Poor performance, even after going from a 8120 to a 4670k

[Planetside 1]

It still runs horribly? I was assuming that it was my CPU bottlenecking me, but no its just the game I guess?:confused:

[ZoneTrooper 10]

What do you mean with 8120 the resolution? ATM in Multiplayer it doesnt matter what kind of PC you have,because the server admin adjusts stuff like visibility,draw-distance and thats the setting that takes the most performance.You can have a GTX Titan with the newest Intel CPU pushed on over 4,4Ghz and 8GB ram and it still runs like crap on game modes like Wasteland.Maybe you allready noticed that when you play coop missions it just runs great,but when you go on wasteland server the performance can drop pretty bad.

[chortles 263]

Mind you, the mission's coding/scripting quality matters too... I haven't heard good things about how well the Wasteland modes for Arma 3 were coded.

[ric 1]

It still runs horribly? I was assuming that it was my CPU bottlenecking me, but no its just the game I guess?:confused:

who told you it was your 8120 that was the problem?!?!?!? you should make them pay you for the 4670..... the 8120 is the not the best chip but it is far from the worst.

[Insanatrix 0]

This game is CPU limited in the sense it's single core limited. The biggest factor is going to be how fast your CPU is, not how many core's it has.

This game is severely limited by the SQF scripting that comprises over 75% of the core functionality of this game, because SQF is single threaded and that is where the CPU bottleneck comes into play. I suspect that is why they were implementing Java into the engine. Imagine trying to rewrite all of the SQF Config arrays and functions and scripting done just in the vanilla content in Java or any other scripting language. It probably won't happen in ArmA 3 and it may not even happen in the next iteration of the RV engine. Eventually though it will have to change.

[NicotinKickballovich 1]

I wouldn't bother upgrading unless your computer is way lower than the recommended specs for ArmA 3. I'd just wait for them to finish the development and see how it performs from there. Even in ArmA 2 if you'd join a crappy server, with a crappy mission you'll still get horrible framerates, while other servers and missions would run flawlessly. Same story with ArmA 3 really.

[RuecanOnRails 10]

You should be testing performance in single player, not multiplayer as the servers can cause low fps and lag if they can't handle the load or you are have a high ping.

Arma 3 also STREAMS from the HDD with many I/O, which can cause LOD popping, stutter, and general slugishness if your drive cannot keep up with the constant new data needing to be loaded/rendered. The biggest upgrade you could do would be an SSD if you don't already have one. You can also try to set up a ramdisk for some of the constantly read files.

And as others have said the game is still in development, bugs issues, and performance may change once it hits final release. Making it hard to recommend some hardware over another or even suggesting upgrades.

[Leon86 13]

It still runs horribly? I was assuming that it was my CPU bottlenecking me, but no its just the game I guess?:confused:

what is horribly? and what's your graphics card?

also, disable vsync in the options, if you're on the dev branch it's probably turned on agian.

also in documents there's some folders witha arma 3 cfg files. might want to edit the one with frames ahead in it to this.

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=1;

on my pc this game runs reasonably well, core i5 750 on 4GHz, your cpu should be a good bit faster. A 8120 performs quite a bit worse because this game only scales well to 3 cores. and the per-core performance isn't very good with the 8120.

I'd also recommend disabling pip in the options, and make sure mouse smoothing / acceleration slider is all the way left (off)

[jumpinghubert 48]

Planetside, more information please.

[Tyl3r99 41]

i have a I7 3970X - apparently this the best CPU currently out on the market :) is this true?

[wormeaten 0]

This is scary.

I want to buy new rig and no one can actually give me real advice what to buy.

Terrible.

[Tyl3r99 41]

good cpu and gpu there u go lol

my rig is...

I7 3970X 3.5GHZ

16GB RAM

GTX690 DDR5

2TB HDD

250GB SSD (STEAM)

WATER COOLED

[Fuse 1]

i have a I7 3970X - apparently this the best CPU currently out on the market :) is this true?

No. At least not for these purposes... And why recommend it to him when you posted in another thread saying you were still having performance issues?

This is scary.

I want to buy new rig and no one can actually give me real advice what to buy.

Terrible.

Yeah, that's not exactly uncommon or unique to these forums, that's just the internet.

Buy a CPU that can be easily OCed and a GPU that has, and this is just a guesstimate, at least 1.5GB of VRAM if you want to push the detail out nice and far.

i5 2500k @ 4.8GHz, GTX 570 (also OCed). PC is over a year old and cost less than $1k USD when it was new. Still runs Arma 3 very well with almost everything maxxed out except the distance. My only real hitch when playing is the low VRAM on this card (1.2GB). The 2500k has been discontinued (it's old!), I merely provide it as an example of what you want, nothing fancy just lots of headroom to OC (though I do see people recommending used i5 I haven't ever bought a used part so I don't feel comfortable suggesting that). Go poking around and see what is in your budget and will get up to a high clock speed without doubling your costs with a real watercooling set up ("real" meaning not a pre-made closed loop, which is usually less efficient than a cheaper air heatsink).

[ric 1]

This is scary.

I want to buy new rig and no one can actually give me real advice what to buy.

