Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[mobile_medic 43]

http://i.imgur.com/4f1ZHzC.png

as you can see we slowly optimizing :)

beta introduced a stutter (a little better in the dev branch) even at high frame rates. Haven't noticed enough of a performance gain to be worth mentioning yet (no offense) still unplayable helicopter showcase. Still many things outside of small missions that range from just barely playable, to completely unplayable. Still can go to certain parts of the map (on an empty map, mind you) and watch gpu usage and fps begin to tank... Performance gains have been minimal for me up to this point. Certainly nothing worth writing home about considering the starting point.

Here's to hoping for notable optimization. And, by that, I mean actual engine improvements.

Also... I have a question. I mean it in all honesty... If everyone says this game is so cpu dependent, why does it only use ~1.8 cores?

[chrispottsov1987 1]

Also... I have a question. I mean it in all honesty... If everyone says this game is so cpu dependent, why does it only use ~1.8 cores?

It is, however the game has never been fully capable of utilising all cores to their capacity. I really hope there is some change in that, with arma 3.

[horrorview 10]

I'm currently running an i7 2600k oc'd to 4.4ghz, 18GB Ram (large format graphic designer, so I do actually NEED that. LOL), a Radeon HD 7970 GHZ edition, and I'm getting an average of 50fps with everything maxed, draw distance at 3000, and VSync enabled when I play most multiplayer maps and the singleplayer maps I've made on Stratis, but only when there's a handful of soldiers/AI on the battlefield. Once the area's populated, things often slow to a crawl, it seems.

What's even stranger is the Diaoyu island map. On that map I get 24fps, period. I can shut off Vsync, lower settings across the board, reduce draw distance to 1000 and it makes no difference! I'm assuming it's due to the TONS of vegetation the modder put on the island (which looks quite nice!), but, once I put more than a few squads and vehicles in play, it's like looking at a slideshow.

I'm not saying my system's a beast or anything, but I'm able to run just about any game MAXED and get 80 fps without breaking a sweat (BF3, Skyrim, etc). Even if this game is core dependent, surely 4.4ghz should be enough to power at least a moderate sized skirmish! :(

[k3lt 3]

http://i.imgur.com/4f1ZHzC.png

as you can see we slowly optimizing :)

Now instead of high-end 4.5Ghz overclocked rig, test it again with setup from official recommended specs.

Quick reminder:

RECOMMENDED

OS Windows Vista SP2

Windows 7 SP1 (Apple OS not supported)

PROCESSOR Intel Core i5-2300

AMD Phenom II X4 940

GRAPHICS Nvidia GeForce GTX 560

AMD Radeon HD 7750

GPU MEMORY 1 GB

DirectX® 11

RAM 4 GB

Source: http://www.arma3.com/buy

Since you said Wasteland is not optimized, feel free to bench it on 1 of the official multiplayer missions on populated server.

Edited July 6, 2013 by k3lt

[Tyl3r99 41]

http://i.imgur.com/4f1ZHzC.png

as you can see we slowly optimizing :)

good lads :) keep up the good work

[ric 1]

Also... I have a question. I mean it in all honesty... If everyone says this game is so cpu dependent, why does it only use ~1.8 cores?

Unfortunately humans don't write large scale parall

el code well, nor do they want to keep

rewriting it every time a processor evolution occurs.

im still waiting to hear back fro the devs as to whether this is a viable option for RV4

http://www.texasmulticoretechnologies.com/

http://www.texasmulticoretechnologies.com/content/SequenceL_Brochure_v5.3.2.pdf

Edited July 8, 2013 by ric

[Vixente 10]

im still waiting to hear back fro the devs as to whether this is a viable option for RV4

http://www.texasmulticoretechnologies.com/

http://www.texasmulticoretechnologies.com/content/SequenceL_Brochure_v5.3.2.pdf

Why would they need this solution if they are very capable of making (and improving) the multithreading capabilities already in the game?

As a programmer you can specify the core affinity of one process from the start, but it has no particulary usage in a game as it is, so it's normally left by default (uses all possible cores) or adjustable by parameters like in Arma. Also, as demonstrated before, like many, Arma is a multithreaded application, so it's already using all the cores it can get from the OS. It's the latter who decides which cores to assign to the program in a normal situation (no affinity set).

The problem is not using more specific cores, the thing is making those other threads use more CPU or share the load of the main thread to avoid bottlenecks. (if that is really one of the problems)

I think the game is complex enough that it's no easy task to modify the multiple thread setup as it is right now.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Vixente

[ric 1]

Why would they need this solution if they are very capable of making (and improving) the multithreading capabilities already in the game?

