low FPS on high end PC

[milkdud657 10]

Well im having some FPS issues when playing SOLO and online. I am getting around 45FPS with drops of 22 FPS (not while in combat). Even with everything on low. My view distance is balanced to where its not too far and not too short.

My specs are:

AMD FX-8320

Asus Direct CU ii 7970

8GB 1600mhz RAM.

I see people with a overclocked 560ti getting higher frames than me with a lower end CPU also.. Anyone know a way to fix this

I also have all of the latest drivers installed on a fresh copy of win 7

Edited September 14, 2013 by milkdud657

[Furret 0]

ArmA is highly reliant on a powerful CPU, you unfortunately have an AMD processor. Sorry.

Set shadows to standard or higher. Offloads them to GPU.

Don't play with many AI.

Wait for patches from developers.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Furret

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

what i did when i had my fx-8350 was lowering view distance to 1k, objects to 6-800 and put object and terrain quality on low, gave around 25-35 fps in multiplayer on the bad wasteland servers, sa-matra would give a bit more, but atm there's nothing you can do really other than overclocking or buying intel

[Enrico 1]

ArmA is highly reliant on a powerful CPU, you unfortunately have an AMD processor. Sorry.

Set shadows to standard or higher. Offloads them to GPU.

Don't play with many AI.

Wait for patches from developers.

Be serious!.....Let's stop about the famous bottleneck CPU because ArmA ..bla...bla!

ArmA 3 ,to the moment,is unplayable also whit the Nasa CPU! ;)

Do you play in Multiplayer?

Because if yes tell me in whic public server you can keep stable your FPS up to 35 in Altis map.

I run ArmA III ,whitout problems, stable on Stratis map in SP to 85 FPS on CPU AMD FX 6300---GTX 670 OC.

We know that every new title about ArmA you must to be patient and accept the compromise about bugs ( i am ArmA fun from 2001)....but...this time BIS crossed the absurdity line!

No Caimpaigns...and no multiplayers (if we talking about Public Servers)...and you dont wont accept that the official title it's still..whit euphemism...a beta game!...Be honest with yourself!

I have tried also to run it whit the last beta patch but is unless because you dont found servers...so!I have back to the standard build patch!

The only things that you can do it's wait, and pray ,for the new patch coming to October and...cross your fingers!!..But it is a very improper behavior!

Regards

Edited September 20, 2013 by Enrico

[t4nk83 10]

ArmA is highly reliant on a powerful CPU, you unfortunately have an AMD processor. Sorry.

Set shadows to standard or higher. Offloads them to GPU.

Don't play with many AI.

Wait for patches from developers.

Troll rating 0/10, seriously the Vishera class chips are pretty good, especially when compared with the right memory and GPU setup, which the OP is. Please learn something about current CPU architecture before you say something so naive and moronic, when compared to the i5-2500K (the gaming crown jewel as of now), your talking about 3-7% performance difference. Not bad for a budget processor.

to the OP: the game is optimized for shit right now, make sure all your drivers are up to date, and that your system is clean from and inherent background processes (other applications running and eating up memory and processor power). Don't be surprised at frame rates averaging in the high 20's and spiking to the 50's and low 60's. This is normal.

My Specs:

Core i7-3820 @ 4.0Ghz

16GB Kingston HyperX 1600MHZ CL9 DDR3 Quad Channel

Asus Sabertooth x79 PCI-E 3.0 Motherboard

Gigabyte GTX 680 2GB 256-bit PCI-E 3.0 Video Card

Crucial M4 SSD 256GB

Windows 8 Professional x64

Regards

[Leon86 13]

if there's ai or heavy scripts the modern intel quads easily beat all amd cpu's. more expensive though.

[t4nk83 10]

Not by much. In fact some of the newer chips from Intel have actual seen degraded performance due to the new instruction sets.

[jurrasstoil 10]

Vishera heavily relies on multicore support and that's where most of the work on their architecture went.

A Haswell at 3.4ghz offers about 50-70% more performance compared to a 4ghz Vishera if you only use a single core. A 4 year old Phenom II X4 has the exact same single core perfomance as the Vishera in fact.

The Visheras (or the FX-8320 to be precise) offer really great value when your main applications have multicore support for more than 4 cores. Stuff like encoding, rendering, etc. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of games or engines out there that can make use of any more than 4 cores. Cry Engine is one of the very few that actually utilizes 8 cores effectively. The rest barely uses 4 if at all. Most of the time you won't see a big difference between a dual and a quad core with the same clock and from the same generation.

