re: Beyond recommended requirements - Terrible Performance

[doveman 7]

Phenom II X4 955 @3.5Ghz, 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz, 6950 2GB

MP is unplayable for me too. I get 8-15fps. Some SP missions are OK and give me 40-50fps but others are as bad as MP and run below 10fps (just happened with Op. Magic Carpet).

I'm only using viewdistance 1600, object distance 800 and have a lot of stuff turned down/off like clouds, ATOC, etc. Tried with Vsync on/off. GPU is only using up to 25%, so it's obviously the CPU bottlenecking.

Think it was better when I was using the non-dev build before I switched about a week ago but I didn't test much so I'm not sure.

Here's my graphic settings:

language="English";

forcedAdapterId=-1;

detectedAdapterId=0;

detectedAdapterVendorId=4098;

detectedAdapterDeviceId=26393;

detectedAdapterSubSysId=587667335;

detectedAdapterRevision=0;

detectedAdapterBenchmark=92;

displayMode=0;

winX=16;

winY=32;

winWidth=1024;

winHeight=768;

winDefWidth=1024;

winDefHeight=768;

fullScreenWidth=1920;

fullScreenHeight=1200;

refresh=60;

renderWidth=1920;

renderHeight=1200;

multiSampleCount=4;

multiSampleQuality=0;

particlesQuality=0;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=1;

HDRPrecision=8;

vsync=0;

AToC=0;

cloudsQuality=0;

pipQuality=0;

dynamicLightsQuality=0;

PPAA=6;

ppSSAO=0;

ppCaustics=0;

tripleBuffering=0;

ppBloom=0.9973262;

ppRotBlur=0;

ppRadialBlur=0;

ppDOF=0.9973262;

---

tripleHead=0;

anisoFilter=12;

textureQuality=3;

shadowQuality=3;

sceneComplexity=300000;

shadowZDistance=100;

viewDistance=1552.0331;

preferredObjectViewDistance=801.4892;

terrainGrid=25;

fovTop=0.75;

fovLeft=1.1999999;

[gihzmo 10]

I am starting to think that Arma just does not work well with AMD processors...

[pawelkpl 29]

I am starting to think that Arma just does not work well with AMD processors...

It is not a a myth but the fact, my brother and dad used to have amd phenom cpu - in batlle fps used to drop to 6-8 fps, only what they did is a change to i5 2500K@4.4ghz and motherboard, no other changing to OS, HDD, DDR, etc. Now fps never drops below 25fps, sad but true.

[thx1137 10]

I haven't kept up with AMD over the last few years but clock for clock (as in clock speed) they had _always_ been a lot slower at 3d gaming when I used to use them so it sounds like nothing has changed.

[sgt_Savage2003 10]

oh this is starting to become unplayable. my specs

i7 960 @3.20 @8 Cores

12gb DDR3

660ti

on board Audio.

Now I run BF3 on ulta and I get 120fps and then I run arma3 on low settings I get 10-20 fps.

Yes I know I have a low end gpu but its what I have. And this is in SP with a small mission that I set up on atlits. Now When I switch over to Stratis I get 50-60fps on high settings. Yes I know Its a much larger map but Come on man.

Hopefully by the 12th they will have this game optimized.

[jumpinghubert 48]

@sgt_savage2003

its not your gpu. You have a faster gpu than mine and I get nearly the same high fps on altis. Try to overclock your cpu the more the better. Its not the perfect solution but a workaround.

[Furret 0]

Sorry dudes AMD processors are just not particularly good and you'll never get a decent level of FPS out of them. Their inter-core communication is just too slow.

[call_911 10]

Yup same here, performance is well actually what I expected..horrible. Some desolate areas it improves Altis airport(terminal) it drops to just barely playable some towns it's playable with/without ai others I avoid. Really hard to lock down I've had some good play expieriences mostly engaging ai at range an bad ones like fighting ai in a town on roof of hospitals etc. Had an AMD PhenomIIx4 955 processor 3.20 did so so on Stratis b4 it self imploaded. heard some say the I5-I7's are better but did'nt have the $ to swap a new procc/mb/memory which is what i have to do to goto Intel processor so not really sure as I've always used had AMD. I don't wanna give up on ArmA3 but it's not looking very optimistic right now.

