So that's it then...? Perrformance

[CaptainObvious 95]

I'm using FRAPS. Just take a look at that CPU/GPU graph on the page before, I mean it tells you basically everything. There is a bottleneck engine is creating somewhere, not even one thread of my CPU is fully utilized thus bottlenecked by something in engine and it can't feed the GPU because of that, meaning GPU will idle then as well. I know all this for a long time now but it seems like you guys missed two opportunities when BI acknowledged this issue. One was in Arma 2 when they said they will not fix it because it would take too much work, and second one was in Arma 3 alpha when blog about it was mentioned but that blog never came. This isn't some imaginary problem or user incompetence. It is the engine issue which was apparent in Arma 2 as well. The more horsepower you got the more prominent it becomes, engine simply wont use that power. I guess the only way to explain this to users that don't notice/experience this is to literally show them like this. But I'm getting tired of showing it and explaining it.

I'm off to work now, but tomorrow I'll check how my rig does with your settings, as it's inferior to yours but I'm very much able to play with decent fps, I'm having a hard time believing higher end hardware performs worse under the same circumstances.

[ratszo 17]

Anything but native resolution tends to look like shit and I don't think resolutions under 4K are enough to hide rough edges.

I find the nvidia CP AFx & CSAAx work very well at low rez. in a3.

If i didn't need to lower rez for better frames, i wouldn't do it.

But i wouldn't complain 'bout low frames either.

But hey, i've been lowering rez to play new demanding games since i got a TnT card.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIVA_TNT

[Minoza 11]

I'm off to work now, but tomorrow I'll check how my rig does with your settings, as it's inferior to yours but I'm very much able to play with decent fps, I'm having a hard time believing higher end hardware performs worse under the same circumstances.

Honestly my biggest gripe currently are those graphs I posted earlier, they show something very strange. Try to understand, it's not only the performance at these settings that troubles me, it's exactly the fact that my CPU and GPU basically have nothing to do, game wont utilize them, that is numero uno thing that's bothering me. If I saw that my CPU is struggling at those settings I'd say, fine, obviously game is too demanding I need to turn something down, but if I see my CPU and GPU doing pretty much nothing yet framerate is bad then it makes me curious as to why?

Forcing the VD up to 3800 will definitely hurt your framerate but as I explained I would expect to see my CPU struggle at that point instead of seeing it idling... I wouldn't be surprised though if you get similar performance. Note that those are autodetect settings, game chose those as "optimal" for me, which obviously isn't the case.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Minoza

[Game__On 10]

Game engine was crap to begin with, and now it's not only crap, but also way too ancient.

No 64 bit support, how LOL is that , i mean come on , 2013 anyone ?

2 gig of RAM used max... Normal systems today have 6 to 12 gigs of ram available .

Again, rofl

[kklownboy 43]

....

It will use one core 90%, if and when you turn off core parking. As it stands now, a Dual core @ 5gz is faster than four or more @ 4.9gz.(but not for multitasking on your desktop)

As for GPU being idle...or stalling, that can be a many types of things. Mostly too much rez for the amount of frame buffer; 1Gb vidcard running at 1080p. Or a 3Gb card and running at 720p, OR a CPU under 3.5gz trying to keep up with a ubercard , OR a SLOW HDD (since alot of the game is streamed from Disk), OR its a MP/online game and the missions is bog bad, or the router is poor or, or SLI.... But if you have the power in the GPU and 3gb of Vram, turn up the settings! you will increase the % of usage.

Max out the CPU thru OC, or purchase a Badass one and platform. Match your GPU to your Display rez. Use a SSD(s), Dont play wasteland LOL. 30fps is playable. Its only a issue when the other side of experience is bad...INPUT lag. But thats another post unto its self.

[Game__On 10]

Epic man.

This game is still best fit for SINGLE CORE processors.

Pretty shocking .

