Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[xXxatrush1987 10]

one major aspect isthat the cpu frontend must have high capabilities, and for example the amd fx does not have that capabilities and catched up with piledriver to the first i generation from intel.

an i3 processor is as fast as the fx4300 and fx6300 in arma 3, and town and airport are cpu heavy.

to get on ultra decent fps you have to extremly overclock or use a ivybridge i7 cpu from intel.

i choosed overclocking, so my 2700k i7 runs with 4,6ghz, this is the only way to get fps at around 50-60fps on ultra everything maxed out exept 3d resolution(1080p)

here is what u get on high and ultra quality, all amd processor users should set objekt detail to low and pip off to get rid of the cpu bottleneck before complaining.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306247

even i set objects quality low and pip off to get decent pvp ready ~100fps.

@JoSchaap: the RAM you use is too slow to support the cpu and gpu with data, this and the 7850 will slow you down most, i´ve got 300mhz less, ht is off, but 7970 and 2133mhz(1066real-> you 667 real)RAM push my firestrike score to 8250points, without ocing the 7970.

so its about optimizing the system and not just one part good and rest meeh.

just my humble opinion

[joschaap 1]

GPUs falling asleep during gameplay? Can't say I've ever heard of that before. Seems like a rather large problem...

only happens in arma3 though, so im just betting its driver related, arma2, ToH, racesims and bioshock infinite don't show these issues, thats why im referring to the missing arma3 application profile for ati-crossfire users. devs cant do anything about that sadly :)

@atrush i just work with what i've got. surely santa will someday provide me with some proper strips of ram, but the 3dmark was just a reference :)

[white 1]

the only issue im having performancewise, is the GFX cards falling 'asleep' during gameplay when running crossfire. (Litterally just go to idle and freeze the screen at 1-3 fps for 25 seconds)

I have reduced this behaviour by turning this off with MSI Afterburner but im also missing alot of performance (running with a single card gives the same fps)

lets hope AMD finds an interest in this game soon and come up with Appllication profiles for ArmA3 :)

for those interested, 3dmark score (Firestrike): http://www.3dmark.com/fs/358830

you could try to place the cards in performance mode on the nvidia control panel/power management, that way they wont turn off(lower its clock) when underutilized and might help with your freezing problem.

[Leon86 13]

you could try to place the cards in performance mode on the nvidia control panel/power management, that way they wont turn off(lower its clock) when underutilized and might help with your freezing problem.

Probably called differently in the catalyst control panel.

[white 1]

Probably called differently in the catalyst control panel.

lol, probably.

[Insanatrix 0]

AFAIK you can't stop ATI cards from going to UVD clocks without flashing a new bios.

Also if you happen to have an accelerated video running ( Youtube etc...), your clock speed on ATI cards will lock to UVD any time the video plays. http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33989470

[Dwarden 1124]

just lower object visibility as temporary solution to your low FPS ... (just for these who not noticed it automatically change with your ViewDistance changes)

[Sixgears2 1]

one major aspect isthat the cpu frontend must have high capabilities, and for example the amd fx does not have that capabilities and catched up with piledriver to the first i generation from intel.

an i3 processor is as fast as the fx4300 and fx6300 in arma 3, and town and airport are cpu heavy.

to get on ultra decent fps you have to extremly overclock or use a ivybridge i7 cpu from intel.

i choosed overclocking, so my 2700k i7 runs with 4,6ghz, this is the only way to get fps at around 50-60fps on ultra everything maxed out exept 3d resolution(1080p)

You know, I get pretty bored of all the AMD CPU bashing. My FX 6300 + 7870 at stock speeds run every game I own on very high/ultra at 60FPS easily with the exception of ArmA 3, and then only in cities. That tells me that the issue lies with the engine. A quick internet search will turn up dozens of complaints from 3rd gen i7 users. Again, this points to the game being at fault. My CPU usage never breaks 35% in ArmA 3 even during CPU-heavy sequences. Yet again, that would seem to implicate the engine, not the hardware.

