SLI Utilization Issues

[purepassion 22]

You don't need to prove your performance from other games as it has no significance. Arma 3 is a different game with a different scope and different scale. It's also not finished yet ;)

If you don't manage to keep this thread worthy of its own discussion (e.g. a specific issue with SLI or Crossfire) but rather a general complaint about performance, I'll have to close it and redirect you to the already existing performance threads.

[sephis 10]

You don't need to prove your performance from other games as it has no significance. Arma 3 is a different game with a different scope and different scale. It's also not finished yet ;)

If you don't manage to keep this thread worthy of its own discussion (e.g. a specific issue with SLI or Crossfire) but rather a general complaint about performance, I'll have to close it and redirect you to the already existing performance threads.

I'd say it is significant and perfectly within the context of this conversation. The point that many seem to make is that my CPU is too old to be able to try and play this game on higher settings or that it's bottlenecking my GPU's which is why I was demonstrating that those claims are unfounded given that, even the most taxing of games (ie metro LL), run without fault. How is that not "worthy" of this conversation exactly?

All I want to know is if there will be any optimisation for SLI or just in general in the near future as, at the moment, the game is completely unplayable for me. If the engine performs so badly with a small island and a limited selection of vehicles then what the hell is going to happen when it has the full map with tanks, jets, attack choppers, hundreds of AI etc?

Edited June 7, 2013 by sephis

[purepassion 22]

Metro LL is a completely different game without dynamic AI and huge rendering distances etc and thus it is demanding your system in a completely different way which makes it useless to compare with the alpha version of A3.

SP runs reasonably well but whenever I try to play online [...]

While there certainly is still room and need for plenty of optimization and fixes, you already noted that singleplayer is running good for you :)

The only thing you can do right now is to adjust the settings until you get your desired performance, point out specific problems in the feedback tracker and wait until the game undergoes the optimization phase.

[sephis 10]

Ugh, I'll try and explain again, I was not comparing ARMA and Metro in ANY WAY. I was merely quashing peoples claims that my hardware was outdated by showing that it can easily handle the most demanding games currently on the market.

Also, I said the SP is running reasonably well. Good's a bit of a stretch. I still get huge drops in frame rate when there's a lot going on or it's in a more built up area of the map. It seems that no one can give me a straight answer about when the game was going to be optimised for SLI so I guess I'll just have to sit and wait in the hope that one day I can actually play the game.

I'm getting really fed up with people saying to lower the settings. Here's an exaple of how much good that does.

This is ULTRA config with full AA, long distance etc

http://imageshack.us/a/img24/1325/arma32013060701270446.jpg (370 kB)

26fps

This is the default setting for STANDARD

http://imageshack.us/a/img855/2666/arma32013060701271886.jpg (287 kB)

32fps

So turning all the settings from Ultra to standard/off, disabling AA completely and lowering the view distance gets you 6fps

Edited June 7, 2013 by sephis

[bangtail 0]

I'd say it is significant and perfectly within the context of this conversation. The point that many seem to make is that my CPU is too old to be able to try and play this game on higher settings or that it's bottlenecking my GPU's which is why I was demonstrating that those claims are unfounded given that, even the most taxing of games (ie metro LL), run without fault. How is that not "worthy" of this conversation exactly?

Sorry, but it does not 'run without fault' at 'even at the most taxing settings' as you keep claiming.

By your own admission, you are not running at max settings and the fact that you don't think you need SSAA at that resolution does nothing to diminish that fact.

The benchmark you ran was run at 1080P, not 1440P and your minimum FPS (the most important imho, was 9) with another sizeable portion hovering ~30 (which is ok, but I certainly wouldn't classify that as 'handled with ease', even at 1080P).

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/1107/metroll.jpg

Similarly, I can cherry pick screenshots where my FPS is 120 in A3, that is certainly not representative of my average FPS.

As you rightly say, it doesn't perform well for you but conversely, SLI performs fine for others.

Anyway, I digress.

Edited June 7, 2013 by BangTail

[sephis 10]

Sorry, but it does not 'run without fault' at 'even at the most taxing settings' settings as you keep claiming.

By your own admission, you are not running at max settings and the fact that you don't think you need SSAA at that resolution does nothing to diminish that fact.

