Running at around 5 FPS during Showcases?

[thomas980 10]

I bought the Arma 3 Beta last night after checking out some videos of the game and thinking it seemed pretty decent, and maybe it is, if I could actually get to play the game. Okay so I have done my research looking up this problem and realised many other people are having FPS issues with the Arma 3 Beta. My problem is that I have tried all basics and still have no luck, I have tried changing the log (GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1; GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=1;) and saw no effect, I have turned ALL of the game settings down to the lowest they can go. I have even resorted to trying a couple of programs, the Razer Game Booster and a Driver Booster to check if all drivers are up to date, but STILL I am getting 4~5 fps.

I am getting this at the very start of the Infantry Showcase, I have tried the Scuba Showcase to see if it is any different, my FPS increased to 10 at some points but as soon as I hit land it fell down to 4/5 again. Here is a screenshot of my config page: http://imgur.com/OABcfFq

Now this is the important part. YES I am running the game on a laptop, but its a new laptop, I am running Windows 8 with a i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40 GHz, 8 GB RAM on a 64-bit OS. (Im not sure if I missed anything there or if I gave unnecessary information, I don't know a great deal about computers in that sense). Yes the computer is a laptop and laptops are not made for gaming I know, but it should be able to handle it, should it not?

If I am missing any details that may be needed to help solve this issue please state what to look for and how to find it, thanks in advance! Seems like a waste of £30 to me right now.

EDIT: I think I have discovered the problem. Turns out my laptop has an Intel HD Graphics 4000 video card which is supposedly rather shoddy for gaming, and its integrated so there is no way of changing it. Looks like im stuck with not being able to play the game unless I go out and buy a desktop. Pretty depressing really.

Edited August 6, 2013 by thomas980

[jurrasstoil 10]

Well, if the laptop has no dedicated GPU and you are running the game with the GPU that is integrated into the CPU, then it is not a big surprise that the game runs awful. The Intel HD4000 integrated GPUs are not exactly powerhouses.

[thomas980 10]

Yeah thanks jurrasstoil, I have just been over it all with a friend of mine that knows this stuff, its a shame really as its a great laptop in every other aspect, just the graphics card really lets it down.

[NicotinKickballovich 1]

Don't have a clue how laptops and their cpu's/motherboards work really, but on desktop PC's if you got a CPU with integrated graphics you can actually disable that and use a standalone graphics card if the Mobo supports it, just have to plug it in and then it will enable to that instead.

So maybe it's possible that your motherboard supports a standalone graphics card? Try downloading CPU-Z, read off your motherboard's model and google if it can support a graphics card. If it can in the end you might just have to buy yourself a card and there won't be a need to build a desktop PC.

[ric 1]

it might help you to alot 2GB of system memory (if you can do that ) in the BIOS to the onboard GPU.

[jurrasstoil 10]

More memory won't help. The HD4000 iGPU has half the graphical performance of a 4 year old lowend dedicated graphics card.

iirc there are solutions to hook up a GPU to your notebook externally. Last thing I heard about has been quite a while ago and i think ASUS had something along those lines. Of course its quite costly considering its a really niche market.

[asuseroako 17]

YES I am running the game on a laptop, but its a new laptop, I am running Windows 8 with a i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40 GHz, 8 GB RAM on a 64-bit OS. (Im not sure if I missed anything there or if I gave unnecessary information, I don't know a great deal about computers in that sense). Yes the computer is a laptop and laptops are not made for gaming I know, but it should be able to handle it, should it not?

I also run the game on a (2yr old) laptop; an MSI GX-640 with Core i7-720QM CPU and ATI Mobility Radeon HD5850 GPU overclocked to 810 MHz/1020 MHz via ATI Overdrive. I get the following FPS reading on Infantry Showcase

http://tinyurl.com/kc4oszu

http://tinyurl.com/mjl2jky

http://tinyurl.com/kawo6ok

Its not a beast, not the best either. Have to be contented as its the only one I've got. I might get a desktop soon should the budget permits.

Lifted from http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?72181-Will-my-PC-Run-this-What-CPU-GPU-to-get-What-settings-System-Specifications&p=1272593&viewfull=1#post1272593

Question:

"...I only get 20 FPS on my rig, guess I can't play?