Terrible.

tell us how much money you have to spend and we will spec you a rig :)

[RuecanOnRails 10]

tell us how much money you have to spend and we will spec you a rig :)

Might be best for him to visit a TECH forum rather than a game community forum ;) While many of us are able to list off suggestions and point out things that will work. Tech specific forums will help you get the most out of your budget.

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

It still runs horribly? I was assuming that it was my CPU bottlenecking me, but no its just the game I guess?:confused:

what gpu? give us more system specs

also what fps are you getting?

[Tyl3r99 41]

www.cyberpowersystems.co.uk

[Fuse 1]

www.underpoweredsystems.co.uk

I think he needs to know what parts he wants first.

Also, prebuilts are for chumps. :p

[fabio_chavez 103]

i think BI should ban wasteland missions until they can proof to be able to deliver something that is not complete garbage, performance wise.

[RuecanOnRails 10]

i think BI should ban wasteland missions until they can proof to be able to deliver something that is not complete garbage, performance wise.

Best to go complain in the wasteland's developer thread or wherever he hangs out and releases the mission.

Arma is built upon community created content, even if that content is poorly optimized (by the mission creator, not Arma devs). They will not implement any sort of moderation of user created content as that would remove all the freedom we currently have.

Most of the new users coming to Arma 3, see and assume that every mission available in multiplayer was made and released by the Arma Devs.

[wormeaten 0]

I know exactly what will I get from which hardware and for what price.

Here we have example how PlanetSide read lot of bullshit about superiority intel over AMD or opposite. This just prows ingames they about the same doesn't matter is it i7, i5 or fx.

There is no bottlenecks at all it is only bad code. ArmA 3 is based on OFP 20 year old engine written in Visual Basic and all ends here.

This is it there will be no significant changes in ArmA 3 performance same like they didn't do it in 4 years of ArmA 2.

[cashxx 10]

I wonder how much of a difference using a PCIE Flash Storage would make? Apple is getting close to 800MB Read and Writes on its Mac Air's and the Mac Pro they are saying 1200MB/sec. Think about that, an SSD is getting roughly 400MB/sec if your lucky! Hopefully if Apple starts making these mainstream the prices will start coming down. The SSD's have been slowly dropping with everyone starting to use them.

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/11/macbook-airs-pcie-based-flash-storage-approaches-800-mbs-read-and-write/

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

I know exactly what will I get from which hardware and for what price.

Here we have example how PlanetSide read lot of bullshit about superiority intel over AMD or opposite. This just prows ingames they about the same doesn't matter is it i7, i5 or fx.

There is no bottlenecks at all it is only bad code. ArmA 3 is based on OFP 20 year old engine written in Visual Basic and all ends here.

This is it there will be no significant changes in ArmA 3 performance same like they didn't do it in 4 years of ArmA 2.

There is a huge difference in performance between intel and amd cpus in game, i've tried i7 2600k, fx-8350 and i5 2500k and both intel cpus are a lot faster than the amd in both multiplayer and singelplayer, average fps is around 10 higher on the same server with intel cpu with rest of the system being the same. even bigger difference if you compare to a phenom 2

I wonder how much of a difference using a PCIE Flash Storage would make? Apple is getting close to 800MB Read and Writes on its Mac Air's and the Mac Pro they are saying 1200MB/sec. Think about that, an SSD is getting roughly 400MB/sec if your lucky! Hopefully if Apple starts making these mainstream the prices will start coming down. The SSD's have been slowly dropping with everyone starting to use them.

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/11/macbook-airs-pcie-based-flash-storage-approaches-800-mbs-read-and-write/

Samsung just started massproducing a ssd with PCIE 2.0 interface that has read speed up to 1400mb/s, though faster hdd will only result in faster load times, not increased fps

[wormeaten 0]

There is a huge difference in performance between intel and amd cpus in game, i've tried i7 2600k, fx-8350 and i5 2500k and both intel cpus are a lot faster than the amd in both multiplayer and singelplayer, average fps is around 10 higher on the same server with intel cpu with rest of the system being the same. even bigger difference if you compare to a phenom 2

Yes this difference is show up in bad optimized engines and proves only real benefit intel over AMD and that is better performance in single thread what is not cause in other better optimized games. That is the fact and prows ArmA 3 is not optimized not intel superiority.

i7 is to expensive and don't have any in game advantage over i5 in general. In other games i5 over AMD fx series of CPU have almost the same performances and benchmarks results and differences are in margin of error so it is insignificant.

Problem here is not the hardware at all and theme of this thread is not same bad performance on fx 8120 as on i5 4670k.

I don't care which CPU is better point is with optimized code on both CPUs game should fly above 60fps.

Right now more of 50% system power are not used at all and with this potential it it will be used like is in Bf3 or Crysis 3.

If I want to increase performance of ArmA 3 but for increasing performance for 50% I will need increase my hardware performance by 250% and in general what is way below should be.

Also benchmarks will show that new hardware will have even lower percentage of used hardware potential what shows that only bottleneck here is game engine nothing else.

That's the point not intel or AMD. Who cares.

[Planetside 1]

If it means anything, when I played on the 8120, not more than 20% of my cpu was used, now it uses only 50% of each core.