it's not performing well.

 

BS!

Yes the game is not optimized to the level everyone wants it and might not ever be unless the game can fully utilize more than 1 thread but the comment bolded above is pure crap.

I could play this game with a GTX690 and get 40 fps no problem (see my specs below) but when I bought R6 Siege and Ghost Recon Wildlands, both games became unplayable with my current set up. I had to go and get a GTX1080ti just to enjoy those 2 games at the same level of details I can enjoy A3 at with my previous GTX 690 a 6 yr old video card.

And I still average 40 fps on all 3 games with most details on high to ultra, so please don't say other games are that much better optimized than A3.

[cosmic10r 2331]

Im curious what the titles are of these games with 100 people in a server?

 

I just played with VD recently and the 64 bit exe has improved performance for me a lot..

[SergentOwen 2]

Hello guys,

i hope to find some help here after looking in the forum in different topics i think this topic is the good one that will (maybe !) help me out with my frakin' performance problem :

Fisrt of all please excuse my "french" because i'm not a native speaker.

 

• Was running Arma 3 (3700 hours of game) on a Windows Seven, Intel i5 first generation, 8Go RAM and an NVIDIA GTX 960, for years  FPS were fine, quite low in cities when playing MP (30 fps) bust mostly correct the rest of the time.

 

Recently i decided to upgrade my PC,

 

• so i'm now running on a Windows 10 pro, Processor Intel i7 7700k, 16 Go RAM and same GC NVIDIA 960GTX.
• Everything was GOOD, graphics in Autodetect was upgraded (vew distance, objects etc) and i was about 40/50 fps in cities, 70/80 the rest of the time, i was very happy, game was beautifull and fluid like i never could imagine, it was a very new experience for me. I played two days like this, enjoying a whole new Arma.

 

One night i decided to connect on a "Life" style server i like to go sometimes (most of the time i play on King of the hill where i like to do Helicopter transport) FPS and graphics were horrible like i always experienced it on this serv' with my old config, some textures where missing, some entire objects where missing, i was walking through walls etc... So i reboot the game, reconnect on the same "life" serv and game was still very slow (10/15 fps). I decided that this serv was shit and i lived it.

 

The day after I returned to my favorite KOTH server and shit started to happen :

 

i was not able to run Arma 3 on more than 20 Fps even in an empty serv (and not in cities). No matter if my settings are lowered i always get this shitty FPS while game is ugly as hell.

• I tried reinstalled it, clearing my profiles, no changes
• I tried to reinstalled my Graphic card, no changes
• I tried to reset graphics pilots, no changes
• I tried every tweaks possible to use my x64 and all that shit, no changes.
• I tried to say to my NVIDIA Setting to always use GTX960 to run the x64 Arma 3.exe, no changes

Since this day i'm not able to run arma correctly, the game is even worse than before (old config i5 etc)

 

I'm so tired i'm ready to deinstall it and forget it forever but i have to admit that my entire PC gaming has been dedicated to this game (almost 4000 hours of game, damn !) so i'm really pissed of and don't find anything on the internet, hope somebody here will be able to help me, otherwise I only have to pray to God.

 

One more thing : DayZ is running good, other games are running very good (i tripled my FPS on War Thunder for exemple)

 

Thanks for the reading. Peace

 

Owen

 

[Vasily.B 529]

3 hours ago, SergentOwen said:

Hello guys,

i hope to find some help here after looking in the forum in different topics i think this topic is the good one that will (maybe !) help me out with my frakin' performance problem :

Fisrt of all please excuse my "french" because i'm not a native speaker.

 

 

Owen

 

I have same problem, there is nothing you can do.

[SergentOwen 2]

5 hours ago, Vasily.B said:

I have same problem, there is nothing you can do.

 

Seriously ? Nothing ? I mean are you sure ? Did you have an explanation, because if i cannot play it anymore, at least i want to know why !

I'm really pissed of that i cannot play the game anymore, i got like 3 DLC on it a a bunch of friend playin' it.

 

How is it possible to suddenly being so slow with no apparent reasons... ? Did you have some hints on that ?

If you have the same problem, maybe we are a certain number to encounter this trouble and it could be interresting to signal it to bohemia's support... if there is one.. thanks for the answer anyway...

 

Owen

[lex__1 422]

This is an old story in which one cannot completely change the problem.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T59083

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123238

To get a good FPS stick to some limitations:
-Selecting a server on a powerful iron

-Choosing a server with a good high-speed internet connection

-Choice of Vanilla server
-Server selection with the number of players no more than 10-12
-Mission selection using a minimum amount of AI intelligence

-Mission selection with good script optimization
-Selection of missions where the game does not last more than 1, 5-2 hours, after 2 hours of play the server decreases FPS and pulls the client fps down.

 

The last item is directly proportional to the previous items, and the game with low FPS is possible even from the first minutes of mission start.

All of the above listed significantly affects the client's FPS and will not take into account the client's PC capabilities.

[SergentOwen 2]

5 hours ago, lex__1 said:

This is an old story in which one cannot completely change the problem.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T59083

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123238

To get a good FPS stick to some limitations:
-Selecting a server on a powerful iron

-Choosing a server with a good high-speed internet connection

-Choice of Vanilla server
-Server selection with the number of players no more than 10-12
-Mission selection using a minimum amount of AI intelligence

-Mission selection with good script optimization
-Selection of missions where the game does not last more than 1, 5-2 hours, after 2 hours of play the server decreases FPS and pulls the client fps down.

 

The last item is directly proportional to the previous items, and the game with low FPS is possible even from the first minutes of mission start.

All of the above listed significantly affects the client's FPS and will not take into account the client's PC capabilities.

 

What i do not get is how the game managed to work perfectly for two days, on servers with more than 30 people, playing session of more than 2 hours, how is it possible to use properly my ressources for two days and suddenly being not able to use them, first link do not correspond to that.

 

Second link do not correspond to what i have, i know the 3 fps problem, i use to knew a server where it happens sometimes, but i never encounter that bug anywhere else.

 

It has no sense, i could accept that my configuration is involved if it did not work from the begining, but again, i was able to make it work very fine for two days.

 

There must be some reason...

 

 

Besides that, increasing ressources and loosing hability to play the same game you played before with a much less powerfull PC is just a shame. So bassicaly all of you are just saying i have put 800 euros to upgrade my PC for nothing (unless i forget Arma 3 forever) ?

 

Owen

[lex__1 422]

Create a new profile in the game, check back the previous FPS.
Check the task Manager to see if the Windows Defender is active.

[SergentOwen 2]

New profile set (i have tried this multiple time by the way), fps are still the same (very low) ans window defender is active, is it involved in the process ? He was active the first time when the game was running good, im gonna try do deactivate it to see what happen.

 

Edit : No changes

[lex__1 422]

Defender can be active, just do not be on top of the PC resource exploitation. Sometimes this can happen.
Are you using ARMA3 64bit? What settings do you use in Arma3launcher?

 

[SergentOwen 2]

Yep i use the x64 plateform, i got this line of command : -cpuCount=4 -exThreads=8 -high -maxMem=12288 -noLogs -noPause -noSplash -world=empty

 

I also tried a bunch of settings in the "advanced" options, like hyper trading and all that (specifying the numbers of core etc, srry but my menu is not in english and i'm not sure how to translate all the options i have tried.

 

With or without do not changes things for me, i had to say that when it worked at first none of those options where activated, i only start to try to tweak the settings when i thought it will maybe solve my problem.

 

Thanks for trying to help.

 

Owen