Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Myke;2677207']You do know that you can fine tune these presets' date=' don't you? Try turning object details and terrain details one notch down, adjust viewdistance and object draw distance a bit down and you should see a immediate effect on your FPS. Also make sure that shadow detail is above normal.[/quote']

Turning down details is NOT an option with such high end systems....

[F3r4_N3n3m 10]

Myke;2677224']MP is known to have horrible FPS' date=' BI is working on it. Meanwhile, open the editor and see if FPS changes when playing around with the settings. Focus on View/Draw distances, object quality and terrain quality as those are CPU related and should give noticable difference in FPS. If not, then definately something on your system isn't the way it should be.[/quote']

But are they working on the SP Performance issues???

It won't help to optimize MP because it is only going to get as good as SP. And that is right now really bad already!

I'd do one thing right frist before going to the next one... :/ ... Even if that means not putting the game out just to cash some Dollars from us illuded fans, Gamers, fanatics, enthusiasts. I just love that Quote: "Shut up and take my Money!" Gamers do that all the time, me too!

[windies 11]

Turning down details is NOT an option with such high end systems....

I'm fine with turning down details if it's either a reasonable request OR/AND turning down the settings actually affects something other than making the game look crappier. Turning down texture detail for instance when my card has 3gb of VRAM and my system has 8gb of RAM is not a reasonable request for instance and it's not going to make a difference. Pretty much everything except for view distance and object detail has little to no effect on anything.

[[frl]myke 14]

Turning down details is NOT an option with such high end systems....

You do realize that i wasn't talking to you?

:EDITH:

Oh and btw, a Core i7 870 was high end 5 years ago.

Edited April 28, 2014 by [FRL]Myke

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Yeah i realize it, its just my thoughts about it. I have a second system as well, it runs an Intel 3770K with 4,5 Ghz, with my both 770GTX with 4Gb Vram each card i didnt have much improvement to the i7 870 acoording to the frames.

What i didnt undestand is this writings that Arma runs well. Fact is it runs like sh*t and everyone which tells or try to tell something other is a liar. No offense, just my thought

[[frl]myke 14]

Fact is it runs like sh*t and everyone which tells or try to tell something other is a liar. No offense, just my thought

Well, my system is inferior compared to yours and it doesn't "run like s**t" on my side. And since i'm telling this, according to you i'm a liar and this offends me.

FYI

AMD FX8350 @ stock speed

Radeon HD5870 also stock timings

16GB Ram 1333

I get >30FPS in SP, now call me liar again.

[jumpinghubert 48]

But are they working on the SP Performance issues???

It won't help to optimize MP because it is only going to get as good as SP. And that is right now really bad already!

I'd do one thing right frist before going to the next one... :/ ... Even if that means not putting the game out just to cash some Dollars from us illuded fans, Gamers, fanatics, enthusiasts. I just love that Quote: "Shut up and take my Money!" Gamers do that all the time, me too!

please run this http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=19801 benchmark and post all ingame settings. Only to have a reference. The performance in arma depends on so many factors.

[Sneakson 1]

Yeah i realize it, its just my thoughts about it. I have a second system as well, it runs an Intel 3770K with 4,5 Ghz, with my both 770GTX with 4Gb Vram each card i didnt have much improvement to the i7 870 acoording to the frames.

What i didnt undestand is this writings that Arma runs well. Fact is it runs like sh*t and everyone which tells or try to tell something other is a liar. No offense, just my thought

ARMA3 runs well in singleplayer. Sure, doesn’t run well if I spawn 200 AI standing in a field in front of me but no games do and the game does run well when playing for example Whole Lotta Stratis that has good amounts of stuff going on in it.

I mean when Crysis came out in 2007 I was doing like 20 fps average in 1024x768.

New games stuttering is nothing new and comparing it to a Frostbite game is like comparing Crysis to a Source engine game... Source/Frostbite are paragons of optimization.

ARMA/Crysis aren't.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

30 Frames are good in your eyes for a First Person shooter? Well then we live in different worlds

[windies 11]

please run this http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=19801 benchmark and post all ingame settings. Only to have a reference. The performance in arma depends on so many factors.

Mission contains bad static link... Please open in editor and save again....

[Zane 1]

Mission contains bad static link... Please open in editor and save again....

Can't you just close that message box and press OK in the bottom right?

I got an average of 38fps

dual 580gtx in sli

i5 2600k @ 3.40 GHz

16GB DDR3 RAM

Windows 7 - 64bit

Had most of the settings on ultra apart from post processing which I disabled.

[windies 11]

Can't you just close that message box and press OK in the bottom right?