[ratszo 17]

It doesn't matter because it wont help, here:

1280x800

No AA

No SSAA

No Caustics

PIP Standard

2013-12-02 21:25:30 - arma3

Frames: 6231 - Time: 220766ms - Avg: 28.224 - Min: 9 - Max: 54

This is not a problem where game is demanding but a problem where game doesn't use my hardware. No change in settings will help except lowering VD to 1000-1500max, that's where bottleneck starts to fade. And we're not talking about massive improvement, even with 1500VD in MP I get horrible performance but somewhat acceptable in SP.

Gah, that's not good.

Low rez ought to bounce fps.

Motherboard chipset drivers: generic or manufacture's? Any updates?

[Minoza 11]

It will use one core 90%, if and when you turn off core parking. As it stands now, a Dual core @ 5gz is faster than four or more @ 4.9gz.(but not for multitasking on your desktop)

As for GPU being idle...or stalling, that can be a many types of things. Mostly too much rez for the amount of frame buffer; 1Gb vidcard running at 1080p. Or a 3Gb card and running at 720p, OR a CPU under 3.5gz trying to keep up with a ubercard , OR a SLOW HDD (since alot of the game is streamed from Disk), OR its a MP/online game and the missions is bog bad, or the router is poor or, or SLI.... But if you have the power in the GPU and 3gb of Vram, turn up the settings! you will increase the % of usage.

Max out the CPU thru OC, or purchase a Badass one and platform. Match your GPU to your Display rez. Use a SSD(s), Dont play wasteland LOL. 30fps is playable. Its only a issue when the other side of experience is bad...INPUT lag. But thats another post unto its self.

With core parking disabled, situation is the same.

I posted my specs, you can clearly see that I have 2GB vram card, a fast OCed CPU and an SSD. 30 is playable but far from enjoyable. I'm looking for enjoyable experience.

Gah, that's not good.

Low rez ought to bounce fps.

Motherboard chipset drivers: generic or manufacture's? Any updates?

Asus P8Z77V-Pro, latest BIOS and latest chipset drivers from Asus. I always tend to be up to date with that stuff. I was experiencing same with Arma 2 and different rig, at that time high end as well so I can hardly blame the hardware.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Minoza

[ratszo 17]

Did you check to see if the chipset driver is installed?

Happened to me. Installed driver..., wonder why my rig was crawling, checked to see and found driver reverted to generic.

Installed failed.

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------

Also,

Using gpu-z or msi, are you pegging the gpu core clock speed under load?

Look here over at the Asus P8Z77V-Pro mobo forum:

http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx?SLanguage=en-us&id=20130504030632026&board_id=1&model=P8Z77-V%20PRO&page=1&count=34

[St. Jimmy 272]

Minoza. Have you tried without Arma 3's vsync because one of the pictures showed that you've ingame vsync on? Because if you can't reach 60fps it can lower your fps down to 30. Better to use only adaptive vsync from Nvidia control panel. Also lower object detail down to standard. It can give a nice boost on your fps.

/Also disabling the PiP gives me 10fps more in a vehicle and you can't even see that from the passenger seat in the MH-9. I keep it disabled unless I'm really using it to something. That alone should increase your avg fps a lot.

Edited December 2, 2013 by St. Jimmy

[dnk 13]

Pic 1

Pic 2

Pic 3

Ultra

Ultra

Ultra

Ultra

Ultra

Ultra

Ultra

Ultra

3800VD

Particularly texture and object quality should be tried on Standard or High at most. How many GBs in that GPU? Less than 1.5GB and I wouldn't go higher than High for texture quality. It gets eaten up quickly.

