FPS issues, need some advice.

[carnoux 10]

I'm currently trying to run the game but it's almost unplayable at 10-20 fps fluctuating.

I'm not sure if it's my system or what but I can run games such as GW2 and LoL at 60 fps easily (standard settings).

I have all my settings to minimum and all shadow off etc.

My computer has:

Operating System: Windows 8 64-bit (6.2, Build 9200) (9200.win8_gdr.130306-1502)

System Manufacturer: LENOVO

System Model: IdeaPad Z580

BIOS: 5FCN89WW

Processor: Intel® Core i5-3210M CPU @ 2.50GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.5GHz

Memory: 8192MB RAM

Available OS Memory: 8052MB RAM

DirectX Version: DirectX 11

DX Setup Parameters: Not found

User DPI Setting: Using System DPI

System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)

DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled

DxDiag Version: 6.02.9200.16384 64bit Unicode

Card name: Intel® HD Graphics 4000

Manufacturer: Intel Corporation

Chip type: Intel® HD Graphics Family

DAC type: Internal

Device Type: Full Device

Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_0166&SUBSYS_390217AA&REV_09

Display Memory: 1664 MB

Dedicated Memory: 32 MB

Shared Memory: 1632 MB

Current Mode: 1366 x 768 (32 bit) (60Hz)

So is the game too demanding for my PC or could it be another issue?

Edited April 21, 2013 by carnoux

[bigshot 62]

Most important thing is processor speed which in this game needs to be over 4 Ghz. You are only at 2.5...way too low for this game im afraid...nothing will help you except a new and more powerful CPU. You'll also need a modern graphics card for gaming but that doesnt need to be top end...cpu is more important.

[carnoux 10]

Is there any way to upgrade the processor speed? I'm not really a computer guru so I wouldn't know :/

[RuecanOnRails 10]

Laptops don't play games all that well to begin with. Your laptop is not a gaming laptop either.

Minimum:

OS:Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 SP1

Processor:Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz

Memory:2 GB RAM

Graphics:NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT or AMD Radeon HD 3830 or Intel HD Graphics 4000 with 512 MB VRAM

DirectX®:10

Hard Drive:10 GB HD space

Sound:DirectX®-compatible

As you can see with the minimum specs, you DO meet them but just barely in terms of graphics performance required (HD 4000)

At this stage in early alpha development you might be able to get only 10-20 fps. Hopefully further along development you will be able to play with a higher fps but don't count on it too much as by the looks of things you just make the minimum.

I'd recommend checking out some of the performance tweaks to try and get a couple extra fps out of the game, or at least it might help to make the fps more consistent and not fluctuate as much.

[white 1]

double the recommended game specs, overlclock it over 30% and you will get a barely playable average fps.

thats the rule of thumb.

[ProfTournesol 956]

double the recommended game specs, overlclock it over 30% and you will get a barely playable average fps.

thats the rule of thumb.

That's quite depending on some hardware configurations. I don't have any FPS trouble with my i7 920 and HD5870, but i guess that some people with better hardware do have more FPS troubles for whatever reason.

[white 1]

That's quite depending on some hardware configurations. I don't have any FPS trouble with my i7 920 and HD5870, but i guess that some people with better hardware do have more FPS troubles for whatever reason.

i agree, some rare people get good fps, allegedly at least. but i dont use the exceptions as the rule. also depends on the persons perception of whats playable, to me anything under 30fps is terrible. (and on my sig theres a link showing exatcly how terrible under 30 fps is)

Edited April 21, 2013 by white

[froggyluv 2130]

i agree, some rare people get good fps, allegedly at least. but i dont use the exceptions as the rule. also depends on the persons perception of whats playable, to me anything under 30fps is terrible. (and on my sig theres a link showing exatcly how terrible under 30 fps is)

Thats too abstract. How exactly do you know who's getting decent fps and who isn't -by the amount of complaints? Generally people who are having problems post 100 to 1 to those who aren't (or in some cases more). Also, by what settings are you standardizing that 30fps? What view distance and resolution? What amount of AI or is it purely MP or Wastland?

Maybe rather than calling Dev's dumb or lying or whatever -spend time creating this database would be time better spent...:rolleyes:

[Leader 0]

Most important thing is processor speed which in this game needs to be over 4 Ghz. You are only at 2.5...way too low for this game im afraid...nothing will help you except a new and more powerful CPU. You'll also need a modern graphics card for gaming but that doesnt need to be top end...cpu is more important.

