Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[stk2008 14]

This is not going to be fixed end of.

Every one with crap performance move on ive uninstalled the game yes I am gutted as ARMA/OFP is my favorite game and BIS was in my eyes the best game DEV.

But we aint seeing nothing on optimization if we are its just crap to keep us quite.

This is ARMA2 all over again and a DEV in the near future will say sorry we cant fix it engine limitation.

Do your self a favor hover mouse cursor over the uninstall icon and press it and move on to other games.

BIS 12+ years of dedication and all ways praising you but no more this game is the worst game you have ever made its unplayable.

[Chippy 10]

Got the same errors on multiplayer with high end hardware. 80+ fps on SP and less then 20 fps in MP with stucks every second.

If you are running any antivirus software as eset nod antivir kaspersky or else, disable the monitoring of your RAM in the AV-Software. This helped me getting 80+ fps on Multiplayer.

Greets

Chippy

[Vigil Vindex 64]

Less than 1% of Arma 3 users have ESET NOD but it gets dev time, more than 10% have crap MP AI performance, but it doesn't get acknowledged. Why?

[wormeaten 0]

I just upgrade my rig. i5 4670k default 3.4, 8gb RAM-1600, R9 290.

Now I'm able to play on ULTRA setings avarage above 30fps on more than 50 players Tactical Battlefield PvP MP server.

Game play is smooth most of the time only drop of fps happened whit some huge explosion near by but stabilize fast so not effecting much on smoothness.

According to RadeonPro GPU is most of the time on 100%. I gues with some tweaking and reducing some unnecessary things and OC of CPU I could even increase this performance on 1080p up to 40 average.

Also there is now tendency to limit fps on 30 what stabilize usage of GPU and CPU and made graphics performance more smooth without large amplitudes in GPU usage.

Human eye only see 24fps any way and 95% of the monitors can't show more than 60fps so why we need to push it over?

[R1C0 10]

Human eye only see 24fps any way

Don't talk nonsense! Better be quiet if you have no idea!

Look:

And now tell me there is no difference...with your "24 FPS" eye... :rolleyes:

[andadietcoke54 10]

I was interested in buying Arma 3, but knowing that I own a pretty low-end computer, I wanted to do some research before buying the game. I found out that in the early, alpha stage of this game there was an issue with the CPU utilization, and how it only uses half your CPU's cores (or something like that). I haven't been paying attention to its update history while it was going through development or anything like that, so I really wanted to know if they fixed that problem before I shell out 60 bucks on this game. Thanks in advance. Of course, I'm gonna toss in my computer specs, too:

CPU: AMD A6-4400M APU with Radeon HD Graphics

Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 7520G

5.6 GB, Windows 8 64-bit

Really ANY advice or insight on whether or not I can run the game smoothly, even at the lowest possible settings, would be very much appreciated.

P.S. I'm mainly planning on playing Wasteland. I'm not sure if that'll use up more of my CPU or not.

P.P.S. I consider "smooth to be anywhere from 25-35 fps.

[m0nkey 111]

I was interested in buying Arma 3, but knowing that I own a pretty low-end computer, I wanted to do some research before buying the game. I found out that in the early, alpha stage of this game there was an issue with the CPU utilization, and how it only uses half your CPU's cores (or something like that). I haven't been paying attention to its update history while it was going through development or anything like that, so I really wanted to know if they fixed that problem before I shell out 60 bucks on this game. Thanks in advance. Of course, I'm gonna toss in my computer specs, too:

CPU: AMD A6-4400M APU with Radeon HD Graphics

Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 7520G

5.6 GB, Windows 8 64-bit

Really ANY advice or insight on whether or not I can run the game smoothly, even at the lowest possible settings, would be very much appreciated.

P.S. I'm mainly planning on playing Wasteland. I'm not sure if that'll use up more of my CPU or not.

P.P.S. I consider "smooth to be anywhere from 25-35 fps.

I'm very suprised a new registration does not let you create a post. Presumed guilty I suppose. Too bad, I had a good performance tip with some code to help others.

