Jump to content
k3lt

Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

Recommended Posts

But gaming with 20fps is not playable. Therefore bohemia should tell their problems in the system requirements for arma 3.

i have amd phenom II x6 1090T, amd HD 7870 oc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People can claim Arma is CPU heavy all they want, but until it utilizes more than 2 cores worth of CPU, I put no stock in such a claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is CPU heavy, that's obvious by the fact that performance is determined by CPU speed more so than GPU quality/speed/power. The problem is that the engine was not made in any way shape or form to take advantage of any parallel processing or multicore cpu's. If you stop and think about when all of the bigger AAA engine's came out, like Frostbite for example, they all began life in an age where multicore processors were looked at as the future. Back when RV began it's life, the common thought was that CPU's would just keep getting faster and faster.

That and I believe when most development companies revise their engines between iterations they tend to focus on improving core aspects of their engine for future use whereas Bohemia Interactive tends to focus more on what they can add into their engine rather than what they can improve or fix that's currently existing as as shown through the long standing issue's the engine has had along with bugs that have persisted through many iterations of the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People can claim Arma is CPU heavy all they want, but until it utilizes more than 2 cores worth of CPU, I put no stock in such a claim.

it seems you are not able to understand a very simple thing in arma3:

quadcore@3GHZ=50% cpu-usage +gpu with 40% usage and 30fps

quadcore@5GHZ=50% cpu-usage +gpu with 70% usage and 50fps

quadcore@5GHZ=50% cpu-usage + default clocked-gpu with70% usage and 50fps

quadcore@5GHZ=50% cpu-usage + overclocked-gpu with 50% usage and 50fps.

Result: overclocking cpu gives extra fps, overclocking gpu not/not as much, it will only lower gpu usage.

Try to think about it what this means. Please, give it a try mobile_medic, hm? And if not, please resist and don´t post again your good old mistake. To repeat it doesn´t help.

Edited by JumpingHubert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

throwing more GHZ at it b/c it can't/doesn't properly utilize modern CPU's does not automatically = CPU heavy. It is a workaround b/c the game doesn't use modern CPU's very efficiently.

The reason overclocking the GPU doesn't give that much benefit is b/c it gets bottlenecked by the game reaching its limit of what it can use of CPU.

Does it make you feel better being a smart ass to people? Low self-esteem, much?

It is a rather simplistic conclusion to think that just b/c more GHZ = more fps, that this somehow = a CPU heavy game. How could we possibly know how cpu heavy it is, when it uses a minority of the average modern CPU's processing ability? If it is a "CPU heavy" game (and acknowledge as such by the actual developers), that makes the fact that it poorly utilizes the CPU even more negligent.

You mean a faster clock speed will make the game perform better? I'm shocked </sarcasm>

There is a *big* difference between a game needing more CPU than it *uses*, and a game needing more CPU resources than are available.

Edited by Mobile_Medic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean with CPU-heavy in this case is that Arma 3 relies more on CPU power than GPU power.

Stuff like 3Dmark11 and certain other games work the other way around. Those benefit more from OCing GPU.

And Arma just using 2 cores has been true (I think) since Arma 2. Why it wasn't 'fixed', who knows.

Well, I can think of 1 reason. Not everyone has quadcores. So would the devs have to write 2 different pipelines for those with 2 cores and another pipeline for the rest? How much extra work would that be?

Edited by mamasan8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I can think of 1 reason. Not everyone has quadcores.

I would say most everyone probably has quadcores in this day and age. I can't find the link anymore, but a while back someone had a running tally of A3 user's systems specifications that (while, not infallible) had a sizeable user-base, and over 90% of them were reporting quad core or better processors, if memory serves. I'd be willing to bet that dual core processor owners (not on a laptop) are in the extreme minority of purchasers of A3.

The market moved to quad core and beyond a long time ago. Besides, the fact that there are dual core users that make up part of the user base (let's say they are even 20%) shouldn't effect quad core users in the least. If the game took better advantage of multicore processors, it wouldn't negatively impact the dual core minority in any way.

Edited by Mobile_Medic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say most everyone probably has quadcores in this day and age. I can't find the link anymore, but a while back someone had a running tally of A3 user's systems specifications that (while, not infallible) had a sizeable user-base, and over 90% of them were reporting quad core or better processors, if memory serves. I'd be willing to bet that dual core processor owners (not on a laptop) are in the extreme minority of purchasers of A3.

The market moved to quad core and beyond a long time ago. Besides, the fact that there are dual core users that make up part of the user base (let's say they are even 20%) shouldn't effect quad core users in the least. If the game took better advantage of multicore processors, it wouldn't negatively impact the dual core minority in any way.