Arma's RV engine however, relies mostly on raw single core power and draws some benefits from up to 4 cores. This is why the AMD's see poor performance or at least significantly worse performance compared to current (3rd and 4th) gen intels.

Edited September 20, 2013 by jurrasstoil

[Enrico 1]

Vishera heavily relies on multicore support and that's where most of the work on their architecture went.

A Haswell at 3.4ghz offers about 50-70% more performance compared to a 4ghz Vishera if you only use a single core. A 4 year old Phenom II X4 has the exact same single core perfomance as the Vishera in fact.

The Visheras (or the FX-8320 to be precise) offer really great value when your main applications have multicore support for more than 4 cores. Stuff like encoding, rendering, etc. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of games or engines out there that can make use of any more than 4 cores. Cry Engine is one of the very few that actually utilizes 8 cores effectively. The rest barely uses 4 if at all. Most of the time you won't see a big difference between a dual and a quad core with the same clock and from the same generation.

Arma's RV engine however, relies mostly on raw single core power and draws some benefits from up to 4 cores. This is why the AMD's see poor performance or at least significantly worse performance compared to current (3rd and 4th) gen intels.

Ok folks!

If we wont talk about Vishera CPU , you must before to know how work them architecture.

For example, the CPU AMD FX 6300 6 core can to be easily change from BIOS to 2-4-6 core,that's mind that i can apply to the CPU how many core i need and how many Ghz can to be set depending of the application ,infact i play smooth Arma III whit Ultra_High setting in SP ( (FPS 85-88) whit 4 core to 4800 Ghz whit standard temperature in full game (that's mind down to 55° C. in air fan cool) whit a work CPU about to 65-70%!!

If we compare Intel I5-4670K Haswell vs AMD Vishera FX 6300 there isn't that difference about...50-70% more perfomance,but 10-20 % in some applications, but whit a prize about 220 Euro vs 90 Euro...sò...unjustified cost plus for get,maybe,3-5 fps more in game!..Because we are taliking about videogames whit CPU priority...right?

AMD FX 4300 4 Core 4 Ghz.--6300 2+4 Core 4.1 Ghz.--8350 4+4 Core 4.2 Ghz.

Vishera get enough power to play very well any games,especially with a simple OC...thx to multiplier unlock,then combining it with a good GPU (i am talking about play whit the games right now,,,i dont know tomorrow :)).......included ArmA 3!

If you looking for a CPU whitout compromise you must move you to the Intel I7 Family,but the prize....WoW!!

I repeat again that every issue about ArmA 3 like :

Drop FPS issue.

Laggy Multiplayers.

Latency input........etx...etx

It 's absolutely be attributed to the poor/insufficient optimization of the game...that's all!

*my GPU it's just a MSI GTX 670 Power Edition.

Regards

Edited September 22, 2013 by Enrico

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

Ok folks!

If we wont talk about Vishera CPU , you must before to know how work them architecture.

For example, the CPU AMD FX 6300 6 core can to be easily change from BIOS to 2-4-6 core,that's mind that i can apply to the CPU how many core i need and how many Ghz can to be set depending of the application ,infact i play smooth Arma III whit Ultra_High setting in SP ( (FPS 85-88) whit 4 core to 4800 Ghz whit standard temperature in full game (that's mind down to 55° C. in air fan cool) whit a work CPU about to 65-70%!!

If we compare Intel I5-4670K Haswell vs AMD Vishera FX 6300 there isn't that difference about...50-70% more perfomance,but 10-20 % in some applications, but whit a prize about 220 Euro vs 90 Euro...sò...unjustified cost plus for get,maybe,3-5 fps more in game!..Because we are taliking about videogames whit CPU priority...right?

AMD FX 4300 4 Core 4 Ghz.--6300 2+4 Core 4.1 Ghz.--8350 4+4 Core 4.2 Ghz.

Vishera get enough power to play very well any games,especially with a simple OC...thx to multiplier unlock,then combining it with a good GPU (i am talking about play whit the games right now,,,i dont know tomorrow :)).......included ArmA 3!

If you looking for a CPU whitout compromise you must move you to the Intel I7 Family,but the prize....WoW!!

I repeat again that every issue about ArmA 3 like :

Drop FPS issue.

Laggy Multiplayers.

Latency input........etx...etx

It 's absolutely be attributed to the poor/insufficient optimization of the game...that's all!

*my GPU it's just a MSI GTX 670 Power Edition.

Regards

disabling cores doesn't do anything for amd in arma, you can as well run a 8 core fx-8350 in 4.8ghz and still get bad fps because it's not as fast as the sandy/ivy/whatever bridge cpus, while it's true amd cpu's run most games fine they won't run all games fine sadly

older sandy bridge cpu's still run arma way better than any amd cpu atm

[clubb699 10]

Well im having some FPS issues when playing SOLO and online. I am getting around 45FPS with drops of 22 FPS (not while in combat). Even with everything on low. My view distance is balanced to where its not too far and not too short.

