Jump to content
k3lt

Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

Recommended Posts

@Wasteland players

Your problem is Wasteland itself. Try playing a mission with no more than 20 players, if you still experience performance issues, then come back and report.

Looks like you talk about something you have no idea about. Most of the time users themselves are the cause of issues. Just take a look at all these Wasteland players crying because of bad performance, yet somehow they missed that it is not recommended (at this stage) to play missions with more than 20 people.

I know it is related to MP. But how does that make anything better? Actually that it is this way in MP but not SP is the WHOLE POINT.

We have a problem that the server obviously influences the maximum FPS of the client!

It would be okay if the mission was badly made and my CPU would stay at 100% load while I only get 22FPS. That is how it was in ArmA 2. But in ArmA 3 I have 50% CPU load and 17FPS.

You cannot tell me that this okay by any means. And noone is crying. This is an alpha test. And it works badly. So we should "cry" about it so it gets fixed for the final product. Jeez.

Get off your BIS fanboy horse. (2009 account creation... lol ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, there are many broken missions, I wasn't saying that only Wasteland is broken (which it is) but if every server out there with 10-20 players gives you bad performance than that's an issue not related to Wasteland. I was only trying to say that if you do play Wasteland you can expect performance issues.

I know it is related to MP. But how does that make anything better? Actually that it is this way in MP but not SP is the WHOLE POINT.

We have a problem that the server obviously influences the maximum FPS of the client!

It would be okay if the mission was badly made and my CPU would stay at 100% load while I only get 22FPS. That is how it was in ArmA 2. But in ArmA 3 I have 50% CPU load and 17FPS.

You cannot tell me that this okay by any means. And noone is crying. This is an alpha test. And it works badly. So we should "cry" about it so it gets fixed for the final product. Jeez.

Get off your BIS fanboy horse. (2009 account creation... lol ;) )

I don't see how this account registration date has anything to do with my comment. I've played all Arma games, only one I didn't play was OFP. I'm not a fanboy, I'm pointing out that a dev already confirmed that they are aware of issues and that when playing missions with more than 20 men you can expect performance issues. And no, if mission maker makes poor decisions which in return end in bad performance it's not BI to blame.

Edited by Minoza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

things that have helped me:

1. disable shadows. i didn't really notice any graphical improvements but it boosted fps alot

2. lower clouds

3. lower hdr

4. Don't use AA. This is a biggie because AA gives you a good graphics boost but really kills your FPS more than anything else. I've found that playing with either fxaa/msaa is a viable substitute with practically no performance loss. Fxaa also has the added benefit of sharpening the in-game image, which you may like.

If none of these help then just try setting everything to absolute minimums and running from there. If you still get FPS issues then it's most like a CPU problem, and you'll either have to wait for updates or buy a new system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've spent the past 3 days playing the game on the lowest of all settings in order to gain frames, but I decided to try something today.

I turned all of the 'quality' settings to high/very high, kept AA and post processing off, and kept my view distance at 1000m, and my frame rate was the exact same in multiplayer. No matter what I change any of my quality settings to, there is no more than a 1-2fps difference which is extremely weird, but a good thing I guess. This now means that instead of playing the game at a shit frame rate, and with shit graphics, I can now have good graphics while having the exact same shit frame rate. Yay, I guess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Wasteland players

Your problem is Wasteland itself. Try playing a mission with no more than 20 players, if you still experience performance issues, then come back and report.

Looks like you talk about something you have no idea about. Most of the time users themselves are the cause of issues. Just take a look at all these Wasteland players crying because of bad performance, yet somehow they missed that it is not recommended (at this stage) to play missions with more than 20 people.

same issue occurs on single player on certain scenarios. same issues occurs to this day on arma 2 on similar scenarios. yeah, its users fault. herp derp

i guess you missed BIS post about being aware of the issue, read the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
same issue occurs on single player on certain scenarios. same issues occurs to this day on arma 2 on similar scenarios. yeah, its users fault. herp derp

i guess you missed BIS post about being aware of the issue, read the topic.

No I haven't, I was one of the first to post in this topic with detailed info (LINK), and I've read and replied to dev who confirmed they are aware of issues. I reported to feedback tracker as well, so don't tell me to read the topic, cause you didn't even bother to read the first page I guess. You all missed my point which was, if you play a broken mission why do you come and report issues? How do you contribute that way?

Reporting performance issues will be much easier when we have benchmark. This is a nightmare atm.

Edited by Minoza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I haven't, I was one of the first to post in this topic with detailed info (LINK), and I've read and replied to dev who confirmed they are aware of issues. I reported to feedback tracker as well, so don't tell me to read the topic, cause you didn't even bother to read the first page I guess. You all missed my point which was, if you play a broken mission why do you come and report issues?

Its a public alpha for people to try out things.

And the MP performance issue is not on the issue page yet. Instead they say that the performance feedback is positive. While it isn't.