The Piledriver architecture is old now and Vishera is a huge improvement, and I have yet to run across a game that runs noticeably better on a Sandybridge than a Vishera. Benchmarks are one thing, what you can actually see and perceive is something else entirely.

Shooting for 100 frames per second is silly since it's functionally no different than 60-70. And I'll be damned if I turn anything to low on a machine that makes a habit of crushing every game I throw at it on very high/ultra.

Drop the Intel worship, the issue lies with the game. I hope it will be fixed.

only happens in arma3 though, so im just betting its driver related, arma2, ToH, racesims and bioshock infinite don't show these issues, thats why im referring to the missing arma3 application profile for ati-crossfire users. devs cant do anything about that sadly :)

You're probably right about it being a driver issue. Have you contacted the GPU manufacturer about it? It never hurts to make them aware of an issue even though there's no guarantee it will be fixed.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Sixgears2

[myngos211 10]

Couldn't agree more. I bought some new rig components, went the AMD route for once with an 8 core CPU...I hope they can utilize them when all said and released. I get decent FPS with medium to high settings, gonna double check the vsynch setting as suggested by some.

hi how do u add -cpucount=4 to steam shortcut?

EDIT

yep I am gutted about the lack of CPU usage I have a quad core and tbh theres no point.

I just hope they can add it because they could not in ARMA2 due to engine limitations i do beleive

[simjedi 10]

YAnd I'll be damned if I turn anything to low on a machine that makes a habit of crushing every game I throw at it on very high/ultra.

And here lies the main meat of the problem. People need to stop comparing ArmA to "Other Games". ArmA is not and has never been "Other Games" It's it's own unique thing and the thinking that somehow settings can be cranked up because "Other Games" run with max settings is a huge mistake. And if people do not get past this notion they will never be satisfied.

[Sixgears2 1]

And here lies the main meat of the problem. People need to stop comparing ArmA to "Other Games". ArmA is not and has never been "Other Games" It's it's own unique thing and the thinking that somehow settings can be cranked up because "Other Games" run with max settings is a huge mistake. And if people do not get past this notion they will never be satisfied.

The fact that a game engine is poorly optimized or unable to properly use hardware cannot be written off simply because a game "isn't like other games." Let's be honest, it isn't as if ArmA is doing anything particularly revolutionary. It just doesn't push hardware as it needs to in order to perform better.

Don't get me wrong, I love ArmA 3 and my rig's performance in the game is generally excellent. However, to tell me that I should have to turn settings down to low on good hardware to compensate for a flawed engine is quite frankly ridiculous, and dismissing the issue as "ArmA is just different" is plain old silly. ArmA has always had technical issues and they've been noted by players and professional reviewers alike.

ArmA 3 is a video game, and expecting it to conform to reasonable market standards for gaming hardware performance is perfectly reasonable. The only unreasonable thing would be to write the issue off with an excuse. No improvement happens when you agree to simply overlook a noticeable problem. I've already played the hell out of the alpha and I'm sure I'll love the full release, but that doesn't mean I don't think there's room for improvement.

[simjedi 10]

Yes I know it has it's flaws and isn't perfect. But it seems the majority of the complainers in here expect it to be so optimized that they should be able to run at 12k view distance with 1000 AI and everything on ultra while having 120+fps. Anybody who thinks that is off their f'n rocker and are setting themselves up for disappointment.

[MavericK96 0]

Yes I know it has it's flaws and isn't perfect. But it seems the majority of the complainers in here expect it to be so optimized that they should be able to run at 12k view distance with 1000 AI and everything on ultra while having 120+fps. Anybody who thinks that is off their f'n rocker and are setting themselves up for disappointment.

Not really...I was able to run ArmA 2 at 3600 VD, this I am lucky to run it at 2000 and not get massive lag.

I know there is a bit more going on but keep in mind I was able to run those settings on Cherno and Takistan, not just the smaller islands like Utes.

[simjedi 10]

Well that's the thing about ArmA, scalability. When I first started out at the launch of A2 I had at the moment a pretty top of the line computer and was no way able to max everything out. Later through the years as I upgraded I was able to raise those settings up even more with each upgrade. Now with A3 coming out I expect nothing different. So yesterdays 3600vd settings are completely different than today's 3600vd settings since there is more going on.

