My build, heavy issues with FPS. Unable to play on anything but Low.

[bmgdragon 0]

Manufacturer	Custom made.
Processor	AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory	16384MB DDR3 1600MHZ~
Hard Drive	1TB internal (partioned) 500 GB internal 320 GB external
Motherboard	Asus M4A78T-E
Operating System	Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.110622-1503)
Video Card	AMD Radeon HD 6870 Sapphire Toxic (OC) Edition
Physics Card	No
Monitor	iiyama ProLite B2712HDS
Sound Card	Speakers (High Definition Audio Device)
Speakers	Creative Fa1tality
Keyboard	Saitek Cybrog V7 (HID)
Mouse	Trust Predator
Mouse Surface	45cm by 35cm mouse mat
Computer Case	Antec 900

I've checked and my system should be more then capable of playing this Game on higher then low settings, easily on Medium too. The same problem was around on Arma 2, I was unable to play it on anything but low. And even then, FPS issues were still there.

BIOS and GPU drivers are all up to date, all other software is up to date as of date and hardware firmware.

The only thing that comes to mind is that my Motherboard is pretty much a toasted cookie, it's unable to deal with the CPU, amount of RAM and my GPU and it's choking itself trying to sort out that kind of power. But I am hoping others might have some suggestions and/or tips to help me here. I am looking in to a new Motherboard shortly, as well as a upgrade for my CPU. So anything but them.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Even if I knew anything about AMD hardware it could be difficult to say with the description of 'low'. It would make advice much easier if you posted all your vid settings exactly and your monitors native resolution and an idea of the frame rate you are getting. Though on the face of it I'd say you should be able to find a level that gives you playable frames on that setup.

[white 1]

Manufacturer	Custom made.
Processor	AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory	16384MB DDR3 1600MHZ~
Hard Drive	1TB internal (partioned) 500 GB internal 320 GB external
Motherboard	Asus M4A78T-E
Operating System	Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.110622-1503)
Video Card	AMD Radeon HD 6870 Sapphire Toxic (OC) Edition
Physics Card	No
Monitor	iiyama ProLite B2712HDS
Sound Card	Speakers (High Definition Audio Device)
Speakers	Creative Fa1tality
Keyboard	Saitek Cybrog V7 (HID)
Mouse	Trust Predator
Mouse Surface	45cm by 35cm mouse mat
Computer Case	Antec 900

I've checked and my system should be more then capable of playing this Game on higher then low settings, easily on Medium too. The same problem was around on Arma 2, I was unable to play it on anything but low. And even then, FPS issues were still there.

BIOS and GPU drivers are all up to date, all other software is up to date as of date and hardware firmware.

The only thing that comes to mind is that my Motherboard is pretty much a toasted cookie, it's unable to deal with the CPU, amount of RAM and my GPU and it's choking itself trying to sort out that kind of power. But I am hoping others might have some suggestions and/or tips to help me here. I am looking in to a new Motherboard shortly, as well as a upgrade for my CPU. So anything but them.

from what ur saying is not your hardware, is the same issue most ppl have.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS

[charliemilk 10]

Manufacturer	Custom made.
Processor	AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory	16384MB DDR3 1600MHZ~
Hard Drive	1TB internal (partioned) 500 GB internal 320 GB external
Motherboard	Asus M4A78T-E
Operating System	Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.110622-1503)
Video Card	AMD Radeon HD 6870 Sapphire Toxic (OC) Edition
Physics Card	No
Monitor	iiyama ProLite B2712HDS
Sound Card	Speakers (High Definition Audio Device)
Speakers	Creative Fa1tality
Keyboard	Saitek Cybrog V7 (HID)
Mouse	Trust Predator
Mouse Surface	45cm by 35cm mouse mat
Computer Case	Antec 900

I've checked and my system should be more then capable of playing this Game on higher then low settings, easily on Medium too. The same problem was around on Arma 2, I was unable to play it on anything but low. And even then, FPS issues were still there.