Not correct ArmA 3 will happly run on a Core i3-530 2.9GHz

Where can you buy a CPU that runs on 4Ghz or more at stock speeds?

[chrisb 196]

Most important thing is processor speed which in this game needs to be over 4 Ghz. You are only at 2.5...way too low for this game im afraid...nothing will help you except a new and more powerful CPU. You'll also need a modern graphics card for gaming but that doesnt need to be top end...cpu is more important.

double the recommended game specs, overlclock it over 30% and you will get a barely playable average fps.

thats the rule of thumb.

This type of misinformation plagues this series.

_________

[white 1]

Thats too abstract. How exactly do you know who's getting decent fps and who isn't -by the amount of complaints? Generally people who are having problems post 100 to 1 to those who aren't (or in some cases more). Also, by what settings are you standardizing that 30fps? What view distance and resolution? What amount of AI or is it purely MP or Wastland?

Maybe rather than calling Dev's dumb or lying or whatever -spend time creating this database would be time better spent...:rolleyes:

the very few that stated they had 45 minimum, or 60-80fps or whatever, i called them out whenever i saw it and asked for proof. can you guess how many came foward to prove their statements? NONE. yes i gave them a few parameters, either using the heli showcase or a few other stuff. what is it with you people and wasteland? to you is that the only mission there is? you should check out the low usage cpu/gpu topic, really, theres a lot of usefull information in there, you should read it.

100-1 eh, care to share how you came about that info? and who has called the devs dumb? please quote whoever that was. and a lot of people come foward to defend BIS and ArmA especially in this forum for pure fanboyism.

Not correct ArmA 3 will happly run on a Core i3-530 2.9GHz

Where can you buy a CPU that runs on 4Ghz or more at stock speeds?

no it wont, 18-29 fps is unacceptable: (and thats with a top tier computer with a gtx690.)

http://i.imgur.com/USKkvXQ.jpg

the i3-2100 would be closer to acceptable.

and a 8350 is 4ghz. but usually when people is talking about arma 3 they mean an intel overcloked to 4ghz+ and a lot of arma players do that.

This type of misinformation plagues this series.

_________

blind fanboyism aswell.

Edited April 22, 2013 by white

[froggyluv 2130]

the very few that stated they had 45 minimum, or 60-80fps or whatever, i called them out whenever i saw it and asked for proof. can you guess how many came foward to prove their statements? NONE. yes i gave them a few parameters, either using the heli showcase or a few other stuff. what is it with you people and wasteland? to you is that the only mission there is? you should check out the low usage cpu/gpu topic, really, theres a lot of usefull information in there, you should read it.

100-1 eh, care to share how you came about that info? and who has called the devs dumb? please quote whoever that was. and a lot of people come foward to defend BIS and ArmA especially in this forum for pure fanboyism.

I get high 70's to 90's in Helo Showcase all settings on standard -it's tiresome but I can youtube it up for you oh non believer. The 100-1 is in reference to certain posters who's almost entire post count is dedicated toward their displeasure at a game, make that an Alpha, that doesn't perfectly scale all cores or run 64bit exe -a feat that I'm still trying to find other games that do so besides BF series. The complaints have the tone as if BI are way beneath the status quo when I just don't see the justification. The level of vitriol and underhanded comments is actually pretty funny when considering this is a $30 piece of software -a video game -not a mutual fund database with billions of assests on the line -but that is the tone of some here.

To me the software IS cutting edge even if the hardware usage isn't. Its the final result and playability that matters to me and in that sense I haven't needed to check my FPS or hardware usage on any level since weeks ago as the game plays fine.

Edit: Just to note, in no way do I mean to undermine people having legitimate problems just getting the Alpha to play and don't want to minimize their plight.

Edited April 22, 2013 by froggyluv

[Razorman 10]

Laptops are not for gaming, thank you.

[chrisb 196]

the very few that stated they had 45 minimum, or 60-80fps or whatever, i called them out whenever i saw it and asked for proof. can you guess how many came foward to prove their statements? NONE. yes i gave them a few parameters, either using the heli showcase or a few other stuff. what is it with you people and wasteland? to you is that the only mission there is? you should check out the low usage cpu/gpu topic, really, theres a lot of usefull information in there, you should read it.

100-1 eh, care to share how you came about that info? and who has called the devs dumb? please quote whoever that was. and a lot of people come foward to defend BIS and ArmA especially in this forum for pure fanboyism.

no it wont, 18-29 fps is unacceptable: (and thats with a top tier computer with a gtx690.)

http://i.imgur.com/USKkvXQ.jpg

the i3-2100 would be closer to acceptable.

and a 8350 is 4ghz. but usually when people is talking about arma 3 they mean an intel overcloked to 4ghz+ and a lot of arma players do that.

blind fanboyism aswell.

More misinformation..

Regards ‘fanboyism’, do I get a plaque or something, or is it similar to a ‘OBE’, medal in a box :rolleyes:

[white 1]

I get high 70's to 90's in Helo Showcase all settings on standard -it's tiresome but I can youtube it up for you oh non believer. The 100-1 is in reference to certain posters who's almost entire post count is dedicated toward their displeasure at a game, make that an Alpha, that doesn't perfectly scale all cores or run 64bit exe -a feat that I'm still trying to find other games that do so besides BF series.

"The 100-1 is in reference to certain posters who's almost entire post count is dedicated toward their displeasure at a game" That doesnt really makes sense because someone else repeating themselves wouldnt count as more than 1.

Sure, you can just upload the video file aswell since youtube limits the framerate to 30fps, and since ive never saw someone flying the heli showcase with 90fps, i get around 20-25 fps myself, that would be a very cool thing to watch, i would appreciate it. and i find it ironic that you fit inside the intel 4ghz+ niche which are part of the few that have playable fps, usually with around 45 average fps, which means 30 or less minimum fps.

ive posted crysis 3 aswell besides bf3 performance screenshots, and others have posted a few other games like f1 2012 and farcry 3. example:

http://cdn.overclock.net/d/d3/d3796154_proz20amd.jpeg

More misinformation..

Regards ‘fanboyism’, do I get a plaque or something, or is it similar to a ‘OBE’, medal in a box :rolleyes:

ask BIS about it, some companies do hire people to post positive feedbacks on foruns as a guerilla marketing strategy, but some people do it for free aswell for some reason i cant fathom. and what about posting an argument and some information to back it up? next time ill just report you for flooding and flaming on posts with no content at all.

Edited April 22, 2013 by white

[bigshot 62]

Guys - there's really no arguing about this. For right now, it's fact that proc speed is still going to be "king" in games such as this and some other games where expansive detailed terrains and large amounts of "thinking" AI traffic meet.

If the OP is having trouble right NOW (in alpha with small island, little detail and low counts of AI) then he will be even more unhappy with his 2.5 Ghz proc once the larger Altis region is released (which will not only dwarf Stratis and the A2 maps but will also contain more detail than any map before it)...throw a mission on Altis with 100+ AI running around (such as with a mission like Warfare for example), then add in some aircraft flying around to boot and you'll quickly learn that proc speeds of over 4 ghz will still not be enough for many players...but it's the 1 thing that will make the MOST difference.

You can buy a $600 graphics card to get the latest and greatest thing, but if you pair it with a 2.5 ghz proc you'd be throwing your money away. A new GPU is never going to get you from 10-15 fps up to 30-40 fps no matter how much it costs, not in Arma anyway (unless perhaps you are running a gpu that is not considered a good gaming card to begin with, thats different).

Theres too much going on in this game that requires heavy proc speeds...the entire game is very proc dependent and always has been. You can easily test this yourself if you actually take the time out and do it (as I have many times over the years with many machines in different configs).

Once Altis and the rest of the content is released, fps will likely either drop at that point for most players, or it will stay around the same as it is now ( but ONLY if BIS can optimize very well between now and then). Most people here seem to be forgetting about this...and do you think that when it happens that a new gpu alone will get you the frames you want?....VERY unlikely. Your money would be best bet on investing in higher proc speeds.

Honestly, it wouldnt surprise me to see A3 needing 5+ Ghz proc speeds to really play the larger AI soaked missions on Altis with nice frames per sec. I mean I HOPE not...I hope that 3.5ghz-4.5ghz will remain enough depending upon the mission...but it wouldn't surprise me to see otherwise...not at all.

[jbetbrice 10]

Remember it's only an Alpha , they will be several tweaks on the game in BETA---RELEASE ! :p

[white 1]

it's tiresome but I can youtube it up for you oh non believer.

Can you?