Processor: AMD FX-6100 Six-Core Processor (6 CPUs), ~3.3GHz-------will OCing to like 3.8-4.0 help...worth the risk?

Memory: 4096MB RAM--------will going to 8mb help?

Available OS Memory: 4060MB RAM

Page File: 1671MB used, 6446MB available---------did'nt players used to use no page file in ArmA2 for boost? Can I max out the page file to help? Seem to think i did once.

DirectX Version: DirectX 11

Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti---------SLI help add another 660TI?

Manufacturer: NVIDIA

Chip type: GeForce GTX 660 Ti

DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC

Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_1183&SUBSYS_100010DE&REV_A1

Display Memory: 3768 MB

Dedicated Memory: 1994 MB

Shared Memory: 1773 MB

Current Mode: 1920 x 1080 (32 bit) (60Hz)

Edited September 6, 2013 by Call_911

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

Yup same here, performance is well actually what I expected..horrible. Some desolate areas it improves Altis airport(terminal) it drops to just barely playable some towns it's playable with/without ai others I avoid. Really hard to lock down I've had some good play expieriences mostly engaging ai at range an bad ones like fighting ai in a town on roof of hospitals etc. Had an AMD PhenomIIx4 955 processor 3.20 did so so on Stratis b4 it self imploaded. heard some say the I5-I7's are better but did'nt have the $ to swap a new procc/mb/memory which is what i have to do to goto Intel processor so not really sure as I've always used had AMD. I don't wanna give up on ArmA3 but it's not looking very optimistic right now.

Processor: AMD FX-6100 Six-Core Processor (6 CPUs), ~3.3GHz-------will OCing to like 3.8-4.0 help...worth the risk?

Memory: 4096MB RAM--------will going to 8mb help?

Available OS Memory: 4060MB RAM

Page File: 1671MB used, 6446MB available---------did'nt players used to use no page file in ArmA2 for boost? Can I max out the page file to help? Seem to think i did once.

DirectX Version: DirectX 11

Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti---------SLI help add another 660TI?

Manufacturer: NVIDIA

Chip type: GeForce GTX 660 Ti

DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC

Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_1183&SUBSYS_100010DE&REV_A1

Display Memory: 3768 MB

Dedicated Memory: 1994 MB

Shared Memory: 1773 MB

Current Mode: 1920 x 1080 (32 bit) (60Hz)

sli will not make a difference

overclocking your cpu will help, a bit, read up on some OC guides, there are plenty out there :)

upgrading to intel cpu will help, a lot

adding more ram will not help fps

[doveman 7]

Yup same here, performance is well actually what I expected..horrible. Some desolate areas it improves Altis airport(terminal) it drops to just barely playable some towns it's playable with/without ai others I avoid. Really hard to lock down I've had some good play expieriences mostly engaging ai at range an bad ones like fighting ai in a town on roof of hospitals etc. Had an AMD PhenomIIx4 955 processor 3.20 did so so on Stratis b4 it self imploaded. heard some say the I5-I7's are better but did'nt have the $ to swap a new procc/mb/memory which is what i have to do to goto Intel processor so not really sure as I've always used had AMD. I don't wanna give up on ArmA3 but it's not looking very optimistic right now.

Processor: AMD FX-6100 Six-Core Processor (6 CPUs), ~3.3GHz-------will OCing to like 3.8-4.0 help...worth the risk?

Memory: 4096MB RAM--------will going to 8mb help?

Available OS Memory: 4060MB RAM

I'd suggest 8GB so that there's plenty for Windows and ArmA to load without needing to use the swapfile. Obviously if it's running out of RAM and having to use the swapfile to load some of the game into, that's going to cause problems with lag, loading textures/objects, etc.