BIOS and GPU drivers are all up to date, all other software is up to date as of date and hardware firmware.

The only thing that comes to mind is that my Motherboard is pretty much a toasted cookie, it's unable to deal with the CPU, amount of RAM and my GPU and it's choking itself trying to sort out that kind of power. But I am hoping others might have some suggestions and/or tips to help me here. I am looking in to a new Motherboard shortly, as well as a upgrade for my CPU. So anything but them.

Hi,

~I think you should be able to play the game on high/very high settings. If you can dual screen then get MSI afterburner (free) and run that in spare screen to see how much of your GPU and video memory is being used. Also get a cpu monitor to see how much of each core is being used. I bizarrely found that increasing my terrain texture to very high improved performance. You will need objects set to maybe only 1300 meters, and overall view to maybe 2000 and shadows to 60. But it takes ages of tweaking to get a nice frame rate.

Also make sure you play game in editor (set up a long range battle with about 40v40 AI) to see true FPS. Because on a multiplayer server you can often expect your frame rate to half or worse.

Also I had to switch windows desktop to basic, I had latest drivers and i had to close all other windows including browser windows like this. IF you find you have spare video ram, then increase textures quality so they load to card.

[naizarak 4]

i wanna say it's your CPU, phenoms are outdated. i switched from mine a few years ago to an intel and it was a night/day difference.

[rehtus777 10]

Try the following link to tweak the settings in ArmA 3

ArmA 3 is a CPU orientated software and your Phenom 955 II x4 is mid-range. I use to own a Phenom 965 X4 (gtx 470) and I overclocked it for ArmA 3. My average frame rate with a 2000 view distance and most everything set on High / Very High was around 25 fps. In the Helicopter just flying around in the editor, I would only get about 10 to 15 fps. On Multiplayer, I would only get around 15 to 20 fps. Just this week, I upgraded to a i5 3570k with a gtx 680. Now I average 40-70 fps with my settings mostly on High / Ultra with a view distance of 3500. (it is NOT overclocked....yet).

This simulator is just too good to run it on 1000 or less View Distance with settings on Standard or low ....sell your old Motherboard / CPU (you might get $100 to $150) and upgrade. My Motherboard and CPU (ASRock z77 extreme 4 Motherboard and i5 Ivy Bridge) upgrade only coast $340. My GTX 680 is expensive, but a gtx 580 should work pretty good for you.

Anyway....good luck.

Edited March 22, 2013 by rehtus777

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Hey I was just thinking someone should do a vid about vid settings. Good on sidestraffe.

Though he didn't mention how some of the settings are interconnected ie, shadow quality and shadow distance will play against each other. And view distance and terrain quality and object quality all overlap in functionality a bit. Also missed how the biggest visable effects of post processing is often on hard surface objcets (or white animals) under certain lighting conditions.

Still very informative and a must for those coming from consoles.

[charliemilk 10]

Some settings on low force that function to CPU rather then GPU. I think shadows on low causes a lot of problems, so try standard or high.

[white 1]

considering the issues with cpu usage, the only amd processors equiparable to the performance of intels in this game have been the visheras, even so they need to be overclocked to get acceptable framerates, as do intel ones.

i think this is an average between all the showcases:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Alpha/test/arma%203%20proz%20amd.jpg (120 kB)

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306247

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-alpha-test-gpu.html

Edited March 25, 2013 by white

[wok 1]

I guess it's your cpu, because I have a HD radeon 6950 and the game runs perfectly with everything on high and some stuff in very high (it was like that by default). My cpu is an intel i5 btw, and 8gb ram. So I say you should change the cpu.

[Razorman 10]

Once upon a time...

Radeon was worth looking at, nowadays it's a pure waste of $ vs power, go Intel, go Nvidia, youre troubles are over, see sig for details, thank you.

[NeMeSiS 11]

My 955 runs the game alrightish, what FPS do you expect alone in the editor/under heavy load?

[Planetside 1]

Once upon a time...

