Can someone tell me why you'd make a game of 2013 very CPU heavy?

[scaramoosh 10]

I don't understand as I'm not a game developer, why we have these massive powerful cards which apparently are way ahead of CPUs in terms of power and yet they go unused. Most games I've played use like 40% of the 670 and 670SLI is just useless, it often makes games worse. Yet we have these CPU heavy games and it usually results in low performance because the CPUs of today just don't seem to be able to cope. I mean I have an I7 980 only OC'd to 4ghrz but it's a 6 core and CPU heavy games still never seem to run all that well.

Yet DICE and Crytek do some amazing work as they tend to push the GPU and especially BF3 I see is really GPU heavy and not so much CPU and the game is an amazing performer. I mean I've played that game with my older dual core CPU, using a GPU I have on my current PC and while it didn't perform as well, it was still really smooth and fine.

Obviously I'm talking out of my arse here as I have no clue about game development, however just from observing, I don't understand why you'd push the CPU over the GPU which seems to be far better.

[maturin 12]

Because those games don't have AI, massive open worlds, freedom or complexity of any kind.

Next.

[gizm0 1]

not to mention the physics in this game is albeit a lot more complex than that of most "modern" games.

[Masharra 10]

I fink i like this emoticon a lot. Basically what Maturin said.

[SASrecon 0]

Because other developers like to use simple/stupid AI.

The AI took up a whole core in A2, I'm guessing it's the same in A3, simply because of how many processes and calculations it has to go through to produce a vaguely human-looking response and act completely on its own accord.

In most shooters nowadays AI is completely scripted, so it NEEDS you to command it pretty heavily, this 'commanding'/scripting of AI behaviour relieves a lot of performance and can provide some sort of immersion if placed well in a narrow environment but in a mil sim you need AI which can adapt to all situations, run around and take cover without you telling it to, fly a helicopter without recording its path manually, drive a car and avoid obstacles (hell, even looking at some A3 gameplays on youtube, the AI drives better than most players) not just how to take cover behind one piece of cover in a corridoor-shooter scenario and pop-up upon a 'detection trigger' or after a certain interval.

As for the visuals, I don't know very much about GPU/CPU usage, someone else would have to answer that :P

[sakura_chan 9]

the GPU can only draw stuff. The CPU is calculating the entire game. games like crysis and bf3 usually have very little going on in terms of AI or unit counts. They use hitscan weapons etc so from a CPU standpoint there really isn't much going on. In ArmA series though you could have hundreds of units fighting at once with accurate bullet physics so naturally it takes more CPU. Basically CPU and GPU aren't just interchangeable, they do different things.

LOL its annoying now that the forum is so active...by the time you post a reply someone else has already replied

[scaramoosh 10]

Surely though Physx is an attempt at getting physics off the CPU and onto the GPU? Can't it be a direct Havok replacement?

[simjedi 10]

Unlike other games the AI in ArmA is not scripted. In other games the NPC's will do the exact same thing every time, in ArmA they never do the same thing twice as the AI is dynamic. And that takes a lot of CPU.

[Brainbug 10]

Well, at least we are in a development where the GPU can actually do more and more than just "draw stuff". But to really use the GPU natively and easily for calculations will take another while. AMD is on a good way, each generation of their APUs does it better. When ArmA4 is being developed, BIS might have a good hardware base to utilize the GPU much better. Until then, don't buy expensive graphics cards, rather save the money to buy the latest and greatest CPU and overclock till you drop.

[Oxsergy 1]

the GPU can only draw stuff

That's not entirely true. If theres a situation in which you need to have lots of very small and repetitive calculations done(lets say a few thousand per second) the GPU would actually process these faster than a CPU due to the GPU having many, many more cores than your CPU.

[rangerpl 13]

Obviously I'm talking out of my arse here as I have no clue about game development

There's your problem bud

[scaramoosh 10]

There's your problem bud

Well I'm trying to understand why push the weakest part of current systems.