The benchmark you ran was run at 1080P, not 1440P and your minimum FPS (the most important imho, was 9) with another sizeable portion hovering on 30 (which is ok, but I certainly wouldn't classify that as 'handled with ease', even at 1080P).

Similarly, I can cherry pick screenshots where my FPS is 120 in A3, that is certainly not representative of my average FPS.

As you rightly say, it doesn't perform well for you but conversely, SLI performs fine for others.

Anyway, I digress.

Well you're clearly not going to believe me no matter what I say or post and so this debate is entirely redundant and, as pure passions stated, out of context. Those drops to 9 happen in a split second and I didn't even notivce them watching the benchmark. The simple fact is that I've played through Metro at the aforementioned settings 3 times and I average at 50-60fps which I consider to be running 'at ease'. if you refuse to accept that well then ....whatever helps you sleep at night squire.

Edited June 7, 2013 by sephis

[bangtail 0]

Well you're clearly not going to believe me no matter what I say or post and so this debate is entirely redundant and, as pure passions stated, out of context. Those drops to 9 happen in a split second and I didn't even notivce them watching the benchmark. The simple fact is that I've played through Metro at the aforementioned settings 3 times and I average at 50-60fps which I consider to be running 'at ease'. if you refuse to accept that well then ....whatever helps you sleep at night squire.

I sleep fine at night, I just don't like people making misleading claims.

I believe M:LL runs well enough for you, what I said was that it did not run 'with ease' at 'max settings' (which, JFYI, means everything turned on) @ 1440P, which it does not.

Case closed - squire ;)

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Edited June 7, 2013 by BangTail

[RuecanOnRails 10]

The main reason people aren't taking your issue seriously is simply because you used and defended the common mistake... "Game A can run at X settings, So game B should run at that too!!" The Arma series can not be compared in ANYWAY to other games. It's simply in a league of it's own which is why the only acceptable argument is "Arma 3 is running worse than arma 2" at which point people can then help. You also never asked for help in setting up config files, but rather said the game is broken and needs to be fixed as the fault could not possibly be on your end.

The Arma series does not use any sort of "canned" or forced settings to ensure a specific fps across the board where low = low end gaming machine and ulttra = enthusiast gaming machine. Instead Arma gives the player FULL control over settings and optimizations. You need to go through an create your own personal settings that work for you. Reduce a few things while pumping up others as you see fit, balancing looks with performance.

These settings are NOT accessed by the in-game menu. Rather through the arma config files and editing via notepad.

Arma 2 uses very similar configuration setup. If you look into optimizations for Arma 2 and applied them to arma 3, there's decent chances you will improve your overall experience.

Arma 3 streams content from your hard drive. Try running it off of an SSD if possible, you will instantly get faster LOD loading. You can also look into adding a few of the constantly accessed files to a ramdisk. Set up process monitor to analyze your gameplay ofr a few minutes to see what's being read, loaded/unloaded, and overall amount of I/Os.

Edited June 7, 2013 by RuecanOnRails

[sephis 10]

@RuecanOnRails: Funnily enough I have just done a clean wipe of windows and installed an SSD which is what ARMA 3 was installed to. I haven't noticed a blind bit of difference though apart from slightly better loading speeds.

I'll say it again one more time as people seem to be having a bit of trouble understanding this. I was not saying that because game B runs well then ARMA should. There are a number of people saying that it's because my cpu/mobo is old or it's bottlenecking my GPU's so I was just making the point that every other game I own run flawlessly on their max settings.

As I also pointed out; changing the settings barely makes any difference.

This is ULTRA config with full AA, long distance etc

http://imageshack.us/a/img24/1325/arma32013060701270446.jpg (370 kB)

26fps

This is the default setting for STANDARD

http://imageshack.us/a/img855/2666/arma32013060701271886.jpg (287 kB)

32fps

I've spent hours going through and trying out these different launch parameters as well which haven't helped either. ARMA 2 & Arrowhead (more so) run great though.

I believe M:LL runs well enough for you, what I said was that it did not run 'with ease' at 'max settings' @ 1440P, which it does not.

Like I said, it runs great at those settings with SSAA turned off. Never saw it go below 40fps (average 50-60) apart from during the finale. The benchmark results were were a poor reflection of how the game runs as it's an extremely intensive demonstration in terms of how much is rendered in the scene. Anyway, like you say, lets agree to disagree.