My specs are:

AMD FX-8320

Asus Direct CU ii 7970

8GB 1600mhz RAM.

I see people with a overclocked 560ti getting higher frames than me with a lower end CPU also.. Anyone know a way to fix this

I also have all of the latest drivers installed on a fresh copy of win 7

I got same as you but I have I7 2700k 3.5 chip pulling 45 fps to 60 on editor and multiplayer is 35 fps to 42 I have Had card 2 days got all on ultra 8 X etc, but clouds on low view distance set to 4k

[Enrico 1]

disabling cores doesn't do anything for amd in arma, you can as well run a 8 core fx-8350 in 4.8ghz and still get bad fps because it's not as fast as the sandy/ivy/whatever bridge cpus, while it's true amd cpu's run most games fine they won't run all games fine sadly

older sandy bridge cpu's still run arma way better than any amd cpu atm

Sorry but i dont concord whit you because:

A) ArmA III it's yet ready for more that 4 core!

B) If you disable 2 or more core for come back to a standard 4 core whit a nice Overclock ,you will get a benefit drop in ArmA III!...If i saing it is because i have tested whit the mine CPU!(and also because there are full argoments about how improve ArmA whit your CPU).

C) We have done a benchamark whit a "older" Intel® Core™ i5-2500K Processor + GPU GTX 680 vs AMD FX 6300 + GTX 670 runnig ArmA III,everything whit the same video setting options,of course, and the final score is:

Intel CPU 90 FPS Average--AMD CPU 84 FPS Average.

In effectly Intel win but we talking about...6-7 Fps...not 20 or 30!

Maybe in BF3 Intel I5 eat the mine cpu whit 40% plus!....but i dont care about it....I like ArmA...so....that's not my problems!

In Editor, to Stratis Map, i never go down to 94 FPS ...and if you dont belived it...i can record a ArmA III video...just in case!

In Arma II was running smooth whit Vsync filter Enable on AMD Phenom X4 980 BE OC 4.4 Ghz + GTX 560 TI....and also whit it...no problems!

**I do not understand why, everytime that we talking about AMD CPU, there is always the competition to compare a Intel CPU...the never ending story!

It 's just that my CPU are miraculously .. so is an exception to the rule!.. but Intel CPU it's much much much much better!

Regards

Edited September 30, 2013 by Enrico

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

Sorry but i dont concord whit you because:

A) ArmA III it's yet ready for more that 4 core!

B) If you disable 2 or more core for come back to a standard 4 core whit a nice Overclock ,you will get a benefit drop in ArmA III!...If i saing it is because i have tested whit the mine CPU!(and also because there are full argoments about how improve ArmA whit your CPU).

C) We have done a benchamark whit a "older" Intel® Core™ i5-2500K Processor + GPU GTX 680 vs AMD FX 6300 + GTX 670 runnig ArmA III,everything whit the same video setting options,of course, and the final score is:

Intel CPU 90 FPS Average--AMD CPU 84 FPS Average.

In effectly Intel win but we talking about...6-7 Fps...not 20 or 30!

Maybe in BF3 Intel I5 eat the mine cpu whit 40% plus!....but i dont care about it....I like ArmA...so....that's not my problems!

In Editor, to Stratis Map, i never go down to 94 FPS ...and if you dont belived it...i can record a ArmA III video...just in case!

In Arma II was running smooth whit Vsync filter Enable on AMD Phenom X4 980 BE OC 4.4 Ghz + GTX 560 TI....and also whit it...no problems!

**I do not understand why, everytime that we talking about AMD CPU, there is always the competition to compare a Intel CPU...the never ending story!

It 's just that my CPU are miraculously .. so is an exception to the rule!.. but Intel CPU it's much much much much better!

Regards

the only reason you notice higher fps with cores disabled is due to the extra overclock though, not because arma can't use more than 4 cores, because it can afaik

i've done testing with a fx-8350 and i5 2500k, i7 2600k myself, in multiplayer, because in singelplayer fps was so good it doesn't matter, even still the fps difference between 4.8ghz fx-8350 and 4.8ghz 2500k was way more than 6-7

i believe you that you never drop below 94 fps in editor, but do you really play in the editor? :D i only play arma multiplayer and there amd cpus are too slow unless you're fine with average 30 fps

and there is no competition between amd and intel in arma, intel is faster, people should realize this by now

arma 2 was playable for all my friends with phenom 2 x4's as well, but rarely with more than 30 fps, usally below, which is why most of them doesn't play arma 3 :/

[Enrico 1]

the only reason you notice higher fps with cores disabled is due to the extra overclock though, not because arma can't use more than 4 cores, because it can afaik

i've done testing with a fx-8350 and i5 2500k, i7 2600k myself, in multiplayer, because in singelplayer fps was so good it doesn't matter, even still the fps difference between 4.8ghz fx-8350 and 4.8ghz 2500k was way more than 6-7

???? WoW..Compliment to you m8 !

