Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Who cares man... Open your eyes, yes it is my personal experience. I did a bunch of tests and benches, why should other users gain fps when it didnt work on my and other systems. Or is the based on that what you feel when you look on the screen without measuring? ^^

[nikiforos 450]

It didn't work for me either. I made a lot of testing and gained 0 FPS in all of them.

Some members of my clan also tried this solution but it didn't work for them either.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Nikiforos

[Furret 0]

Who cares man... Open your eyes, yes it is my personal experience. I did a bunch of tests and benches, why should other users gain fps when it didnt work on my and other systems. Or is the based on that what you feel when you look on the screen without measuring? ^^

There is a measurable improvement for people who have cores parked and then unpark them.

Your anecdote provides nothing of value to the people looking for help in this thread. If it means someone is dissuaded from trying core unparking, you've actively hurt someone's changes at improving their arma experience.

Edit: In more positive news, Nvidia is releasing a new driver tomorrow (7th) that promises to lower the overhead the CPU has on the GPU.

It should work for high end 6xx and 7xx cards to some extent.

http://www.geforce.com/drivers/results/74838

Edited April 6, 2014 by Furret

[Sneakson 1]

Most tweaks outside of the game are BS.

NVidia anisotropic filtering makes a difference and if I remember correctly trilinear optimization did something too. That’s all I can think of spontaneously.

Update everything (mobo bios/drivers, graphics card drivers), close as many background programs as possible. That's about it. Make sure memory and the drive isn't full.

I've tried Razer Game Booster and it didn't do anything. I doubt GeForce Experience is any better.

MSI mobos also come with VGBoost or something that I also couldn't get to do anything.

I've yet to see a command line edit do anything.

Can you edit the game settings in detail anywhere? I'd love to have high object and terrain detail without parallax and too much grass... maybe without any grass. Currently playing with both on standard instead.

Crysis could be tweaked in detail to kill pop-ins.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Its always worth a try. But in Arma very often it stays at a try and no success ^^

[opendome 91]

Thanks for the info guys! Im using the startup param -cpuCount=8 -high -maxMem=2047 -maxVRAM=1000 -noBenchmark -noLogs -noPause -noSplash -world=empty

my rig is AMD FX 8350

8gb Gskill Ram

GTX 660

Corsair GT SSD

but It still struggles a lot of the time,

Ive tried every tweak and hint I could find (cores unparked, process lasso, game booster, etc) but nothing seems to help a lot. It's really frustrating lol. Especially when changing in game settings makes no difference.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

but It still struggles a lot of the time,

Ive tried every tweak and hint I could find (cores unparked, process lasso, game booster, etc) but nothing seems to help a lot. It's really frustrating lol. Especially when changing in game settings makes no difference.

Yup, thats Arma ^^ My system is in my signature, struggles too. Seems legit!

[Th4d 10]

Thanks for the info guys! Im using the startup param -cpuCount=8 -high -maxMem=2047 -maxVRAM=1000 -noBenchmark -noLogs -noPause -noSplash -world=empty

my rig is AMD FX 8350

8gb Gskill Ram

GTX 660

Corsair GT SSD

but It still struggles a lot of the time,

Ive tried every tweak and hint I could find (cores unparked, process lasso, game booster, etc) but nothing seems to help a lot. It's really frustrating lol. Especially when changing in game settings makes no difference.

Just 2 things can be done, playing simpler missions with fewer players and overclocking, since performance is directly related to the cpu frequency on your first cpu core. (wherein lies the big bottleneck once more stuff happens no matter what cpu or gpu you have)

[windies 11]

Object quality, the actual setting in game, has about the biggest factor on performance if you're CPU bound which pretty much anyone outside of a GTX 260 more than likely is unless they're trying to run with settings outside their GPU's capabilities. Other than that you're talking insignificant and downright minuscule optimizations and tweaks that pretty much do nothing. Things like core parking, which I have tried and do use, seem to make the game run smoother, but as far as a tangible performance benefit I have yet to be able to benchmark or record one. Same goes for things like the start up commands like -exthreads and such. In most cases those are all set correctly to what you would most likely set them to in the first place, like -exthreads=7 in the case of a quadcore for example. It's up to BI to fix these issue's in the end, no amount of tweaking is magically going to make MP run better or AI utilize more core's or become less resource intensive etc...

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Today was Nvidias new driver released which gives major fps gain in most games (39,8% more FPS on BF4 on 64Player Match/ FullHD+Ultra)

FPS Gain in Arma3: 0%

hahahahahahaa

this is so extreme annoying, unbelievable!

[oldbear 390]

@ LSD_Timewarp82 : Arma3 is not "most games" but a very special one ... the different kind

On Arma3 as all Arma* games before, FPS are mainly CPU related, so you NVidia friend can't help :cool:

[Sneakson 1]

Today was Nvidias new driver released which gives major fps gain in most games (39,8% more FPS on BF4 on 64Player Match/ FullHD+Ultra)

FPS Gain in Arma3: 0%

hahahahahahaa

this is so extreme annoying, unbelievable!