[Pfhaota 11]

Well I'm trying to understand why push the weakest part of current systems.

because it has to, given ARMA's aims in AI, projectile calculations etcetera.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I imagine all those that have been calling for greater thread optimization seeing this thread. And their heads exploding. hahahahaha

[froggyluv 2136]

@scaramoosh: turn that frown upside down and ask instead: "Thank Gawd they are still making unscripted, open world PC games that still require a large brain (CPU)!"

Ok that wasn't a question. Nevertheless...

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Well I'm trying to understand why push the weakest part of current systems.

We had ArmA II with all the awesome simulation components and systems... then PhysX got added - here's the result. All sims are CPU-dependent, ArmA II was horrible at launch with underutilisation issues.

It'll get optimised eventually.

[namaan 10]

We had ArmA II with all the awesome simulation components and systems... then PhysX got added - here's the result. All sims are CPU-dependent, ArmA II was horrible at launch with underutilisation issues.

It'll get optimised eventually.

hopefully it'll be a little better at launch then Arma 2 was eh :)

[zapat 56]

Is it only me, or Arma is really getting mainstream?

Hell, you could even calculate sales figures from the number of such questions...

[froggyluv 2136]

Is it only me, or Arma is really getting mainstream?

Hell, you could even calculate sales figures from the number of such questions...

There are now 3 (3!!!) versions of Arma in the top ten sellers on Steam at this moment. I'm glad for Bohemia and PC gaming as a whole :)

[jsmuk 13]

Surely though Physx is an attempt at getting physics off the CPU and onto the GPU? Can't it be a direct Havok replacement?

PhysX and the fact PhysX can run on a graphics card are two slightly different things. You can use the PhysX physics engine without it running on a graphics card. I have played games which refuse to do physics processing on a GPU despite it using PhysX and my card supporting it.

[scaramoosh 10]

What I don't get is people say it's due to the A.I, firstly I have no idea why you'd want to play with A.I in the first place, playing against humans is much better for a variety of reasons. Also though because performance is no better in multiplayer than Single Player, so the whole A.I thing doesn't make sense.

[purepassion 22]

Alright then, I have planned to start on playing in about 20m. You'll be the OPFOR waiting for my helicopter and divers to arrive okay?

Hehe though on a more serious note, I don't see much substance and thought behind the question ^^

Playing PC games isn't all about competitive multiplayer matches and I simply can't comprehend someone questioning the AI as a whole. :D

Multiplayer performance is also heavily dependant of the system and internet connection of the machine hosting it so there are a lot of variables that can make it run slower. Also, most of the optimization hasn't taken place yet as not even all the features are complete :)

[antoineflemming 14]

What I don't get is people say it's due to the A.I, firstly I have no idea why you'd want to play with A.I in the first place, playing against humans is much better for a variety of reasons. Also though because performance is no better in multiplayer than Single Player, so the whole A.I thing doesn't make sense.

For me it's grass, smoke, and atmospheric effects that slow down my game. That, and running the game for a long time. But it's definitely not AI unless you have a whole lot of AI at one time. For me, MP runs worse than SP.

[Fuse 1]

What I don't get is people say it's due to the A.I, firstly I have no idea why you'd want to play with A.I in the first place, playing against humans is much better for a variety of reasons. Also though because performance is no better in multiplayer than Single Player, so the whole A.I thing doesn't make sense.

Scale is the main reason. If I want to hook up with a handful of friends and assault a big enemy base the most convenient way to do that is make the enemy be AI. It can be challenging getting your fireteam together on time, just imagine having to get your guys AND the enemy organized before you could play a mission, not to mention some poor sob has to pay for and manage that server (which is more expensive as you increase playercount).

[pathetic_berserker 4]

For me it's grass, smoke, and atmospheric effects that slow down my game. That, and running the game for a long time. But it's definitely not AI unless you have a whole lot of AI at one time. For me, MP runs worse than SP.

Yeah MP seems to be a real kicker. I was happily getting over 40fps cruzin' in the central town in the editor but throw in a team death match and i was down to 16fps at times and struggling to go over 25.