Edited June 7, 2013 by sephis

[njmatrix 2]

Videocards have nothing to do with this, it's your CPU.

wait he has an I7 3.6 Ghz, 8 gigs of ram running at 1600 respectfully and you're gonna say it's an issue with his CPU? what CPU IS good to run this game if ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL CPU"S TO DATE can't? Jesus Christ what does he have to do to run a game? seriously.

[MavericK96 0]

There are optimization issues with the game. I don't think that is really disputable at this point considering it is an Alpha.

[max power 21]

I'll say it again one more time as people seem to be having a bit of trouble understanding this. I was not saying that because game B runs well then ARMA should. There are a number of people saying that it's because my cpu/mobo is old or it's bottlenecking my GPU's so I was just making the point that every other game I own run flawlessly on their max settings.

You really have to understand that because your CPU is meeting the demands of one game doesn't mean it's meeting the demands of another. Arma is notably way more CPU dependent than other games, and so while the out-of-dateness of your CPU may be contested, the fact that it's bottlenecking Arma 3 I really don't think can be. Fortunately, performance may improve as development goes on, but for now, I think chances are very good that the reason why you're not getting much out of your SLI is the combination of this game and your CPU.

[ric 1]

You really have to understand that because your CPU is meeting the demands of one game doesn't mean it's meeting the demands of another. Arma is notably way more CPU dependent than other games, and so while the out-of-dateness of your CPU may be contested, the fact that it's bottlenecking Arma 3 I really don't think can be. Fortunately, performance may improve as development goes on, but for now, I think chances are very good that the reason why you're not getting much out of your SLI is the combination of this game and your CPU.

just an FYI for you Max, the I7 860 is still rated higher than the i5 2300 (recommended) at stock speeds and the OP is also running his CPU almost a GHz higher than stock as well, the OP is getting the same issues i am with a 2500K @4.2GHz so i really don't think you can blame his CPU.

http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/Intel/Core_i7-860.html

@OP as far as the SLI issues i think you will need to wait for the final release before any such drivers have been optimized to take advantage of SLI.

[max power 21]

just an FYI for you Max, the I7 860 is still rated higher than the i5 2300 (recommended) at stock speeds and the OP is also running his CPU almost a GHz higher than stock as well, the OP is getting the same issues i am with a 2500K @4.2GHz so i really don't think you can blame his CPU.

http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/Intel/Core_i7-860.html

Maybe Arma isn't tolerant to huge overclocking then? According to messages in the thread, other users are using SLI just fine apparently.

edit: I'm in the same boat as TOP. I have a rig that eats games and shits FPS but in arma 3 it's brought down to mere mortal performance.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Max Power

[chrisb 196]

OP; Just bare bones, but what rates do you get single unit in the editor, on say, airfield, in town, countryside ?

How many ai can you place and still run good rates when most ai are engaged, in SP, not BIS scenario, but in the editor, say in or around town or airfield ?

[jumpinghubert 48]

my answer to his problem: change the server or the mp mission :-P

[njmatrix 2]

There are optimization issues with the game. I don't think that is really disputable at this point considering it is an Alpha.

Thats funny because we said the same thing about ArmA, ArmA 2 and ArmA CO and now ArmA 3 Alpha.... That is clearly what is "undisputable"

[max power 21]

Thats funny because we said the same thing about ArmA, ArmA 2 and ArmA CO and now ArmA 3 Alpha.... That is clearly what is "undisputable"

To be honest, the game runs how it runs, but the only people who know how well optimized it is are the people who work on it. Demanding is not the same thing as not optimized. I'm not saying it is optimized, I'm saying we have no way of knowing. If it's as efficient as it can be, the only thing you can do to make it run better is to start removing things. My point is is that it doesn't matter what anyone in the community says about it being optimized or not, that's just conjecture. It is not necessary to dispute blind conjecture because blind conjecture is not an argument, but it is certainly disputable. The issue is that it's demanding. It doesn't matter if it's optimized or not, the complaint is the same either way, and no doubt the response is the same. They do what they can do.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Max Power

[Dwarden 1124]

let me repeat what I posted so many times on the forums, you can't optimize game (except correct framebuffer/memory etc detection) for Crossfire or SLI ...

that's job for IHVs and theirs drivers and driver's profiles ...

