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

[krizz kaliko 1]

So I have noticed as a high end pc user that amd is going to hit the shitter if it satys on corse, I have 2 7950 3GB, and a 8320 OC to 4.4-4.5, my auto detect puts me at ultra everything but thats not realistic, With my specs i Manage 22FPS constant, 15 in battle. I'm not here to complain i'm just stating that AMD is not getting any utilization from cpu to cards. I am probably gonna dump another 800$ into my computer just for this game.:protest:

I am hoping the game will be optimised more in the future(I'm sure it will) but It doesn't really matter, because the devs hardly will come to the rescue and the people like me who have to play will find ways around it. My only reason to bitch is the fact that I put money into my rig to play arma 3, and it is becoming more stressful and aggrovating as time goes on. Cheers, not looking for any rage comments, Just putting this here because the feedback tracker already has 3 high post about amd cards and shit frames

Edited June 26, 2013 by PurePassion
Please don't write the whole text in a bigger or all bold font. Thank you!

[Mansen 10]

I'll agree on the auto detection being way off (It's a beta...), but I cannot agree that it requires an additional gaming PC worth of parts to run it. I'm running it at 40-60FPS at Standard/Normal on most performance intensive settings and it still looks and plays gorgeous.

[kapski 10]

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.

[darkwave 10]

I have exactly the same issue i had around 30-35fps in alpha. In beta 22 fps in high or in low, tried a lot of tweaking with settings but no difference. If I enter a village or in combat it drops to 15.

No difference if I play it in singleplayer or multiplayer. It always remains the same. I did not have this issue in alpha, where in singleplayer it ran supersmooth and multiplayer was slower.

System:

Phantom 2 955 @ 3,2 ghz

ATI 6950

4gb DDR2

[ozzbik 71]

Are you guys using vsync? If so, look at the refresh rate of your monitor. Mine was set to 59Hz in windows, setting it to 60Hz i got an instant 10 fps increase. This is a Windows problem/feature for TV screens.

Also overclocking CPU or GPU can have adverse effects on performance in games (in general).

[wormeaten 0]

If you continuing to write such stuff your thread will be proclaimed as solved and be closed like they do with other threads similar content.

Problem is not solved, it is existing and such ignoring and constant trying to hide it under the carpet get feeling that ArmA 3 is big scam and BIS is aware of it but trying to cover up.

I'm hoping I'm wrong and exaggerate but what else could be problem whit this constant ignoring and covering up this most voted problem of ArmA 3.

If someone give me the fact that I'm wrong in my conclusion I'm apologizing in advance and here is opportunity to BIS to finally spoke openly and honestly about this issue to benefit all of us.

[darkwave 10]

Are you guys using vsync? If so, look at the refresh rate of your monitor. Mine was set to 59Hz in windows, setting it to 60Hz i got an instant 10 fps increase. This is a Windows problem/feature for TV screens.

Also overclocking CPU or GPU can have adverse effects on performance in games (in general).

Nope not using vsync and my screen is set to 60hz :p nothing is overclocked here.

i'm just gonna assume that BIS has been under pressure to release it into beta yesterday while it wasn't ready yet and thats why so many more people are having fps issues compared to alpha :/

I hope this gets fixed soon, because at the moment I paid for a game that I should be able to run on my PC (if you look at the minimum requirements) and yet it isnt playable.

[ozzbik 71]

What are your settings in-game?

[darkwave 10]

What are your settings in-game?

As i said, I tried everything, even using a lower resolution. From everything on disabled/low (which gives +5-7 fps +-) to a variety from low/standard or even standard/high. But it always remains the same

[jumpinghubert 49]

As i said, I tried everything, even using a lower resolution. From everything on disabled/low (which gives +5-7 fps +-) to a variety from low/standard or even standard/high. But it always remains the same

its similar to arma2: you need a fast cpu http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/6

[darkwave 10]

its similar to arma2: you need a fast cpu http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/6

Doesn't really make a lot of sense (read: bullshit), since the alpha run smooth enough with some settings on high/standard. And arma 2 runs fine too :)

[Insanatrix 0]

What do people think, Intel is gonna magically announce the 10ghz RV engine i7 behemoth, just because BI's engine is written for the stone age of technology? If anything you're just gonna start seeing 6-8-10-12 core i5's and i7's, still running around 3-3.5ghz. The issue lay with Bohemia Interactive, it's their issue to fix. Technology isn't gonna save ArmA 3 like it did ArmA 2 and ArmA. It's not gonna be huge jumps in speed, but rather jumps in number of core's per physical CPU's. It's already been shown numerous times in numerous locked threads how the RV engine just does not scale beyond 2 core's and can barely utilize those 2 core's.

