New AMD 13.4 and 13.5 (beta) drivers.

[Simas 12]

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.

Noticed the same thing, but I am on NVIDIA hardware, so this is probably not hardware related.

[Zorg_DK 10]

Yeah, maybe not. I saw a while back another dude reporting the same.

[BlackLord 0]

The new driver indeed improved performance a little.

White, stop trolling please, go back playing whatever games you like to play and let go of ArmA 3 if it's such a disappointment.

[jumpinghubert 48]

White, stop trolling please, ...

many thanks

[chrisb 196]

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.

The misinformation maestro aren’t you, well 600hrs enduring bad performance sort of sums you up….

It went from the mid 30’s fps (my post) to 30 (your post) then to below 30 (your post again). How much and how many times do you have to bend the facts until it fits your argument.

Or is it the case that it has to fit your argument, in the time it takes you to get back in your pram having picked your rattle up...

[dnk 13]

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

I'm fine with CoH running at 30FPS or Civ4 running at 20.

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

I've been playing FPSes since DOOM I came out on floppy. I don't need a 120hz monitor because, guess what, I'm not a "pro". I play casually, usually COOP which requires the reflexes of a snail most times. I'm "fine" with 30FPS right now. More would be nice, of course, but I've settled on the 30s and 40s as being acceptable.

Anyway, FPS is less important to me than lag spikes. So long as the action is smooth, whether it's at 30 or 80 FPS is less important for my experience. 60FPS regularly and jarringly stalling for 100-150ms is almost equally as painful as 25FPS regularly stalling for 100-150ms. I'd much rather have 30FPS constant than 60 with constant spiking.

Not saying Arma does that, but saying that your outlook is fairly simplistic and your overgeneralizations about "everyone knows it" are just that.

Civ4 is fine if it runs at 20FPS because you don't need twitch responses in a TBS. CoH is fine at 30FPS because, again, twitch reflexes are fine. Same for Arma at 30. It's less pleasant than 60FPS, but playing without grass and a 600m viewdistance is even worse. I'm not trying to win a tourney, I'm just sitting back and shooting AI fish in a barrel or skulking around trying to not get shot by bandits most of the time.

[felthat 1]

this is thread about amd drivers, we have already several performance threads

[white 1]

The misinformation maestro aren’t you, well 600hrs enduring bad performance sort of sums you up….

It went from the mid 30’s fps (my post) to 30 (your post) then to below 30 (your post again). How much and how many times do you have to bend the facts until it fits your argument.

Or is it the case that it has to fit your argument, in the time it takes you to get back in your pram having picked your rattle up...

mid 30´s means it gets to less than 30. you do know what an average is right? doesnt seem to. altough i was frustrated by arma 2 i started playing because of friends that already did, and at the time my computer wasnt great so i coped with it, and nowdays it should perform way better, but it doesnt. and like ive said several times, the one thing that i expected from arma 3 was better performance.

I'm fine with CoH running at 30FPS or Civ4 running at 20.

civ to me is civilization, is that what you are talking about? theyre games in which you dont have to aim precisely, and hell, with turns you can take an hour to click once. doesnt even make sense to bring that game up.

any shooter-like game needs fps for precise aiming and to compensate recoil. thus the same goes for war flight sims and other genres. and ive competed on live for speed and fps also makes a lot of difference in racing games. and who said anything about lag spikes, is that your rationalization? one doesnt exclude the other so it has nothing to do with it. clear case of cognitive dissonance.

this is thread about amd drivers, we have already several performance threads

i agree, i just replied to false statements regarding fps and how they magically perform better on arma when low. and as usual fanboys jump to attack anything or anyone that disrupts their fantasy world. so people should attack the one that went offtopic to begin with and not the one who replied correcting him, and simply stop replying with more inquiry about it so i dont need to answer.

Edited April 26, 2013 by white

[Leon86 13]

any shooter-like game needs fps for precise aiming and to compensate recoil.

doesn't matter as long as everyone has crap fps :D

anyone seen a frametime comparison of these drivers vs an earlier one?

[ruiner_ 10]

Sometimes when I crawl on uneven terrain I get a weird texture warp on the ground. I'm not really sure if it was introduced in these drivers or one of the alpha updates.

[dnk 13]

@white (to cease the derailment but say my piece)

civ to me is civilization, is that what you are talking about? theyre games in which you dont have to aim precisely, and hell, with turns you can take an hour to click once. doesnt even make sense to bring that game up.

If my mirror responses to your absolutish posts seems nonsensical, perhaps you should reflect on that...

any shooter-like game needs fps for precise aiming and to compensate recoil. thus the same goes for war flight sims and other genres. and ive competed on live for speed and fps also makes a lot of difference in racing games. and who said anything about lag spikes, is that your rationalization? one doesnt exclude the other so it has nothing to do with it. clear case of cognitive dissonance.

Yeah, all those consoles are impossible to aim in. Only a thumb, too. Where's a "lol smiley" when you need one?