As for the CPU, because ArmA is so dependent on CPU speed rather than number of cores I guess the best you can do is get the fastest CPU you can afford, so if you can get the FX-8350 that runs at 4Ghz then do so. I certainly wouldn't advise getting an older Bulldozer CPU like the FX-6100 though, as the performance and power consumption were disappointing, even by AMD's standards.

I'm in the same boat as you, with a Phenom II X4 955 and whilst it's obvious that ArmA runs much better on Intel CPUs, I can't afford (or face the hassle) of buying new board, CPU, RAM, reinstalling Windows, etc, so I'll have to make do and if others report something like the FX-8350 is a massive improvement over my current CPU, then start saving for that I guess.

EDIT: Acutally, thinking about it as ArmA doesn't even use 4 cores fully, there's little point buying an 8-core CPU unless you really think you'll use them for other games/apps, so you could save a fair bit on the FX-8350 and get the 4-core FX-4350, which runs at 4.2Ghz, instead.

Edited September 7, 2013 by doveman

[call_911 10]

I'd suggest 8GB so that there's plenty for Windows and ArmA to load without needing to use the swapfile. Obviously if it's running out of RAM and having to use the swapfile to load some of the game into, that's going to cause problems with lag, loading textures/objects, etc.

As for the CPU, because ArmA is so dependent on CPU speed rather than number of cores I guess the best you can do is get the fastest CPU you can afford, so if you can get the FX-8350 that runs at 4Ghz then do so. I certainly wouldn't advise getting an older Bulldozer CPU like the FX-6100 though, as the performance and power consumption were disappointing, even by AMD's standards.

I'm in the same boat as you, with a Phenom II X4 955 and whilst it's obvious that ArmA runs much better on Intel CPUs, I can't afford (or face the hassle) of buying new board, CPU, RAM, reinstalling Windows, etc, so I'll have to make do and if others report something like the FX-8350 is a massive improvement over my current CPU, then start saving for that I guess.

EDIT: Acutally, thinking about it as ArmA doesn't even use 4 cores fully, there's little point buying an 8-core CPU unless you really think you'll use them for other games/apps, so you could save a fair bit on the FX-8350 and get the 4-core FX-4350, which runs at 4.2Ghz, instead.

yeah thanx guys sorry to be confusing i have the FX6100 3.3 now an have that oerformance issue so i guess it looks like i'm a saving up for a decent Intel unless somthing changes after release.

[doveman 7]

yeah thanx guys sorry to be confusing i have the FX6100 3.3 now an have that oerformance issue so i guess it looks like i'm a saving up for a decent Intel unless somthing changes after release.

Well if you can get another 4GB it might help if slowdowns are being caused by insufficient RAM and certainly overclocking will help and an overclock of 600mhz, taking you to 3.8 isn't an excessive overclock (providing you have a decent heatsink/fan and quality motherboard). I've overclocked 700-800Mhz from 2.8 to 3.5/3.6Ghz quite easily.

[call_911 10]

Well if you can get another 4GB it might help if slowdowns are being caused by insufficient RAM and certainly overclocking will help and an overclock of 600mhz, taking you to 3.8 isn't an excessive overclock (providing you have a decent heatsink/fan and quality motherboard). I've overclocked 700-800Mhz from 2.8 to 3.5/3.6Ghz quite easily.

Yeah thats my other problem when i had my AMD PhenomIIx4 .955 processor @3.2GHZ it was a massive boost for me for ArmA2 mid way thru the ArmA2 lifespan. I upgraded to that pc from my ArmA1 pc which was an upgraded dual core an did'nt do well. Anyways I got that Quad core off of Cyberpower and I added a liquid cooling to it which did well but last march as the Alpha came out my pc slowly deteriated resulting in the specs I have now. Apparently the mb/processor had gotten hot. So now i add a decent cpu fan but it's not quite up to the task an I'm debating the whole OC/heat managment/saving for a new cpu/mb/mem. I'm disabbled so I dont have alot of income which makes it rough trying to save. So i try to make do how I can. I just love the ArmA series to death an absolutly loved OFP an don't want to see it come to an end.

