Jump to content
k3lt

Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

Recommended Posts

IMO this a pointless thread!

BIS don't care or can't do anything about it. Either accept the fact that game is a disaster in terms of optimization/CPU utilization or move on and play other games.

They don't care? What? They've been trying a lot, I don't think there's any way for a company not to care about their game's performance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
the main problem is that the engine is from the time of operation Flashpoint. It is time to change it radically, or update.
 

 

i have i7 6700k and sli 1070 16 gb ram and dont have stable 60 fps even in low preset. so that is the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
 
 
 
the main problem is that the engine is from the time of operation Flashpoint. It is time to change it radically, or update.
 

 

i have i7 6700k and sli 1070 16 gb ram and dont have stable 60 fps even in low preset. so that is the point. 

 

Very nice setup.

Are you talking about SP or MP?

Also what settings do you use? (Options/Video)

Because I think something is badly configured with your PC and/or Arma.

For example, I have a 3570k @ 4.4 + 970 @ 980 and I get 60-80 fps in SP @ 1200p with High-Ultra settings and 2500m Draw Distance.

Also this graph seems to agree that 6700k + 1070 should provide good 60+ fps:

R94DDHh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

v 1.64

 

CPU 12%

GPU 100%

:icon_wink:

 

^

default malloc, xtbmalloc, lowering gfx settings, limiting draw distance. Doesn't matter, at one point it will hit that 'magic' mark and ploof:

2-5 fps

3-5% GPU (GPU 1 and 2)

10% CPU

i7 4790k @ 4.9GHz

SLI 1080

Running native 4K ultra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

default malloc, xtbmalloc, lowering gfx settings, limiting draw distance. Doesn't matter, at one point it will hit that 'magic' mark and ploof:

2-5 fps

3-5% GPU (GPU 1 and 2)

10% CPU

i7 4790k @ 4.9GHz

SLI 1080

Running native 4K ultra.

 

Stop check CPU loading for multi core CPUs. ARMA2 and ARMA3 are not good to utilize many cores of the CPU. The game mostly uses only one core. It means that you always will get low CPU percentage on multi core CPUs. The problem is that other games and programs work fine on these CPUs, but ARMA3 is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

man this so sad :( , a pc exclusive which doesnt even fully utilise the system hardware , wow , what kind of monster let this happen :( , been trying to get my group of friends to join me in arma 3 , they cannot and will not stand for the shitty fps :( , they think am retarded for even defending arma 3 , they were even more bummed out when ashley a buddy of mine linked us this thread :( sucks it be my first and last Bohimia title :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

man this so sad :( , a pc exclusive which doesnt even fully utilise the system hardware , wow , what kind of monster let this happen :( , been trying to get my group of friends to join me in arma 3 , they cannot and will not stand for the shitty fps :( , they think am retarded for even defending arma 3 , they were even more bummed out when ashley a buddy of mine linked us this thread :( sucks it be my first and last Bohimia title :(

I'm pausing with this title also. On brand new pc, i got same fps as on older one. No matter of settings,  i can run EVERY known title on ultra/very high but not arma 3.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pausing with this title also. On brand new pc, i got same fps as on older one. No matter of settings,  i can run EVERY known title on ultra/very high but not arma 3.

what were your previous system specs ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

man this so sad :( , a pc exclusive which doesnt even fully utilise the system hardware , wow , what kind of monster let this happen :( , been trying to get my group of friends to join me in arma 3 , they cannot and will not stand for the shitty fps :( , they think am retarded for even defending arma 3 , they were even more bummed out when ashley a buddy of mine linked us this thread :( sucks it be my first and last Bohimia title :(

 

Methinks your friends have shitty PCs because honestly, provided your PC:

a. has a fast CPU (3.5+ GHz)

b. doesn't run an AMD CPU

c. has a mid-range graphics card (GTX 970, 1060)

You can play A3 at 60 fps in 1080p: https://i.imgur.com/R94DDHh.png

 

If you meet the above criteria and still experience "shitty" (<30 fps?), then you're probably suffering from:

i. too high a View Distance (1600m is more than enough for most, unless you're a pilot)

ii. inefficiently design missions (Altis Life, etc.)

iii. over-populated servers (although A3 supports 100 players, anything over 30 will slow considerably & 60+ is likely to be really slow)

iv. weak server (yes it does have impact)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Methinks your friends have shitty PCs because honestly, provided your PC:

a. has a fast CPU (3.5+ GHz)

b. doesn't run an AMD CPU

c. has a mid-range graphics card (GTX 970, 1060)

You can play A3 at 60 fps in 1080p: https://i.imgur.com/R94DDHh.png

 

If you meet the above criteria and still experience "shitty" (<30 fps?), then you're probably suffering from:

i. too high a View Distance (1600m is more than enough for most, unless you're a pilot)

ii. inefficiently design missions (Altis Life, etc.)

