Devs, please explain this performance

[MikeyMuse 10]

Why in all that is the glory of FPS games and simulation games would I get 30 FPS with 1 objects drawn, where only the terrain and the sky/clouds are being drawn!!

In this image I _am_ connected to a multiplayer server, nobody's on, just myself. most likely modded but this performance is typical for all servers I connect to.

I would much appreciate a dev to please explain this to me.

Yes I have an older CPU, Q6600 2.4ghz Quadcore, It's on a generic intel board, DQ35JO, and my gfx card is a GTX 650 Ti, with 6GB ddr2. However, no other game has brought it to it's knees like this... Especially when rendering almost nothing. (not even the gun!)

http://s1048.photobucket.com/user/Michael_Scott_Stuart/media/WTF_zps0b5921de.png.html?sort=3&o=1

AND -- Here is a local, in editor, single player with about 20+ AI infantry fighting it out in front of me (some hidden by buildings) with objects and distance at 500.

http://s1048.photobucket.com/user/Michael_Scott_Stuart/media/87d210dc-3f4a-4ec7-9fe4-4aa9ced75569_zps87122194.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

Please. I would much enjoy an explanation as to this performance profile that plagues me.

Edited October 2, 2013 by MikeyMuse

[[frl]myke 14]

In this image I _am_ connected to a multiplayer server

Server settings override local settings for viewdistance. So my guess is, the viewdistance is too high for your outdated CPU (it is 6 years old).

Please. I would much enjoy an explanation as to this performance profile that plagues me.

I doubt that you enjoy the exlpanation. Upgrade to a ctual CPU and the performance will definately raise. BI is not responsible for customers using outdated hardware.

However, no other game has brought it to it's knees like this...

The ultimate argument...

[Tankbuster 1746]

You don't need a dev to answer this.

Firstly because there's at least one thread devoted to performance related questions. And there's many already closed threads from users rocking up with ancient PC's claiming "It runz leetsnipergame at a beelyon FPS" that you would have seen, all of which get the same answer.

And secondly because deep down, you know the answer to your question - your CPU was released seven years ago. Yes, in the latter part of the last decade. It was damn tasty in it's day, but now? Just no. Oh, and your GPU isn't al the special either. Not to put too finer point on it, but your PC is junk by modern standards. I seriously suspect your assertion that 'no other game has brought it to it's knees'.

(edit. ninja'd by Myke)

[xXxatrush1987 10]

to make it short: 2 hidden bottlenecks:

first the q6600 is a dual dualcore connected to a quadcore, the interconnect between this two is so slow(fsb speed) so multithreading like arma 3 supports it just dont work.

in multilayer the bandwith probs get even worse as the sync between server and client is quite heavy, so the slow cpu bandwith just drops fps even more.

all in all is your system just handycaped by numerous bottlenecks arma wise and cant perform as ist should:

1. single core performance

2. fsb

3. pci-e 1.1

3. ddr2 on a small bandwith gtx650

4. ddr2 RAM

my tipp:

if you are common with overclocking with your q6600, try to oc the fsb only. an fsb over ~400 should give you a shitload of more performance in multiplayer(for all core 2duo/quad)

try object detail setting low too as it is quite cpu/bandwith heavy too

edit: mike said it all im just too kind explaning everything... ^^

[fabio_chavez 103]

i got the same cpu (Xeon 3220) OCed to 3,6 (+ssd, 4gb ram, HD 6970 oc) and the game has allready proven to be really playable in multiplayer under certain circumstances (good servers, not running to long without restart, well scripted mission, not much more than 40 player, not too much AI etc etc)...

yet i understand there are limitations to what an older CPU, it allmost has nothing to do with OPs concern and you all know it, there are people with 3000$ 2013 machines that are complaining about the same patterns of bad multiplayer performance and you so called advice is close to dishonesty... dont blame the messenger.

especially amusng where those advises adressing lack of multithreading and low amount of RAM as issues when there are roughly 10.000 threads that describe the frustration that arouses due to arma 3 not beeing properly optimized for multiple threadding, not to speak of hyperthreading, and barely beeing large adress aware...

nevermind mikeymuse, when it comes to multiplayer i can assure you, the problem lies within the architecture of the game engine and server hosters beeing ignorant and shortsighted about the missions they choose when they know a majority, regardless of their hardware, has an undesireable experience when it comes to MP fps....

p.s. all vote here http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1264

Edited October 2, 2013 by Fabio_Chavez

[Tankbuster 1746]

Are you seriously telling the OP his problem is game engine architecture or mission design, Fabio? Are you on drugs?

[pawelkpl 29]

Why in all that is the glory of FPS games and simulation games would I get 30 FPS with 1 objects drawn, where only the terrain and the sky/clouds are being drawn!!

In this image I _am_ connected to a multiplayer server, nobody's on, just myself. most likely modded but this performance is typical for all servers I connect to.

I would much appreciate a dev to please explain this to me.

