Minimum Server Specs - FPS related issues

[Sheepdog 4]

I am making this thread because I think it needs to be made clear that people hosting servers should have a guideline for what to use when hosting a server. I have found that Arma MP relies heavily on the server that hosts it as far as player performance goes, and right now there are about 5-6 servers that actually do things right. I am not sure what the "specs" are for this but it needs to be said.

[KingScuba 1]

dual core, and an internet connection of 1mb/s per player is ideal.

[ric 1]

I am making this thread because I think it needs to be made clear that people hosting servers should have a guideline for what to use when hosting a server. I have found that Arma MP relies heavily on the server that hosts it as far as player performance goes, and right now there are about 5-6 servers that actually do things right. I am not sure what the "specs" are for this but it needs to be said.

wel lets put it like this...i have a server that has a QX9650 X4 running at 3.0ghz with a domination 2 map running it was using %60 of core 0 and almost 1Mbit upload for just 2 people....

i suggest you get the most powerful Xeon server you can with a 100Mbit pipeline if you wish to host upto 100 players.

[xendance 3]

dual core, and an internet connection of 1mb/s per player is ideal.

Dual core? Dual core CPUs are years old and they don't compare in single thread performance to new intel CPUs at all.

[ric 1]

Dual core? Dual core CPUs are years old and they don't compare in single thread performance to new intel CPUs at all.

he did not mean dual cores per say, he meant you NEED 2 cores at the very least out of say 12 on xeon CPU that you are renting :)

[KingScuba 1]

Dual core? Dual core CPUs are years old and they don't compare in single thread performance to new intel CPUs at all.

You don't need anything beyond dual core to HOST a server. Go do some research. a dual core cpu and 1 mb/s per player is an ideal setup. We're talking about a server box, not a computer you're using.

Besides that, There's benchmarks for overclocking a dual core and it's achieving rather nice results.. ~~ http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487.html

And I meant Dual core as in a single CPU with 2 cores. You can do that for arma 2 pretty easily. And let's face it. Arma 3 runs on an engine, arma 2 ran on a fucking potato.

MIND YOU. this is a setup for a dedicated host box. As in you're not using it for ANYTHING but the server. You shut it in the closet and forget about it until it fucks up. Believe it or not, it doesn't take much to run an arma server. The main issue is the internet connection, which can be solved by tossing it into a server bank.

If you're hosting more than one game, you''ll start needing a bigger setup. Most industrial servers you see have twin xeon CPU's on the board, and about 16gb of ram altogether, again, slotted into a 1+ GB/S connection. These servers, however, are hosting more than 12 servers at once.

Finally, this is in regards to a "MIMIMUM" server specs. To run an arma server smoothly, you need a dual core cpu, about 4gb of ram, and 1 mb/s per player. This is again, in regards to a dedicated box.

Edited August 28, 2013 by KingScuba

[xendance 3]

You don't need anything beyond dual core to HOST a server. Go do some research. a dual core cpu and 1 mb/s per player is an ideal setup. We're talking about a server box, not a computer you're using.

Besides that, There's benchmarks for overclocking a dual core and it's achieving rather nice results.. ~~ http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487.html

And I meant Dual core as in a single CPU with 2 cores. You can do that for arma 2 pretty easily. And let's face it. Arma 3 runs on an engine, arma 2 ran on a fucking potato.

MIND YOU. this is a setup for a dedicated host box. As in you're not using it for ANYTHING but the server. You shut it in the closet and forget about it until it fucks up. Believe it or not, it doesn't take much to run an arma server. The main issue is the internet connection, which can be solved by tossing it into a server bank.

If you're hosting more than one game, you''ll start needing a bigger setup. Most industrial servers you see have twin xeon CPU's on the board, and about 16gb of ram altogether, again, slotted into a 1+ GB/S connection. These servers, however, are hosting more than 12 servers at once.

As long as you don't get an AMD powered server :P

Finally, this is in regards to a "MIMIMUM" server specs. To run an arma server smoothly, you need a dual core cpu, about 4gb of ram, and 1 mb/s per player. This is again, in regards to a dedicated box.

First you say that "you don't need anything beyond a dual core" and then you say "minimum". Which one is it? Also by dual core, what exactly do you mean? The old Core 2 Duo CPUs? Some intel i5 with two cores? If the latter, then I agree as long as the performance on single core is good.

As long as you don't get an AMD powered server :P

[fabio_chavez 103]

all i know is that 90% of the servers give me 10-20 fps compared to 30-60 in sp...

same old same old... if this is not going to change, its not possible for me to play a3...

[KingScuba 1]

First you say that "you don't need anything beyond a dual core" and then you say "minimum". Which one is it? Also by dual core, what exactly do you mean? The old Core 2 Duo CPUs? Some intel i5 with two cores? If the latter, then I agree as long as the performance on single core is good.

As long as you don't get an AMD powered server :P

I'd say an ivy bridge or an i3 might be the way to go, however, a duo might work. It only had a performance loss of I'm sticking with my "all you need" if it's a dedicated. I'm looking at the low ball budget that can perform smoothly, not the beast that can handle multiple hosts.

all i know is that 90% of the servers give me 10-20 fps compared to 30-60 in sp...

same old same old... if this is not going to change, its not possible for me to play a3...

Ok... whats your cpu for starters?

Secondly, did you bother turning off your Post Processing?

I get a pretty constant 40 fps in game on ultra settings across 3 monitors on servers with 40 players.

[fabio_chavez 103]

my cpu is old my pp is off... that doenst completely explain why i have quite acceptable performance on some servers (with 40 players compareable to SP) but EXTREMLY low performance on most servers.

p.s. also reducing overall quality does not solve the issue... fps stuck at 10-20, its also a well known issue with a popular feedback tracker.

[KingScuba 1]

my cpu is old my pp is off... that doenst completely explain why i have quite acceptable performance on some servers (with 40 players compareable to SP) but EXTREMLY low performance on most servers.

Because crap servers are crap, and also the coding in certain missions can screw you too. AW is pretty optimized, but if you go into servers that were ported from A2, you might find that you have a few issues FPS wise. Not to mention, a3 is 99% cpu, and 1% gpu.

[fabio_chavez 103]

yes i am aware many missions are coded badly, hate wasteland!

yet afaik there seem to be specific issues with the architecture of the netcode, that in theory should be avoidable, but would require BI to overhaul the engine (lol),

i dont see why i shouldnt be able to play 30vs30 infantry pvp with halfway decent fps.... a lot of people experience this kind of issues though, i guess a LOT of people are not playing actively right now but hoping for some miracle to occur with final release. oO

[Leon86 13]

I've played a tdm type map with decent fps, probably wasn't 30v30, it wasn't in a town btw, but in one of the camps. Towns wreck fps.