To spell it out for you, I've played most FPS titles since the genre was invented. There are many that I wouldn't play today at 20-30FPS because I wouldn't be competitive online. Most on the forum know these games well - cutting your reactions by just 100ms can make a huge difference in your gameplay and success in MP because you have opponents coming at you from every direction almost every second in some fast-paced constant-respawn mess of a small map. On the other hand, I can get by with 25FPS and a 300ms ping in Arma without many issues. Funny how you ignore actual experience when you hand-wave away opposing opinions as "cognitive dissonance" (and what's the term for believing everyone who disagrees with you suffers from psychological problems exactly?).

To take another game as an example, BF1942 was a game where low framerates would kill your online success, but playing the DC mod made them significantly less important because A) the maps were generally much larger and B) the engagement ranges and deadliness were much larger as well. There were still classic-'42 moments and maps, but many other scenarios where tactics, surprises, good positioning, and teamwork made more of a difference than good old spray&pray. For those latter situations, framerate was far less important overall than your approach to play and how tactical you were. Reflexes, hand-eye, and ping would help to an extent, but you could still be a "good" player with a solid head and a little teamwork instead. Try just having those two on a classic '42 map, though, and you'd get nowhere fast as it was more of a melee than anything.

And, yeah, I managed to do pretty well on the older BF titles with equally poor FPS and pings. I really loved those twitch shooters, and wouldn't mind picking one up again for a bit for fun now. They're a different type of game, and can be a good bit more fun than Arma at times. Doesn't change the fact that just because they're all "FPSes" doesn't mean they're all the same sort of game with the same skills being tested in the same ways and degrees.

and as usual fanboys jump to attack anything or anyone that disrupts their fantasy world. so people should attack the one that went offtopic to begin with and not the one who replied correcting him, and simply stop replying with more inquiry about it so i dont need to answer.

Come into thread, state some nonsense in the most trollish way possible, claim everyone disagreeing is a delusional fanboy, don't apologize for clearly baiting a thread offtopic, and claim it's everyone else's fault. Got a psychology term for that one, so I can hand-wave away your entire online presence with two words?

[white 1]

Come into thread, state some nonsense in the most trollish way possible, claim everyone disagreeing is a delusional fanboy, don't apologize for clearly baiting a thread offtopic, and claim it's everyone else's fault. Got a psychology term for that one, so I can hand-wave away your entire online presence with two words?

i started by replying to a post that stated that arma 3 design has some sort of magic that makes poor fps behave better than other games( its a fact, the posts are there, you just have to read the topic to verify it but still you argue that im the delusional one? thats funny not to say mediocre attempt at an ad hominem), while it does not. it behaves exactly like any other game that has the same poor fps, which is poorly. i kept being addressed and i replied accordinly exactly like now. If you have a problem with that its problably because you are not aware of how discussion foruns work, because this is one, and its not a circlejerk forum on which people continuously praise everything inside a fantasy land and turn against anyone that infers a reality check (oh wait, maybe it is). like ive said, if you don´t want me to reply either say something that makes sense, hell or not, as long as is on topic, neither what the first post that i replied or the others did, or simply, dont address me. The even funnier thing is, the on topic post i did, not replying to anyone, was completely ignored and i didnt post anything about it again, curious how that worked isnt it.

But since you did address me, heres my reply:

you want to add latency to how it affects gameplay but thats a completely unrelated discussion that has nothing to do with poor fps. if you prefer or not low ping/latency to high fps thats completely your personal opinion and has no place in a fps discussion, because like ive already said they do not exclude each other. i have both high fps and very low ping/latency in several games, so what. changes nothing, one isnt usually bound to another.

yes unaware, uninformed or ignorant people might mistake lag for bad fps, people with bad fps might mistake it for lag, but thats based on ignorance and not knowing how each affects and behaves, on this discussion i automatically assume everyone knows the difference between them, and assuming that you do know, makes no sense to bring latency into the discussion, that is a discussion you are having alone with your imagination.

if your gameplay style didnt involve precise aiming in which 30 fps or lower mattered thats your problem and your perception. ive had tons of situations in arma where fps was the reason i could not get a precise shot fast enough while waiting for the "slides" to redraw, or couldnt trail the movement to get a proper shot while compensating recoil when i had completely tactical advantage over the target, a behavior that mimics exactly every other first person shooter there is on the same low fps. well maybe not wolfeinstein or doom in which you could aim at anywhere on the screen 50% of the time and still hit the enemy, maybe thats why you bring doom up, from your perception maybe things havent changed much.

you say you started out with doom, i started out with tanks on atari and played fps´s on computer since wolfeinsted 3d, i had doom in original floppy disks and i live in fucking brazil, so what? i started online deathmatchs with quake and duke3d, and played almost everything (anything worth to look at) since. all of this changes absolutely nothing in the argument we are discussing, you can still be bad, blind or have no grasp for logic for that matter (and i naturally dont expect you to be aware of it aswell), the point is all this information have no weight on this discussion.

if you want to say you can turn, trail, fire and compensate recoil smoothly and magically on the arma franchise with 15 fps because arma handles fps differently or because arma is slow paced and works differently from every other game, you are completely blind. i said 15 because thats extreme, 30 ive always said is the minimum acceptable but it still is bad, the negative effects are lowered a lto compared to 15fps and most people dont even notice them but to any hardcore player they are there clear as day and are like in any other game.