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

I'd suggest 8GB so that there's plenty for Windows and ArmA to load without needing to use the swapfile. Obviously if it's running out of RAM and having to use the swapfile to load some of the game into, that's going to cause problems with lag, loading textures/objects, etc.

As for the CPU, because ArmA is so dependent on CPU speed rather than number of cores I guess the best you can do is get the fastest CPU you can afford, so if you can get the FX-8350 that runs at 4Ghz then do so. I certainly wouldn't advise getting an older Bulldozer CPU like the FX-6100 though, as the performance and power consumption were disappointing, even by AMD's standards.

I'm in the same boat as you, with a Phenom II X4 955 and whilst it's obvious that ArmA runs much better on Intel CPUs, I can't afford (or face the hassle) of buying new board, CPU, RAM, reinstalling Windows, etc, so I'll have to make do and if others report something like the FX-8350 is a massive improvement over my current CPU, then start saving for that I guess.

EDIT: Acutally, thinking about it as ArmA doesn't even use 4 cores fully, there's little point buying an 8-core CPU unless you really think you'll use them for other games/apps, so you could save a fair bit on the FX-8350 and get the 4-core FX-4350, which runs at 4.2Ghz, instead.

fx-8350 isn't a massive improvement, slight but not worth the money for arma. you're better off saving up for intel cpu + mobo

[verstand3n 13]

So now i add a decent cpu fan but it's not quite up to the task..

from what I have heard has this cooler very good coolings capabilities, even for oc, and is also cheap to acquire (at least in europe, don't know where you live).

http://www.thermalright.com/html/products/cpu_cooler/macho_reva_bw.html?panel=2

[call_911 10]

Yeah i just OC'd too 4.0ghz on my FX6100 still frames are hoppin around on Altis low mid 20's to low 30's using EasyTune6 that came with the utilities disk for drivers etc will monitor. i think this wil at least provide a lil boost but need to test an monior temps.@Miss yeah i just went with what the computer store recommended as at first I was havin sever heat issues(dont think they set fans speeds right) as it was like 80c an max is like 60c for this cpu an i just got it. Definatly gonna start saving for an intel cpu as as stated AMD just is'nt up to the task, at least not this one I have.

[call_911 10]

Any thoughts on this I just looked. not sure nvr had an intel Processor ever so have no clue.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116941

[gvse 10]

Ive recently checked this thread http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163040-FPS-Drops-After-45-minutes-of-Gameplay and people with good Intel processors report stuttering and performance drops. Perhaps wait some more before spending money on a new cpu. Each dev branch update brings subtle changes to performance on my Phenom II x6 (sometimes for better sometimes for worse) so it's probable that we'll see some improvement.

As for hardware advice, I like this site: http://www.techspot.com/guides/229-desktop-buying-guide/

[TSAndrey 1]

Myke;2487502']Recommended specs means that this hardware should be able to run the game on normal settings. Minimal specs on the other side means that the listed hardware will play the game on low to lowest settings.

Not true, minimum specs mean Low-Normal, while recommended mean Normal-High to possibly Ultra. Recommended doesn't mean that you can max the game out, but you should be able to play on atleast High with no problem.

[BL1P 35]

Only thing that should work as per the Box so to speak is BIS single player missions.

Anything on an Server or even a user created mission in single player should not be considered a true performance test. It doesn't matter if Bob gets more fps on Billys server playing Mikes "Mission of Awesomeness" than you do there are too many factors going on.

Single player Editor or Bis missions is the only test.

Example :)

BIS - Here is a sandbox and here are some toys.

User - I added the toys and Some scripts and played on bobs crappy server with 60 other guys and my FPS sucks your game is a liar !!

[[frl]myke 14]

Not true, minimum specs mean Low-Normal, while recommended mean Normal-High to possibly Ultra. Recommended doesn't mean that you can max the game out, but you should be able to play on atleast High with no problem.