As a programmer you can specify the core affinity of one process from the start, but it has no particulary usage in a game as it is, so it's normally left by default (uses all possible cores) or adjustable by parameters like in Arma. Also, as demonstrated before, like many, Arma is a multithreaded application, so it's already using all the cores it can get from the OS. It's the latter who decides which cores to assign to the program in a normal situation (no affinity set).

The problem is not using more specific cores, the thing is making those other threads use more CPU or share the load of the main thread to avoid bottlenecks. (if that is really one of the problems)

I think the game is complex enough that it's no easy task to modify the multiple thread setup as it is right now.

because if i understand what TMCT does is it takes and existing load ARMA3 and recompiles it so the entire load is broken up over 4 cores to utilize ALL the processing power, you may want to read at there site exactly what they do.

As for multiple threads in A3 , the problem is they are still waiting on the main thread (core 0) which is where the bottle neck comes in...but if the main thread was able to use all 4 core's in parallel even at only %50 parallelization would still get 2x speed increase.

in accordan

ce with Amdahl’s law, constrains the

upper limits of achievable performance acceleration

regardless of the number of proces-

sor cores added to the system. As the chart shows,

applications tuned for 50% paralleliza-

tion will never achieve speedup greater than 2X, no

mater how many compute cores are

present.

:)

[wolfgang784 10]

My issue is similar since it related to low fps, but it is different in a strange way. Essentially, I get the same fps no matter what settings I use. If I play on low, I get 15-20 fps. If I play on ultra, I still get 15-20 fps. Vsync is off and it normally averages 18fps. I have seen it once spike to 30 but that was it, just a spike.

My CPU never goes over 29% usage, it never uses over 1.2GB of RAM and my GPU is almost always below 45% but sometimes spikes to around 75%. Since its not even using all of my resources overclocking did nothing when I tried. Adding my second video card back in to do crossfire also does not help. I am running a Phenom II x6 1100T Black, so 3.3GHz with 6 cores. I have 16GB (I know, useless, but it was free) of DDR3 ram and normally a single HD Radeon 6870 (2GB version) but can add a second for crossfire.

I have tried forcing vsync and also forcing it off with my video card which had no effect. No matter what I change the settings to, the fps stays within the range except for the rare spikes in both directions which normally happens when the map is loading fast. If I drive a car and hit 100km/h or try to fly a helicopter for instance my fps will drop to 10 and not go up. Ultra settings, 10. Low settings, 10. Doesn't matter what I do, I am simply stuck with this terrible FPS despite my computer easily beating out many other people that run the game fine.

From what I have seen in the thread there is a serious issue with both multiple cores and AMD in general but I figured I would post anyway since my issue is slightly different with the whole same fps no matter what, rather than simply low fps like many of the other people in this thread.

[wasabi 1]

Congratulations, my fps since beta are even worse then alpha, BEFORE i upgraded my whole system.

This is only going to get worse..

[WalkerDown 1]

From what I have seen in the thread there is a serious issue with both multiple cores and AMD in general but I figured I would post anyway since my issue is slightly different with the whole same fps no matter what, rather than simply low fps like many of the other people in this thread.

It's not different.. I have an intel, I've tried to change the clock from 3.0ghz to 3.8ghz .. it's barely used and my FPS didn't changed, I've also tried different video cards (one 570, two 570 and now with a 780) the fps barely changed. I've also played with settings (from min to everything on max) .. nothing changed.

Everyone is experiencing this problem.. and there's nothing you can do because the engine is damn old (we had this problem from the first arma title). The fact is that when you mention it there's always some fanboy to tell that you're lying (like we did not purchased the game like anyone else), and in the worst scenario the thread will closed.

I lost my hopes to be honest...

[Ezcoo 47]

It's not different.. I have an intel, I've tried to change the clock from 3.0ghz to 3.8ghz .. it's barely used and my FPS didn't changed

Are you sure that you actually OC'ed your CPU? Very many overclockable (maybe even all) newer Intel CPUs have automatic Turbo Boost technology that OC's the CPU temporarily when it's under load. At least with 3,4 GHz CPUs the Turbo Boost clocks are often 3,8 GHz. So you might have OC'ed your CPU to clocks that it was having already when running the game before OC. Maybe. Depending on your CPU model and cooler capabilities, you might want to try to OC it more, eg. up to 4,3-4,5 GHz.

[TSAndrey 1]

Water still halves my FPS! I still can't understand how from relatively fine FPS when looking at land, FPS drops to 10 when looking at the sea!

[WalkerDown 1]

Are you sure that you actually OC'ed your CPU? Very many overclockable (maybe even all) newer Intel CPUs have automatic Turbo Boost technology that OC's the CPU temporarily when it's under load. At least with 3,4 GHz CPUs the Turbo Boost clocks are often 3,8 GHz. So you might have OC'ed your CPU to clocks that it was having already when running the game before OC. Maybe. Depending on your CPU model and cooler capabilities, you might want to try to OC it more, eg. up to 4,3-4,5 GHz.

