Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

Hello,

So if I understand correctly, with my new pc:

AMD CPU FX8350

8Go

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Twin Frozr

there's nothing to hope for a patch, the game still will row because it was designed to run with Intel processors ?

i don't think it was designed to run with intel cpus, amd just went with another solution which means more cores and less performance per core compared to intel

[opendome 91]

still getting brutal performance after the patch, games only utilizing 30% of my CPU and no cores are maxed out

[stk2008 14]

yeah opendome every one has this issue.

i cant believe bis aint replying in this thread to reassure us that they will or are looking into it they seem to be ignoring us completely

which makes me think they have no idea how to fix this problem.

:(

[opendome 91]

yeah opendome every one has this issue.

i cant believe bis aint replying in this thread to reassure us that they will or are looking into it they seem to be ignoring us completely

which makes me think they have no idea how to fix this problem.

:(

ughh thats so brutal. I really love the Arma dynamics and realism but this is really sad, I'm thinking about buying battlefield 4 so I can get some decent frame rates and stability :(

[sawe 10]

The latest release version fixed the multiplayer side, now the framerate is similar to singleplayer (above 30 FPS that is) , hurray! I noticed my GPU was idling, and raised the sampling to 200%, what a boost to image quality and GPU usage peaks at 99%.

Week before I had framerate drop to 14 FPS in multiplayer, so this was big boost for me.

Edited February 4, 2014 by sawe
notion from the framerate I got earlier

[Llano 11]

The latest release version fixed the multiplayer side, now the framerate is similar to singleplayer (above 30 FPS that is) , hurray! I noticed my GPU was idling, and raised the sampling to 200%, what a boost to image quality and GPU usage peaks at 99%.

Uhm, can anyone confirm this? Have a hard time to believe it..

[Maxon 1]

I can confirm that with the better Server binaries the performance has increased a lot. Performance in MP is very related to the used Server. We only play on our own Server and had never a big lack of performance. And with 1.10 it has increased again.

[hardsiesta 1]

yeah opendome every one has this issue.

Not me. My military grade FX-4100 runs A3 50-90% evenly on all cores. Who's laughing at my cpu now?

[stk2008 14]

Not me. My military grade FX-4100 runs A3 50-90% evenly on all cores. Who's laughing at my cpu now?

Cool story bro

[call_911 10]

Finally got my upgrade done went from AMD FX6600 3.2/NVidia 660TI to

Intel Quad Core I-5 4570 3.2 6mb 1150/gigabyte GA-Z-87-D3HP LGA 1150.

Considerable difference in performance for me considering b4 I could run maybe 20 fps in certain situations on low setting @ 1500 vd.

New settings normal settings 35-40 fps @ 3800(client-4000 in mp invade an Annex)) depending on locations, no more stutter-freezes in combat. Cpl hickups here n there (may have been server)

Just ran a kavala test (Altis life) needless to say i'm a happy camper :D

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198011868995/home/

[MavericK96 0]

Not me. My military grade FX-4100 runs A3 50-90% evenly on all cores. Who's laughing at my cpu now?

Proof or it's BS.

[Leon86 13]

FX 4100 only has 4 cores (or 2, depending on the way you look at it). 50% is perfectly believable.

[hardsiesta 1]

FX 4100 only has 4 cores (or 2, depending on the way you look at it). 50% is perfectly believable.

Yeah, I would guess it's because of the core-module thing. It's my backup machine and part-time server I haven't done maintenance to in ages, so I found the cpu charts hilarious in contrast to this topic. On top of the fact that I can actually play A2 and A3 with it, excluding the massive custom MP missions. CBA to try proving it tho, doesn't really matter if you believe it or not. No one else has the CPU anyway. :D

[bogyo 10]

Any solution Anyone? :(

[RipGroove 10]

I tried Arma again yesterday for the first time in a couple of months and still only saw 15fps. Not very happy to be honest as its not something I can even sell on.

[stk2008 14]

I tried Arma again yesterday for the first time in a couple of months and still only saw 15fps. Not very happy to be honest as its not something I can even sell on.

As I said we have had zero info from devs on this issue so its not fixable other wise it would have been by now or at least would have heard feedback on progress etc.

BIS this is disgusting I once see you as the best game DEV`s ever but tbh arma 3 seems to be just a cash cow.