While I fully agree about the better multicore utilization, your claim about "I would say most everyone probably has quadcores in this day and age" is simply not true. Here's remarkably more reliable survey (the official Steam monthly survey): http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/?sort=pct

I'm quite sure that the Arma players have better PCs than regular Steam users in general though (see eg. http://jonpeddie.com/press-releases/details/global-pc-gaming-hardware-sales-shrug-off-pc-market-decline/), but the stats are pretty clear anyway: PC players have more dualcore than quadcore CPUs in their computers. The increase in quadcore percentage has stopped last month and the percentage of quadcores of the CPU base of Steam users is surprisingly actually decreasing at this moment (!), while the percentage of dualcores is increasing, as the chart shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but I fail to see what a Steam hardware survey has to do with what the RV engine really needs to function properly. I have Steam installed on my HTPC in my living room for playing some arcade games and that's a dual core box. Not my gaming rig though. Kind of muddles the point I guess when you put some perspective behind the % rather than taking it at face value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I fully agree about the better multicore utilization, your claim about "I would say most everyone probably has quadcores in this day and age" is simply not true. Here's remarkably more reliable survey (the official Steam monthly survey): http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/?sort=pct

Keep in mind the vast majority of Steam users are not ArmA players. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could be wrong but I fail to see what a Steam hardware survey has to do with what the RV engine really needs to function properly. I have Steam installed on my HTPC in my living room for playing some arcade games and that's a dual core box. Not my gaming rig though. Kind of muddles the point I guess when you put some perspective behind the % rather than taking it at face value.

That's exactly what I commented in my previous message: not the RV engine design, but instead that assumption is never worth the actual data. While your point was good in bringing another perspective to the statistics, I don't think that your personal way to use Steam would exactly "muddle the point" of the dominance of dualcores in large statistics, especially when we take it into account that in setups like yours, not only the hardware of HTPCs and such, but also the hardware of the gaming rigs is included in the survey and that you didn't provide any data that would support your view of the topic.

@MavericK96, see the last paragraph in my previous message. I wonder why you left just the paragraph that includes just what you're looking for out of the quote.

Edited by Ezcoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean with CPU-heavy in this case is that Arma 3 relies more on CPU power than GPU power.

Stuff like 3Dmark11 and certain other games work the other way around. Those benefit more from OCing GPU.

thanks to point it out in other words.

@mobile_medic

cpu utilization and cpu bottlenecking are two different things and independent of each other and means when one pc component is bordered by another. You have to distinguish between both. An ignorant and a smart ass are like ying&yang ;)

the bottlenecking statement become importance when someone asks: what I have to upgrade for arma3, cpu or gpu.

@cpu usage in other games (please look at total-cpu-usage/average)

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8643/82326843.jpg

Edited by JumpingHubert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I fully agree about the better multicore utilization, your claim about "I would say most everyone probably has quadcores in this day and age" is simply not true. Here's remarkably more reliable survey (the official Steam monthly survey): http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/?sort=pct

I'm quite sure that the Arma players have better PCs than regular Steam users in general though (see eg. http://jonpeddie.com/press-releases/details/global-pc-gaming-hardware-sales-shrug-off-pc-market-decline/), but the stats are pretty clear anyway: PC players have more dualcore than quadcore CPUs in their computers. The increase in quadcore percentage has stopped last month and the percentage of quadcores of the CPU base of Steam users is surprisingly actually decreasing at this moment (!), while the percentage of dualcores is increasing, as the chart shows.

Yes, I was speaking in the context of Arma 3 players. And, more serious PC gamers, in general... Not people playing bejeweled on their laptop at work on steam. The audience that this game targets, and the average hardware, I bet we are much closer to the 90+% figure.

@cpu usage in other games (please look at total-cpu-usage/average)

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8643/82326843.jpg

The bottleneck with this game is not the hardware (assuming one meets or exceeds the specs). It is the game. There are plenty of people with hardware that comfortably exceeds the recommended specs, and they see the effect of their hardware being under-utilized by the game. The fact that the game reaches a self-imposed limit of the amount of CPU resources it can/will utilize (2 cores/threads worth), and the impact it causes to GPU usage and game performance is a clearly observable one.

Again, there is a big difference between a game not being able to use what it needs (even though the resources are there), and the hardware not being powerful enough to give the game what it needs. Anyone who has been paying attention for a minute, knows that the former, not the latter, is the problem for Arma (assuming they meet the required or recommended specs). In relation to your jpg you linked to... That game uses more CPU for me than A2 or A3 ever have, and ever will. It uses what it *needs*. Arma doesn't. Easily observable and reproduce-able.

Again: There is a *big* difference between a game not using what it needs, and a game not having enough available to it.