You get so many PC and CPU for to be a gamer....terrific!

Anyway!

A)I was always in Overclock also whit 6 core (4.5 GHZ) to (4.8 Ghz) whit 4 core...so...dosent change the life...but changes like these are used in the game.

B)Tell me about how many drop FPS you get whit that Intel I5---I7 vs. AMD FX 8350 in ArmA III, and if the comparison price-performance is justified,and if you are right,whit the facts not just words,i will buy motherboard and Intel CPU.

If we talking about CPU i prefer update it with a modest cost ( just if there is a real drop perfomance 20% plus vs. mine old CPU) every 1 years , but whit the same socket, than risk had bought a expansive CPU whit more perfomance,in that moment, and later buying back another PC for incompatibility issue whit the new one!

**...........30 FPS whit AMD Phenom X4 980 in ArmA II?.....Are you sure that you are talking about the same CPU? :)...naaaaa!

Benchmarck OA was average about 58-60,and tell your friends that if you lower the video details, whit a X4 980... they can play without too many problems!..whit a acceptable compromised graphics ... obvious!

Regards

Edited September 30, 2013 by Enrico

[jurrasstoil 10]

???? WoW..Compliment to you m8 !

You get so many PC and CPU for to be a gamer....terrific!

Anyway!

pr0ph3t, this bit alone should tell you: don't bother.

[Enrico 1]

pr0ph3t, this bit alone should tell you: don't bother.

;) Grazie !....don't bother.

Let me guess .... you get a Intel CPU ... right?...LOL

Keep your ideals always high ... even when the facts say otherwise!

Ciao!

Edited September 30, 2013 by Enrico

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

???? WoW..Compliment to you m8 !

You get so many PC and CPU for to be a gamer....terrific!

Anyway!

A)I was always in Overclock also whit 6 core (4.5 GHZ) to (4.8 Ghz) whit 4 core...so...dosent change the life...but changes like these are used in the game.

B)Tell me about how many drop FPS you get whit that Intel I5---I7 vs. AMD FX 8350 in ArmA III, and if the comparison price-performance is justified,and if you are right,whit the facts not just words,i will buy motherboard and Intel CPU.

If we talking about CPU i prefer update it with a modest cost ( just if there is a real drop perfomance 20% plus vs. mine old CPU) every 1 years , but whit the same socket, than risk had bought a expansive CPU whit more perfomance,in that moment, and later buying back another PC for incompatibility issue whit the new one!

**...........30 FPS whit AMD Phenom X4 980 in ArmA II?.....Are you sure that you are talking about the same CPU? :)...naaaaa!

Benchmarck OA was average about 58-60,and tell your friends that if you lower the video details, whit a X4 980... they can play without too many problems!..whit a acceptable compromised graphics ... obvious!

Regards

i trade hardware a lot because i like to try different brands etc to see how they perform with the games i currently play, i don't have the fx-8350 anymore because arma performance was very low with it, sadly, because the system itself was very good, quick and responsive, even compared to intel systems.

also ever since the latest patch i'm having serious problems with arma 3 multiplayer, very bad fps drops and unstable fps. so any tests now would give a wrong picture

also just to clarify, all fps numbers im talking about are multiplayer on wasteland servers, as i don't play singelplayer at all. i can do tests for you with the system in my signature if you want though, in a specific mission or in the editor, i can stream this so you can see fps numbers yourself :)

[Enrico 1]

i trade hardware a lot because i like to try different brands etc to see how they perform with the games i currently play, i don't have the fx-8350 anymore because arma performance was very low with it, sadly, because the system itself was very good, quick and responsive, even compared to intel systems.

also ever since the latest patch i'm having serious problems with arma 3 multiplayer, very bad fps drops and unstable fps. so any tests now would give a wrong picture

also just to clarify, all fps numbers im talking about are multiplayer on wasteland servers, as i don't play singelplayer at all. i can do tests for you with the system in my signature if you want though, in a specific mission or in the editor, i can stream this so you can see fps numbers yourself :)

Hi.