First thing you do when OC .. is to disable any boost and throttling.

Btw it's not about OC that I were discussing, but about the fact that someone believes that this game is "ghz dependent" (more clock speed you have more fps you obtain), this is only true if you have a low-end CPU but after a certain speed you won't get any other fps, you only obtain to have a less and lesser used CPU.

This is why I said that whenever configuration I've tested, I've had almost the same fps.. no matter what, from a single 570, passing by a SLI, arriving to a 780, and by applying 1Ghz CPU clock speed variation and by changing any possible game option (even by lowering the resolution to a laughable size would change the fps).

This is the reason of why this thread has 149 pages, and the online jira has thousands reports... it's not a "user mistake" it's a problem of the game.

[wormeaten 0]

My issue is similar since it related to low fps, but it is different in a strange way. Essentially, I get the same fps no matter what settings I use. If I play on low, I get 15-20 fps. If I play on ultra, I still get 15-20 fps. Vsync is off and it normally averages 18fps. I have seen it once spike to 30 but that was it, just a spike.

My CPU never goes over 29% usage, it never uses over 1.2GB of RAM and my GPU is almost always below 45% but sometimes spikes to around 75%. Since its not even using all of my resources overclocking did nothing when I tried. Adding my second video card back in to do crossfire also does not help. I am running a Phenom II x6 1100T Black, so 3.3GHz with 6 cores. I have 16GB (I know, useless, but it was free) of DDR3 ram and normally a single HD Radeon 6870 (2GB version) but can add a second for crossfire.

I have tried forcing vsync and also forcing it off with my video card which had no effect. No matter what I change the settings to, the fps stays within the range except for the rare spikes in both directions which normally happens when the map is loading fast. If I drive a car and hit 100km/h or try to fly a helicopter for instance my fps will drop to 10 and not go up. Ultra settings, 10. Low settings, 10. Doesn't matter what I do, I am simply stuck with this terrible FPS despite my computer easily beating out many other people that run the game fine.

From what I have seen in the thread there is a serious issue with both multiple cores and AMD in general but I figured I would post anyway since my issue is slightly different with the whole same fps no matter what, rather than simply low fps like many of the other people in this thread.

It's not different.. I have an intel, I've tried to change the clock from 3.0ghz to 3.8ghz .. it's barely used and my FPS didn't changed, I've also tried different video cards (one 570, two 570 and now with a 780) the fps barely changed. I've also played with settings (from min to everything on max) .. nothing changed.

Everyone is experiencing this problem.. and there's nothing you can do because the engine is damn old (we had this problem from the first arma title). The fact is that when you mention it there's always some fanboy to tell that you're lying (like we did not purchased the game like anyone else), and in the worst scenario the thread will closed.

I lost my hopes to be honest...

I have an intel q6600 2.4 GHz, 4 GB DDR 2 RAM and HD 6870 and have similar FPS even little better only difference is CPU and GPU usage. My is 10 to 20% higher.

Other differences on my much older and les powerful rig it is noticeable difference between ultra and standard settings what is normal according to differences in hardware power.

They should have 3 to 5 time better performance than I have. New better hardware don't garantie performance game should have and like it is in other titles.

All this facts prow that only problem is Game cod it self nothing else. On WalkerDown rig is what everybody recommended but as we can see even the newest Graphic Card like GTX 780 which by performance could be compared with Titan.

ArmA should fly not moving like dieing animal.

I'm very curious what they will answer to ric, if they will answer at all because they constantly bared head in the sand and trying to cover up this problem with constant ignoring.

[NicotinKickballovich 1]

I have an intel q6600 2.4 GHz, 4 GB DDR 2 RAM and HD 6870 and have similar FPS even little better only difference is CPU and GPU usage. My is 10 to 20% higher.

Other differences on my much older and les powerful rig it is noticeable difference between ultra and standard settings what is normal according to differences in hardware power.

They should have 3 to 5 time better performance than I have. New better hardware don't garantie performance game should have and like it is in other titles.

All this facts prow that only problem is Game cod it self nothing else. On WalkerDown rig is what everybody recommended but as we can see even the newest Graphic Card like GTX 780 which by performance could be compared with Titan.

ArmA should fly not moving like dieing animal.

I'm very curious what they will answer to ric, if they will answer at all because they constantly bared head in the sand and trying to cover up this problem with constant ignoring.

Got a Q6600 myself, did notice a small difference after having it OC'ed to 3.0GHZ, but it didn't give much of a boost, because I still had a pretty bad graphics card which was a GT 240, but recently upgraded to a 7750 1GB GDDR5 OC edition card and that gave a really huge difference, now it plays rather smooth. I bought a Radeon mainly because I heard ATI have been optimizing ArmA 3 somewhat with their latest drivers. Plays really well on MP too on 2500-3500view distance and most other settings are ultra and doesn't drop down to 25fps unless the server itself is bad or the mission is.