SP performance is good except if you try to use PP on the AA and see some foliage. ATOC has the same problem atm. But MP performance is horrible. And ArmA isn't famous for its great SP experience but the MP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SP performance is far from good its terrible its not just MP that FPS is an issue.

SP and MP need fixing.

Scratch that its the engine that needs fixing once that is done SP and MP will be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its a public alpha for people to try out things.

And the MP performance issue is not on the issue page yet. Instead they say that the performance feedback is positive. While it isn't.

SP performance is good except if you try to use PP on the AA and see some foliage. ATOC has the same problem atm. But MP performance is horrible. And ArmA isn't famous for its great SP experience but the MP!

As I've said, we need a reliable benchmark. If nothing else, it will help to split the crowd with an actual issue from the crowd that thinks the game should run better at Ultra.

SP performance is far from good its terrible its not just MP that FPS is an issue.

SP and MP need fixing.

Scratch that its the engine that needs fixing once that is done SP and MP will be great.

What settings do you play on (screenshot if possible) and what are your specs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I haven't, I was one of the first to post in this topic with detailed info (LINK), and I've read and replied to dev who confirmed they are aware of issues. I reported to feedback tracker as well, so don't tell me to read the topic, cause you didn't even bother to read the first page I guess. You all missed my point which was, if you play a broken mission why do you come and report issues? How do you contribute that way?

Reporting performance issues will be much easier when we have benchmark. This is a nightmare atm.

some guy in steam discussion using an api monitor proved the game mainly uses 1 cpu thread. i asked him to post here, otherwise go there and check it out between the latest posts. this has nothing to do with missions. http://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/0/864961721676462825/

whatever mission this is played on, whatever resolution and whatever specs, same issues arise, same limitations. and ive posted screenshots proving my points, in this topic. you either didnt see them or ignored.

there is no crowd thinkign the game should run better on ultra, the game should run better on the lowest settings!

Edited by white

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello There,

i got the same problem with CPU utilization. I tested it whit msi afterburner and win7 ressource monitor on an 40 player warfare server (unplayable for me, under 10 FPS at base). My graphicconfigs ingame are mid to high (res 1680x1050 100%).

My GPU usage is at about 20%(!) all the time and all of my CPU cores are at about 30%-50% (doestn went above 50%).

My rig:

AMD Phenom II x6 1090T @ 3,8 Ghz

8GB RAM 1333

Radeon HD 6970

This can't be a problem of my rig, i dont know what to do... pls BIS fix this issue as fast as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish BIS would at least introduce some hacky way to get better balancing among the cores.

In Arma 2 the FPS nearly doubled when you played a mission on a dedicated server hosted on your own machine compared to just hosting it within the client or playing it on SP. I know its Alpha and all, but it seems to be exactly the same case with Arma 3 so far.

Couldnt BI just let the game start a dedicated server in the background and join it as an admin as soon as you start a mission? With 4 cores+ the game could even slap a couple of headless clients on cores it doesnt use.

I know this would be kind of hacky and the headless client is far from being polished in any way, but putting together such background scripts and finishing up the HC will probably use a LOT less development time than optimizing the engine.

The only drawback would probably be the amount of ram used for all of the executables, but i say that is a very small price to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some guy in steam discussion using an api monitor proved the game mainly uses 1 cpu thread. i asked him to post here, otherwise go there and check it out between the latest posts. this has nothing to do with missions. http://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/0/864961721676462825/

whatever mission this is played on, whatever resolution and whatever specs, same issues arise, same limitations. and ive posted screenshots proving my points, in this topic. you either didnt see them or ignored.

there is no crowd thinkign the game should run better on ultra, the game should run better on the lowest settings!

You keep quoting me, while you don't even understand what I'm saying. Yes, there is an issue, I am experiencing it too, just like you, I even reported it on the first page of this topic, with screenshots and description, in fact, I reported this same problem in Arma 2 and DevHeaven too. Where do we disagree then? Well, we disagree at a part where people test performance on broken missions and report in with issues, that is not productive in any way, that's why we need benchmark. As for the link, I'll give it a read now, thx!

edit

So I gave it a read. They came up with a great conclusion, BI knows about it, they coded it after all, it's just a question of whether they want to fix it or not. Reply for Arma 2/OA was: "No, we're not gonna fix it.".

Edited by Minoza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I tell ya if they dont fix it for ARMA 3 they will loose a huge crowd.

Here is my guess

We will see an update befor ALPHA lite is released

They relied on the ARMA fans that have supported them for many many years since OFP days like me to report bugs and issues and what I am gaussing is they will try to fix as many of these bugs as possible befor alpha lite is out as they people getting alpha lite are newcomers not all but probably most.

So they will fix as many bugs to make it a lot better for the newcomers who come a long and not have the amount of bugs that we had.

Hence why alpha lite is not out till one week later.

I have no issues with this if I am correct.

All I am saying is if they dont fix the performance then sorry as much as I love BIS and have supported them they are screwed as people waiting for alpha lite will not trust BIS like we do to get it fixed all they will see is a game that runs terrible and walk.