Before leave this topic i would like ask you last thing.

Tell me about this ways which one do you prefer:

Test by yourself what you have bought, and judge later, or that somebody else do it for you telling what you bought?

I know what i get.....thx!

Ciao M8!!;)

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

Hi.

Before leave this topic i would like ask you last thing.

Tell me about this ways which one do you prefer:

Test by yourself what you have bought, and judge later, or that somebody else do it for you telling what you bought?

I know what i get.....thx!

Ciao M8!!;)

i prefer doing some research first :) then buying whatever gives me the best performance for the money, which was a 2500k at the time. then i've tested 2600k, fx-8350, asus g75 and a phenom 2 x6 1100t because i like to try different things :p

[antoineflemming 14]

Try setting GPUMaxFramesAhead and GPUDetectedFramesAhead in Arma3.cfg to 10000. And set a large paging file in Windows, and set that to "Adjust for Best Performance" for Programs. See if that helps.

[Lastviking 10]

I have played Arma3 today with my Amd x6 1090 and i wonder where my low fps have been?, pr0ph3tSWE told us that amd are bad for arma3 but why can i play Altis westland with many players in mp and still have nice fps?, maybe i did sett up the system right or maybe arma3 have fixed with patches? ;)

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

I have played Arma3 today with my Amd x6 1090 and i wonder where my low fps have been?, pr0ph3tSWE told us that amd are bad for arma3 but why can i play Altis westland with many players in mp and still have nice fps?, maybe i did sett up the system right or maybe arma3 have fixed with patches? ;)

what kind of fps were you getting then? :)

[simjedi 10]

One thing I think is happening, is that ArmA3's SSAO is doubling up on the graphic drivers SSAO. You can disable it in the control panel then change it within the game menus and you can still see changes happening.

For NVIDIA users you must have NVIDIA Inspector because there is 2 options to disable SSAO vs. just using the NV Control Panel with it's single option.

Load up the A3 profile in NI then disable both "Ambient Occlusion Setting" and "Ambient Occlusion Usage".

I at least gained some FPS from doing so. If other people try this and see some gains I'll open up a ticket on the bug tracker.

Picture of highlighted settings below:

http://i.imgur.com/TWDlo7b.png

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

One thing I think is happening, is that ArmA3's SSAO is doubling up on the graphic drivers SSAO. You can disable it in the control panel then change it within the game menus and you can still see changes happening.

For NVIDIA users you must have NVIDIA Inspector because there is 2 options to disable SSAO vs. just using the NV Control Panel with it's single option.

Load up the A3 profile in NI then disable both "Ambient Occlusion Setting" and "Ambient Occlusion Usage".

I at least gained some FPS from doing so. If other people try this and see some gains I'll open up a ticket on the bug tracker.

Picture of highlighted settings below:

http://i.imgur.com/TWDlo7b.png

no difference in fps at all for me

[chrisb 196]

AMD has never been a problem with arma for me at least, provided its a well balanced system with the right gpu, tweaked for performance and also for arma, you shouldn't really have much trouble.

I have A3 running on my A2 pc, which is getting on in years now: amd athlon 640 quad (see sig), it runs it really well, plenty of stuff on my YT (see sig).

This video below:

I use msi-afterburner for recording, using a 75% quality for recording, less time to upload stuff and also less of a drop. Whilst recording I have around a -20fps/-25fps loss due to the recording, you can see this in other vids on my YT, shows the kick in affect of recording, i.e. the largish drop.

So here is a little video of in the air and on the ground, on Altis.

In the air without recording would be around 60fps this is mostly on Ultra (39fps shown in-game after the recording drop)

On the ground it would be around 52fps (32fps shown in-game with the recording drop of -20fps)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XVQoYkb_1E&list=PLj7LIw2iwG-GTnxT0j75IyuIoZO_yi1g1

So considering there is a pretty hefty loss fps wise because of recording, a AMD Athlon 640 quad can handle Altis o.k.

Also there is another video on there, for those thinking, ah no ai present, that shows me with 64ai in the same shot, running just fine on more or less all Ultra. Rarely I meet more than 20-30ai at one time, missions I play.

Screenshots: top three showing fps difference in view distances (Terrain = Standard):

Around 1000vd

Around 1500vd

Around 2000vd

____

On Altis, fps difference in Terrain drops in fps

Terrain = Standard

Terrain = Ultra

____

Town on Altis:

Town

If I transfer the game (A3) onto my other pc (intel), I'll put some test screens on for that too. Unless of course one of these intel owners here would like to post something, rather than simply talk about performance, far better to see, for players to get an idea...

Edited October 6, 2013 by ChrisB