Also asking someone to overclock a top of the line CPU should not be considered the norm to provide acceptable performance, that's just poor coding and poor resource management.

[ratszo 17]

If you continuing to write such stuff your thread will be proclaimed as solved and be closed like they do with other threads similar content.

Problem is not solved, it is existing and such ignoring and constant trying to hide it under the carpet get feeling that ArmA 3 is big scam and BIS is aware of it but trying to cover up.

I'm hoping I'm wrong and exaggerate but what else could be problem whit this constant ignoring and covering up this most voted problem of ArmA 3.

If someone give me the fact that I'm wrong in my conclusion I'm apologizing in advance and here is opportunity to BIS to finally spoke openly and honestly about this issue to benefit all of us.

Yo Wormz, you know better than to come into someone's house and crap on their carpet.

[ric 1]

What do people think, Intel is gonna magically announce the 10ghz RV engine i7 behemoth, just because BI's engine is written for the stone age of technology? If anything you're just gonna start seeing 6-8-10-12 core i5's and i7's, still running around 3-3.5ghz. The issue lay with Bohemia Interactive, it's their issue to fix. Technology isn't gonna save ArmA 3 like it did ArmA 2 and ArmA. It's not gonna be huge jumps in speed, but rather jumps in number of core's per physical CPU's. It's already been shown numerous times in numerous locked threads how the RV engine just does not scale beyond 2 core's and can barely utilize those 2 core's.

Also asking someone to overclock a top of the line CPU should not be considered the norm to provide acceptable performance, that's just poor coding and poor resource management.

lol thnx for the laugh :) although a 10GHz could serve a dual purpose...gaming rig and furnace for the house :)

[doveman 7]

Not very good results here either. I just about managed 30fps on StrongHam's Close Air Support mission with the settings below. Putting PiP on even the lowest setting cut it down to 22fps, so I hope that isn't going to be important in missions. I find it too small to be of any use anyway, so no big loss for me.

Note I did try turning everything right down but only got it up to about 35fps at the expense of it looking rather bad. GPU seems to get used quite well, depending on the settings between 70 and 93%. CPU was around 60% though I think (much harder to keep track of as it's changes a lot more than the GPU).

1920x1200, Fullscreen, Vsync Disabled

Sampling: 100%

Texture: V. High

Objects: Standard

Terrain: Standard

Shadow: V.High

Particles: Standard

Cloud: Standard

PiP: Disabled

HDR: Standard

Dynamic Lights: V.High

Overall: 3000

Objects: 1500

Shadows: 100

Bloom and Depth of Field: 100

Blur: 0

SSAO: V.High

Caustics: Enabled

FSAA: 4X

ATOC: All Trees and Grass

PPAA: SMAA Standard

Ansio: V.High

[Krimlo 10]

Yeah I got an insane FPS/performance drop also. I was really excited for this beta.. Then I get in game and I'm like woah whats with this lag? Thought my settings were wrong, but they weren't. Hope it gets resolved.

[ratszo 17]

Nope not using vsync and my screen is set to 60hz :p nothing is overclocked here.

i'm just gonna assume that BIS has been under pressure to release it into beta yesterday while it wasn't ready yet and thats why so many more people are having fps issues compared to alpha :/

I hope this gets fixed soon, because at the moment I paid for a game that I should be able to run on my PC (if you look at the minimum requirements) and yet it isnt playable.

Minimum requirements?:

-CPU: Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz / AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz

-GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT / AMD Radeon HD 3830 /

Intel HD Graphics 4000 with 512 MB VRAM

Man, those are low specs indeed. Hard to believe the intel gfx would work at all.

Try 800x600 rez w/800m view distance? If it runs, it's tweakable.

Good luck!

