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

[jumpinghubert 48]

Planetside, are you joking? After 4 days no additional information related to your pc specs? LOL

[Fuse 1]

Planetside, are you joking?

I think he was referring to the fact that Planetside's craptastic engine was apparently made with no consideration to the type of game it would be running, thus it suffers from the same problem Arma has where a high clock speed is pretty much the most important factor in running it well.

Edit: Or my dumb ass could have just misread Worm's post and not noticed the OP was named after a once-great title. Don't worry, I feel sufficiently stupid.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Fuse

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

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.

tbh i don't know how multithreading works with games, and i'm guessing that if it was easy to code a game to take advantage of all threads and use all available cpu power it would have been done already. until the day this happens the only two things we can do are cry like a baby and buy a system that has supperior "singel" threaded performance

and you're right about the i7, though it will help streamers a bit unless they have a dedicated stream card.

[ric 1]

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

we all know intel has the lead right now but this "issue" is not about intel or AMD its about the arma engine.

here are 2 guys with 670's playing crysyis 3 maxed out one has a 2500k the other a 8120.

8120 SMAA max setting 40-60 fps

2500k SMAAx2 max sttings 40-70 fps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILMKYEJ_QC0

---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:06 ----------

tbh i don't know how multithreading works with games, and i'm guessing that if it was easy to code a game to take advantage of all threads and use all available cpu power it would have been done already. until the day this happens the only two things we can do are cry like a baby and buy a system that has supperior "singel" threaded performance

.

here ya go :)

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?157096-Software-Data-Spreading-Leveraging-Distributed-Caches-to-Improve-Single-Thread-Perfo&p=2419978#post2419978

[jumpinghubert 48]

here ya go :)

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?157096-Software-Data-Spreading-Leveraging-Distributed-Caches-to-Improve-Single-Thread-Perfo&p=2419978#post2419978

sounds very interesting.

[ric 1]

sounds very interesting.

lets hope the devs agree with you and this in fact cant be applied to the engine...it would be a win win for everyone :)

[wormeaten 0]

pr0ph3tSWE why you constantly talking about intel vs AMD? Do you understand what people here writing? Do you know to read at all?

the title of this thread is " Poor performance, even after going from a 8120 to a 4670k ".

If you don't know 4670k is for intel i5 4670k and what part here you don't understand?

I'm sick of this childish smartass who's only argument is like when two child arguing which father is stronger.

I'm repeating again there is no discussion which CPU is better. In ArmA 3 both sucks because it is not problem in CPU.

GPU sucks as well because it is not problem in GPU the problem is elsewhere.

Problem is 20 years old engine made in Visual Basic. Who is using today Visual Basic for high end games coding?

Actually it is amazing how good ArmA 3 is working when we know in what they made engine.

[Planetside 1]

Planetside, are you joking? After 4 days no additional information related to your pc specs? LOL

I'm not joking.

I used to own a Sabertooth 990FX with a FX-8120 overclocked to 4.5Ghz. I don't notice much difference when playing with a ASUS Z87A and a Intel i5 4670k at its turbo speed of 3.8Ghz. I spent close to $475 on this upgrade and its funny that ArmA3 doesn't benefit as much as I thought it would. What else do you want to know? I have a 7200RPM hard drive and 8GB's of DDR3 @ 1600Mhz.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Planetside

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

pr0ph3tSWE why you constantly talking about intel vs AMD? Do you understand what people here writing? Do you know to read at all?

the title of this thread is " Poor performance, even after going from a 8120 to a 4670k ".

If you don't know 4670k is for intel i5 4670k and what part here you don't understand?

I'm sick of this childish smartass who's only argument is like when two child arguing which father is stronger.

I'm repeating again there is no discussion which CPU is better. In ArmA 3 both sucks because it is not problem in CPU.

GPU sucks as well because it is not problem in GPU the problem is elsewhere.

Problem is 20 years old engine made in Visual Basic. Who is using today Visual Basic for high end games coding?

Actually it is amazing how good ArmA 3 is working when we know in what they made engine.

I know perfectly well what people are writing, I also know what a 4670k is, I also don't play on shitty servers with badly optimized mission files and then whine about low fps. Fact is i have no problems at all with fps on the wasteland servers i play on.

I'm not arguing anything, i'm just stating facts about cpu power.

I don't know anything about game engines tbh, but ask yourself this, when you have a big open world game like arma, it's bound to be heavy on the cpu, how much will you have to sacrifice to get it to run good on slower cpu's like phenom 2s and fx's? From what i've read and heard from devs in the past there are only so many things that can be multithreaded.. and while some other games run good on all cpu's none of them are even close to be the same size as arma.

That said i'm sure they can and will optimize the game a bit more for launch, mission creators will script their missions better etc etc

[jumpinghubert 48]

I'm not joking.