As to your question, I know a guy who has an APU like this, but with win7. He was able to run A3 on low but with decent frames, maybe in the 50 range. But, everything on low.

A3 is a bit different than most games. Some rigs with 4+ghz i7 cpu and nvidia 780sli cannot see more than say 40 gpu load. Other machines, for example an i5 2500k at 3.6ghz say, will get on medium settings 50fps and max gpu load.

You can try all the command line parameters, some say they work. I understand them to be limits though, not used to "use" more, only to not limit what "could" be used.

I've gotten mid 40's to mid-high 50's on a single 570gtx with i7 2600k non-overclocked (thats 3.4ghz approx). Add in another 570 in sli and you get 60fps with vsync on. This is on medium-ish settings. A3 is, again, sort of different. Some settings you crank up, some you disable.

There are other methods to use that get you some good frame increases, like 10-20fps - depending. Not every system will get results from the same settings.

We'll see if a reply unlocks posts. If not, I'll just go back to Armaholic, where they welcome noobs by allowing them to post new message. Unless of course I missed something here, but I don't think so.

[James111333 10]

Human eye only see 24fps any way

Please come back when you have actually seen 60FPS on a good quality 60 Hz screen. The fluidity is like night and day compared to 30FPS and certainly even more so than 24FPS... The immersion is truly heightened at 60FPS hence the desire to attain it in Arma 3. 24Hz I think may have been linked to transmitting frequencies for terrestrial TV.

[oldbear 390]

@ andadietcoke54 : I think it's not possible to get a good game experience in Arma3 with AMD A6-4400M APU with Radeon HD Graphics/AMD Radeon HD 7520G, MP will be out of reach.

[wormeaten 0]

Don't talk nonsense! Better be quiet if you have no idea!

Look:

And now tell me there is no difference...with your "24 FPS" eye... :rolleyes:

I sad I set up on 30 fps on 60 HZ screen. This not smooth picture could be cause of many other reasons and it is not change fact your eye only can see 24 fps. Only if you are Clark Kent then sorry.

For example on IL2 CloD I have similar problems and not smooth picture when we limit fps on 30 game start to go smooth giving just an opposite effect than it is on your youtube example.

And BTW PAL/SECAM system is 50 HZ and picture 25 fps used in Europe mostly opposing North America and Japan NTSC standard 60 HZ 30 (29.97) fps.

check this video with some smart ass and go on ATAG forum check discusion about limit fps and results.

ArmA is game with lots of LOD to load much more than game like Bf3 or 4 or CoD MW more similar like flight sims so could have benefit from limiting fps.

Next time better read what I was say and go back to school to learn basic of biology.

---------- Post added at 11:32 ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 ----------

Please come back when you have actually seen 60FPS on a good quality 60 Hz screen. The fluidity is like night and day compared to 30FPS and certainly even more so than 24FPS... The immersion is truly heightened at 60FPS hence the desire to attain it in Arma 3. 24Hz I think may have been linked to transmitting frequencies for terrestrial TV.

Another Superman. Sorry rest of us are just ordinary humans with all limitation mother nature give us.

Problem of flickering and not smooth game doesn't have to be because fps but if you have stable above 60 than you should limit it to 60fps especially if your monitor have 60HZ which support only to 60 fps.

For all of those who have less than 60 fps is better to limit it to 30. Just check simple mathematics you save some resources of GPU to the moment when it is needed when drop of performance come, lower temperature of GPU, lower utilization of GPU but not because of bottleneck this reserve is instantly ready. But what to talk to someone who don't trust to the facts of nature and mathematics.

And one more thing I'm stupid and talking nonsense so tell me than why such feature is supported by AMD and Nvidia and build custom tools for such tweak if it is nonsense?

If you people don't want to trust me you should trust to those who invented GPUs you are using. Trust them. I think they know something about it.

[R1C0 10]

Only if you are Clark Kent then sorry..