another game that i had to lower the settings to get a minimum of 50fps because i was seeing frame drops affecting my aim while trailing fire is war thunder, that ive played a lot in the last few weeks. tell me, is war thunder a twitch shooter? when an enemy is a few of pixels on your screen and specially when you are both moving you will need all the frames you can get in order to be precise.

im completely astounded when people try to defend that 30 or lower fps is fine in a first person shooter on a pc, specially when people try to say that soem game that behaves exactly the same has some hidden magic properties that makes it special and work differently. i get to a point that i almost say "go back to playing cod on consoles". because thats pretty much it, millions of people play first person "twich" shooters on consoles without noticing how bad the 30 fps or lower is, because they do drop, and this is exactly the same, they love their game and they simply ignore it, because there is no other option. thats a textbook cognitive dissonance behaviour if there is ever one, but dont feel bad, everyone uses this behaviour daily on a variety of situations, its very common but most people simply dont know theres a name for it.

Edited April 27, 2013 by white

[jumpinghubert 48]

god damn white, its a matter of taste. Open a window if existing and take a breath

[kremator 1064]

mid 30´s means it gets to less than 30.

In what alternative universe does this happen? Mid 30's means around 35ish!

Sheesh!

[white 1]

Mid 30's means around 35ish!

Sheesh!

semantics, that might be the definition you are used to, but to me, mid 30´s means an average with no lower or upper limitation, because its an average. kind like any game review ever in which they show both the average and the minimum that can be a lot different from it.

---------- Post added at 18:58 ---------- Previous post was at 18:58 ----------

god damn white, its a matter of taste. Open a window if existing and take a breath

heheh im cool, but thanks.

[gliptal 25]

Anyone with a HD7850? Any improvements?

Yay!

[babydoc 1]

Anyone with a HD7850? Any improvements?

Yay!

I have a 7850 and played wasteland and the frames are higher but that can be due to the lack of vehicles maybe?

There werent any vehicles spawning on the map I played.

About 40 players, no vehicles. Frames was a LOT higher.

[Dimaslg 10]

With which ones do you feel better improvement? 13.4 or 13.5 beta? btw, its my first AMD, to change drivers just unnistall the olders and install the news right? like with the nvidia ones.

[Gera_CCT 12]

Anyone with a HD7850? Any improvements?

Yay!

I have a 7870 Oc and No Gains here.

[teejayd 1]

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.

Absurd

[white 1]

With which ones do you feel better improvement? 13.4 or 13.5 beta? btw, its my first AMD, to change drivers just unnistall the olders and install the news right? like with the nvidia ones.

Nowdays you dont have to uninstall either prior to installing newers ones, unless an specific problem prevents you from doing it properly on the first run. Just check the installed driver version afterwards or if any issues came up during install.

I just advise doing so when changing from nvidia to ati or the other way around, even though technically its also unecessary, it might prevent some possible issues and cleanup unnecessary lingering crap. On that case i would also recommend driver cleaner and ccleaner afterwards.

Edited April 28, 2013 by white

[max power 21]

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.

This is true and it's actually something we found at work. 30 steady fps appears to perform a lot better than 60 fps that dumps frames.

[white 1]

This is true and it's actually something we found at work. 30 steady fps appears to perform a lot better than 60 fps that dumps frames.

well i find it not to be true and find that 60fps that falls to 30 now and then performs a lot better than 30 average, which is notgood to begin with. also, find your statement biased. what now.

one thing i can agree on, when you are playing at 60fps and suddenly starts playing at 30 you clearly notice how bad 30fps is.

[nicolasroger 11]

I think that a lot of people will agree that stable 60 is better in every way than stable 30. But the point really is about it being stable to begin with. I didn't realised that before reading this topic and it makes sens. I have about 40 fps overall but it is not stable at all. So I will limit my frame rate to 30 fps insteed to get a better overall game experience.

Anyway, good for you fellow amd users about the drivers.

EDIT: I just tried it and I find the experience to be way smoother then a jumping 40 fps average.

Also, to clear maybe some confusion, I am not talking about "average 30 fps", but driver locked steady 30 fps. Average 30 thats goes up and down feels horrible to me too.

Edited April 28, 2013 by nicolasroger

[max power 21]

well i find it not to be true and find that 60fps that falls to 30 now and then performs a lot better than 30 average, which is notgood to begin with.

I think you're thinking of a frame rate that is 60 for a while, then is 30 for a while. I'm talking about a constantly inconsistent high frame rate vs. a constantly consistent low one. At any rate, at work we were going for a constant 60 which we found wasn't achievable on low end devices. We found that once we lowered the max frame rate to 30, the user experience was much smoother. Our graphics programmer was telling me that this phenomenon is confirmed in technical papers.

also, find your statement biased. what now.

I'm getting tired of your flame baiting. Speak to me and other users respectfully or not at all. Consider yourself warned. There will be no further warnings without administrative action.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Max Power