Performance Help

[iggy12 10]

I would like to here your thoughts on my gaming rig I am trying to get the most out of this game. If you think any hardware changes can help me or if my system should be fine to run this game, I would like your feedback.

I play single player on very high settings and view distance around 2000 I have clouds and grass turned off. I get around 37-45 FPS (single player) Average FPS is 40 here is my system

AMD A10-6800K Richland 4.1GHz (4.4GHz Turbo) Socket FM2 100W Quad-Core Desktop Processor

8 gigs of ram

Gigabite 7970 video card

windows 7

So what can I do to get more FPS and multi player I get 15-30 depending on the server average is 22

Is it the game or my system. Thanks

Edited September 26, 2013 by iggy12

[gliptal 25]

Clouds and grass (do you mean ATOC?) are quite irrelevant. What are your distance view settings?

Put PPAA on FXAA Ultra if you like your image sharp, and also think about seting Bloom, Blur and DOF sliders to 0. With those specs AA can be set with close to no performance loss to 8X for a huge visual gain. Ambient Occlusion can be put on Standard with pretty much no visual loss.

Differences between Ultra and Very High Object quality are subtle enough that you can probably go with the latter. Terrain quality is a big hit from Standard up, and main difference is how far grass is rendered (mainly between High and Very High).

Particles and PIP are obviously relevant only during explosions or PIP usage, so if you have FPS loss during these events try toning them down.

Yay!

[iggy12 10]

thanks for the reply, so do you think my system is pretty good. And thanks for your input I will try those settings

[gliptal 25]

Your system is actually pretty good.

Yay!

[mamasan8 11]

Particles...smoke grenades...if I throw 2-3 of those and particles are at anything above Low...major slowdown!

No, its not your system, its the game, especially in multiplayer its just cowdung

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

your cpu isn't great for arma, ram and gfx is good

try lower view distance even more, to around 1k, lower terrain and object quality to low

[iggy12 10]

your cpu isn't great for arma, ram and gfx is good

try lower view distance even more, to around 1k, lower terrain and object quality to low

Just curious why you say my cpu is not good for arma, details please

[jurrasstoil 10]

The 6800K has 2 Modules with 4 Threads. If you only benchmark a single one of those threads, it has a slightly better performance (+~10%) than a single thread of an almost 5 year old Phenom II X4 (Deneb). This is due to its higher clock speed.

Because of how the Module-Design/Approach works, if you benchmark all 4 threads at the same time, it has a slightly worse performance (-~10%) than an almost 5 year old Phenom II X4 (Deneb). Despite its higher clock speed.

Now, take a Haswell i5. It has 4 cores with 4 threads. The 4670 has about 50% more singlecore power and about 70% more multicore power compared to the 6800K. This raw singlecore power is what Arma seems to need unfortunately, because the CPU, unlike in most other games, becomes the most limiting factor.

In almost all other games you'll be able to run them just fine with a 5 year old Phenom II X4.

Additionally, the 6800K's strong suit and selling point is his relatively strong iGPU. If you are using a dedicated GPU, it doesn't make a lot of sense to buy/have it. AMD's gaming CPUs for systems with a dedicated GPU are the Vishera FX (like 6300 and 8320) ones or the Athlon 750K (less so). For the price of a 6800K you get a 8320 with twice as many Modules and Threads, but without the iGPU (which you wouldn't need anyways if you have a dedicated GPU already).

[AccaccuH 10]

running

Intel I5 4430 CPU 3.0ghz

4gb ram

Gigabyte Nvidia GeForce GT440

mother H81

Windows 7

not running on ultra settings but on normal and i get from 40-60 fps, 30-40 in huge city (multiplayer)

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

Just curious why you say my cpu is not good for arma, details please

first of all it's not one of the faster amd cpus as far as i know, you'd be slightly better off with a 8350, second of all intel is quite a lot faster in arma because of how the cpu is constructed, more calculations per second and so on :)

[iggy12 10]

first of all it's not one of the faster amd cpus as far as i know, you'd be slightly better off with a 8350, second of all intel is quite a lot faster in arma because of how the cpu is constructed, more calculations per second and so on :)

So will a noticed a big difference in FPS by going with the AMD 8350?

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

So will a noticed a big difference in FPS by going with the AMD 8350?

no, hence the slightly :p

also it's a different socket, fm 2 vs am 3/+ so you'd need a new motherboard as well, then you'd be even better off with intel as buying am3+ for arma is really bad :)

[Fushko 60]

Disable AA and postprocess FXAA/SMAA for a huge performance gain. If you really hate aliasing, higher the sampling rate to something like 150% or 200% if your PC can handle it. Looks almost the same as anti-aliasing and eats less FPS. Disable SSAO completely. Caustics and anisotropic filtering are performance friendly, so I recommend putting them to the max. Put PIP to standard. Shadows on high. Shadow distance 200. Play with draw distance until you're happy with the performance, and let the game decide the object distance based on the draw distance. IMPORTANT: download DriverBooster and update all drivers.

[gliptal 25]

AA has close to no performance impact, and neither does PPAA.

Yay!

[Fushko 60]

AA has close to no performance impact, and neither does PPAA.

Yay!

Not on my rig. If I put AA to 8x I get at least 30 FPS less.

[gliptal 25]

Not on my rig. If I put AA to 8x I get at least 30 FPS less.

Then it probably depends on specs: on mine (AMD FX-4100, ATI Radeon HD7850, 8GB RAM) I get a couple fps less between no AA and 8X AA, and absolutely no drop with or without FXAA Ultra.

Yay!

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

anti aliasing is done on the gpu, so if it's powerful enough to handle 2-4x or even 8x without dropping too much fps then by all means go for it :D games look so much better with it on, fxaa/smaa i'd put on high or more on any fairly modern gpu as they aren't as heavy as FSAA, just a preference if you like the sharpening filter that comes with the ingame FXAA or if you like the SMAA without sharpening

[gliptal 25]

Actually ArmA seems to have SMAA and FXAA inverted: normally FXAA blurs the image, while SMAA is crisper. In ArmA it is totally the opposite.

Yay!

[jurrasstoil 10]

It's because it uses FXAA+sharp filter. FXAA would blur the picture, but the sharp filter is trying to combat that.

[gliptal 25]

It's because it uses FXAA+sharp filter. FXAA would blur the picture, but the sharp filter is trying to combat that.

Then I want that sharpen filter in every game, it looks awesome.

Yay!

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

Then I want that sharpen filter in every game, it looks awesome.

Yay!

you can get the same effect with a fxaa/smaa injector, like sweetfx, http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=376265