Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
v8_laudi

SLI benchmarks - My results

Recommended Posts

Excuse any errors, I'm about to pass out due to sleepiness.

This is just a simple bench mark to demonstrate differences in resolution and SLI in Arma3

I created a bench mark in the marina with 22 AIs shooting each other, I was stationary in the same location during each 60 second benchmark for consistency.

Please mind that I game on 3 x monitors in portrait mode @ 3860 x 1920 which is effectively 46" of awesomeness right in my face!

Test system =

2 x GTX680s in SLI

5ghx i7 2700k water cooled

16gb 1600mhz ram OC'd but can't remember what to

Z77 Sabretooth mobo

Test 1, 3860x1200

SLI ENABLED SETTINGS ON LOW

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

1604, 60000, 22, 29, 26.733

Comments, stuttery laggy slide show unplayable

SLI ENABLED SETTINGS ULTRA

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

1598, 60000, 22, 29, 26.633

Comments, stuttery laggy slide show unplayable

Test 2, 3860x1200

SLI DISABLED SETTINGS ON ULTRA

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

948, 60000, 12, 21, 15.800

Comments, SLIDESHOW!

test 2, 1920x1200

SLI DISABLED SETTINGS ULTRA

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

1828, 60000, 24, 33, 30.467

Comments, playable

SLI ENABLED SETTINGS ULTRA

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

1758, 60000, 24, 33, 29.300

Comments, playable no change.

Okay hope you got something out of this, as you can see SLI is totally broken because it made shit all difference and almost lost 1fps enabling it!

Another note to make the FPS is actually better than it would have been because the camera was stationary and not running around with the AI in which case the averages would have been a lot lower.

Hope SLI gets added soon :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SLi works fine on my 580s, I can pretty much keep them within one percent of each other.

You cpu AI load is bottlenecking the 680s and no amount of SLi off and SLi on can help.

Welcome to ARMA.

How come you resolution is only 3860 wide on 1080 high?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sli works, you're cpu limited even with the 2600K at 5Ghz.

For better performance reduce viewdistance and object viewdistance.

You cpu AI load is bottlenecking the 680s and no amount of SLi off and SLi on can help.

Welcome to ARMA.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typo, 3860x1920

So arma still bottlenecks at 5ghz? What should I aim for 6ghz? I guess I could try nitrogen cooling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arma seem to be balanced around a i5-2300 and a gtx560 (recommended specs)

your cpu is only 70% faster, 2 680's in sli is probably about 5 times faster. So you've got massive gpu overkill for arma3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also seems to not be bound to this universes laws of logic lmao.

Thanks for the replies guys, time to hit the hay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you really don't need the massive GPU power you're packing there, the bottleneck is the CPU handling all the objects in a single thread, so if you have object detail and view distance up high you're going to f**k your frame rate no matter what GPU you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SLi works fine on my 580s, I can pretty much keep them within one percent of each other.

You cpu AI load is bottlenecking the 680s and no amount of SLi off and SLi on can help.

Welcome to ARMA.

How come you resolution is only 3860 wide on 1080 high?

i7 2700K or i5 2500k's doesnt bottleneck he's setup.

but maybe ARMA does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i7 2700K or i5 2500k's doesnt bottleneck he's setup.

but maybe ARMA does.

Read more closely, it reads AI cpu load. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read more closely, it reads AI cpu load. ;)

Load up the editor without any AI at all and experiment with your graphics settings. I think you'll find that AI has much less of an impact on frame rate than you think, as I suppose its handled in separate threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16gig ram - you can load your arma complete in your ram. make a ram space - help a little ;)

and better is more performance per cpu than more and more cores ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what cpu do you have?

i7980x overclocked to 4.5, liquid cooled and lapped. The cpuz needs updated, but specs are in the spoiler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a SLI profile for this game yet which is why there is no FPS gain.

I have a i7 2700k overclocked to 4.5GHz every-time they release an update I check out the helicopter mission and so far I have only noticed a 2-4fps increase through patches and driver updates.

I am running the game using ultra settings which is fine when I am running around its just when you go up high that the FPS drops down to a laggy state.