iii. over-populated servers (although A3 supports 100 players, anything over 30 will slow considerably & 60+ is likely to be really slow)

iv. weak server (yes it does have impact)

its bloody amazing how people like you just defend them like this , i have 93 games on my steam library and arma 3 is the only one that runs like shit, smite a fuckin moba uses more system resources than arma ever does , how can you even justifiy the tragedy when it stats on their recommended specs that even that hardware would not even be able to run it , i cant help but feel like you are a shill ,just shillin , ffs just look at just how many people in this tread i affected by this , both intel and amd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its bloody amazing how people like you just defend them like this , i have 93 games on my steam library and arma 3 is the only one that runs like shit, smite a fuckin moba uses more system resources than arma ever does , how can you even justifiy the tragedy when it stats on their recommended specs that even that hardware would not even be able to run it , i cant help but feel like you are a shill ,just shillin , ffs just look at just how many people in this tread i affected by this , both intel and amd

I'm no shill - I have x3 more games than you in my Steam Library ;)

Also I justify my comments because:

a. A3 tries to do stuff no other game does (12km draw distance?). That comes at a price. In an ideal world that price would be free. But in the real-world simulators/sandbox often require lots of horsepower, e.g. DCS, Total War series, Witcher 3, Company of Heroes 2, Project Cars, Crysis 3, Just Cause 3, Metro Last Light Redux, etc.

b. benchmarks indicate that a good ($1000) PC can run A3 fine (60+ fps at 1080p)

c. I work in software development and so appreciate the conflicting interests of fixing old stuff (QA) vs developing new stuff (sales)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not and I've never pretended that A3 was, is nor ever will be perfect. Do I wish performance was better? Sure. Do I lament that my CPU and GPU usage fluctuate between 40-80%? Sure.

My guess is that BI thought that the RV4 engine would improve over time. Instead I feel that we've reached its limits. BI suspected this long ago and so began testing the Enforcer engine that they acquired when they bought Black Element in 2010. My guess is that BI is using DayZ as a PoC for Enfusion (iteration of Enforcer). If the PoC is successful, BI will build A4 on Enfusion.

But that's just pure speculation or an informed guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no shill - I have x3 more games than you in my Steam Library ;)

Also I justify my comments because:

a. A3 tries to do stuff no other game does (12km draw distance?). That comes at a price. In an ideal world that price would be free. But in the real-world simulators/sandbox often require lots of horsepower, e.g. DCS, Total War series, Witcher 3, Company of Heroes 2, Project Cars, Crysis 3, Just Cause 3, Metro Last Light Redux, etc.

b. benchmarks indicate that a good ($1000) PC can run A3 fine (60+ fps at 1080p)

c. I work in software development and so appreciate the conflicting interests of fixing old stuff (QA) vs developing new stuff (sales)

 

And who plays Arma 3 with 12 km view distance?

 

How come even the missions developed by BIS runs like shit with many people on them?  The fact that they even market that you can play with over 60 people on servers is amazing. Everyone knows it will run like shit.

 

Also, that benchmark is in singleplayer? To be honest it doesn't say shit. 60 fps in SP with what? 0 AI on a empty map?

Most people here has problem with MP performance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no shill - I have x3 more games than you in my Steam Library ;)

Also I justify my comments because:

a. A3 tries to do stuff no other game does (12km draw distance?). That comes at a price. In an ideal world that price would be free. But in the real-world simulators/sandbox often require lots of horsepower, e.g. DCS, Total War series, Witcher 3, Company of Heroes 2, Project Cars, Crysis 3, Just Cause 3, Metro Last Light Redux, etc.

b. benchmarks indicate that a good ($1000) PC can run A3 fine (60+ fps at 1080p)

c. I work in software development and so appreciate the conflicting interests of fixing old stuff (QA) vs developing new stuff (sales)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not and I've never pretended that A3 was, is nor ever will be perfect. Do I wish performance was better? Sure. Do I lament that my CPU and GPU usage fluctuate between 40-80%? Sure.

My guess is that BI thought that the RV4 engine would improve over time. Instead I feel that we've reached its limits. BI suspected this long ago and so began testing the Enforcer engine that they acquired when they bought Black Element in 2010. My guess is that BI is using DayZ as a PoC for Enfusion (iteration of Enforcer). If the PoC is successful, BI will build A4 on Enfusion.

But that's just pure speculation or an informed guess...

u so ignorant , u have all this people stating the facts of the shitty , almost none existance system resource utilisation ,a game that doesnt run on amd when a millions other run on it and it happens to be the only one that doesnt run , and you defend it ? man you are hopeless ,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what were your previous system specs ?

Motherboard - Asus B85 Pro gamer, CPU I5 4690 4 x 3,5Ghz,Gigabyte Radeon R9 270OC (very loud), 16GB DDR3 1600Mhz (4x4GB) RAM

Right now i have (you can check my signature) Win 10 and using system mem allocator as suggested in other threads from users with win 10, and there is zero diference (maybe its even worse).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i7-5820k at 4.4GHz

MSI GTX 1070 Aero

64GB DDR4 G.Skill 3200 Ram

950PRO m.2 SSD

 

.... patch made it so my graphics RIP like 10 times a day where everything becomes blocky and fps drops to 5. Considering the AAA pricetag, AND the DLC ... this really isn't what I consider acceptable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i7-5820k at 4.4GHz

MSI GTX 1070 Aero

64GB DDR4 G.Skill 3200 Ram

950PRO m.2 SSD

 

.... patch made it so my graphics RIP like 10 times a day where everything becomes blocky and fps drops to 5. Considering the AAA pricetag, AND the DLC ... this really isn't what I consider acceptable.