That's a shame. I thought BIS and NVidia were going to cooperate back before the game came out but that never seemed to happen.

---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:47 ----------

@ LSD_Timewarp82 : Arma3 is not "most games" but a very special one ... the different kind

On Arma3 as all Arma* games before, FPS are mainly CPU related, so you NVidia friend can't help :cool:

That's still not entirely true.

In Techspots test a one year older graphics card comparing the Titan to 7770 makes a 400% difference while a three year old CPU makes only an 82% difference :p

In 2560x1600 there's a 600% difference between 770 SLI and the weakest 480 which is three years older.

Graphics cards always make an important difference.

Allegedly the minimum framerate during heavy action is about the same for everyone but I've never seen that in any test.

Saying games are more or less CPU-dependent is sort of tricky.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Sneakson

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Fact is: the performance is a shame. And the Graphics which i see related to frames must be a kind of joke. Thats my opinion

[MavericK96 0]

It always makes me wonder when I see graphs like the one above...why such a huge performance boost with SLI when my single GPU isn't even being more than 50% utilized in the first place.

I'd consider picking up a second 680 but it doesn't seem like that should be necessary.

[jiltedjock 10]

Thanks for the info guys! Im using the startup param -cpuCount=8 -high -maxMem=2047 -maxVRAM=1000 -noBenchmark -noLogs -noPause -noSplash -world=empty

my rig is AMD FX 8350

8gb Gskill Ram

GTX 660

Corsair GT SSD

but It still struggles a lot of the time,

Ive tried every tweak and hint I could find (cores unparked, process lasso, game booster, etc) but nothing seems to help a lot. It's really frustrating lol. Especially when changing in game settings makes no difference.

-high does nothing

-cpucount=8 does nothing, highest value is 4.

[oldbear 390]

@ Sneakson : I hope there will never be any special cooperation between NVidia and BIS because there are a lot of players having ATI/AMD graphic cards doing quite well with Arma3.

I own Nvidia GTS 450 & GTX 670 and ATI/AMD HD 7750/7770/6870/7870.

I have said "... on Arma3 as all Arma* games before, FPS are mainly CPU related". The link between FPS and CPU can be found in the way Real Virtuality Engine is managing how the terrain is drawn and that's why Global Visibility video setting is having such an impact upon FPS. Terrain drawing is a CPU job and it's done on main thread.

[Furret 0]

@ Sneakson : I hope there will never be any special cooperation between NVidia and BIS because there are a lot of players having ATI/AMD graphic cards doing quite well with Arma3.

I own Nvidia GTS 450 & GTX 670 and ATI/AMD HD 7750/7770/6870/7870.

I have said "... on Arma3 as all Arma* games before, FPS are mainly CPU related". The link between FPS and CPU can be found in the way Real Virtuality Engine is managing how the terrain is drawn and that's why Global Visibility video setting is having such an impact upon FPS. Terrain drawing is a CPU job and it's done on main thread.

This is why I was hoping for big things from the new nvidia driver, it apparently improves draw call performance. From what I've seen it unfortunately has very little impact.

[Th4d 10]

It always makes me wonder when I see graphs like the one above...why such a huge performance boost with SLI when my single GPU isn't even being more than 50% utilized in the first place.

I'd consider picking up a second 680 but it doesn't seem like that should be necessary.

The benchmark is probably done on very simple single player benchmarks that do not bottleneck the cpu as much, leaving room for the gpu usage to be higher and make a difference.

[opendome 91]

I actually seem to be getting worse performance with the latest nvidia driver...

[jumpinghubert 49]

It always makes me wonder when I see graphs like the one above...why such a huge performance boost with SLI when my single GPU isn't even being more than 50% utilized in the first place.

I'd consider picking up a second 680 but it doesn't seem like that should be necessary.

the bench sneakson linked is nonsense. Ultra high resolution in combination with a very small ai scenario on stratis. To pick and choose such a untypical scenario (related to low fps) is kind of "proof correct at all costs". Typical for sneakson. I have a very potent cpu and changed from a GTX570 to a R9 290. In the nonsense scenarios with ultra high res on stratis with low ai count I have doubled performance, but, thats the important thing: on a high level. 50fps before, now 100 on the same spot. On altis in scenarios with lots of ai the opposite effect: 35-40 fps with both cards. In other words: with a better gpu you will have better max and average fps but (nearly) the same minimum fps. With a better cpu you will have IN ALL CASES better minimum fps.

@Opendome

I am very interested in a benchmark with both drivers, for example helo´s bench http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=19802

Whats your settings and your system specs (cpu/gpu)?

[Sneakson 1]

the bench sneakson linked is nonsense. Ultra high resolution in combination with a very small ai scenario on stratis. To pick and choose such a untypical scenario (related to low fps) is kind of "proof correct at all costs". Typical for sneakson. I have a very potent cpu and changed from a GTX570 to a R9 290. In the nonsense scenarios with ultra high res on stratis with low ai count I have doubled performance, but, thats the important thing: on a high level. 50fps before, now 100 on the same spot. On altis in scenarios with lots of ai the opposite effect: 35-40 fps with both cards. In other words: with a better gpu you will have better max and average fps but (nearly) the same minimum fps. With a better cpu you will have IN ALL CASES better minimum fps.