I used to own a Sabertooth 990FX with a FX-8120 overclocked to 4.5Ghz. I don't notice much difference when playing with a ASUS Z87A and a Intel i5 4670k at its turbo speed of 3.8Ghz. I spent close to $475 on this upgrade and its funny that ArmA3 doesn't benefit as much as I thought it would. What else do you want to know? I have a 7200RPM hard drive and 8GB's of DDR3 @ 1600Mhz.

:j: sorry.....please compare both cpu´s with same clockspeeds...... What gpu do you have?

[root 1]

What matters is the speed .... you can have 8 core cpu running on 3.5 GHz but it still perform worse than 2 - 4 core cpu with higher core clocks, lets say 4.7. So I would get CPU which is able to overclock well (the K version from Intel) and overclocked it.

[maddogx 13]

Guys, please note that this is not an AMD vs. Intel thread, nor is name calling appreciated on these forums. Please keep it civil and on-topic.

[wormeaten 0]

Guys, please note that this is not an AMD vs. Intel thread, nor is name calling appreciated on these forums. Please keep it civil and on-topic.

Exactly it is not about CPU power at all.

I know perfectly well what people are writing, I also know what a 4670k is, I also don't play on shitty servers with badly optimized mission files and then whine about low fps. Fact is i have no problems at all with fps on the wasteland servers i play on.

I'm not arguing anything, i'm just stating facts about cpu power.

I don't know anything about game engines tbh, but ask yourself this, when you have a big open world game like arma, it's bound to be heavy on the cpu, how much will you have to sacrifice to get it to run good on slower cpu's like phenom 2s and fx's? From what i've read and heard from devs in the past there are only so many things that can be multithreaded.. and while some other games run good on all cpu's none of them are even close to be the same size as arma.

That said i'm sure they can and will optimize the game a bit more for launch, mission creators will script their missions better etc etc

There is no facts about CPU. You misleading people and turn this discussion into intel vs AMD CPU. BTW I have intel and never have AMD CPU in my life.

You newer answer if intel is such superior why Planetside have same bad performance in newest intel CPU after he listening people like you and switch AMD for intel? Answer it.

Point here is what ever CPU is used it is 50% and if you go to upgrade with new CPU or GPU usage of your hardware is even lower it is sometime lower than 30%. If you don't know nothing about the code or mutithreading than stop lecturing people and misleading them.

Here I just want that BIS finally tell us the truth about this issue.

ArmA is great game especially with open therein etc but imagine how much better will be if it is optimized and use at least 75% of your hardware to perform. Do I ask too much?

Problem is ArmA is made in Visual Basic who it is not optimized for muticore processors and multithreading. And that's a fact. Actually ArmA working amazingly good for engine made in Visual Basic but who else using Visual Basic today for making high end gamea? Nobody.

Multicore processors are already about 10 years in use and will be even more with more and more cores on it. It is not new technology any more and it is the way how CPU will advance and increase performance.

If you not go with the stream you will down.

[maddogx 13]

Problem is ArmA is made in Visual Basic...

What gave you that idea? I distinctly recall Suma saying that the RV engine was written in C++.

Also, my meaning may not have been clear before, but the discussion about Intel vs. AMD ends here. Any continuation will result in infrations + ban from this thread.

EDIT: In fact it was Maruk who said it:

I'm a programmer, although I don't develop games.

I was wondering, how much of the work with OFP was programming, and how much was the other stuff, like

artwork, mission editing, and so on..

10,000+ files, 250,000 lines of C++ (some assembly), 5,000 textures, 800 3D models, 100,000 words (localized into six other languages), more than 60 single-player and multiplayer missions.

If you're interested to learn something more about the development of OpFlash I recommend to read a post mortem we wrote with Suma for GD Mag and Gamasutra.

Edited June 27, 2013 by MadDogX

[gossamersolid 155]

Problem is 20 years old engine made in Visual Basic. Who is using today Visual Basic for high end games coding?

When you make posts like this, it makes you look really ignorant and unintelligent.

First of all, the RV Engine is written in C++ (primarily). Second of all, the engine is not 20 years old, that means it would have been written in 1993...

Third of all, the .NET languages all compile down into the same code anyways. C# or VB, doesn't matter what it's written in, it'll do the same thing if the code is written the same way.

Fourth of all, VB is a very popular language:

http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

[wormeaten 0]

Yes I made some mistakes and apologize about it.

True is it is 12 years old engine not 20.

Looks it is in the end C++ based engine even some information could find on internet it was made in VB. SQF is also what confusing because it is used with VB as well.

Something known is sqf is one core oriented could be part of the problem.

OK I'm wrong finally get some facts so we are in good way clear this mess once for all. Problem still exist and we could not ignoring it but now we know it is not CPU/GPU problem or 20 years old VB engine.

