Old Rig But Good Performance

[infiltrator_2k 29]

I've been reading up on how some people are struggling for FPS despite having a relatively powerful gaming rig (very frustrating I know). I don't quite understand or know where the problem lies, but it's said to be in the engine itself. My PC is over 3 years old now as the below specs illustrate, and with exception to the GFX card it's not had any upgrades and yet I'm getting 50/60 fps on single player and even 28 fps (very playable) when hosting a custom mission which I created that has several scripts and that's fully loaded scripts Ai and vehicles - all with the display options set on ultimate +.

If there's one major contributing factor to how I my rig has managed to run the game pretty smoothly it will definitely be the overclock. Last week my PC crashed and put my CPU back to stock. Upon playing ArmA I noticed straight away the stickiness and reduction in FPS.

So, despite all the tweaks and tips on how to boost your FPS I would definitely say it's how your hardware handles the engine. Given the hundreds of post about the performance issue it goes to prove that just because a person's components are newer, more powerful and quicker than the next person's it definitely doesn't mean their rig is going to outperform the inferior machine, but potentially and quite ironically the opposite.

Given the above, I'm seriously in no rush to upgrade. But more to the point, how do Bohemia Interactive address the performance issue? I mean, given a seemingly indefinite combination of people's systems of hardware and software they're running it would be like looking for a straw in a haystack. Are BI being honest with people? because let's face it if they knew what as causing the issue they'd fix it right? Or there something they're not telling us?

But to BI's credit, they've created an awesome game/simulator that's already provided me and friends with endless hours of enjoyment. If they manage to rectify the performance issue and give us back the traditional units (not digging the futuristic theme) it will IMHO be the best game/simulator ever created within its genre. For all of its faults you have to admit the way the development team have implemented the new technology is amazing - I often stand in awe how they've brought realism and immersion to our screen. Consoles are forever looking pretty pathetic in comparison, albeit if they do provide a trouble free colourful blast for some, you have to admit, nothing comes remotely close to ArmA as it's in a league of its own.

[sproyd 2]

Suggestion: Put your PC specs front and centre at the top of the OP - people don't want to have to hunt for it in your signature for specs -a signature that will change if you update it.

[antoineflemming 14]

I've been reading up on how some people are struggling for FPS despite having a relatively powerful gaming rig (very frustrating I know). I don't quite understand or know where the problem lies, but it's said to be in the engine itself. My PC is over 3 years old now as the below specs illustrate, and with exception to the GFX card it's not had any upgrades and yet I'm getting 50/60 fps on single player and even 28 fps (very playable) when hosting a custom mission which I created that has several scripts and that's fully loaded scripts Ai and vehicles - all with the display options set on ultimate +.

If there's one major contributing factor to how I my rig has managed to run the game pretty smoothly it will definitely be the overclock. Last week my PC crashed and put my CPU back to stock. Upon playing ArmA I noticed straight away the stickiness and reduction in FPS.

So, despite all the tweaks and tips on how to boost your FPS I would definitely say it's how your hardware handles the engine. Given the hundreds of post about the performance issue it goes to prove that just because a person's components are newer, more powerful and quicker than the next person's it definitely doesn't mean their rig is going to outperform the inferior machine, but potentially and quite ironically the opposite.

Given the above, I'm seriously in no rush to upgrade. But more to the point, how do Bohemia Interactive address the performance issue? I mean, given a seemingly indefinite combination of people's systems of hardware and software they're running it would be like looking for a straw in a haystack. Are BI being honest with people? because let's face it if they knew what as causing the issue they'd fix it right? Or there something they're not telling us?

But to BI's credit, they've created an awesome game/simulator that's already provided me and friends with endless hours of enjoyment. If they manage to rectify the performance issue and give us back the traditional units (not digging the futuristic theme) it will IMHO be the best game/simulator ever created within its genre. For all of its faults you have to admit the way the development team have implemented the new technology is amazing - I often stand in awe how they've brought realism and immersion to our screen. Consoles are forever looking pretty pathetic in comparison, albeit if they do provide a trouble free colourful blast for some, you have to admit, nothing comes remotely close to ArmA as it's in a league of its own.

Well that's 4.00 GHz pushing that game engine, that's why. And your graphics card's decent. But it's mainly the 4.00 GHz that's responsible for your solid performance. I've pretty much accepted that it's my CPU that limits my performance. But since I'm on a laptop, can't really overclock.