Um, no. Minimum from latin "minimus" = least, smallest. So lowest settings. Recommended stands for "Normal" like normal settings. This misinformation is the cause for people complaining they can't run the game on high although their PC has recommended specs. One has recommended specs, he start with normal settings and the game should be playable with decent FPS.

[AlecDelorean 10]

@BL1P

not 100% true.

Simple test:

1. use a GPU (MSI Afterburner...) and CPU (Task manager) monitoring tool on a second monitor,

2. go into editor and place a playable unit somewhere into the center of Altis.

3. Click Preview and make a 360 degree turn ingame (to make shure all textures are loaded), now run, drive or fly a few meters and watch your GPU and CPU load and FPS. On most quadcore-cpu's you might get a usage of 40-60%, the GPU will run on nearly 100%. Dependent on your rig, you might have a decent fps-rate.

4. NOW go back into the editor and place some friendly AI direct in front of you (not 1 - 5 units only, add complete squads, "This is war" you know...) Then preview again and watch how your CPU keeps that usage of 40-60%, your FPS going down and your GPU taking a break because it has to wait longer for the CPU (GPU usage going down). Repeat adding AI as you like and watch your FPS going down more and more...

Whats the point of having this beautiful huge terrain, if you can't fill it with life. I'm really sad about this issue. BI's devs have to rethink about 32bit and 2GB RAM restriction or come up with a new fancy streaming/instancing/crowd technology...

[BL1P 35]

@BL1P

not 100% true.

Simple test:

1. use a GPU (MSI Afterburner...) and CPU (Task manager) monitoring tool on a second monitor,

2. go into editor and place a playable unit somewhere into the center of Altis.

3. Click Preview and make a 360 degree turn ingame (to make shure all textures are loaded), now run, drive or fly a few meters and watch your GPU and CPU load and FPS. On most quadcore-cpu's you might get a usage of 40-60%, the GPU will run on nearly 100%. Dependent on your rig, you might have a decent fps-rate.

4. NOW go back into the editor and place some friendly AI direct in front of you (not 1 - 5 units only, add complete squads, "This is war" you know...) Then preview again and watch how your CPU keeps that usage of 40-60%, your FPS going down and your GPU taking a break because it has to wait longer for the CPU (GPU usage going down). Repeat adding AI as you like and watch your FPS going down more and more...

Whats the point of having this beautiful huge terrain, if you can't fill it with life. I'm really sad about this issue. BI's devs have to rethink about 32bit and 2GB RAM restriction or come up with a new fancy streaming/instancing/crowd technology...

yer the 32bit thing is a bit old hat your right.

Seems you at least have spent some time in the editor running tests. Not just screaming Its broke because you cant play some arma2 ported mission on a server on the moon using ISDN during beta test phase.

[[frl]myke 14]

BI's devs have to rethink about 32bit and 2GB RAM restriction or come up with a new fancy streaming/instancing/crowd technology...

I don't see how AI calculations done by CPU might profit from more RAM. It's like saying that if your car isn't running fast enough, you'll need a bigger fueltank. A3 is LAA and can therefor use up to 4GB.

[jurrasstoil 10]

Any thoughts on this I just looked. not sure nvr had an intel Processor ever so have no clue.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116941

Depends on what you need it for.

Is it primarily/mainly for Arma (or gaming in general)?

➥ take an i5 4570 with a B85 or H87 board or if you feel like overclocking take an i5 4670k with a Z87 Board. Arma won't use the HT the i7s provide, so it would be a waste of money.

Is it somewhat for Arma, but mostly for cpu-intesive applications that can use a lot of threads (Like rendering, encoding, video editing, etc.)?

➥ take the Xeon 1230v3 instead of the i7 4770/4771. It's basically the same CPU, it just has 100/200mhz less (which won't make any noticable difference) and no iGPU (which you aren't going to use anyways). Here's a link to compare the three CPUs on the intel ARK.