I am using the following launch commands -cpuCount=8 -maxMem=8192 -exThreads=7 -skipintro -high -nosplash but I am not really noticing any difference with the performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, sli works, it's just not going to help you one bit if you're already cpu bottlenecked with a single card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16gig ram - you can load your arma complete in your ram. make a ram space - help a little ;)

and better is more performance per cpu than more and more cores ;)

I used to create ram drives for arma 2, fixed my texture popping issue and loaded FAST!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, RAM drive is awesome for games. Especially ones that stream data alot.

I've also got GPU overkill for this game with 3way SLI of 580's 3gb. You can make them do some work by running obscene resolutions. I get good usage with 5760x1080 of course :D, The FPS is the same as on 1 screen, so might as well crank things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, there still computer experts here that are criticizing the users specs (even when they have a 5.5ghz CPU and a couple of titan), instead of admitting that the engine (hopefully at the moment, and limited to the FPS) is crap?

There still ppl talking about "CPU bottleneck" when the CPU is barely used? Are you so expert to not have noticed that the CPU f** temperature remains constant under gaming so you don't even need to examine your beautiful graphics produced by your super-advanced analysis tool to understand that the game IS NOT CAPABLE of using the resources you have under your hood?

You can have a damn 20 grand PC ring, the game WILL NOT run good enough: it's alpha, so at this stage the crap FPS can be understanble, but please stop telling ppl that the crap performace are because of their rings, it's getting old now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We call it a cpu bottleneck because it is. Overclock the cpu and performance increases almost liniarly with clockspeed, hence cpu bottleneck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We call it a cpu bottleneck because it is. Overclock the cpu and performance increases almost liniarly with clockspeed, hence cpu bottleneck.

A bottleneck is when your CPU is fully used and so it not capable of handling more data, slowing down process.

There's very little water (ArmA3) in the bottle, so there's a very tiny flow coming from it, and it's not due to the (narrow) bottle neck (hence the name "bottleneck"), but because of not enough water in the damn bottle.

Isn't that hard to understand that the CPU cannot be the "bottleneck" when is barely used.... some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This engine is a POS, people are in denial it's trivial how bad it is.

I tried not to say anything.

It will run like crap now, and it will run like crap in 2 yrs. Just like Arma 2 does all these years after launch.

The excuses people are coming up with have no logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesnt matter how bad the engine is, if performance scales well with cpu clockspeed you're cpu limited. This will never run like battlefield, partly because the engine is less efficient, partly because it has to do more.

With a 2700K on 5GHz you'll have great performance compared to most people, just not compared to most games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This engine is a POS, people are in denial it's trivial how bad it is.

I tried not to say anything.

It will run like crap now, and it will run like crap in 2 yrs. Just like Arma 2 does all these years after launch.

The excuses people are coming up with have no logic.

Actually, it's more a case of basic literacy.

No one is 'making excuses' for the engine - what Leon and others said is that the CPU is where the bottleneck (entirely the right term) occurs.

They did not assign blame.

It's not a case of blaming the CPU, it's simply of case of understanding that the game is CPU limited regardless of how efficient or inefficient the engine is.

It may well be that the engine is inefficient (I'm not going to debate that) but ArmA is doing a lot more with the CPU than most other games.

There are obvious major optimizations needed where ArmA 3 is concerned.

Edited by BangTail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesnt matter how bad the engine is, if performance scales well with cpu clockspeed you're cpu limited.

You're fun.. so i make a totally crap game, that uses 1% of your CPU and i say that doesn't matter.. because you may run it good enough with a 100Ghz CPU. :D

This will never run like battlefield, partly because the engine is less efficient, partly because it has to do more.

This is even more "fun": you know that this game has alot more to do with the CPU, and you didn't optimized the engine to use all the available CPU as the very first issue... in 4 years (or more?), you're still using intentionally the same old unoptimized engine, knowing perfectly that this is the main problem? Are you kidding me...?

With a 2700K on 5GHz you'll have great performance compared to most people, just not compared to most games.

Why only 5Ghz when with 10Ghz you could have even more? I've heard about ppl running at stable 60fps with a 50Ghz CPU. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can rant all you want, cpu limited is the right term.

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  

×