I got an average of 38fps

dual 580gtx in sli

i5 2600k @ 3.40 GHz

16GB DDR3 RAM

Windows 7 - 64bit

Had most of the settings on ultra apart from post processing which I disabled.

didn't work, just sent me back to the main menu.

[nikiforos 450]

It's quite funny some people try to convince us that Arma 3 is running good.

I guess this means nothing : http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

Edited April 29, 2014 by Nikiforos

[[frl]myke 14]

30 Frames are good in your eyes for a First Person shooter? Well then we live in different worlds

Nope, for a first person shooter, 30FPS wouldn't be good.

[jiltedjock 10]

Myke;2677890']Nope' date=' for a first person shooter, 30FPS wouldn't be good.[/quote']

Agreed - as long as you don't try and do any of the things you might do in a first person shooter, performance is very good. Holster that gun and enjoy the Greek scenery!

[[frl]myke 14]

Agreed - as long as you don't try and do any of the things you might do in a first person shooter, performance is very good. Holster that gun and enjoy the Greek scenery!

As said, for a first person shooter, 30FPS is low. However, i can live with it in a tactical shooter.

:EDITH:

Also please note that i stated that >30FPS is ok, defining 30 as minimum. Actually i play in SP with 40-50FPS with far inferior hardware that some in here have listed. But i have to admit that i don't play with ultra settings either. And no, it doesn't look like crap. It's just, most of the time it is just PEBKAC.

Edited April 29, 2014 by [FRL]Myke

[jumpinghubert 48]

didn't work, just sent me back to the main menu.

I think you can download it via workshop too.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Just to mention: i do not want to start a war or something i just wanna say that me and a plenty of users are not happy how the game performance actually is (even on High End Rigs)

Only the devs have the power to change this^^ And not ridicolous commands like -maxmem=16xxx or other useless command

[F3r4_N3n3m 10]

please run this http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=19801 benchmark and post all ingame settings. Only to have a reference. The performance in arma depends on so many factors.

I got 49fps average.

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

CPU: i5-4670k@4.5GHz

GPU: 2x HD7990@1100MHz/1575MHz/1.2V (TDP@300W, clock is stable and constant on all 4 cores)

PSU: Corsair AX1200i

MOBO: MSI Z87-GD65

RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x 8GB DDR3 1600MHz CL9

HD: SSD Samsung 840 Evo 250GB (Steam) + 120GB (Windows)

COOLING: Water cooled with a great deal of cooling power - GPU@50°C max and CPU@60°C max

OS: Windows 8.1 64-bit

CATALYST: 14.3 Beta

SETTINGS IN GAME:

VISIBILITY: 3800/3200/100

QUALITY SETTING: VERY HIGH for everything else

FPS BENCHMARK: 49 average

---------- Post added at 17:12 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------

As comparison from Benchmark I am running 3DMark Vantage: P43709, Graphics 59171, CPU 24501.

[Peter5on 10]

I have FX 8350 and moving from stock speeds 4.2 to 4.9 give me 7 FPS

Normaly in multiplayer CTI 25vs25 players i have 30FPS of course ultra settings, fxaa ultra, distance 2800/1300/155 1680/1050 in heavy fight drop down to 25 in stock speeds even to 20 fps.

GtX660

SSD vertex4 256

8gb ram 1600

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

I got 49fps average.

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

CPU: i5-4670k@4.5GHz

GPU: 2x HD7990@1100MHz/1575MHz/1.2V (TDP@300W, clock is stable and constant on all 4 cores)

PSU: Corsair AX1200i

MOBO: MSI Z87-GD65

RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x 8GB DDR3 1600MHz CL9

HD: SSD Samsung 840 Evo 250GB (Steam) + 120GB (Windows)

COOLING: Water cooled with a great deal of cooling power - GPU@50°C max and CPU@60°C max

OS: Windows 8.1 64-bit

CATALYST: 14.3 Beta

SETTINGS IN GAME:

VISIBILITY: 3800/3200/100

QUALITY SETTING: VERY HIGH for everything else

FPS BENCHMARK: 49 average

---------- Post added at 17:12 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------

As comparison from Benchmark I am running 3DMark Vantage: P43709, Graphics 59171, CPU 24501.

In my opinion this frames are not acceptable for your powerful system. I mean your system is very high end with 2 dual Gpu GFX Cards which runs BF4 with an average of 140FPS. And Arma gets 49 FPS average? Cmon...

I have FX 8350 and moving from stock speeds 4.2 to 4.9 give me 7 FPS

Normaly in multiplayer CTI 25vs25 players i have 30FPS of course ultra settings, fxaa ultra, distance 2800/1300/155 1680/1050 in heavy fight drop down to 25 in stock speeds even to 20 fps.