This is bloody arma 2 all over again but 10000% worse

[RipGroove 10]

How does ARMA 2 run now days? Keen to get in to the ARMA series, tried to start with ARMA3 but can't get it to run so maybe worth trying ARMA2?

[MavericK96 0]

How does ARMA 2 run now days? Keen to get in to the ARMA series, tried to start with ARMA3 but can't get it to run so maybe worth trying ARMA2?

Runs better than ArmA 3 for the most part. Of course it depends on what mods/scripts/view distance/etc. you are running.

Still has the same low utilization / low FPS (at times) issues, though.

[metalnwood 10]

Today I put a 780Ti in my machine replacing a 6970. I don't usually play arma on this machine, usually on another that has a 7970 but with the 780ti in this one I thought things would change.

My pc is an ivy i5 @4.5 and after seeing some benchmarks on toms hardware here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-780-ti-review-benchmarks,3663-4.html I thought I might be able to replicate that 75 fps on the default ultra setting.

No chance, I get around 40 with gpu utilisation at around 50. Like others I can get gnu utilisation up by going to sample 200% but the frames don't change so I don't want that.

Reading the end of this thread I see that there may have been some performance loss in the latest releases. Am I chasing a rabbit here? Are the benchmark figures on toms hardware no longer attainable? Is 40-50 fps all I can expect on my current rig?

[Azza FHI 50]

I dont agree witth everyone saying how bad the game runs still. My new rig is an ssd, 4770k at 4.4 and 2x 780s. New install of windows 7 64 and the game runs so well for me. I am always on 60fps as i will lower view distance to get performance. U dont need more than 1500 - 2000 view dist when on foot.

The frames will dip to 40 when i play large mp games like king of the hill and might get to 30 when are lots of explosions in the big city but that is to be expected on a open world game like this. The view is locked on 3000 in that game mode.

Dont complain u get bad performace on a hardware hungry open world game if u run average hardware. If u have good hardware and are still not happy then optimize ur pc using ssds or ramdisks and optimise the game settings also. Sacrifice view dist for performance, sometimes in life u cant get the best of both worlds. Be greatful for the game ffs instead of bitchin all the time, no ones forcing u to play it, go play the 5 year old arma 2. not directed at anyone in particular, its just all i ever seem to read on hear is ppl baggin the game and devs when they have created something awsome with alot of potential for the future. If the game is so important to u then u can save up and spend a couple thousand and it will run well, otherwise stfu lol.

---------- Post added at 18:48 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------

Metalnwood, u should be able to get better performance then that with ur setup i would have thought. If not its because ur cpu may be lacking abit, the gpu should be more then enough.

If ur not using an ssd then that performance is what i would expect.

[metalnwood 10]

I have used sad on all my machines for a couple of years now. On this one a 120 gig windows drive and a 240 gig with arma on it.

I am surprised that toms hardware loaded up the 780ti and got an average of 75fps when I get about half of that.

While typing I went and checked something. When I put in my card I lost my OC. put it back to 4.5ghz and I now start off with 60fps instead of 40, certainly an improvement, the extra cpu cycles is letting the GPU hit 80+% instead of 50%

[bigsyke 10]

Probably a fluke, but last night I got around 150fps, 78fps in the cities. I'm usually the one complaining about getting 15fps with everything low/disabled, view distance at 800.

I kept asking if the server/game was patched, no response. The only things I did do were swap out a suddenly failed power supply, and increased my north bridge from 2200, to 2400.

Either way, I played for a few hours, rebooted a few times, and the game still played perfectly. Now I come back here to find there was no fix, so I'm guessing it was indeed a fluke.

[flyingspatula 10]

Again, the problem is... If you run your view distance to maximum, you will see your GPU USAGE drop to 15%, but if you drag it back down to 500 minimum, you will see your GPU USAGE jump up to 50%. This makes absolutely NO sense at all.

[MavericK96 0]

Again, the problem is... If you run your view distance to maximum, you will see your GPU USAGE drop to 15%, but if you drag it back down to 500 minimum, you will see your GPU USAGE jump up to 50%. This makes absolutely NO sense at all.

Yep, it's basically the idea behind the thread, which is that CPU/GPU usage seems to be inversely proportional to load.

[Furret 0]

Again, the problem is... If you run your view distance to maximum, you will see your GPU USAGE drop to 15%, but if you drag it back down to 500 minimum, you will see your GPU USAGE jump up to 50%. This makes absolutely NO sense at all.

Yes, it does. Read the thread for an explanation as to why this occurs.