If I remember correctly A2's view distances wasn't actually what they were and it was changed for A3 to accurately reflect their true distances. I may be remembering it wrong though but I'm pretty sure it changed.

Edited April 12, 2013 by SIMJEDI

[mobile_medic 43]

The problem is not having to wait for years for the hardware to catch up to "big, bad Arma". The problem is Arma not taking full advantage of the hardware in the first place. This much is obvious. On top of having the same frame rate whether I play at 2560x1600, 1920x1200, or 1280 x 800.

I got excited for a minute when I saw that the first showcase mission was using 90-100% of my gpu and I was getting a rock solid 40-60 on reasonably good settings. It wasn't to be... Doing the "Whole Lotta Stratis" user mission, and it is the same ole, same ole from Arma 2 (for me)... lucky if it uses 60% of my gpu.

The game doesn't take full advantage of the hardware, and settings adjustments are either useless, unpredictable, or negligible with regards to their impact on frame rate.

If they could just make the whole game use as much of my gpu as the infantry showcase mission does, I'd finally be able to get into this game. Shouldn't have gotten my hopes up, I guess. Performance issues are pretty much the same ones widely reported with Arma 2. Now, with a 3. Just an Alpha, I know... But, I would have thought the first thing they would tackle with a new engine would be the outstanding performance and resource usage issues as the foundation.

[MavericK96 0]

The problem is not having to wait for years for the hardware to catch up to "big, bad Arma". The problem is Arma not taking full advantage of the hardware in the first place. This much is obvious. On top of having the same frame rate whether I play at 2560x1600, 1920x1200, or 1280 x 800.

I got excited for a minute when I saw that the first showcase mission was using 90-100% of my gpu and I was getting a rock solid 40-60 on reasonably good settings. It wasn't to be... Doing the "Whole Lotta Stratis" user mission, and it is the same ole, same ole from Arma 2 (for me)... lucky if it uses 60% of my gpu.

The game doesn't take full advantage of the hardware, and settings adjustments are either useless, unpredictable, or negligible with regards to their impact on frame rate.

If they could just make the whole game use as much of my gpu as the infantry showcase mission does, I'd finally be able to get into this game. Shouldn't have gotten my hopes up, I guess. Performance issues are pretty much the same ones widely reported with Arma 2. Now, with a 3. Just an Alpha, I know... But, I would have thought the first thing they would tackle with a new engine would be the outstanding performance and resource usage issues as the foundation.

Pretty much my feelings exactly. I hope they get it ironed out but I fear it's a base engine problem that would require an overhaul that's not going to happen... :(

[Insanatrix 0]

Not really...I was able to run ArmA 2 at 3600 VD, this I am lucky to run it at 2000 and not get massive lag.

I know there is a bit more going on but keep in mind I was able to run those settings on Cherno and Takistan, not just the smaller islands like Utes.

That's what has me concerned the most, We're basically basing our judgement on an Island like Utes, but a fair size bigger. What are we going to see though when Altis hits?

Pretty much my feelings exactly. I hope they get it ironed out but I fear it's a base engine problem that would require an overhaul that's not going to happen... :(

Same. I do truly believe that it's an issue with I/O latency because the "Streaming from Disk" is the only real non standard implementation that I know of in their engine. Depending on how dependent the engine is on using it, it could take a serious rewrite to go another way like 64 bit addressing.

It could be something else entirely though, thing is I can't understand what would stall all of the threads so badly in such a balanced way, it's almost as if they have a set limit that they can't go past. I've tested with and without AI and get roughly the same usage within +- 5% or so. If it was different threads on different cores stalling other threads you would see asymmetric drops in usage rather than a steady 70%-50%-40%-30% usage for example. You would see one spike to 90% and another drop to 20% and so on.

[Sixgears2 1]

Yes I know it has it's flaws and isn't perfect. But it seems the majority of the complainers in here expect it to be so optimized that they should be able to run at 12k view distance with 1000 AI and everything on ultra while having 120+fps. Anybody who thinks that is off their f'n rocker and are setting themselves up for disappointment.