This game is horribly capped by bandwidth/latency issues. That's what I've gathered from months on these forums and personal testing. The core/CPU don't get used so much because of all the waiting around for RAM and data to get transferred from it to the processing centers, and then handled by those. When you set everything to "Ultra", you're creating massive loads of data. Also since it's all one one thread basically, any little wait caused by the engine can hold everything else up, leading to this underutilization. If the GPU core isn't being fully utilized, why is that? I can think of one obvious thing, the most simple answer: it's having to wait too much for a bottleneck somewhere in the data stream. Might just be all that ULTRA QUALITY data you're sending at it. How big are all those files...?

Also make sure your graphics driver is up to date. It made a considerable impact in some cases for me. Certain performance issues I was having that weren't clearly caused by the GPU were fixed all the same.

PS This is exactly what some posters have been saying: your quality expectations are way too high. You can't just set everything to "ultra" and a big VD and expect it to run at 50FPS on any hardware currently available. If this isn't the case, someone show evidence to me.

[ratszo 17]

"3800VD"

And 3200m. object distance. Seems he WANTS low frames to prove a point.

I think the point is: Garbage in; Garbage out.

GIGO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In,_Garbage_Out

[Minoza 11]

Ultra

...

PS This is exactly what some posters have been saying: your quality expectations are way too high. You can't just set everything to "ultra" and a big VD and expect it to run at 50FPS on any hardware currently available. If this isn't the case, someone show evidence to me.

I tried lowering settings, I even posted benchmarks with lower settings... And NO I did NOT set things to ULTRA ULTRA ULTRA, GAME set them using autodetect! Please, if you're trying to be constructive, read my comments before claiming something I tried and proved not helping me will help me. Otherwise we can just end this discussion. You repeated what I already said... In this same thread guy claims playing on 40+ fps on 3.5 VD, I asked how, which hardware, which settings which missions and got no reply...

You're trying to force prove that I'm doing something wrong, while I ran the game with LOWER settings at 1280x800 and got same result of 27/28 avg. framerate, you can see it in last 3 pages. I've got 2GB card btw, as I've already posted in that same post you quoted just like the rest of my specs...

"3800VD"

And 3200m. object distance. Seems he WANTS low frames to prove a point.

I think the point is: Garbage in; Garbage out.

GIGO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In,_Garbage_Out

You saw my benchmark with lower settings, so what's your point? I kept being polite, provided all the info, tried all the suggestions so far and now you come to this conclusion?!

Edited December 3, 2013 by Minoza

[dnk 13]

Have you tried lowering the settings other than resolution and a few minor settings? That's all I noticed you mention... The reason your hardware might not be doing anything is because you have it loading up a TON of data every frame. I specifically mentioned texture and object quality settings, but VD is important also.

Have you tried even turning all your settings to the lowest option yet, then moving each up to see where it starts to eat into your performance too much, then balancing your quality/performance to taste? It seems like you haven't from what I'm reading...

[CaptainObvious 95]

Would you Minoza run this benchmark and share the results?

The start of the Campaign isn't very accurate of a benchmark because the player can do pretty much as he desires, I found huge differences in my fps between different runs, no point in comparing the results when the tests are not the same.

[jiltedjock 10]

Ultra

The core/CPU don't get used so much because of all the waiting around for RAM and data to get transferred from it to the processing centers, and then handled by those.

Are you even aware of the BIS filemapping API ? RAM latency is NOT the issue.

[St. Jimmy 272]

I tried lowering settings, I even posted benchmarks with lower settings... And NO I did NOT set things to ULTRA ULTRA ULTRA, GAME set them using autodetect! Please, if you're trying to be constructive, read my comments before claiming something I tried and proved not helping me will help me. Otherwise we can just end this discussion. You repeated what I already said... In this same thread guy claims playing on 40+ fps on 3.5 VD, I asked how, which hardware, which settings which missions and got no reply...

You're trying to force prove that I'm doing something wrong, while I ran the game with LOWER settings at 1280x800 and got same result of 27/28 avg. framerate, you can see it in last 3 pages. I've got 2GB card btw, as I've already posted in that same post you quoted just like the rest of my specs...