Yes I have an older CPU, Q6600 2.4ghz Quadcore, It's on a generic intel board, DQ35JO, and my gfx card is a GTX 650 Ti, with 6GB ddr2. However, no other game has brought it to it's knees like this... Especially when rendering almost nothing. (not even the gun!)

http://s1048.photobucket.com/user/Michael_Scott_Stuart/media/WTF_zps0b5921de.png.html?sort=3&o=1

AND -- Here is a local, in editor, single player with about 20+ AI infantry fighting it out in front of me (some hidden by buildings) with objects and distance at 500.

http://s1048.photobucket.com/user/Michael_Scott_Stuart/media/87d210dc-3f4a-4ec7-9fe4-4aa9ced75569_zps87122194.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

Please. I would much enjoy an explanation as to this performance profile that plagues me.

try to overclock your cpu to 3.2ghz.

[MikeyMuse 10]

First, to [FRL]Myke:

If you look at the first image, you can see in the game world that no objects are being drawn, the server let me set the objects drawn to 1. So no, not much is being drawn, yet 30 FPS. Like I said, just the sky and the terrain (and grass and gui, of course) are being rendered, nothing else.

I assure you, my CPU was within the specs BIS gives out as better than minimum.

I seriously suspect your assertion that 'no other game has brought it to it's knees'.

(edit. ninja'd by Myke)

That is your opinion about my honesty, and I find it hostile to judge me as a liar. But that is all I will say about your post. There are more positive replies to acknowledge.

To xXxatrush1987:

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate it fully. I was looking for a bit of information that I didn't currently have about my system to what would be my major bottleneck (above all others). I will see if I can't get the FSB up some and see how it performs multiplayer. Thanks again for your very reasonable reply.

Edited October 2, 2013 by MikeyMuse

[Tankbuster 1746]

I only judged you as someone with a feeling of entitlement who seriously expected devs to reply to a post asking why an 8 year old CPU isn't working very well.

[MikeyMuse 10]

I'm not going to continue arguing about this. It's over.

[[frl]myke 14]

In this image I _am_ connected to a multiplayer server, nobody's on, just myself.

How many AI? How many scripts were running and what kind of? Ya know, there is a little bit more going on than just what is rendered on your screen which draws performance from the CPU.

I assure you, my CPU was within the specs BIS gives out as better than minimum.

Please give me a link where BI says that a 6 year old CPU will work just fine. A Quadcore @ 2.4GHz from 2012 has by far better performance than a Quadcore @2.4GHz from 2007. Even more as the Q6600 isn't really a Quadcore but a Dual-Dualcore which has been known to be less performant than a native quadcore.

No matter how hard you deny it: your CPU is bottlenecking. The sooner you accept that fact, the sooner you can solve it.

[fabio_chavez 103]

i got the same cpu, despite its overclocked by 50% (on air), it performs well enough if i reduce view distance and object quality... the multiplayer problem is not altered in any way by settings, same fps regardless the gfx settings... the one and only argument here is that you are trying to avoid the fact that people with modern cpu complain about the exact same problems... low fps in multiplayer (talking about 15 fps etc), check the feedpack trackers, its been discussed in and out...

this is not even debateable.

[giorgygr 61]

I totally agree with Fabio.

I personally have the same 'outdated' CPU ..but if i had upgraded my system regarding CPU and *moar RAM -having the results

i often read from other high-end users would had me...(politely) angry.

I don't know in what imaginary economical system most people here live at..but things aren't so 'easy' everywhere..

and ALWAYS remember:"The slowest vehicle drives the convoy"

Edited October 2, 2013 by GiorgyGR

[Vigil Vindex 64]

Well I have a better spec machine and I am getting the same level of performance. The forums are rife with complaints about performance, across all levels of hardware. How anyone can come in and claim there are no problems is a bad joke.

[[frl]myke 14]

and ALWAYS remember:"The slowest vehicle drives the convoy"

Well, personally i prefer it pirate style: who falls behind is left behind. ;)

How anyone can come in and claim there are no problems is a bad joke.

No one said that there are no problems. It's just once more "this high demanding game doesn't run on my 6 year old PC". I don't have a top notch PC either (Phenom II X4 965 @stock speed, HD5870), ArmA 3 runs with ~35FPS on 4000m viewdistance and 2000m object draw distance. It doesn't stutter nor does it crash. It's the same game so saying it is all the games fault wont work. More than often the problem lies in the used hardware, outdated drivers or some other issues out of BI's reach. Again, nobody says that the engine works perfectly and doesn't need improvements. But please be not that cheap to only blame the game alone.

[MikeyMuse 10]

[FRL]Myke:

From BIS's website under the minimum system requirements: PROCESSOR Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz / AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz.

Here is the link so you can go straight there and see it for yourself. Scroll to the bottom. http://www.arma3.com/buy.

The proof is there, BIS told me, and countless others, these computers meet or exceed the minimum specs in order the play this game.