Exacly, i writed about it on general discussion thread, and all just hated me, i hate this fanboy defending. They cant accept the fact this game runs unacceptable? 17-20FPS on 1300$ PC? Is this some joke? I tried every trick i knew, while i was sitting on i5 and was reading about i7 and windows 10, none of those trick works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exacly, i writed about it on general discussion thread, and all just hated me, i hate this fanboy defending. They cant accept the fact this game runs unacceptable? 17-20FPS on 1300$ PC? Is this some joke? I tried every trick i knew, while i was sitting on i5 and was reading about i7 and windows 10, none of those trick works.

Well, to be honest, what else to expect on their official forum? This is the place where most fanbois/performance-problem-deniers (etc etc..) hold up.

Go to other forums and you will see a completely different tone. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be honest, what else to expect on their official forum? This is the place where most fanbois/performance-problem-deniers (etc etc..) hold up.

Go to other forums and you will see a completely different tone. 

I have reinstalled arma completly, spending whole night on this, didnt launched it yet, maybe low fps was caused by Win7 upgdared to win 10, and i skipped reinstall of steam and arma? Propably no, but i will try, to be honest i cant rememebr mission which i was able to complete without bugs ruining mission progress, or killing my character. And the 20FPS is too few to play (beacuse its not gameplay, its just getting tired). 30FPS - i would survive this, but today games can run stable 60. Its not only problem with animation flow, and gameplay  smoothless, but ita also a problem of controls reaction - unstable framerate make my controls react slower, fatser and sometimes dont react at all, its ruining gameplay. I spent on this game very much time, on all previous arma's to, but its too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a wild guess, but almost everyone who has these massive frame drops are also using SSD's, I've personally never suffered the memory losses, the massive drop in FPS, I don't have an SSD and my game is installed in the default registry, where as many have the issues, and after reading and observing most of these complaints, it appears 90% are using SSD's, to me that there is the common denominator. 

It appears the Memory leak is happening between the SSD and the CPU, and the RAM.

Sounds almost unbelievable doesn't it? It shouldn't be discounted if indeed, the percentage of people with these performance issues are indeed using SSD's.

Out of those who are using SSD's, what % self installed?

When you have such performance issues, you really have to look at every single aspect, not just the software/game itself, every item of hardware should also be taken into account, so that a proper process of elimination happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, after PC change, i have arma installed on HDD, and system on SSD. On older configuration i had Arma on SSD, resould was good, but on new PC i was trying to play on SSD, but i had too low free space (arma and mods weight 60+GB), so i decided to move it to HDD, and game runs the same. Right now i finished test gameplay - resoult not that bad, but to be honest, there wasnt more than 20AI on the few missions, and there was enough light artefacts on night vision with every object was thickering, and smoke was disapearing and apearing again. Ahh, i need a brake....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, after PC change, i have arma installed on HDD, and system on SSD. On older configuration i had Arma on SSD, resould was good, but on new PC i was trying to play on SSD, but i had too low free space (arma and mods weight 60+GB), so i decided to move it to HDD, and game runs the same. Right now i finished test gameplay - resoult not that bad, but to be honest, there wasnt more than 20AI on the few missions, and there was enough light artefacts on night vision with every object was thickering, and smoke was disapearing and apearing again. Ahh, i need a brake....

You mean this kind of issue? That happened for me after playing 2-3h the campaign with my friends in 1.64RC. I haven't played that long after that so not sure if the issue is still there. It was actually even worse 2mins before recording when I was in the jungle.

 

 

I noticed that the fps dropped and it felt bit stuttering but you can see the fps is still 40's when recording. The fps should've been at least 50-60 most of the time, I didn't see a reason for it to go down that much even if I was recording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2016 at 7:41 AM, izas said:
 
 
 
 
the main problem is that the engine is from the time of operation Flashpoint. It is time to change it radically, or update.
 

 

i have i7 6700k and sli 1070 16 gb ram and dont have stable 60 fps even in low preset. so that is the point. 

 

Welp, I have both the i7 and 16 gibsmedats of ram too, you have me beat on the GPU's though, only 960's in SLI, but that should be more than enough for this game.

 

Guess that's that. 

 

Really don't understand why BI wouldn't just make a new engine. Even Gary built a new engine for Rust right after the game took off.

 

I would imagine BI is like 200 times the size of Gary's team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys i finally found good and working solution (at least for me) - disable all maxmems, cpu counts, leave only hyperthreading checked (if your CPU can use it). I had 15 fps Boost, just like game have been unlocked somehow.

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

×