You saw my benchmark with lower settings, so what's your point? I kept being polite, provided all the info, tried all the suggestions so far and now you come to this conclusion?!

Did you try these tricks?

Minoza. Have you tried without Arma 3's vsync because one of the pictures showed that you've ingame vsync on? Because if you can't reach 60fps it can lower your fps down to 30. Better to use only adaptive vsync from Nvidia control panel. Also lower object detail down to standard. It can give a nice boost on your fps.

/Also disabling the PiP gives me 10fps more in a vehicle and you can't even see that from the passenger seat in the MH-9. I keep it disabled unless I'm really using it to something. That alone should increase your avg fps a lot.

Here are my video settings. Pic 1 and pic 2.

I've i7 2600K @ 4,4 GHz and 560 Ti 1,2GB which is bit worse than your rig. The PiP is really heavy in Arma 3 and I think it's demanding also for CPU. I can run the helicopter part of the first mission with 40 -60fps. Could go over 60fps but I use adaptive vsync.

After that you can try to raise GPU stuff but don't try to raise CPU stuff unless you can take the sacrifice of your fps.

Edited December 3, 2013 by St. Jimmy

[Minoza 11]

Have you tried lowering the settings other than resolution and a few minor settings? That's all I noticed you mention... The reason your hardware might not be doing anything is because you have it loading up a TON of data every frame. I specifically mentioned texture and object quality settings, but VD is important also.

Have you tried even turning all your settings to the lowest option yet, then moving each up to see where it starts to eat into your performance too much, then balancing your quality/performance to taste? It seems like you haven't from what I'm reading...

I have. At 1000m VD game runs flawlessly on Ultra settings. Beyond 1500 game runs like crap no matter what settings. I am aware that VD is important factor I even pointed that out in one of my posts. I wanted to know how some people achieve 4.5k and get 40+ fps, because at that VD I can't get more than 30 even on lowest settings and 1280x800 resolution... If you say that everyone with similar hardware gets similar performance then fine, I'm ok with that.

Did you look at CPU usage graphs I posted? Not one single core of my CPU reaches beyond 50% utilization.

Did you try these tricks?

I'll try once I get home from work. Thx!

Edited December 3, 2013 by Minoza

[ratszo 17]

It doesn't matter because it wont help, here:

1280x800

No AA

No SSAA

No Caustics

PIP Standard

2013-12-02 21:25:30 - arma3

Frames: 6231 - Time: 220766ms - Avg: 28.224 - Min: 9 - Max: 54

This is not a problem where game is demanding but a problem where game doesn't use my hardware. No change in settings will help except lowering VD to 1000-1500max, that's where bottleneck starts to fade. And we're not talking about massive improvement, even with 1500VD in MP I get horrible performance but somewhat acceptable in SP.

Tell me how running a benchmark at 3800m. VD/3200m. OD makes any sense at all?

'Garbage in/garbage out' applies to a3 like this:

If you INput garbage settings, you OUTput garbage framerates.

But you know this.

---------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

Here's my results with the same benchmark at 3000m. VD/1750m. OD:

2013-11-27 23:53:04 - arma3

Frames: 6684 - Time: 210196ms - Avg: 31.799 - Min: 23 - Max: 44

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS/page234

[dnk 13]

I have. At 1000m VD game runs flawlessly on Ultra settings. Beyond 1500 game runs like crap no matter what settings.

AND WITH LOWER QUALITY SETTINGS WHAT VD CAN YOU GET?