I accept I have an old CPU, and that's why I came looking for an EXPLANATION, not someone to come flame my posts and treat me like a idiot.

You have a very hostile attitude and it's not appreciated at all. But I will end that there.

My main concern is with multiplayer, because every server I joined has a severe FPS drop. I had tested multiplayer with the 617th, where Fitzsimmons told me that the map specifically despawns any AI not within a certain distance of player's. So at most times on that server, there wont be more than 5-10 AI running around at once. And from what I have read, and my brother who has an i7 and STILL experiences these slowdowns as well, this is a VERY COMMON PROBLEM.

And finally, I did end up doing a mod job on my CPU and overclocked it to 3.0ghz upping the FSB to 333 and I gained 10fps all around, which makes the game go from unplayable to playable. Thank you again to the poster who suggested a FSB overclock, which lead me to research a cpu pin mod to OC it because my BIOS has no OC options. I do have a nice cooler keeping it at stable temperatures. :)

Thanks!

[jiltedjock 10]

Viewdistance viewdistance viewdistance. Set by the server. If it is too high for your CPU, you'll have bad FPS.

Which is why when you o/c'd your CPU you got a better framerate.

[qwertz 10]

Trying to be constructive here...

Lets look at the pics:

1) The screenshots show a CPU temp of 82C/84C. If I remember correctly, the max temp for this CPU model was ~71C before throttling kicks in, severely degrading the performance. Try to keep it below 65C (not sure whether it makes any sense to invest money in a new cooling solution for this old hardware, though - up to you).

2) In the first pic, the GPU shows only 9% load, so thats another hint your CPU is not up top the task. 9% means that the GPU is not doing much and is really bored waiting for the CPU.

3) In the second pic, the CPU load is at 91%. Thats pretty much as high as it can possibly get (you rarely hit 100% with any game). Again, your CPU is bottlenecking.

3) In pic one, FPS = 30 (exactly). Have you checked whether Vertical Sync is switched off (both in the game as well as in the Nvidia contol panel)?

4) You are meeting the minimum requirements, and the game runs. No broken promises here. Minimum specs just mean that you can expect a game to run at low fidelity and frame rates, as is the case here.

As said before, it is probably not what you want to hear, but in your specific case the problem is clearly the outdated CPU - the best code in the world can not change that you only have approx. 25-30% of the CPU firepower of a modern chip (which does not guarantee smooth frame rates in A3, as you rightly pointed out, but thats a completely different story and problem ).

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Quad+Q6600+%40+2.40GHz

Best of luck with your machine anyway!

PS: I don't have any serious performance problems, proving that this is NOT a universal problem (only) related to bad code. A3 is extremely hungry for raw CPU performance, as was the case with A2, A1 etc.

Edited October 3, 2013 by qwertz

[spanishsurfer 58]

Quit being cheap, update your PC.

[mamasan8 11]

Quit being cheap, update your PC.

Quit being cheap, send me your money.

http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/3dm11/P/1391/832/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel%20Core%20i7-3930K%20Processor&gpuName=NVIDIA%20GeForce%20GTX%20650%20Ti

http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/3dm11/P/32/832/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel%20Core%202%20Quad%20Processor%20Q6600&gpuName=NVIDIA%20GeForce%20GTX%20650%20Ti

Smaller difference than only comparing CPUs. In 3dmark (and by extension, games), your GPU would be the bottleneck.

Also notice that many of the scores have OC'd CPUs and more than 1 graphics card. Filter those out.

[qwertz 10]

[...] In 3dmark (and by extension, games) [...]

That is incorrect. A3 (in fact, all ArmA versions) are extremely CPU bound for game standards. Different Games, different bottlenecks. Look at the data.

[NeuroFunker 11]

this is like bringing an tracktor to a race track, and complaining the race masters, their race track is bad cause the tracktor can't go fast enough on it.

If you like gaming, which obviosly you do, you could save some cash for the hardware, instead wasting tons of cash in tabak and alcohol for example.

Deal with it, with a 8y old cpu, you are willing to run fine a game from 2013, especialy one that has a huge 270km² island. Thats enough to kill your machine, just by having nothing on it. And yes, no online servers will have 500m draw distance set, so when your entering any server, the view distance from it applies. Usualy 1,5-2,5km

[Furret 0]

Have you tried disabling vsync? stuck at exactly 30fps makes me think its that.

Disable it or enable triple buffering.

Edit: The game has serious engine-related issues, we all know this and BI is working on it. However, your old CPU isn't helping things at all.

[fabio_chavez 103]

qwertz, you benchmark is quite deceptive here since arma 3 apparently doesnt use half of the extensions that where introduced to cpus in the past decade...

[qwertz 10]

qwertz, you benchmark is quite deceptive here since arma 3 apparently doesnt use half of the extensions that where introduced to cpus in the past decade...

hey Fabio,

I don't want to start a side discussion here, but Passmark does not seem to use a whole lot of special CPU extensions, most of the tests are basic numbercrunching:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_test_info.html