Edited by Mobile_Medic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keep in mind the vast majority of Steam users are not ArmA players. :cool:

But all Arma 3 players are now steam users

Thanks BIS for the extra bloatware

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's exactly what I commented in my previous message: not the RV engine design, but instead that assumption is never worth the actual data. While your point was good in bringing another perspective to the statistics, I don't think that your personal way to use Steam would exactly "muddle the point" of the dominance of dualcores in large statistics, especially when we take it into account that in setups like yours, not only the hardware of HTPCs and such, but also the hardware of the gaming rigs is included in the survey and that you didn't provide any data that would support your view of the topic.

@MavericK96, see the last paragraph in my previous message. I wonder why you left just the paragraph that includes just what you're looking for out of the quote.

So in other words, irrelevant metric is irrelevant. That was kind of my point. Wooooosh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again: There is a *big* difference between a game not using what it needs, and a game not having enough available to it.
I never denied this difference. The two statements: a) "arma3 limits the usage of cpu (too much)" and b) "in arma3 the cpu limits the gpu (too much)" can coexist ;)

@BF3

there you are right, it takes what it needs, gpu never goes under 100%.

Edited by JumpingHubert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MavericK96, see the last paragraph in my previous message. I wonder why you left just the paragraph that includes just what you're looking for out of the quote.

Because then:

So in other words, irrelevant metric is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in other words, irrelevant metric is irrelevant. That was kind of my point. Wooooosh.

Well, I agree with you about the irrelevant metric/statistics. Assuming that you know while you actually don't (irrelevant metric) is even more dangerous than "not knowing" at all. But now that I think about the Steam statistics, I'm actually sure (it was mentioned somewhere, can't find the exact quote atm) that Steam offers the developers accurate and diverse statistics about the hardware of the players of their games (among other data), which makes this discussion kind of pointless, because the devs have the proper statistics in their hands already :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 2 loooong weeks of tweaking this game to death I FINALLY got it to work perfectly. The truth is that it's not all the developers fault. It's half them and half windows.

After using -nolongs, -maxMem=2047 and the .cfg file tweak, I gained a substantial increase in performance, but had a long way to go. It appears the problem was with my hardware. Apparently, my quad core cpu was only being HALF used in general. I checked in task manager and sure as balls half my cores were parked!

So after doing some googling, I found out how to "unpark" ALL of my cores. I went through the process, rebooted, kept my fingers crossed, and success followed. (I know it worked because I can see each and every core being utilized and charted in task manager and they were no longer labeled as "parked")

Once I successfully put my cpu in full force, I simply added the -cpuCount=4 and -exThread=7 to the launch options and BAM! I'm running MAX settings on everything incuding the furthest draw distances possible! Running between 40-60 FPS on a public server I used to only get 25-30.

For whatever reason, even though I've unparked my cpu cores, I didn't notice a difference until I used the -cpuCount=4 and -exThreads=7 launch parameters.

That's it. Done. The worst part is I've been using half my cpu ALL this time with all of my software.

My Rig:

Windows 7 64-bit

i7-3820 @ 3.6 GHz

8 gigs ram

gtx 660 ti

1440x900 resolution monitor @ 75 Hz.

I can't write a formal guide for unparking cpu cores as there are many types of cpus and operating systems. So just google away.

Once you successfully unpark all of your cores and verify it, just use the tricks that are in the stickies:

-noLogs, -maxMem=(see sticky guide), cpuCount=(see sticky guide), exThread=(see sticky guide)

arma3.cfg file: change GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000 to GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1

DISABLE VSYNC for maximum FPS.

So there you have it. Do some leg work and get it done.

CAUTION: PERFORM ANY OF THESE TWEAKS AT YOUR OWN RISK. IF YOU TRULY DON'T HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHAT YOU ARE DOING, THEN DO NOT ATTEMPT THEM!

Edited by iLLcAtTiViSsiMo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good for you.

i see you where so exsited about this that you had to make a seperate thread about it as well.

all this tips i have seen before. nothing revolutionary new about it.

in the end, its more than only 1/2 the developers fault about bad perf.

more like 98%. but discussing engine optimalization and such is a hole another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

iLLcAtTiViSsiMo, u wrote nothing new, common knowledge for like few months, for some it works, for other- nope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really post in this forum and it became clear REALLY fast that I was preaching to the choir. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. =/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a problem is that not everyone with performance issues tried all these tweaks before because a lot of people comes and say: hey, all tweaks are useless, its the engine, you can´t get better performance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a problem is that not everyone with performance issues tried all these tweaks before because a lot of people comes and say: hey, all tweaks are useless, its the engine, you can´t get better performance!

For the most part, they generally are. Most of the command line arguments are already detected properly by the game, aside from nologs and nosplash as they are optional arguments. the rest like exthreads maxmem cpucount etc... are already setup properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can try all the solutions mentioned in this thread but at the end BIS choose to destroy all hopes. Latest update results in worse performance. I'm very close to leave this game , I'm tired of this.

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

×