[wormeaten 0]

Yo Wormz, you know better than to come into someone's house and crap on their carpet.

Look I buy this product so I'm not coming in someone's house to crap. They sell crap to me. And that is my right guaranteed by the low.

If they publish minimum and recommended hardware specifications who is completely wrong we deserve to get some answers which I didn't ask until now.

Now I'm pissed because not answering, ignoring and covering up this problem.

We deserve it honest and straight answer and here is the opportunity for BIS to give us one. What ever truth is.

The worst thing they could do is to doing fools of us like they do last 4 years with ArmA 2.

What do you suggesting? Is it solution to buy ultra high specs configuration with most expensive GPU which will work with 25% of its possibilities to gain 30fps in MP if this is possible at all?

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

Not very good results here either. I just about managed 30fps on StrongHam's Close Air Support mission with the settings below. Putting PiP on even the lowest setting cut it down to 22fps, so I hope that isn't going to be important in missions. I find it too small to be of any use anyway, so no big loss for me.

Note I did try turning everything right down but only got it up to about 35fps at the expense of it looking rather bad. GPU seems to get used quite well, depending on the settings between 70 and 93%. CPU was around 60% though I think (much harder to keep track of as it's changes a lot more than the GPU).

1920x1200, Fullscreen, Vsync Disabled

Sampling: 100%

Texture: V. High

Objects: Standard

Terrain: Standard

Shadow: V.High

Particles: Standard

Cloud: Standard

PiP: Disabled

HDR: Standard

Dynamic Lights: V.High

Overall: 3000

Objects: 1500

Shadows: 100

Bloom and Depth of Field: 100

Blur: 0

SSAO: V.High

Caustics: Enabled

FSAA: 4X

ATOC: All Trees and Grass

PPAA: SMAA Standard

Ansio: V.High

lower overall view distance to 1-1.5k and object distance to something a bit lower, like 800m or so, depending on if you need longrange sniping or not

[doveman 7]

lower overall view distance to 1-1.5k and object distance to something a bit lower, like 800m or so, depending on if you need longrange sniping or not

I'll try but that's obviously not much use when flying.

[jumpinghubert 49]

Doesn't really make a lot of sense (read: bullshit), since the alpha run smooth enough with some settings on high/standard. And arma 2 runs fine too :)

sorry i´ve overseen that alpha runs smoother on your rig. Please check again all graphic settings, the new blurr settings eats some ressources. I´ve better performance in beta with my rig.

[darkwave 10]

sorry i´ve overseen that alpha runs smoother on your rig. Please check again all graphic settings, the new blurr settings eats some ressources. I´ve better performance in beta with my rig.

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.

[doveman 7]

lower overall view distance to 1-1.5k and object distance to something a bit lower, like 800m or so, depending on if you need longrange sniping or not

Well it helped a bit. I started slightly higher today at 32fps and reducing the VD and OD to the above increased it by 6fps to 38fps.

I went down to 10fps at points when playing on a Co-Op server though. I guess that's just the age-old issue of server AI dragging down the clients' fps.

I'm finding the mouse control seems rather sticky/bumpy though. I recall having this problem in A2 and had to put the smoothing on 100% to fix it. I've tried 100% and 0% in A3 but it doesn't seem to get rid of it and it's quite annoying when slowly panning left to right to have it stick momentarily.

[ric 1]

Well it helped a bit. I started slightly higher today at 32fps and reducing the VD and OD to the above increased it by 6fps to 38fps.

I went down to 10fps at points when playing on a Co-Op server though. I guess that's just the age-old issue of server AI dragging down the clients' fps.

I'm finding the mouse control seems rather sticky/bumpy though. I recall having this problem in A2 and had to put the smoothing on 100% to fix it. I've tried 100% and 0% in A3 but it doesn't seem to get rid of it and it's quite annoying when slowly panning left to right to have it stick momentarily.

how does your rig perform in other games? i am guessing it does pretty well?

[doveman 7]

how does your rig perform in other games? i am guessing it does pretty well?

Generally. Things like Batman (DX11), Bioshock Infinite, Far Cry 3 all manage around 50-60fps with a few options turned down/off. DCS World struggles to stay above 30fps though but as with ArmA can hit 45-50fps under certain conditions.