Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Imnpsnm

Low performance on ATI Cards?

Recommended Posts

Hello, I've searched around a bit and I haven't found anything about this, so..

I'm suffering low fps except for standard graphics, I know my card is not an enthusiast one, but I am still playing most of the games on ultra quality at 1080, so I think it should be able to handle on high with AA off for example.

So I'd like to ask if there's anyone else having low performance with ATI cards, if it's just my card or whatever.

Thanks.

My rig:

Asus P7P55D

Intel i7 860 @ 3.7

12GB 1333 CL9

HD 5830

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No its across the board mate, I've got a GTX 295 I get 60 Frames on A2 but on A3 Multiplayer I get 20, On single player Im getting 40-60

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about CPU, nothing you can do right now - wait for updates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Na, multiplayer is working at 20 for everyone, I just care for singleplayer atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Na, multiplayer is working at 20 for everyone, I just care for singleplayer atm.

Then that's strange, i can easily play with most visual settings at high/ultra in SP, and since you have better CPU than me i would say GPU could possibly bottleneck you. (try to lower texture resolution / Shadows / AA / ATOC - play around with those, they have biggest impact on GPU performance)

I'd suggest installing msi afterburner + hwinfo64, put cpu/gpu/vram usage and temps in OSD it should give you idea what is bottlenecking you or if anything is overheating.

Edited by k3lt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the problem is the gcard, it works hard with A3, but I think it could have better performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO GPU performance in Arma3 will increase even without BIS help, it's just matter of drivers and that's up to AMD/Nvidia and you should't worry about it, homever the bigger problem right now is the CPU utlization, if this will not improve (and it's only up to BIS) then you wont see increase even with improved drivers.

Min. fps = CPU

Max. fps = GPU

Once the CPU issues are dealt with you can expect gpu usage sky rocket. (and so the overall performance)

Edited by k3lt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my gfx card is usually around 80% but will jump to 99% for a second in some areas. my CPU cores were all at about 50% except my first core which was about 70%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get around 25-40 FPS in MP. It's tolerable purely because this isn't that much of a camera twitch reflex game, and I don't find myself turning really fast that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do a search of the forums a bunch of this is covered in other posts. Dwarden(spck) put up a link and said that this info (from Arma 2) still holds true:

It is important not to lose the sights from the goal, which is the performance increase. All other things are secondary. One example of wrong metrics is a concurrency level. Concurrency level tells us how much are the additional cores used. This factor is very easy to measure (you can do it in default system task manager), and that is probably why many hard core end users and reviewers are interested about it. Often you can see phrases like "Game XXXX is using quad cores very well, because when you watch CPU usage in task manager, you see all cores are running 100 %". It is very easy to create a trivial program which will make "full use of all cores" - all you need to do it to spawn a few threads and make them spin in an infinite loop. Concurrency is not a goal, only a mean. It is required, but not sufficient. Real life scenarios are more intricated then idle loops, but the principle is the same: using CPU does not mean you get any benefit from using it. In many cases the overhead of going "threaded" is so high that even when two cores are running 100 %, the performance improvement is very small, say about 20 % from single core, and the difference between quad and dual is even smaller.

So it would seem that a higher % on your CPU doesnt mean better, or maybe I read it wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just bought a 7950 to pop in my rig to replace my GTX 560 TI, and the free games don't hurt ;)

I think I might keep my 560 in and try to Hybrid PhysX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder if the multiplayer frame drop is a netcode thing or something. They must have changed some things with it, seeing as physics have to be synced (Or at least I assume they are). I remember Arma 2 was intensive for the serverbox/person hosting, perhaps A3 is trying to disperse the load or something?

I've had very consistent results though, as the multiplayer missions made by bohemia (Escape from Stratos for instance) run around 10 frames less then things my friends and I put together, which are usually SF scuba style missions. Things in SP, such as the showcases (Except the chopper one, which murders my PC) run at stable 30-40 FPS.

My system is a Phenom II x4 at 3.6, HD 7850 2gb, and 4GB of ram.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×