Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[PuFu 4591]

One thing i have noticed (both my rigs - spoiler - suffer from low fps and stuttering). I am able to run the game very decently 50+ stable if the overcast is on. Before you say: yeah but then there are no shadows, turning from ultra to off the shadows make absolutely no difference whatsoever in my case.

[tet5uo 4]

you think after "burn in" with prime the cpu will work at higher clocks? You misunderstand the word "burn in" in this context completely. prime is a stress test, a worsed case scenario with maximum utilization and heat for all cores.

I don't think he means that the burn-test would make the CPU more stable, he's just asking if the guy stability-tested his overclock before trying it in a game.

Many people overclock their CPU's and call it a day once they can get into windows without a blue-screen, then wonder why games keep crashing :D

[sHockVVave 1]

Ok, I bought Arma 3 as soon as it came out. I experienced poor performance from the beginning, but after I downloaded the new beta drivers from AMD 13.3 b2 I have gotten much better performance.

Before the update I got 35-60 fps in multiplayer if it was a good server depending on where I was on the island.

The same at helicopters showcase.

I got better fps in editor mode.I got 60-70 fps.

This was before I updated drivers.

Now I get 50-90 fps in multiplayer. Depending on the server of course.

still get bad fps on helicopters showcase. 35-60 fps

Editor mode I get 55-105 fps.

My GPU is working 99% now and the multiplayer mode editor. sometimes it falls a bit depending on where I am on the island. but on Helicopters showcase the work of up to 60% only.

CPU alternates between all core, ranging from 30-85% sometimes working several simultaneously.

As you can see, this is my first post here on the forum, but I have felt with all the posts from day one.

anyway I just wanted to share this information. Maybe it can help someone get a better experience of this fantastic game.

My Arma 3 settings:

Almost Everything on very high, except postprocess and shadow these is on high.

2x FXAA very high.

draw distance 1606, objects 850, shadow 80.

My specs.

i5-3570 3.40 Ghz

12 GB Ram 1600 Mhz

Sapphire 7870 2GB 1050/1250 OC Edition (overcklocked 1150G/1300)

120GB SSD

ASUS motherboard

[tet5uo 4]

What we need is an actual benchmark mode in the game that runs with common settings. Otherwise all this talk is just people talking about what they percieve... which is quite subjective.

[chrisb 196]

Testing performance, mixture of msi-afterburner & PlayClaw4 for monitoring. Many Ultra settings 2500vd. I wouldn't play using 2500 usually, not in A3 yet, anyway, just for the test.

Screenshot 1: Mix of msi_afterburner (GPU = 98%, FPS = 61.8) & PlayClaw4 (CPU = 84%)

Screenshot 2: All PlayClaw4 (FPS = 50, GPU = 97%, CPU = 73%)

Settings for this test:

Res = 1920 x 1080 (1 monitor 27†LED/LCD, DP connection used instead of HDMI)

VD Overall = 2483 (as near to 2500 I could get without messing around. Having tested a little, I like 1000vd in town or 1200vd out & about)

Object = 1503 (auto with above. Will use whatever the auto is with above)

Shadow = 101 (tried to get this to 100 dead, seems it likes 101 for me, so that’s it)

V-sync = Disabled (never play with it on)

AA = 2x (seems fine)

PPAA = FXAA Ultra (sharp & crisp, that’s how I like to play)

ATOC = All trees (just the way I like it)

HDR = Standard

AF = Ultra (little to no fps difference)

PIP = Disabled (waste of time, blakes mirrors is far better, hope it gets ported to A3 from A2)

Dynamic Lights = Ultra

Texture Quality = Ultra (little to no fps difference)

Objects Quality = Ultra (little to no fps difference)

Terrain Quality = Standard (massive fps differences on settings, if low will boost another +20fps, if Ultra will sink -20fps)

Cloud Quality = Ultra

Shadow Quality = Ultra

Particles Quality = Standard (could probably have it on v/high, but really not bothered with it yet)

Running the game on my A2 (pc1, in sig), runs really well.. Waiting for hard copy of the game ‘proper’ to install on my new pc.

Edited March 19, 2013 by ChrisB

[Sevenz 10]

I can prove youre wrong.

I can send you print screen when i get home, from WOT game, where CPU is 80-90 on one core, others are less than 50%, and GPU is constantly 98-99,9%

Seem to me that GPU is botleneck in my case.

On which point im wrong ?

I said don't expect 100% cpu usage in a game with a quadcore,i didn't talk about gpu usage.

Also i don't understand why you think its a gpu bottleneck when the indicators clearly show a cpu bottleneck like most of us.

[Leopardi 0]

Don't expect 100% cpu usage with a quadcore in a game and your gpu is at 40/50 % because of cpu bottleneck and your graphic settings.