[chortles 263]

What does IHV stand for in this case?

[Dwarden 1124]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_hardware_vendor e.g. NVIDIA, AMD, INTEL ...

[Mellonpopr 10]

let me repeat what I posted so many times on the forums, you can't optimize game (except correct framebuffer/memory etc detection) for Crossfire or SLI ...

that's job for IHVs and theirs drivers and driver's profiles ...

has there been any communication with the video card hardware vendors on the subject? if so, what's being done about it? any idea when a fix will be implemented?

also, what's being done about the multi core CPU problems?

by looking through the countless posts/threads on this subject and by monitoring my own pc it seems clear that arma 3 is under utilizing the video card and processor which is causing dismal performance in game compared to other games. Personally I'm seeing ~35% GPU usage from each of my Nvidia GTX 460 in SLI and 65% on the first of my 4 core I7 950 3ghz cpu with the other cores being used at a fraction of that. Knocking down video resolution from 1920 to 720 improved the fps about 20 and overclocking the CPU to 3.7ghz picked up another 15-20fps. I also turned off or set features to their lowest options to pick up a few more fps here and there. That is how I've been able to get decent frame rate but of course the video quality suffers greatly to do this. Average FPS in MP is about 50-60 but still dives into the 20's and hangs out there often which is pretty brutal at times.

[kklownboy 43]

I get 99% GPU usage at peak... and can be around 80% for duration of mission. CPU usage is in the 80% for four cores at times.. but varies high 70% high 60%. Even have spikes of 90+ on core-1.

It depends on my Vidcard OC and my Display Resolution + VD/ObjD.

1300hz @1440p+2500k = 99% vidcard and 80%+ CPU.

FPS is 40s to 85fps (vsync) in MP, with the low 20s in high AI + dense objects. Using 1800k VD keeps my 20s in the high 30s. Lowering Terrain to High, puts my 40s to 60s. i7 @4ghz, 7970 3GB card.

I would say a 460 is a slow card and two slows dont make a fast. the game is better on New architecture(real DX11, better shader support) and more than 2GB of VRAM. A GTX760 or R7950 will be the sweet spot for price to performance @ 1080p.

As for IHVs (AMD,Nvidia) working on the Alpha.... maybe, but i would think not too much. And definitely not for the 4XX series of cards. They are EOL.

[teejayd 1]

I get 99% GPU usage at peak... and can be around 80% for duration of mission. CPU usage is in the 80% for four cores at times.. but varies high 70% high 60%. Even have spikes of 90+ on core-1.

It depends on my Vidcard OC and my Display Resolution + VD/ObjD.

1300hz @1440p+2500k = 99% vidcard and 80%+ CPU.

FPS is 40s to 85fps (vsync) in MP, with the low 20s in high AI + dense objects. Using 1800k VD keeps my 20s in the high 30s. Lowering Terrain to High, puts my 40s to 60s. i7 @4ghz, 7970 3GB card.

I would say a 460 is a slow card and two slows dont make a fast. the game is better on New architecture(real DX11, better shader support) and more than 2GB of VRAM. A GTX760 or R7950 will be the sweet spot for price to performance @ 1080p.

As for IHVs (AMD,Nvidia) working on the Alpha.... maybe, but i would think not too much. And definitely not for the 4XX series of cards. They are EOL.

That's perfectly fine, but you have to remember what was put in the recommended requirements field:

OS:Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 SP1

Processor:Intel Core i5-2300 or AMD Phenom II X4 940 or better

Memory:4 GB RAM

Graphics:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 or AMD Radeon HD 7750 with 1 GB VRAM or better

People with much better rigs are having problems to run the game with more than 25 fps on multiplayer.

It was the same on ArmA 2. I'm with a Phenon II X4 myself and I have problems breaking over 20 sometimes. If the minimum requirements were an i7 overclocked, i'd not have a problem with it.

[Mellonpopr 10]

to anyone else that wants to dismiss the problem, read through this, it is the #1 problem being reported on the feedback tracker. I may not have the fastest rig out there but like I said before it plays all of my other games worlds better and I'm certain that's because they utilize a much higher percentage of my cpu/gpu http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716