GtX660

SSD vertex4 256

8gb ram 1600

I got too a little improvement when i clock my cpu over 5 Ghz, but its not worth to take for that the +200W for my Comperssorcooling Mach 2 GT.

[[frl]myke 14]

In my opinion this frames are not acceptable for your powerful system. I mean your system is very high end with 2 dual Gpu GFX Cards which runs BF4 with an average of 140FPS. And Arma gets 49 FPS average? Cmon...

And there is the problem. BF, CoD, Crysis and lots of other games are heavy on bling-bling visual effects. Of course with a SLI/Xfire system you get 100+FPS while the CPU doesn't count that much. Then comes ArmA 3 which is CPU heavy due to it's simulations and AI where Dual GPU wont help at all and suddenly your so-called high-end systems struggles to keep FPS above 30. Those previous named games led you on the wrong trail. You have new GPU's with SLI but a 5 year old CPU (which isn't bad after all) but you still thinks your system is high end. It is not. It is good, very good even but not high-end.

:EDITH:

Basically, you're depressed because your Ferrari got outrun by a Subaru Impreza on a rallye dirt track. Just as a example.

[LSD_Timewarp82 21]

Like i said yesterday, i got a second rig with an Intel 3770K which clocks at 4,5Ghz. Running on this system gives me only 4 fps more comparing to the i870. So i run the 870 till he dies ^^ And i never told my system is high end, F3r4_N3n3m´s System is high end of course

[windies 11]

Myke;2678345']And there is the problem. BF' date=' CoD, Crysis and lots of other games are heavy on bling-bling visual effects. Of course with a SLI/Xfire system you get 100+FPS while the CPU doesn't count that much. Then comes ArmA 3 which is CPU heavy due to it's simulations and AI where Dual GPU wont help at all and suddenly your so-called high-end systems struggles to keep FPS above 30. Those previous named games led you on the wrong trail. You have new GPU's with SLI but a 5 year old CPU (which isn't bad after all) but you still thinks your system is high end. It is not. It is good, very good even but not high-end.

:EDITH:

Basically, you're depressed because your Ferrari got outrun by a Subaru Impreza on a rallye dirt track. Just as a example.[/quote']

Guy has a brand new i5-4670K OC'd to 4.5ghz and you call it a 5 yr old CPU? I know you're referring to LSD's CPU, however the example is based on F3r4's system, which is pretty damn close, if not the epitome of top of the line. He gets 49 fps and probably would get close to 150 fps in just about any typical scenario in BF4 as a comparison. What is so special about ArmA that necessitates a 100 fps drop in performance in your opinion or rather, Why is it acceptable for ArmA to have less of a standard than other games in your opinion?

Hell just for shits and giggles, following your logic I replaced my Phenom II 965 with my i5 3570K and kept the same GPU, A GTX 480, So I should have gotten oodles of performance right? Wrong. Before I got my R9 280x, I had a grand total increase of 5 fps average. After the R9, I got about a 35 fps increase overall but the same performance issue's in the same scenario's I.E. playing the game and not playing Altis/Stratis tourist. I also have a half used GPU now where as my GTX 480 would sometimes hit 100% utilization hovering around 50% or so usually, My R9 280X drops down to 20% utilization most of the time and maxes at 50% utilization. That's called a software bottleneck when your software can't make the same efficient use of different hardware of differing power using the same architecture and API's. That's not a hardware issue, it's a software issue.

So let's just say it's all justified. Let's say ArmA 3's performance as it stands is completely justified as a hypothetical. Can you explain to me why it's justified? Why the CPU bottleneck is OK, why the AI needs to be single threaded, like so many other things in this engine and why it needs so many resources to operate and why the under utilization of GPU's because of the CPU bottleneck is appropriate? These being the real questions for you since you seem to think that criticizing ArmA's performance and comparing it to other games is apparently inappropriate and misguided.

And for the record, I can run BF4 and I'm at 80-90% utilization across all cores and close to 100% utilization of the GPU. Of course according to Suma, it must be cause BF4 is running infinite math loops in the background to spike up usage and couldn't possibly be because their engine while buggy might actually be built and optimized for computers and systems of the last 10 years....

Edited April 29, 2014 by Windies

[[frl]myke 14]

why the AI needs to be single threaded

Sure, with an easy example: imagine a room full of people solving math problems on their desk. Every persons math problems include results from other people math problems. Without those results they can't continue and have to wait. Get it?

And again the BF4 comparison. Calculating eyecandy is pretty straightforward and doesn't have the above described problem since nothing is really gameplay relevant. So please, stop taking BF4 as comparison or keep playing BF4. And maybe read some articles about multithreaded programming and it's downsides.