Radeon was worth looking at, nowadays it's a pure waste of $ vs power, go Intel, go Nvidia, youre troubles are over, see sig for details, thank you.

Prove it.

[trichome 10]

Have everything on ultra/high with post processing off @1650x1080 rest of spec in sig, getting great performance with no slow downs at all. Had one crash last nite over 3-4hrs other than than it ran perfectly. This was on the dev build.

[bobby budnick 0]

Have everything on ultra/high with post processing off @1650x1080 rest of spec in sig, getting great performance with no slow downs at all. Had one crash last nite over 3-4hrs other than than it ran perfectly. This was on the dev build.

I'm not impressed. A decade old computer can do that with default view distance. setViewDistance 12000 and setObjectViewDistance 12000 and play a heavy mission and get back to me.

[Razorman 10]

I'm not impressed. A decade old computer can do that with default view distance. setViewDistance 12000 and setObjectViewDistance 12000 and play a heavy mission and get back to me.

Are you insane? 1600-2000 view distance is plenty, why would anyone go to 12000?

[trichome 10]

I'm not impressed. A decade old computer can do that with default view distance. setViewDistance 12000 and setObjectViewDistance 12000 and play a heavy mission and get back to me.

Why? Whats the point when no weapons can hit at that range? Please do elaborate? I sense somebody who for whatever reason is butt hurt. And I'd like to see this decade old computer you talk of that could do that.

Please give up the trolling cause your failing badly!

[bobby budnick 0]

Why? Whats the point when no weapons can hit at that range? Please do elaborate? I sense somebody who for whatever reason is butt hurt. And I'd like to see this decade old computer you talk of that could do that.

Please give up the trolling cause your failing badly!

Almost all weapons can hit at and beyond that range.

Please explain to everyone including the forum moderators what you mean by the term "butthurt".

You do sense correctly that I'm bothered by the tone of some of the people posting. This is because they think they have amazing computers when they don't know Arma or have a good gauge on computer performance. As an enthusiast, I want to push the limits with both my system and Arma. Now we have the situation where Arma is capable of excellent view distance and by extension realism but the influx of Steam players don't know that. So they continue to claim their computer runs the game "great" when in fact, Arma is not being fully utilized both in terms of CPU (bugs) and potential (view distance settings). An analogy would be like a Ferrari owner racing on a go-kart track and screaming that the racing is as good as it gets.

2003 Specs:

AMD Athlon 64 Clawhammer @ 2.4 Ghz

2 GB RAM

ATI Radeon 9800XT 512MB AGP or similar

This is a theoretical system. I don't have a system just like that anymore. But I imagine my systems with overclocked AMD Athlon XP Mobile 2500+ cpus could do it fine at that view distance assuming Arma 3 still works without SSE2.

[NeMeSiS 11]

There is a reason that the default is set to 1600. Just because BI will allow you to set it to 12000, or even 50000 does not mean that current generation PCs will run it, or that the game was ment to run well at those distances.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

My, even older, FX 74's have no problem playing with standard/high game settings@ 2560x1600. Even my older GTX260 & 285 plays it very well.

Maybe he needs a fresh install of Windows.

[sqb-sma 66]

I'm on a 6870 myself, Arma maxes it out at 99%/100% at even quite low graphics settings, it seems to be my new bottleneck.

[liquidpinky 11]

Are you insane? 1600-2000 view distance is plenty, why would anyone go to 12000?

Maybe permanently foggy where you live but I can see further than that at home.

Try 8k view and 3000k objects for even more realism.

Tested up to 38k draw and 12 object in ToH's Asia map a while back and then there is no visible fogging or object pop in at all, but in A3 it would mean a slideshow.

I do agree that lower distance is okay for on ground, but at altitude draw distance is king.

They need to add a calculation that will increase draw distance automaticaly by altitude and perhaps using a target FPS setting you can adjust as well.

Having objects in different size classes would also help as you can remove smaller objects less visibly sooner than whole buildings.