Yes I am (I think most people, too)...apology accepted. :cool:

I said "nonsense" because it does not matter as long as you look at something that produces images [frames] (a display at a tv, monitors...what ever). Why? Go and search for information and you will be enlighten. ;)

Mention this fact related to video games is NONSENSE!

Maybe you should read what i wrote instead of interpret something into my statement.

Edited December 13, 2013 by R1C0

[Greenfist 1863]

@wormeaten: I may have mistunderstood you too but in case I haven't; limiting fps to some value your system can keep steady is a good decision - steady 30 feels a lot smoother than constantly changing between 30 and 60, and leaves some overhead for the system. But saying a human eye can't tell the difference between 24 and 60 is bullshit. First of all, 24 fps was set a standard in the 1920s; surely that still applies in 2013 with games, right? And why are they making films now with 48fps if there's no difference?

Ways to limit fps was created because of vertical sync and to stop your GPU rendering unnecessarily many frames (like 400fps on a 60Hz screen).

I personally have 50fps cap in Arma for smoother experience and cooler GPU. And for the fact that vsync in my system lowers the fps more than it should.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Greenfist

[Dwarden 1124]

human eye can see more than 60fps ... let's call it changes in the still image ... that can be up to 1/300 second changes in still image in dark room ...

it also depends on more trained eye (e.g. airforce pilots, sharpshooters/snipers and anywhere where excellent eye sight is key) ...

[jumpinghubert 48]

human eye can see more than 60fps ... let's call it changes in the still image ... that can be up to 1/300 second changes in still image in dark room ...

it also depends on more trained eye (e.g. airforce pilots, sharpshooters/snipers and anywhere where excellent eye sight is key) ...

the best thing is: every one with a monitor can verify it. A good example is the (not only for clarc kent or airforce pilots obvious) difference between a 60hz-crt-tv and a 100hz-crt-tv. TV or cinema output is more than 24hz, its interpolated to a higher frequency.

@wormeaten

I am a big fan of the IL2-COD teamfusion mod :bounce3:

[nikiforos 450]

human eye can see more than 60fps ... let's call it changes in the still image ... that can be up to 1/300 second changes in still image in dark room ...

it also depends on more trained eye (e.g. airforce pilots, sharpshooters/snipers and anywhere where excellent eye sight is key) ...

Thanks for that Dwarden , some people try to force us to believe that we can't see any difference beyond 30 FPS.

[Furret 0]

There is a clear difference between 30 and 60 fps, even more so between 24 to 60.

If you're unable to see those differences you may have something physically wrong with your eyes.

[ratszo 17]

.... For example on IL2 CloD I have similar problems .....

Hi Wormz! I play IL2 CloD too...,

..., These guys have no idea what a poorly optimized game looks like.

But hey, IL2 CloD will push cpu/gpu to the 90s% usage.

[oldbear 390]

I can add there is lot of variations in the 20/30 FPS range. As an example, due to micro-stuttering, a game played at a stable 23 FPS will be perceived as better than a game showing 24/28 short/fast variations.

There are also a lot of individual variations due to physical/psychological factors.

Some people can perceive very small variations where others perceive no difference at all without being ill or disabled.

When I had to switch from old beloved Iiyama 17"CRT to a brand new Iiyama 22"LCD, I was wondering how I will stand the crude not so crisp display I had to play on ... it was 2 years ago. I haven't change for an other monitor, so we can also adapt our perception.

So I am probably an Homo Armaversii, having the habit of playing in the 30 FPS range doesn't bother me, it's part of my natural virtual environment :D

[mobile_medic 43]

Human eye only see 24fps any way and 95% of the monitors can't show more than 60fps so why we need to push it over?

The human eye doesn't see in frames per second in the first place. It works in a completely different way. I'll spare you, though, since you seem to have gotten an idea in your head that is now immune to new information/facts. But, the human eye is capable of *perceiving* well above 24 and well above 60 fps, even. This is easily verifiable. The maximum frame rate that the human eye is capable of perceiving is *not* an established fact, to date, to my knowledge. And, it depends on various different factors, b/c of the way the eye works in the first place (which is NOT like a camera works seeing individual frames, and having a shutter, etc). It most certainly is not a *fact* that the eye "can only see 24fps". It is an unsubstantiated claim at best, and an easily discredited one if you examine (actual) available and testable evidence on the subject. And, it certainly would have made early man even more ill-suited for survival not being able to perceive motion beyond 24fps.