Also I'm suprised that your cpu usage reach 80% while most of people in this thread including me report 60% at max.

Someone has any thoughts on this ?

Yeah don't expect 100% with a quadcore or hexacore, but expect 91.1%.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18459152

If ArmA III won't be able to even utilize 75% something is reaally wrong with the code.

[sparayno1 1]

Crysis 3 is another example of good cpu usage. It uses all 8 threads on my i7 and reaches up to 90-95% cpu usage, mainly on the second level. With that kind of usage in this game, it would skyrocket the FPS.

[Leopardi 0]

Crysis 3 is another example of good cpu usage. It uses all 8 threads on my i7 and reaches up to 90-95% cpu usage, mainly on the second level. With that kind of usage in this game, it would skyrocket the FPS.

Yeah there really is no excuse, BIS just needs to get their shit together and make it work - it's possible.

[antoineflemming 14]

Yeah there really is no excuse, BIS just needs to get their shit together and make it work - it's possible.

^this. Definitely possible. For now, I've gotten my GPU load to be 99% through using some Nvidia tools. But I've noticed that after 10 minutes or so, it'll start to drop and jump between 50% GPU load to 90% GPU load. When this happens, the CPU Utilization jumps up from about 14% to about 40%. Seems like ArmA 3 is choosing either or at this point. And of course that sucks performance-wise. Really need GPU load 99% and CPU utilization to be 50%. I'm monitoring this using the Intel Extreme Tuning Utility and TechPowerUp's GPU-Z. Hopefully this can be resolved during alpha. I mean, why wait till beta to start seeing if their possible solutions work? There have been some who've said that Alpha is for features and performance tweaking is for beta. I'd say that for BIS, it'd be better to make sure the game runs well on as many systems as possible early on during Alpha and then test current, new features during Beta. Biggest determining factor of how the game will sell will be how it runs on PCs. Don't want a Crysis 2 situation (only ran on High or Very High, meaning a lot of people weren't able to run the game).

[daze23 1]

I can bolster my per frame gpu usage as well, but if it doesn't change my (bad) framerate, it's kind of a wash

I'm just hoping we get an update on the analysis soon...

[Kaine 1]

Will the optimization improve by beta? I'm getting pretty low FPS on a super computer and verizon fios.

[Greenfist 1863]

Of course it will. But how much, nobody knows.

[guusert 1]

I couldn't find any post from an admin saying the CPU utilization will be fixed and I'm not going to search through this mess.

BIS, I'm going to ask my money back if this game won't properly make use of my 4 cores when this game comes out. I can't play the game like this and my rig is better than you recommended us. I have a Phenom II X4 955 (overclocked from 3.2Ghz to 3.8Ghz). The recommended processor is an X4 940 (stock speed ofc). I should be able to run the game at High settings+drawing distance set to the point where the landscape looks good. Instead I am getting 15 FPS at LOW settings. This is not acceptable. I won't accept it. Ok, it's still alpha, but I'm just saying that it should run well when it gets released. Buying an alpha game is pretty bizzare (just as bizarre as pre-ordering a game), but I did it because it costs only €25 and I have better hardware than recommended. I Currently it doesn't matter which videocard you have since it's getting bottlenecked like shit. I have a videocard that can run Tomb Raider at 40 FPS on Ultra settings. 10 Years of quad core industry and still this engine doesn't make use of my 3 other cores. I was like: "HAHAHA! Are you kidding me -.- Gaming industry these days..." when I found out. Why didn't you change the engine before you made ArmA 3? I mean, you did know that this was going to happen. You improve the graphics and shit, the game asks more of your CPU, it still uses just as little of what your CPU has to offer in ArmA 2 and the result is that you get horrible FPS, even with an i5-2600 and GTX680 Slis (23 FPS).

77 PAGES!!! And number 1 problem in your feedback tracker. You have to fix it.

Ok my post is getting long now. This is more or less what I wanted to say.

EDIT:

http://alpha.arma3.com/known-issues

So if you're smart you'll put the exact problem ("CPU utilization") in that list and fix this, so people will still buy your games in the future. I'm not going to buy EA Games anymore. I won't buy your games anymore if you don't fix this. You don't want people to do that, right? You don't want to be like EA, do you?

Edited March 19, 2013 by guusert

[PuFu 4591]

rantwall

1. You PRE-ordered the game. And by doing so, you got access to Alpha, you will get access to beta, and the final game. SO that 25$ were for the full game. You HAVEN'T bought the alpha. mkey?

2. What do you think the alpha is for but solving the issues?

3. You haven't said what GFX card you have.

4. Tomb Raider has no relevance here

5. There is no such thing as i5-2600

[KingScuba 1]

well guys, I have two gtx 690s, an i7 3930k, and triple monitors. I run ultra, and I end up with about 30 fps, doing whatever. CPU utilization never goes beyond 40% (on two cores at once), gpu never goes past 50% (at 2 at once, again..).