I don't have unreasonable expectations for any ArmA game; I've spent too much time being disappointed to fall for that again. I have a good, solid gaming rig that maxes nearly everything, but I'd happily dial back to high or even medium settings (maybe...) If it would stabilize the urban segments of ArmA 3. The problem is, as others have noted, settings seem to have little impact on the problem since it originates within the engine itself.

Maybe setting everything to low and playing the equivalent of ArmA 3: Playstation Edition would solve the problem, but I didn't spend my hard-earned cash on a gaming rig to play games at a sub-console graphical level. Maybe there's some convoluted file alteration that fixes the issue, but I as the end user should not have to make aftermarket modifications to a piece of software just to make it meet basic expectations.

I love BIS, I really do. Goodness knows I've thrown enough money at them over the years. I adore ArmA 3 despite its problems, as well. Still, I would be lying if I said that I didn't feel a twinge of disappointment when I reach an urban environment and watch the game buckle simply because it can't use the hardware I've so kindly provided for it.

You are right; ArmA 3 is indeed something special. That's why it deserves to be fixed.

[xXxatrush1987 10]

well sixgears2 i don´t know your pc specs, but all of my arma 3 group can easely play in urban enviroments with ultra settings, including myself.

settings to low just is usefull for pvp/tvt, as every frame counts there. in coop when playing on a well hosted server at 50fps constantly(my^^) you are able to play at frame rates from 50-120fps. and you wont believe it but at all player on my server the gpu is at 100% load and cpu at around 70-90%.

last dev updates fixed the main engines problems: physx was fucked up and pip also, all fixed now.

slowest rigs of my group: i7 920+gtx 560ti and the slowest phenom2 x4 955+ 5850(both non oc)

fastest rigs: i7 2700k at at least 4ghz+ 7970(5 rigs)

my rig: i7 2700k@ 4,6ghz+7970 and 2133RAM, hosting dedi and client on same machine, or even host local.

i mean sixgears2, i can host locally evomission with high enemy count, fps dropping to around 45. that wasn´t even thinkable in arma 2 or even arma 1, so if your game buckles at urban enviroment, your rig must be slower than phenom2 x4 955 and 5850, or you can´t set up your settings right. posting the settings of the phenom rig asap after i have the possibility to ask the owner of it.

[white 1]

Yes I know it has it's flaws and isn't perfect. But it seems the majority of the complainers in here expect it to be so optimized that they should be able to run at 12k view distance with 1000 AI and everything on ultra while having 120+fps. Anybody who thinks that is off their f'n rocker and are setting themselves up for disappointment.

quote 1 person who said that.

and we are already disappointed for the fact tha the game doesnt come close to half of what you mentioned, nor it will, and yes i can see into the future.

Edited April 12, 2013 by white

[Leon86 13]

and yes i can see into the future.

got any tips for the stock market?

[chrisb 196]

well sixgears2 i don´t know your pc specs, but all of my arma 3 group can easely play in urban enviroments with ultra settings, including myself.

settings to low just is usefull for pvp/tvt, as every frame counts there. in coop when playing on a well hosted server at 50fps constantly(my^^) you are able to play at frame rates from 50-120fps. and you wont believe it but at all player on my server the gpu is at 100% load and cpu at around 70-90%.

last dev updates fixed the main engines problems: physx was fucked up and pip also, all fixed now.

slowest rigs of my group: i7 920+gtx 560ti and the slowest phenom2 x4 955+ 5850(both non oc)

fastest rigs: i7 2700k at at least 4ghz+ 7970(5 rigs)

my rig: i7 2700k@ 4,6ghz+7970 and 2133RAM, hosting dedi and client on same machine, or even host local.

i mean sixgears2, i can host locally evomission with high enemy count, fps dropping to around 45. that wasn´t even thinkable in arma 2 or even arma 1, so if your game buckles at urban enviroment, your rig must be slower than phenom2 x4 955 and 5850, or you can´t set up your settings right. posting the settings of the phenom rig asap after i have the possibility to ask the owner of it.