You don't even have to get scientific about it. Just watch 24p and 60p/i footage side by side (or 25/50 for 50hz/PAL land). Or, if you have a 120hz tv, pop in a blu ray version of a theatrical release, and toggle between 60hz and 120hz. 24p @60hz looks like the cinematic aesthetic we have all come to associate with motion pictures. 24p @ 120hz looks like a home movie (or, the news, for example). Heck, even the difference between 24p and 30p footage is easily identifiable. Not to mention playback of live action footage shot at 24p is not nearly the same thing as a game (that you are controlling the input of) rendering out at 24fps in terms of motion rendition, let alone responsiveness of controls, etc.

As far as gaming... If you are on a 60hz monitor (most of us, probably), anything more than 60fps is going to be kind of pointless, in my view.

For me, I'd be one happy camper if I could just play this game at 30fps minimum *most* of the time. Instead of a range of 12-60fps, and pretty much a majority of the time below 35 if I'm not running around in a rural area on an empty map. Especially, with the stuttering and hitching that becomes increasingly unbearable with lower fps in Arma.

The fact that you gain a smoother gameplay experience by limiting your frame rate is not related to (nor supportive evidence of) what "frame rate" the human eye can "see". The fact that you even notice the difference, is helping to disprove your claim. If you couldn't see more than 24, you wouldn't notice any visual change in "smoothness" of the game fluctuating from 30-60, for example. Because you are limiting your frame rate, you are limiting the wild fluctuations in frame rate that Arma has that can also negatively impact the gameplay experience. That is why it appears smoother to you. And, on that point, I'd agree that a rock-solid 40 is generally going to yield a better gameplay experience for a high action fps, than constant and wild fluctuations from 30-60, for example. But, it has nothing to do with your eye not being able to see past 24fps.

If I could keep Arma above 30, I'd be happy. It's not really asking too much, and is a reasonable expectation for a box that handily exceeds the recommended settings.

[Ezcoo 47]

Note also that the screen refresh rate must be a multiplier of FPS in order to achieve maximum smoothness with any FPS. For example 60 Hz screen refreshes the image on the screen every ~16,6 ms. If you have exactly 30 FPS, each frame is shown for ~16,6 ms x 2 = 33,3 ms. But if you have 24 FPS on 60 Hz screen, some of the frames are shown for that ~16,6 ms, while some frames last that ~33,3 ms on the screen, which we perceive as stuttering or image tearing, that helps to create kind of illusion of (too) low FPS or bad image quality.

24 FPS on 120 Hz screen is smoother than on 60 Hz screen because 120 is multiplier of 24 (24*5=120) so each frame is shown on the screen for the exactly same time, while on 60 Hz they are not.

And yeah, human is able to perceive differencies between much higher FPS'es than 24. I can see difference between 120 FPS and 144 FPS myself, for example.

[Greenfist 1863]

@ Mobile_Medic: That's a well deserved eulogy for the idiotic debate of whether eye can see the beyond 24 fps and I thank you sincerely for that. Yet a one more corner of the internet cleared from that misinformed herecy. i could have not put it better myself.

Now let's get back to the bad cpu utilization for the next 2445 messages.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Greenfist

[James111333 10]

.....

Quit the whining fella, put your 24fps world to better use and bring out a video card that only renders an output of 24fps to be displayed on your 24hz TV range. We'll all go back to our 60Hz/FPS gaming and enjoy the fluidity while we contemplate how next to add to this post in a constructive way. Please don't tell me you spent more than £30 on a graphics card as clearly there is just no point in higher frame rates.