[Minoza 11]

^^I actually LOLed hard at his rant. Btw. where do people pull that crap about buying alpha from?

[Leon86 13]

They should make a filter on this forum, any topicstart with the word optimisation in it gets autodeleted. Would save the mods a lot of work. could add optimization too for the 'mericans

anyway, the proper topic is here

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS/page77

Edited March 19, 2013 by Leon86

[white 1]

1. You PRE-ordered the game. And by doing so, you got access to Alpha, you will get access to beta, and the final game. SO that 25$ were for the full game. You HAVEN'T bought the alpha. mkey?

2. What do you think the alpha is for but solving the issues?

3. You haven't said what GFX card you have.

4. Tomb Raider has no relevance here

5. There is no such thing as i5-2600

fact is we did buy the alpha and will win the full game later on, thats the gist of how is described on steam, and thats what valve used to deny people´s reinbursements when trying to cancel the preorder (ive seen discussion topics about it on steam).

so technically, its not a preorder, although the process is exatcly the same as one, it has different phrasing so you cant get your money back, thats pretty much it. but, by following that logic, the guy is right, because if you cant get your money back, because it isnt a preorder, then the recommended settings apply to the alpha, and then if you cant run it in a decent manner you can argue its false advertsiment, or the product is broken, and thus deserve your money back.

basicly working a loophole against the logic created by a phrasing made especifically so you cant cancel your "preorder".

i somewhat agree with the rest.

@unrelated

im disappointed that i didnt get any answer to my previous post, again.

Edited March 19, 2013 by white

[Minoza 11]

I didn't realize Valve made Arma 3? Go annoy Steam support for false advertising then, developers clearly stated what alpha is, and what do you get by pre-purchasing full game.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Minoza

[white 1]

I didn't realize Valve made Arma 3? Go annoy Steam support for false advertising then, developers clearly stated what alpha is, and what do you get by pre-purchasing.

afaik whats written there is in conjuntion and at least partly written/agreed by bohemia, isnt it? and stuff there/purchasing probably follow valves rules into whats stated or not in the time of purchase. i remember a lot of trouble another game had with false statements on steam, even got knocked off there, despite being a beta. and i agree, if you bought there under what i mentioned, and got denied, one should indeed annoy steam. dont know how it works or how its phrased when buying on BIS website so i wont comment about that.

the thing is, that guys logic does apply, well to steam at least.

and no need for anyone to be angry at me, i just made a logic exercise based on the facts of the matter (steamwise).

Edited March 19, 2013 by white

[Insanatrix 0]

I'm still convinced that it's a memory handling and addressing issue. The only way I know to really test that is to lower all settings to the bare minimum, set view distance to 500 and run a preset scenario over and over again while logging and seeing what happens to CPU and GPU usage. In my tests, as the memory constraints become higher ( IE you increase the view distance therefor increasing the amount of texture's and data that has to be loading into memory), the usage on the CPU goes down a little bit but is still extremely erratic, but the GPU usage plummets down to 10%. Beyond that, I honestly have no way of proving that's what it is though.

Settings that require more physical memory like terrain texture's and grass especially, shadows, unit and object texture's and overall view distance impact performance the most for me personally. Namely Terrain Detail, Object Detail and Shadow Detail. Most of the performance difference is between having them on or off, IE either I have it draw grass or I don't or I have it draw shadows or I don't. Object Detail controls the LOD's and geometry of the models so generally every setting has an impact.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Insanatrix

[jumpinghubert 48]

its EXACTLY the same behavior in arma2 since release:

1. the more AI the lower the cpu-utilization (lol)

2. the lower the cpu-utilization the lower the gpu-usage.

counteraction Nr1: lower the cpu-related graphic settings (amount of object details, grass radius, visibility)

counteraction Nr2: raise the gpu-related graphic settings (AA, shadows @high are rendered by gpu, AF, etc) to the point the utilization is @99%

counteraction Nr3: buy the fastest cpu and overclock it like hell.

counteraction Nr4: do not play missions with a lot AI in it.

the highest utilization I get in empty editor with 99% gpu-utilization and 58% cpu-utilization on my rig (EXACTLY the same in arma2)

But i repeat the simplest thing in the world: we need a benchmark for reference....lol

Edited March 20, 2013 by JumpingHubert

[lightspeed_aust 681]

I did a second test in MP today, update from other day when I said that over time the GPS gradually drop off.

Today after the fps had dropped to about 12 fps I started adjusting video options down to see if fps went up. Virtually nil improvement on fps which would in sp have gained me another 10-15 fps.

[Jimieus 1]

So... any progress on this situation oh masterful employees of Bohemia Interactive Corporation.

:pray: