New AMD 13.4 and 13.5 (beta) drivers.

[imrevned 1]

I have a Radeon HD 7950 3GB, and after installing the official 13.4 drivers, my performance has increased significantly so far. I had a huge issue of mouse lag before, and now it is completely gone.

So, if anyone else is having issues and is an AMD user, check out these new drivers ^^

[Dwarden 1124]

yep I can confirm this, not just for our games , definitely step into right direction ...

[thr0tt 12]

I have a Radeon HD 7950 3GB, and after installing the official 13.4 drivers, my performance has increased significantly so far. I had a huge issue of mouse lag before, and now it is completely gone.

So, if anyone else is having issues and is an AMD user, check out these new drivers ^^

So which ones 13.4 or the 13.5 beta or have you both tried both ? I'm gonna install shortly the whql ones and see for myself I think.

[palanoid 0]

I installed 13.5 beta 2 but no noticeable improvements. will try the 13.4 WHQL,thank you.

[imrevned 1]

I installed the official 13.4 drivers, and I went into editor and went from around 50fps in Agia Marina to 80fps (this was last night).

I booted up the game a few minutes ago to test it out again, now my fps is back down to the 40's :/

---------- Post added at 12:05 ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 ----------

Okay, I am running a little test. I just uninstalled all my video drivers and tried out the game. I had no mouse delay and was getting an average of 60 FPS in the middle of Agia Marina.

I will reinstall the 13.4 drivers and let you know what I get.

EDIT: Okay, after installing the 13.4 drivers (did not reboot PC as it didn't say it was required), my FPS in Agia Marina now ranges from 60-80+, with an average of 70 FPS (with NO mouse lag at all). So, I can now say that the update has really improved my performance.

Edited April 25, 2013 by imrevned

[thr0tt 12]

yep I can confirm this, not just for our games , definitely step into right direction ...

Are you running alpha dev chain or mainstream ? Same goes for OP as that may give us more valuable data into performance differences.

[imrevned 1]

Are you running alpha dev chain or mainstream ? Same goes for OP as that may give us more valuable data into performance differences.

Mainstream/Official

[Smurf 12]

Does this affect the old HD4830?

Downloading anyway...

EDIT: No, it don't.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Smurf

[mighteemouse 1]

When I get home I will test and see if the same performance improvement applies for my 6850.

[TSAndrey 1]

Does this affect the old HD4830? http://adrenaline.uol.com.br/forum/images/smilies/haha.png

Downloading anyway...

EDIT: No, it don't.

Yeah, it doesn't support the HD 4000 series. I'm pretty sad now :butbut:

[white 1]

i bet that if it had any changes for arma 3 it would be on the changelog like they do with every other significant game. considering arma 3 has been one of the top sellers on steam for a while it applies as being significant. lesser bugs might be fixed though.

[Dwarden 1124]

well for me the main noticeable effect is latency of frames, the low and avg frames ... in all titles I tried so far so I like the new 13.5beta so far

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

well for me the main noticeable effect is latency of frames, the low and avg frames ... in all titles I tried so far so I like the new 13.5beta so far

What GPU are you using? I am wondering if these will have any impact on my 5870 as the release notes do not mention specific latency fixes for certain GPU's.

[Noyesmaker 1]

I just tested with both 13.4 and 13.5 and had no noticeable change in editor running around agia marina. I have a 7870. averaged from low 40's to upper 40's depending on where you where, with dips into upper 30's and low 50's.

[niktator 10]

No difference with 5870 1gb.

greets, Nik

[chrisb 196]

I was talking to and watching one of our group members running a couple of little scenarios he had put together for Stratis. I mentioned to him that he had nice smooth game-play, moving the mouse around quickly and slowly, zooming in and out, moving around the environment in town, woodland, etc smoothly and easily. Everything was a nice gaming experience. I get the same, I said to him, it really makes a difference to game-play when you can actually watch the game and not be looking for game related performance issues, now I know this is not the case for everyone, but for our group it seems to be the case. I went on to say to him how having higher fps made the difference, as to how the game looked and performed.

Now to my surprise he popped on the counter and his fps was in the mid 30’s, he played on with the counter onscreen, more or less all over the map, the fps was the same, dropping perhaps -3/4fps in heavier areas. The whole game-play was quite a bit lower than my fps, but it still ran absolutely smooth, with quite a number of ai (80ish, not met all at once of course), it was as if I was watching a 60fps flat rate game-play.

My point here being, that you forget sometimes (me included), that this series can run really well at lower fps, I think BIS have worked on that, understanding perhaps that not everyone will get high rates. It can and will look great and perform well, nice and smooth, at lower rates, so fps is certainly not the supreme thing to aim for. It is system specific, some systems will look and perform as if they were on higher rates than they actually are, maintaining a steady game-play throughout.

Now I run 12.1 driver amd and stopped there, only because that was where, my best performance up to that date, was (my pc1 'sig'; HD5850 2gb). I didn’t want to upset that, it more than covered the game type I wanted to play and it did it very well.

It works both ways with drivers, not all are good, I would always wait to see the reviews from gamers regards new drivers, never take it as certain that your game will perform better than the previous driver, so be careful when changing as trying to re-trace footsteps doesn’t always workout well, some systems do not take kindly to restoring backwards, where drivers are the case.

Just beware, its good to have up to date drivers, but there again, if it produces any problems, it can be hard to get back the good performance you might have had before updating, ‘if it isn't broke, don’t fix it’ does make sense.;)..

P.S. I’m not condoning that players should not update card drivers… urmm, well actually I am, if your happy with your performance as it is. Don’t change up just to see if you can gain that extra 1 or 2 fps which, if we’re honest, won’t make that much of a difference if your game is already good.

[white 1]

I was talking to and watching one of our group members running a couple of little scenarios he had put together for Stratis. I mentioned to him that he had nice smooth game-play, moving the mouse around quickly and slowly, zooming in and out, moving around the environment in town, woodland, etc smoothly and easily. Everything was a nice gaming experience. I get the same, I said to him, it really makes a difference to game-play when you can actually watch the game and not be looking for game related performance issues, now I know this is not the case for everyone, but for our group it seems to be the case. I went on to say to him how having higher fps made the difference, as to how the game looked and performed.

Now to my surprise he popped on the counter and his fps was in the mid 30’s, he played on with the counter onscreen, more or less all over the map, the fps was the same, dropping perhaps -3/4fps in heavier areas. The whole game-play was quite a bit lower than my fps, but it still ran absolutely smooth, with quite a number of ai (80ish, not met all at once of course), it was as if I was watching a 60fps flat rate game-play.

My point here being, that you forget sometimes (me included), that this series can run really well at lower fps, I think BIS have worked on that, understanding perhaps that not everyone will get high rates. It can and will look great and perform well, nice and smooth, at lower rates, so fps is certainly not the supreme thing to aim for. It is system specific, some systems will look and perform as if they were on higher rates than they actually are, maintaining a steady game-play throughout.

Now I run 12.1 driver amd and stopped there, only because that was where, my best performance up to that date, was (my pc1 'sig'; HD5850 2gb). I didn’t want to upset that, it more than covered the game type I wanted to play and it did it very well.

It works both ways with drivers, not all are good, I would always wait to see the reviews from gamers regards new drivers, never take it as certain that your game will perform better than the previous driver, so be careful when changing as trying to re-trace footsteps doesn’t always workout well, some systems do not take kindly to restoring backwards, where drivers are the case.

Just beware, its good to have up to date drivers, but there again, if it produces any problems, it can be hard to get back the good performance you might have had before updating, ‘if it isn't broke, don’t fix it’ does make sense.;)..

P.S. I’m not condoning that players should not update card drivers… urmm, well actually I am, if your happy with your performance as it is. Don’t change up just to see if you can gain that extra 1 or 2 fps which, if we’re honest, won’t make that much of a difference if your game is already good.

there is no such thing as "this or that game runs smooth in 30fps" what goes on is cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) of accepting what you have and making due with it, even trying to make yourself believe that it is fine since you are stuck with it. yes there are tricks like smoothing frames to make it less horrible. try the link on my sig to test out different options between fps/blur/speed.

a lot of people think 30fps if fine simply because they dont know better, usually those are console players since theyve always been stuck with 30 fps or less but there are a lof of pc ones with bad rigs aswell. any experienced gamer that is used to good smooth fps around 60 knows this. its not in vain that pro players try to use 120hz monitors and use gtx690 on low settings in games like crysis 3 in order to achieve those kinds of fps´s. and to ones that say our eyes cant handle it, or eyes can handle and notice way more than 400 fps.

you can check for a fact the huge difference in this comparison: (try with and without blur and such)

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

2 factors to take notice, if you have a 60hz monitor, more than 60fps wont make any difference. and when watching movies on youtube they are limited to 30fps.

a comparison gameplay video with 24vs60fps, but you have to download to watch: http://www.solidfiles.com/d/a369a/

to be clear, this: "that this series can run really well at lower fps" is complete and utter nonsense.

Edited April 26, 2013 by white

[sqb-sma 66]

there is no such thing as "this or that game runs smooth in 30fps" what goes on is cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) of accepting what you have and making due with it, even trying to make yourself believe that it is fine since you are stuck with it. yes there are tricks like smoothing frames to make it less horrible. try the link on my sig to test out different options between fps/blur/speed.

a lot of people think 30fps if fine simply because they dont know better, usually those are console players since theyve always been stuck with 30 fps or less but there are a lof of pc ones with bad rigs aswell. any experienced gamer that is used to good smooth fps around 60 knows this. its not in vain that pro players try to use 120hz monitors and use gtx690 on low settings in games like crysis 3 in order to achieve those kinds of fps´s. and to ones that say our eyes cant handle it, or eyes can handle and notice way more than 400 fps.

you can check for a fact the huge difference in this comparison: (try with and without blur and such)

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

2 factors to take notice, if you have a 60hz monitor, more than 60fps wont make any difference. and when watching movies on youtube they are limited to 30fps.

a comparison gameplay video with 24vs60fps, but you have to download to watch: http://www.solidfiles.com/d/a369a/

to be clear, this: "that this series can run really well at lower fps" is complete and utter nonsense.

I kinda disagree, Arma isn't a twitch shooter, so some of the responsiveness at 60fps is, not wasted but superfluous. The game really does play fine at 30-40 fps so long as there is no stutter. I used to get smooth 40's but I've recently started getting choppy 60-70 (with stutters that seems to be solitary frames, instead of clumps, gah!) and it really detracts from the experience, takes you right out of the game with trackIR (you can no longer trust where you are looking).

While 60fps is obviously better, between 40 and 60 at least smoothness is more important.

OH, and, more than 60fps WILL make a difference to responsiveness, as someone from the ol' CS scene the responsiveness improves drastically when the frame times go below 8-10ms, everything feels a lot crisper and going back to 15-20ms frame times feels like you're slightly drunk, just a tiny bit of inconsistency.

[incontrovertible 13]

I installed the 13.4 drivers and noticed improvements so I then tried the 13.5 drivers but it isn't reflecting the update in catalyst control center.

[Smurf 12]

...

Of course more FPS are always better, but Arma goes fine with 30 or even less because it isn't a twitch shooter.

In this case, I rather have a nicer looking game than a more fluid one, nonsense?

I can't have any right now...

---------- Post added at 22:48 ---------- Previous post was at 22:47 ----------

...

Of course more FPS are always better, but Arma goes fine with 30 or even less because it isn't a twitch shooter.

In this case, I rather have a nicer looking game than a more fluid one, nonsense?

I can't have any right now...

[white 1]

Arma isn't a twitch shooter

Arma goes fine with 30 or even less because it isn't a twitch shooter.

In this case, I rather have a nicer looking game than a more fluid one, nonsense?

This is starting to sound like fox news, repeating a lie wont make it true.

FPS is absolutely necessary for compensating recoil between shots, specially against a moving target. exactly like a twitch shooter or any other shooter whatsoever.

i agree that 30 fps minimum is reasonable for being able to play, but there is clear advantage gameplaywise on having more fps on ArmA, like any other game. so stating that ArmA handles better with lower fps is nonsense.

"In this case, I rather have a nicer looking game than a more fluid one, nonsense?" You should be able to get both, graphics is not the limiting factor here, cpu usage, simulation syncing and how AI is handled is. unfortunatly BIS appears to be a small team and is unable to both deliver a great concept and make it perform as well as it could at the same time.

Edited April 26, 2013 by white

[Smurf 12]

so stating that ArmA handles better with lower fps is nonsense.

Who said that?

You should be able to get both, graphics is not the limiting factor here, cpu usage, simulation syncing and how AI is handled is

My whole PC is the bottleneck.

[white 1]

Who said that?

ChrisB

"My point here being, that you forget sometimes (me included), that this series can run really well at lower fps, I think BIS have worked on that, understanding perhaps that not everyone will get high rates. It can and will look great and perform well, nice and smooth, at lower rates, so fps is certainly not the supreme thing to aim for. It is system specific, some systems will look and perform as if they were on higher rates than they actually are, maintaining a steady game-play throughout."

utter nonsense.

My whole PC is the bottleneck.

Yeah i cant disagree there, but from mid-high end machines it comes down to mostly the cpu.

anyway, im completely fine with people enjoying playing with less than 30fps, i myself have played a lot while enduring it, specially on arma 2 where i mustve played more than 600h. i´m just annoyed when people go on about how arma works differently fpswise, because it doesnt.

Edited April 26, 2013 by white

[old_painless 182]

OK, so the 13.4 drivers are good?

As for smooth play, turn off the motion blur and put Arma3 on an SSD. Then one can manage with a rig that only yields somewhat lower fps, around 25-30, say.

[Zorg_DK 10]

I still have this weird thing where I have to alt-tab to desktop and back to the game after the game has loaded to get good fps. Odd, but it makes the game smoother to alt-tab. Go ahead and try it. Running a 5870, 13.5, and Radeonpro.