@Opendome

I am very interested in a benchmark with both drivers, for example helo´s bench http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=19802

Whats your settings and your system specs (cpu/gpu)?

Ultra high resolution? 1920x1200? :)

Also: minimum is a useless measure because in basically any game using any computer it is possible to hit 0.

Absolute minimum also depends wildly on chance.

What should be benchmarked is combat scenarios of which I believe the benchmark tested one which is a big step away from an empty map.

In my overclocking tests Showcase: Infantry has shown the least improvement compared to empty Stratis/Altis and Showcase: Helicopters leading my to believe it is more computing intensive than the others.

It may be small according to some standards. However benchmarking in scenarios with a hundred AI is completely backwards because that’s not what you’re going to play most of the time.

I do down to earth benchmarks and benchmark what I play and so far in ARMA I have mostly been playing quite small scale scenarios and I bet most other people do too when they’re not playing online which more or less seems to blow for everyone spec independent.

In my opinion saying ARMA is CPU dependent is wrong because graphics card makes a whole lot of difference in the scenarios I think most players will spend most of their time in which isn't crowded Altis.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Sneakson

[jumpinghubert 49]

For your misreading and rhetoric manner my english isn´t good enough...sadly ;). Arma3 is very complex dependig on scenario/setting/hardware and the point is to find the typical problems. On the other hand you can pick untypical cases to verify what you want to verify. Its a question of motivation....to proof correct at all costs & to call others completly wrong and so on....or to give tips for newcomers and people with performance issues. Whats your tip for someone with a amd-cpu and a GTX580 for arma3? Buy a GTX780 because it can push your fps IF you play with very very small ai-scenarios on altis and IF you want to crank up resolution and antialiasing? My tip is: buy a haswell or ivy and overclock it a little bit to get good minimum fps in ai heavy situations (90 ai upwards)....all said thousand times....Trust me, your tip is "completely wrong"...

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

I think the devs should stop fixing unneccessary things like controls of vehicles and other not needed stuff. First the player should have an acceptable performance, then u can adjust controls of vehicles and soldiers. I dont need good control when my frames go into basement. Yesterdays Driver 337.50 performs very good in a lot of games, of course in Arma not.

Here are some quick benches of the 337.50 Nv Driver

StarSwarm Demo , 1920x1080 , Follow , Extreme (5 Runs Average)

R335.23 WHQL ~43.73fps

R337.50 Beta ~64.24fps ( +46,9 Percent )

-------------------------------------------

Hitman Absolution "Internal-Benchmark" , 1920x1080 , FXAA , Ultra Details , DirectX 11

58,4fps vs. 81,8fps +40 Percent

-----------------------------------------------------------

Battlefield3 "Strike of Karkand" 1920x1080 , 4xMSAA , Ultra Details , DirectX 11

76fps vs. 106fps +39,5Percent

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Battlefield4 "Siege of Shanghai" 1920x1080 , Medium Details , DirectX 11

122fps vs. 155fps +27 Percent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIEF "Internal-Benchmark" , 1920x1080 , FXAA , Maximum Details , DirectX 11

80,5fps vs. 93,1fps +15,6 Percent

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arma 3 = 0%

That is so ridiculous.... I am highly disappointed...

[[frl]myke 14]

I think the devs should stop fixing unneccessary things like controls of vehicles and other not needed stuff. First the player should have an acceptable performance, then u can adjust controls of vehicles and soldiers. I dont need good control when my frames go into basement. Yesterdays Driver 337.50 performs very good in a lot of games, of course in Arma not.

Here are some quick benches of the 337.50 Nv Driver

StarSwarm Demo , 1920x1080 , Follow , Extreme (5 Runs Average)

R335.23 WHQL ~43.73fps

R337.50 Beta ~64.24fps ( +46,9 Percent )

-------------------------------------------

Hitman Absolution "Internal-Benchmark" , 1920x1080 , FXAA , Ultra Details , DirectX 11

58,4fps vs. 81,8fps +40 Percent

-----------------------------------------------------------

Battlefield3 "Strike of Karkand" 1920x1080 , 4xMSAA , Ultra Details , DirectX 11

76fps vs. 106fps +39,5Percent

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Battlefield4 "Siege of Shanghai" 1920x1080 , Medium Details , DirectX 11

122fps vs. 155fps +27 Percent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIEF "Internal-Benchmark" , 1920x1080 , FXAA , Maximum Details , DirectX 11

80,5fps vs. 93,1fps +15,6 Percent

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arma 3 = 0%

That is so ridiculous.... I am highly disappointed...

So you say that with new drivers some games got a FPS boost and now BIS should stop doing whatever they do and code new nVidia drivers? Did i get this correct? Or how can BIS influence nVidias driver coders? I'm a bit lost on this one, care to elaborate?

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

It´s no offense, its just my opinion they had to start to optimize the engine a long time ago...