By the looks of it NVIDIA users are having most trouble, think NVIDIA haven't worked on including driver optimizations for ArmA 3 yet, so just have to wait and see.

[caico1983 10]

I was wondering if anyone made a comparison with windows 7 and windows 8 running ARMA 3.

Is there a possibility that the modern SO results on gaining a few FPS?

[Leon86 13]

By the looks of it NVIDIA users are having most trouble, think NVIDIA haven't worked on including driver optimizations for ArmA 3 yet, so just have to wait and see.

amd or nvidia doesn't really matter if it's the cpu limit. In fact I'd recommend nvidia because you can force the high clockspeed by setting the power management to "prefer maximum performance". Maybe amd has a similar option nowadays, or maybe hidden and usable with radeonpro? dunno.

[Kendostick70 10]

I really need help with my FPS

---------- Post added at 07:06 ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 ----------

using AMD FX6100, AMD HD 7850 and no matter what settings i try i cannot get the FPS to get above about 20. In single player i reach 70+, but any multiplayer usually hangs around 18 FPS or lower. Ive tried many different settings and yet their is no difference between running on ultra and on lowest (defaults) both stay 18 FPS. Ive tried changing launch parameters and other options in the CFG to no avail. One thing Ive noticed is that i cannot change the affinity or check the affinity when using task manager, i don't have access for some reason. Here is the last pic ive taken of settings. Note: i also tried changing sampling to lowest, and the FPS stayed on 18 still... need any help since single player works so easily but multiplayer is unbearable

http://i.imgur.com/0RDsMkl.jpg (202 kB)

[Sneakers O'Toole 2]

I can get 60 (vsync) fps in editor but it drops as low as 35 when i go to agia marina.

It uses my gpu 6950 100%, my i5-2500k does core 0 = 70-90% core 1,2,3 = 20-40%

[jumpinghubert 48]

It's not different.. I have an intel, I've tried to change the clock from 3.0ghz to 3.8ghz .. it's barely used and my FPS didn't changed, I've also tried different video cards (one 570, two 570 and now with a 780) the fps barely changed. I've also played with settings (from min to everything on max) .. nothing changed.

Everyone is experiencing this problem.. and there's nothing you can do because the engine is damn old (we had this problem from the first arma title). The fact is that when you mention it there's always some fanboy to tell that you're lying (like we did not purchased the game like anyone else), and in the worst scenario the thread will closed.

I lost my hopes to be honest...

I have the complete opposite experience. More cpu-clock raises performance AND gpu-usage, more gpu clock reduces gpu-usage and didn´t change the performance very much. I think most people here have similar experiences.....since the beginning of arma2 till now with arma3-beta. Nothing new what I say. To claim only a couple of fanboys have this experience is....äh...a little bit crazy..

Also... I have a question. I mean it in all honesty... If everyone says this game is so cpu dependent, why does it only use ~1.8 cores?

it means: with 3GHZ you will have 55% usage and for example 33fps. With 4Ghz you will have the same 55% cpu-usage but 40fps. Thats the meaning of cpu(-clock)-dependency. Edited July 13, 2013 by JumpingHubert

[mobile_medic 43]

Maybe at 8ghz I can overcome the engine's bottleneck and actually maintain a playable experience. :) In other words, this game will only ever use less than half of the recommended cpu, or the cpu of the majority of players. OC is not the answer (even though I'm already running at 4ghz on a processor (and gpu) exceeding the recommended specifications). A consistent 30+ is not too much to ask.

Difficult for me to comment on any improvement (or lack thereof) in performance with the beta, since I've been experiencing a persistent stutter and random crashes that were both introduced with the move from alpha to beta.

[Dwarden 1124]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159155-quot-nologs-quot-may-improve-performance-no-stuttering-read-details

if it helps you, post feedback on BIForums (note: that's not first, only nor last solution to the CPU issues ;) )

[mobile_medic 43]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159155-quot-nologs-quot-may-improve-performance-no-stuttering-read-details

if it helps you, post feedback on BIForums (note: that's not first, only nor last solution to the CPU issues ;) )

Thanks for the post. I will try it on the dev branch later. Is this supposed to be for stuttering issues, or for crash issues since beta as well?

[The_Goch 10]

I remember being pleasantly surprised with my PC's performance on Arma II. Then I tried to play on the actual Chernarus map and my frames were cut in half. If I'm not mistaken all we've seen are data from Stratis, which is the small map. I think all these FPS numbers are going to go right out the window once everybody's on Altis. By the way, I hope I'm wrong here!