Have to agree with that, I’m running this on my Arma 2 pc at more or less all ‘Ultra’ now. Started out at all high settings at 1200vd, which surprised me, wasn’t expecting that on my older system, then with tweaking and the dev version its gradually got to Ultra on more or less all settings and vd to where I normally play in A2 (1500-2000 on the ground, as much as you like flying).

If your not getting reasonably good fps in A3, especially now in the dev version (getting better all the time), then you just won’t run it very well in the future. BIS can’t adjust for every system. In general gpu should be above 75% most of the time, if the systems setup right (gaming pc), I always monitor mine and its always above 80% and at 1500vd or less always above 95% most of the time (2gb oc'ed). Obviously if you open up the vd to 5000 or higher then the gpu use will go down some. The cpu for me is always around 75% average, can get higher or lower, but its never been a problem at that, was a little higher in A2, but its to be expected.

At the moment, for me, arma 3 runs as well as arma 2 did on the same system with really good fps. All this rubbish about AMD not being up to it, Intel’s being better, well just doesn’t stack up in the group I play, there’s a mix of AMD & Intel and all are playing A3 with no problem (all gaming pc’s), I have AMD & Intel (sig).

I had the slowest spec pc in my group for A2, never had any problems with it on high/vhigh settings playing arma2. I bought it for the type of missions I had in mind and the type our group play, max 300ai usually under 200ai with high-very high settings, so knew the spec would do the job, it did. I can put easily the same amount of ai on arma 3 now with this same system and as long as I don't meet all 300ai at once, its not going to be a problem. The type of missions we play, the max ai encounter would be under 50ai usually a lot lower than that engaged at the same time. Not into ww2 size battles, modern warfare all the way.

Only complaint I have now is, I started to believe the hype around A3 and bought ‘a better’ pc to run it, way back before release, when in-fact I needn’t have bothered, should really have known, mid to high end gaming pc will run either game (A2 or A3), very well..

[nikiforos 450]

Most people say that the game is better optimized(better FPS) with the latest dev version. I read the changelog but I didn't find anything regarding optimization.

So the question is if BIS works with optimization in every patch but won't tell us for some reason.

[simjedi 10]

quote 1 person who said that.

and we are already disappointed for the fact tha the game doesnt come close to half of what you mentioned, nor it will, and yes i can see into the future.

Then don't expect anything other than disappointment. With my settings I get a solid 45-60fps anywhere I go as long as the mission scripts are clean and there isn't an obnoxious amount of A.I. around. Seems you do not know how to properly setup your game for your system if your not getting that. And if you are basing your experiences on Wasteland, a mod that was rushed into A3 and runs on servers that are game clients, well.

Edited April 12, 2013 by SIMJEDI

[Sixgears2 1]

@xxatrush 1987

I've posted my specs multiple times, but since you obviously can't be bothered to actually read the whole discussion here you go: FX 6300 @ 3.5 GHz, Gigabyte 7870 2GB at stock, 8GB DDR 3. So no, I shouldn't have any issues on very high/ultra. In fact, the game itself autodetects me to full ultra.

Another thing you'd have learned had you actually taken the time to read the conversation would be that a quick Google search will turn up a myriad of players with better specs than mine who are having similar issues. There was a 700 post thread about it here until it got deleted.

When I say "buckle" I only mean massive frame dips. The game is still playable in urban areas, but I shouldn't be dropping from 60-80 FPS to 30-40 simply because I'm surrounded by basic buildings. That's bad optimization, and it's a bummer. Maybe I am just too picky, but I don't like seeing 50-60% reductions in performance without a valid reason, even if the lower performance is still acceptable. And I really don't like seeing 35-40% CPU usage under load, especially when it's obvious that the game could easily use more to offset the problem.

As for you and your friends, I'm glad it runs well for you. However, the fact that you aren't having problems doesn't mean no one else is, nor does it mean that you have any right to come here and speak to me as if I'm a moron.

Oh, and about that Phenom II/5850 on ultra in a town: prove it or it's not true.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Sixgears2