[-Coulum- 35]

I've pretty much accepted that it's my CPU that limits my performance. But since I'm on a laptop, can't really overclock.

Same here though even with a laptop I can usually stay in the 25 - 35 fps even in decent sized battles. But CPU speed really helps.

I get the feeling that arma 3 has been made to be playable on relatively old stuff (if you are willing to sacrifice seting) but the fps gain with better hardware is not a linear one. I say this because before my laptop I was playing on an 8 year old computer at around 20 fps and yet people with modern rigs still get problems when you would expect them to be shhredding the game considering that I was able to run it on such a rig. Just a theory.

Anyhow I think the real performance problem is the MP client side fps. Otherwise I am pretty satisfied by SP performance.

Edited November 12, 2013 by -Coulum-

[antoineflemming 14]

Same here though even with a laptop I can usually stay in the 25 - 35 fps even in decent sized battles. But CPU speed really helps.

I get the feeling that arma 3 has been made to be playable on relatively old stuff (if you are willing to sacrifice seting) but the fps gain with better hardware is not a linear one. I say this because before my laptop I was playing on an 8 year old computer at around 20 fps and yet people with modern rigs still get problems when you would expect them to be shhredding the game considering that I was able to run it on such a rig. Just a theory.

Anyhow I think the real performance problem is the MP client side fps. Otherwise I am pretty satisfied by SP performance.

I experience performance drops anytime I'm looking at vegetation that's casting shadows. Bushes (with leaves and without leaves) or Trees, and it's worse with FXAA on.

[jiltedjock 10]

CPU > 4ghz = better performance != rocket science

[NeMeSiS 11]

Its because you dont play wasteland. ;)

[infiltrator_2k 29]

I think BI should develop a tool that gathers information on willing participants rigs that provides BI with their hardware and software configurations, ArmA config file and the FPS on a specific ArmA benchmark test. That way they'll be able to find a trend to what configuration is causing performance related issues.

It might be seen as being controversial what with all the privacy concerns, but unless you've got kiddy porn or terrorist material on your HDD then no ones got anything to worry about.

[10t 12]

- all with the display options set on ultimate +.

Unless you tell us your view distances (overall and object), you haven't really told us what your display options are set at.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

Unless you tell us your view distances (overall and object), you haven't really told us what your display options are set at.

Set to default. There's too much cloud if you reduce 'overall' for sure.

[dnk 13]

i5 3350P (3.3GHz 4c), GTS 250 1GB, 2x2GB 1066Mhz CAS9, etc

Manage 30-40FPS in SP, 20-30 in COOP (on Annex, Domi; 30-40 on smaller missions) with 2400-3000VD (full object/shadow), mixed settings (low-mid on average), no AA.

Only have real issues in forests where my GPU dies a quick death (campaign is rough going). Mostly, it's the CPU that bottlenecks the system, despite only running around 25-50%. I think it's been well explained by now that the one central thread of the game has a lot of latency issues from handling too much of the simulation, which limits how fast it can run, which in turn limits overall FPS.

A better graphics card should be able to improve visuals by increasing texture/object quality, but if you're CPU-bound, you're CPU-bound either way for your FPS. Also, VRAM is probably fairly important, and I expect one reason my GPU can still handle the game somewhat is because of its 1GB.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

I have to admit, my CPU is working flat out when running ArmA. I'm running on air with a Nehalem and it gets seriously warm and toasty in the room, so much so I have to open doors otherwise it gets too hot. But that's the beauty of having the Antec 900 case. There's so much air being passed through the system it keeps the components cool when running such a high overclock on air.

A friend of mine has an old Xeon CPU that score around 2.5k in CPU benchmark, but he has the same GPU as me and 8Gigs of ram. He can only get 12 FPS on the same mission I play regardless who's hosting the mission. So the CPU does without doubt play a significant factor. I think what's interesting it that he's better off not trying to reduce his graphics too much. By upping the graphic's settings he managed to improve on a few frames - obviously elevating his CPU by putting more load on the GPU.

The complexity of the mission also plays a huge part; the more complex the more strain it puts on a person's system. I've noticed that buggy scripts too can cause a drop in FPS. With exception to the virtual ammo box, vehicle respawn and repair/refuel triggers I stay clear of implementing them into my missions.