I'm apologizing again for some wrong informations but I'm glad I did it if this finally start to moving things in right direction. Don't be afraid of criticism if its push right way in good intentions.

MadDogX do right stuff and check it out with devs before answer it. That is what good moderator should do and he deserve

This is most important problem in ArmA in general existing from A2 and now is increase even more. Don't ignore it let be constructive and face it together.

ArmA community is well known in great support to devs and opposite. Devs don't be afraid and give us some tusk to do for you like gathering information with benchmarks or something.

My suggestion for start is to start one big thread which will not be closed until will be really solved it, Moderators should close or remove all similar threads to this one and devs should make one benchmark mission with forcing same conditions so we could send results with our specifications to compare results.

I think this is good for start to finally get in fight with this problem.

If I need to provoke you again to get some results I don't care you can be mad on me but I will do it again if its needed to push you in right direction.

Let's roll our slews and get working.

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

Exactly it is not about CPU power at all.

There is no facts about CPU. You misleading people and turn this discussion into intel vs AMD CPU. BTW I have intel and never have AMD CPU in my life.

You newer answer if intel is such superior why Planetside have same bad performance in newest intel CPU after he listening people like you and switch AMD for intel? Answer it.

Point here is what ever CPU is used it is 50% and if you go to upgrade with new CPU or GPU usage of your hardware is even lower it is sometime lower than 30%. If you don't know nothing about the code or mutithreading than stop lecturing people and misleading them.

Here I just want that BIS finally tell us the truth about this issue.

ArmA is great game especially with open therein etc but imagine how much better will be if it is optimized and use at least 75% of your hardware to perform. Do I ask too much?

Problem is ArmA is made in Visual Basic who it is not optimized for muticore processors and multithreading. And that's a fact. Actually ArmA working amazingly good for engine made in Visual Basic but who else using Visual Basic today for making high end gamea? Nobody.

Multicore processors are already about 10 years in use and will be even more with more and more cores on it. It is not new technology any more and it is the way how CPU will advance and increase performance.

If you not go with the stream you will down.

becasue planetside is most likely exaggerating? if you buy a system for 400 whatever it was money you'd expect more than 5-10 fps more in multiplayer? he never gave any specific numbers which makes this whole thread useless

i'm not missleading anyone, i'm just saying cpu x is faster than cpu y becasue of IPS, per core/mhz performance, whatever you want to call it. increase cpu load by 20-30% in a more optimized engine and that will still lead to the same simplified conclusion, 30% of something lower is still lower than 30% of something higher.

you tell me to stop lecturing people about things i don't know when i've actually tried amd fx 8350 at stock and oc'd to 4.6ghz vs i5 2500k 4.8ghz and 2600k 4.6ghz and seen the difference? which is quite big in the arma engine, this won't change even if they optimize it

and i'm sorry mr mod for using amd vs intel, but i am to make a point about IPS, it's the same in every game that is heavily cpu bound

and wormeaten, a benchmark mission would be great, an official one :)

[Planetside 1]

:j: sorry.....please compare both cpu´s with same clockspeeds...... What gpu do you have?

I have a 7870 @ 1080p. Also, its a original bulldozer. A haswell CPU blows it out of the water since ArmA only uses 3-4 cores well no matter what clock speed its running at.

[Nicolii 1]

My gaming PC is a Intel Celeron G540 @ 2.50Ghz; 8 GB RAM; Sapphire HD7770 GHz Ed; 500 GB + 2 TB (storage) HDD.

I run the game on the high settings preset and my computer sits around 30-35 FPS playing co-op missions with my mates, not hosting, as my upload is too awful for that. But I have no problem playing the single player or testing out my missions in the editor.

As Arma 3 (and the majority of games) are at the moment, you don't need a quad, or more core CPU. Game developers have done very well over the past decade of offloading as much as possible from the CPU to the GPU, it's why your better off having the shadows on high than on low.

What A3 will really need to help with FPS on launch is a SSD as the game will have much more variety in the textures and assets to stream into GPU and system RAM on the island of Altis than it currently does on Stratis. The same with what was the biggest performance hog on people who had beastly machines without SSDs in A2.

I will upgrade on full release with whatever the latest and greatest gaming CPU is, as I know I'll need more power for all the game logic, AI and PhysX processing, and hopefully any multi-threading improvements BIS do in the future. And I'll also upgrade to a SSD for A3 for the intense streaming that I expect the game will have. But I won't need to upgrade my GPU for a little while so that's for later.

But as A3 stands right now, there is no reason to have anything more than a quad-core CPU for this or, for any game. As games are a genuinely difficult thing to do proper massive multi-threading for. And because BIS won't completely start again from scratch (or almost from scratch) like so many engine developers did when multi-cores came around, I expect the VR engine to take a very long time to become properly multi-threaded.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Nicolii