Answer:

WRONG! Anything over about 15 FPS is acceptable and anything over 30 FPS is considered really good. This may surprise you, if you come from another FPS game where everybody sulks if they don't get 100 FPS or more.

ArmA is not your average FPS, it is a military simulator. As such it's calculating the trajectory of every bullet, calculating precisely what's happening kilometers away off screen, and just generally modelling things realistically and accurately in ways that other games do not. This combined with the long view distances mean you will NOT see the same level of FPS in ArmA that you would see in a lighter weight game.

The game IS calculating all that stuff accurately at your FPS, your numbers are likely similar to what many others you play with are getting, and just so long as the user experience seems fluid it's going to be fine."

[thomas980 10]

I don't think that I have a problem with memory at all, its my graphics card really that's the problem, and its integrated so there isn't really an option of replacing it. I've had a little look around at the external ones but they seem to be very costly, consider a lot of work and messing about to get working and I have my suspicions that it wont work too greatly. The only real solution for me right now is to buy a desktop which I am considering doing, its just a case of finding the correct one to suit me.

Thanks for the help guys, I really appreciate it.

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

Lifted from http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?72181-Will-my-PC-Run-this-What-CPU-GPU-to-get-What-settings-System-Specifications&p=1272593&viewfull=1#post1272593

Question:

"...I only get 20 FPS on my rig, guess I can't play?

Answer:

WRONG! Anything over about 15 FPS is acceptable and anything over 30 FPS is considered really good. This may surprise you, if you come from another FPS game where everybody sulks if they don't get 100 FPS or more.

"

anything under 25 fps is quite unplayable, below 20 is just terrible in arma, or any game for that matter, 30 fps seems fluid, til you play on a server with 60 fps

also for OP, if you're getting a desktop, go for intel cpu as it will give you the best performance in arma 3

[b00tsy 28]

anything under 25 fps is quite unplayable

I can play fine with 20fps, but more is better of course.

[asuseroako 17]

, I only get about 19-22FPS with FRAPS recording the gameplay. That's a SinglePlayer mission on a laptop.

Based on the premise that...

anything under 25 fps is quite unplayable

...the video I posted is therefore 'quite unplayable' ? I should really save up for a decent rig so I could experience a 'fluid' (SP) gameplay.

[Imonars 10]

I play on GT630m (yes on a laptop) with 4gb or ram and intel i5. I can play on high settings on SP with 25-30 fps in the open. With visibility set to 50% and object visibility set to 100%.

As for the multiplayer I play on standard, and with no AA, but with same visiblity settings, and on a good server and I get around 20-25. Other servers I get 15-25. Because MP also depends on the servers, also good pings help too.

[Sneakson 1]

Okay okay okay... funny thread.

You should had come over to the settings thread instead.

Set shadows to medium minimum. Low causes shadows to be rendered by the CPU instead of the GPU and that's a bad thing that will make even decent desktop systems lag a lot.

Try that, then maybe sampling 50% instead too.

Still no improvement and all the settings we’re not seeing are on minimum?

In that case sorry but you’re probably screwed.

However Intel HD 4000 is strong. There are videos of people running Bioshock Infinite in about 40 fps on medium settings.

If anything I would guess your CPU is weak and therefore using shadows low is only going to make it a lot worse actually.

Also did you try absolute minimum settings too? No shadows, no clouds, no nothing and everything at its lowest?

Try that, with no background programs and sampling 50% and there’s really no excuse not to have some better framerates unless your thing is broken.

Edit: actually looking around the CPU seems strong!

So you’ve definitely messed something up of you’re not getting anywhere after my advice.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Sneakson

[b00tsy 28]

Personal experience:

-Cloud quality does (almost) not have any impact on the fps.

-View distance to absolute minimum (500m) gives less fps then setting it to 10km including object rendering (without AI)... weirdly enough.

-Bloom has no impact on fps.

-Depth of field has no impact on fps.

-Resolution setting makes a huge difference.

I played on a big monitor with high resolution till some days ago and now play on a smaller monitor and have a noticeable better fps (+10 fps).

-Terrain detail seems to have a pretty big impact on performance, I am fine up to normal detail, beyond that it starts to eat frames.

-PiP eats fps.

-AA and PP eats fps.

-playing windowed can help the fps.