---------- Post added at 22:29 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ----------

@ Mobile_Medic: That's a well earned eulogy for idiotic debate of whether eye can see the beyond 24 fps and I thank you sincerely for that. Yet a one more corner of the internet cleared for that misinformed herecy. i could have not put it better myself.

Now let's get back to the bad cpu utilization for the next 2445 messages.

What he said :)

[wormeaten 0]

Note also that the screen refresh rate must be a multiplier of FPS in order to achieve maximum smoothness with any FPS. For example 60 Hz screen refreshes the image on the screen every ~16,6 ms. If you have exactly 30 FPS, each frame is shown for ~16,6 ms x 2 = 33,3 ms. But if you have 24 FPS on 60 Hz screen, some of the frames are shown for that ~16,6 ms, while some frames last that ~33,3 ms on the screen, which we perceive as stuttering or image tearing, that helps to create kind of illusion of (too) low FPS or bad image quality.

24 FPS on 120 Hz screen is smoother than on 60 Hz screen because 120 is multiplier of 24 (24*5=120) so each frame is shown on the screen for the exactly same time, while on 60 Hz they are not.

And yeah, human is able to perceive differencies between much higher FPS'es than 24. I can see difference between 120 FPS and 144 FPS myself, for example.

Exactly. This is the point of all of this. 24fps is just human eye. but in technical terms it is just one part of the puzzle. So refresh rate of your screan and fps in game should be synchronized.

On 60HZ 24fps in game will look similar as 20fps because of desync between in game fps and performance of your screen and 20fps is something below performance your brain processing images from your eye.

So conclusion should be if you got more than 60 fps and only 60HZ monitor you don't need this frames above 60 better save your GPU and limit to 60fps because this saves your GPU and when will come drop below 60fps this drop will be less noticeable and your GPU will faster recover back. Those who fly CloD will understand, if you want your plane keep good performance when you need it you have to save your engine when ever you can. It is like pitch and you know if you constantly fly above 2800rpm it is just matter of time when your engine will fail and that is always happened when you need it more then ever. In this case your monitor is bottle neck and every frame above 60 is waist of energy, GPU power e.t.c. Your monitor already have limitation to 60fps so synchronize your GPU with it. In case your have from 30 to 37 fps for example this over 30 is not big deal because is out of sync with your monitor. You will gain more by limit it to 30fps because when it is drop below 30 will recover faster and it is more sync with your monitor (60/30=2). On 37fps because of desync with your monitor on screen out performance could be maximum 31-32fps (60/37=1.62) what is on screan again most of the time is every second frame. So it is better save this power than waist it.

Don't expect miracles but this trick definitely in general provide more smooth gameplay. even if you have 24-28fps it is better to limt it to 20. I know it is noticeable but not much more than 24fps on 60HZ monitor. It was work for me on old rig with low performance. When drop of the performance happened without limit was drop to 5fps but with limit on 20fps drop was to 8-9fps with faster recovering. It was still crap but better.

This is advice to those who having problems with fps it is based on some logic and like I say must be something in here when AMD and Nvidia provide tools for it. You don't have nothing to lose, try it and test it its free.

Even now I'm playing on ULTRA with limit on 30fps and it is briliant now. Looks like movie now not the game.

To repeat I update to i5 4670k (3.4 default not OC yet) 8GB DDR3-1600, R9 290 and now my GPU working on 100% and 60% 4GB VRAM on 1080p and my monitor is 60HZ.

Without limit my fps on MP server is max 40 avrg 34 min 18. with limit on 30fps max 30 avrg 29 min 23 but my GPU power is more focused on 8xAA and other beauties of visual effects and most important now finally I can fully enjoy in the game.

And that is the point find the balance and sync your hardware in all way you can to get most your hardware can do. I can do more than 60fps noe if I reduce view distance and details without AA but what is the point when this 30fps with all this details give me much more and I lowe it.

[mobile_medic 43]

24fps is just human eye.

No it isn't.

[jumpinghubert 48]

No it isn't.

I can confirm that, i tested it again two minutes ago :p