Where as we all know BIS will get round to fixing it at some point (I hope).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You keep quoting me, while you don't even understand what I'm saying. Yes, there is an issue, I am experiencing it too, just like you, I even reported it on the first page of this topic, with screenshots and description, in fact, I reported this same problem in Arma 2 and DevHeaven too. Where do we disagree then? Well, we disagree at a part where people test performance on broken missions and report in with issues, that is not productive in any way, that's why we need benchmark. As for the link, I'll give it a read now, thx!

edit

So I gave it a read. They came up with a great conclusion, BI knows about it, they coded it after all, it's just a question of whether they want to fix it or not. Reply for Arma 2/OA was: "No, we're not gonna fix it.".

ill quote whoever i want damn u.

i agree with the need with a benchmark and i think that will happen, even if its on just a mod. but i dont think issues are mission specific, but i guess i agree that its counter productive for people to pots results in different places stating a different range of fps´s, thats mainly why i always ask for people when they state they have high fps looking at a rock on a forest to show a screenshot on a cpu heavy scenario like the heli showcase where a lot of stuff goes on at start. everything else seems too varied to control.

and yes, it goes down to BIS choosing to fix this or not, but they keep stating that the game is multicore and multithreaded and that no game can take advantage of all the cores at high usage, and thats just a lie, or theyre oblivious to the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried to test your machine on a local server, if you know how to use the map editor add a few veichles and player models to the map and test your fps rate there.

Like almost all the MP Servers right have very bad specs/slow internet and therefore shitty fps even with good pc's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of us are not worried about the current situation (alpha bugs/optimization) but due to the fact that this problem existed in Arma2 and it has never been fixed after years and thousand of users complains. We're mainly worried that due to the engine limitation they will release the game without solving this issue. Luckily warden have assured us that they know the issue and that it will be fixed before the release, so i'm ok with it (unless someone here believes he's lying... but i don't see any reason of why he would do: internet doesn't forget).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all!

I get around 30 FPS in multiplayer missions on PC with recomemended HW requirements.

CPU: i7 2600

GPU: GTX 590

RAM: 8 GB

Anyone can give me an advice?

Thanks

Radek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
these who always expect theirs multicore CPU maxxed out by games fail to realize that there is always overhead by syncing or minimal timeframe needed to finish operation on actual primary thread ,

there is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law and much more problems in multithreaded coding (there are whole books about it)

so 99+% utilization of both CPU / GPU or just all multiple CPU/GPU in complex gaming is yet to be seen , they not benchmarks and specialized tasks ...

we will work on improving multithreaded capability of the Arma 3 engine,

yet this feature is in Arma 2 engine since 2009 http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

ironically the last paragraph from the article still does apply

There is no excuse, look at Frostbite 2 engine, I can get 100% GPU utilization easily in it, with 100% utilization for CPU main thread and like 75% for the rest.

ArmA 3 just gives 85% for main / 30% or less for others. GPU is bottlenecked down to 20-30%. There clearly is a problem with the engine and it needs fixing or you'll only have people with 4.5GHz OC'd newest Intels playing this game.

Edited by Leopardi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warfare CTI with 32-42 players & 12 units per player ran "ok-ish" on 3.5-4 GHz i7s in ArmA II... XR had to OC theirs to 5 GHz to play it the way it's meant to be played, we enjoyed excellent performance for days without server reboot.

Now, with added physics simulation, I'd say 5 GHz is about to become the standard for Domi, Evo, Warfare, Wasteland, etc, etc.

TLDR; OC your server CPUs to 5 GHz or stick to 1-6 player Co-op missions.

Edited by Iroquois Pliskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like antoine said performance varies with servers. And I wouldnt stress the low FPS at this stage, I think this is part of why the devs have us doing the alpha on the MP at this point. This way they can get a bunch of info so they can use it to optimize by finial release. Also if you read around 100% sore usage doesnt mean the best performance, but that is from my limited understanding. Games that do that can put the core into a infinite loop, which is not always needed. My GPU is on my 5850 and I dont go over 30 to 40% on that either in this game but it looks much nicer and runs smoother the A2. I remember A2 having issues for a very long and after release and many patches till it got better. Give them time the rest will follow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember A2 having issues for a very long and after release and many patches till it got better. Give them time the rest will follow

A2 still has issues, the multithread issue was never fixed, and its the same issue we are talking about here. and yes, multiplayer servers do impact negatively BUT that doesnt explain the same happening on singleplayer. and some guy said he placed chernarus on arma 3 and lost 20fps compared to playing it on arma 2 so there you go.

"oh but i get high fps" where do you get high fps? looking at a rock in the forest? 50fps with 3 guys next to you on a hill looking at dirt? thats the issue, on a lot of places you get unplayable 10fps with very low cpu/gpu usage, enough for the gpu to IDLE, again, on single player. and that is what this topic is about.

like ive said a few times, thats acceptable for an Alpha, yes it is, but its the same issue that plagues previous arma titles since they use the same engine, and their alpha´s are long gone.

Edited by white

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×