Amd and issues to come...(Froggy can add)

[Dwarden 1125]

please use commandline parameter

-cpuCount=8

with your eight core CPUs

[Insanatrix 0]

please use commandline parameter

-cpuCount=8

with your eight core CPUs

It doesn't do much except spread the already minuscule load across more cores. There's not much more depressing than going from a 75/40/25/25 total core load to a 75/30/15/15/8/8/8/8 total core load. In some cases it actually makes performance worse.

[Tr51 1]

I can't say I'm really impressed with the performance on my rig either.

Intel I7 3770k water cooled and overclocked

16gb RAM (800 MHz dual channel)

EVGA GTX Titan (overclocked)

and Arma 3 installed on a 256gb Samsung 840pro SSD

I want to write a wall of text, but I'll just say that the engine needs a serious overhaul. That's what I wanted to see with Arma 3.

hi,

I agree to 100%

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

Well after changing some settings again and restarting the game every time I changed something. It suddenly runs very smooth again in singleplayer and in some multiplayer missions getting up to 50-80 fps. But sadly enough, the mod I enjoy the most atm is Wasteland and I'm getting max 22 fps there which in alpha was still a lot smoother.

But after viewing this site you gave (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/6), it's kinda very obvious that the game is COMPLETELY optimized for intel CPU and AMD is COMPLETELY forgotten. A friend of mine has an i5 2500K with +- same videocard and the game runs very smooth on his PC, while i have a phantom 2 955 which is almost identical speedwise.

If you look at the benchmarks a CPU AMD FX-8150 (4.818GHz) scores worse then a 2500K @ 3,3ghz... what a joke :s

Yes i'm aware that the benchmarks are done on Arma 2 but Arma 3 is an upgraded engine of Arma 2, so the results will be the same.

you should give sa-matras wasteland version a try if you haven't, i get a lot more fps there compared to other versions (with a intel setup but still)

[Gera_CCT 12]

Run the Editor alone. If you Get good FPS, like i Do, than The Problem lies in MP code or servers, like everyone else. Wasteland, Dominations are not good for testing performance right know.

[ric 1]

It doesn't do much except spread the already minuscule load across more cores. There's not much more depressing than going from a 75/40/25/25 total core load to a 75/30/15/15/8/8/8/8 total core load. In some cases it actually makes performance worse.

If i understand the new AMD architecture correctly there are 8 cores 4 modules..meaning there are 2 cores per module but the problem comes in as they are sharing a single resource which in some instances makes there performance worse :( I understand it was a cost saving measure but may actually cost them in the end :( I have read of some people turning off cores 2-4-6-8 (i think) which helped performance.

[Insanatrix 0]

If i understand the new AMD architecture correctly there are 8 cores 4 modules..meaning there are 2 cores per module but the problem comes in as they are sharing a single resource which in some instances makes there performance worse :( I understand it was a cost saving measure but may actually cost them in the end :( I have read of some people turning off cores 2-4-6-8 (i think) which helped performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AMD_Bulldozer_block_diagram_(CPU_core_bloack).PNG

2 integer cores with a one FPU, Shared L1 instruction cache, and Shared L2 data cache. If you read the white papers on them, they have issue's with certain script interpreters and environments.

http://developer.amd.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/SharedL1InstructionCacheonAMD15hCPU.pdf