Seriously, I've spent more time responding to you than it takes to change your ULTRA ULTRA settings down one or two notches to test this quickly. You especially set the object quality to high and you have a monstrous geometry to calculate and monstrous amounts of data to reference at each increase of VD because the models drawn out into the distance remain pretty high detail (with high detail textures to boot). On the lower settings you get LOD switches pretty quickly with distance, plus a lower %age of models shown, which makes a HUGE difference when you increase the area of the scene from 2Mm2 (1500VD) to 11Mm2 (3500VD). I have no issues with a 3500VD because my object/tex quality is on low/standard always, and the models are mostly not displayed beyond 2000m and those that are have very low poly counts. In fact, there's no appreciable difference in FPS between 1000m and 3500m VD for me, save when I turn quickly and need to suddenly load a bunch of new models/textures/terrain up (and on the lowest quality settings, this is not much of an issue).

Did you look at CPU usage graphs I posted? Not one single core of my CPU reaches beyond 50% utilization.

Nor do mine, and I have an i5 3350P.

Are you even aware of the BIS filemapping API ? RAM latency is NOT the issue.

Some sort of latency has to be the issue. Whether it's RAM or CPU architecture related or graphics memory bus related I don't know. Clearly, the simulation has a lot it needs to do, but something is holding it up from fully using resources. What is it?

You can explain further how the filemapping API gets around RAM latency. I would be interested to hear about it.

[Minoza 11]

AND WITH LOWER QUALITY SETTINGS WHAT VD CAN YOU GET?

Seriously, I've spent more time responding to you than it takes to change your ULTRA ULTRA settings down one or two notches to test this quickly...

Have I not answered this already? Beyond 1500m my framerate abruptly goes down no matter what the rest of settings are set to. I can set everything else to low (even object detail) but fps will remain as it is. Turning everything down at this point just makes my CPU/GPU usage go even lower. Only thing that helps is to play at 1000-1500m and game runs pretty much great then. I still get occasional drops to low 30's when quickly turning around in some dense woods areas but after that fps goes up to 50+ again which is more then fine for me. Not sure what's the cause of that particular drop but I can live with it.

I guess I'll just stick with 1500m VD and enjoy the game. Too much hassle for nothing really. I believe it should run a bit better but I'm fine with this. Thx for trying to help me out!

[dnk 13]

It was not clear, no. Good luck with that then.

[TSAndrey 1]

Have I not answered this already? Beyond 1500m my framerate abruptly goes down no matter what the rest of settings are set to. I can set everything else to low (even object detail) but fps will remain as it is. Turning everything down at this point just makes my CPU/GPU usage go even lower. Only thing that helps is to play at 1000-1500m and game runs pretty much great then. I still get occasional drops to low 30's when quickly turning around in some dense woods areas but after that fps goes up to 50+ again which is more then fine for me. Not sure what's the cause of that particular drop but I can live with it.

I guess I'll just stick with 1500m VD and enjoy the game. Too much hassle for nothing really. I believe it should run a bit better but I'm fine with this. Thx for trying to help me out!

Weird. Changing VD barely makes any FPS difference for me.

[windies 11]

@DNK Using the File Mapping API allowed BI to get around 32bit addressing limits. It's still bound by the inherent latency of whatever device is storing your pagefile, so it actually adds latency compared to RAM.

[jiltedjock 10]

@DNK Using the File Mapping API allowed BI to get around 32bit addressing limits. It's still bound by the inherent latency of whatever device is storing your pagefile, so it actually adds latency compared to RAM.

Indeed. Knowing the details of the application's architecture helps greatly if you want anyone to take you seriously.

BIS could do two things that would help x64 users with spare RAM immediately. Remove the 2047 maxmem limit, and issue a LAA memory allocator using large pages, as per the thread here http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163640-Arma3-and-the-LARGEADDRESSAWARE-flag-(memory-allocation-gt-2GB) .

Until then, we are bound by the file mapping API as well as the CPU. You can get around the CPU issues to some extent (if you have 4+ cores) by creating all your missions as multiplayer and hosting them on a dedicated server instance running on your spare cores. This worked very well in Arma2 - better, more stable, framerates for the client, but it sounds like Arma3 has its own issues vis a vis multiplayer so it may not be a good solution yet.

Edited December 4, 2013 by jiltedjock