Terrible Performance

[blackpixxel 53]

I just hope that Arma 3 gets a proper multicore-support in the closer future. I bought an FX 8320, overlocked to 8x4.1 GHz. With a decent multithreating this CPU would be great for Arma, but as long as it stays the same Intel-users will benefit from their 60% higher singlecore-performance.

[bruhmis 10]

I just hope that Arma 3 gets a proper multicore-support in the closer future. I bought an FX 8320, overlocked to 8x4.1 GHz. With a decent multithreating this CPU would be great for Arma, but as long as it stays the same Intel-users will benefit from their 60% higher singlecore-performance.

utilizing more cores isn't just writing a line of code that tells the game to use more. API overhead makes those extra cores impossible to use. 32 bit applications (such as arma 3) aren't capable of using enough memory to use 8 cores or even fully utilize 4 cores for that matter. it's AMD who made the mistake of thinking that adding more cores is a logical way to compete with hardware that is just plain better. I don't like intel and I don't like that I have to use intel hardware but as long as AMD continues to ignore the real issues intel is going to continue having a monopoly on the CPU market.

[Sneakson 1]

Hmm so Im at a loss. I upgraded to a AMD FX 8350 and now my rig is

AMD FX-8350

8GB of G-Skill Ram

Corsair GT 120 SSD

Nvidia GTX 660

and Im still having issues with quality and FPS drops and fluctuations. I performed benchmarks and brought my rig into the shop to have the hardware and software examined (they said everything was fine). I was wondering if anyone knows what kinds of settings are recommended for my rig (I prioritize FPS and stability of graphics)? Right now only half of my GPU and CPU get utilized at the most (I know its a common problem) and I get fluctuations between 25-65 fps (sometimes within the same town). Am I expecting too much for FPS or is there a problem with me settings? (the fluctuations and periodic freezes are the most frustrating).

Thanks for your help! I really appreciate it!

Check my sig for inspiration.

As you can tell most settings don't matter at all and should be on the highest possible setting at all times however View distance, object distance, shadow distance, object detail, terrain detail, picture-in-picture and using SSAO instead of HDAO as well as FSAA/ATOC on lower end machines will make a big difference.

It is more or less impossible to have good performance in ARMA though. Even if I put everything on the lowest settings I'll only hit about 60 fps on Altis and the game will look about as good as the original Ghost Recon.

---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 14:03 ----------

Opendome. First of all, you need to test your FPS in single player. Multiplayer FPs is mostly not dependant of your rig.

I am not pro when it comes to graphic tweaking, by here I turned off all shadows and put view distance to about 3000 meters and object draw distance to about 1300 meters.

Turn post processing off. Use HDAO in ambient occlusion.

The rest is for you to test and see the results.

Post-processing doesn't affect performance at all in my experience.

[opendome 91]

yeah, upgrading to that cpu was a big mistake. I went from an FX-8150 to an I7 4771 and my performance is flawless now. you should be able to get a solid 60 FPS on some parts of altis if you have the right settings but as far as I know amd doesn't have any CPU that'll give you stable performance in the big towns.

I don't think it was a big mistake as I don't have $500+ for a new MOBO and an Intel CPU, my computer crushes every other game but Arma.

Thanks for your help guys! Right now I have Object Detail on high, Terrain Detail on Standard and everything else on low or disabled, my view distance is at 1500m. I guess there isn't much else I can do but wait and hope they optimize some stuff.

[BL1P 35]

A note on the -High command.

Although using -high does nothing via command line you can do the following :-

Create a .bat file that launches the game in high priority and use affinity to set the cores it uses.

I use the following to run 5 of my six cores on my 1090t all on high priority

@echo off
echo Launching Arma3...

cd /D "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\
start "" /wait /high /affinity 3E "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\arma3.exe" -noBenchmark -noPause -noSplash -world=empty -skipintro -showscripterrors

leave out the /affinity 3E part to run on all cores as default but with high priority.

Don`t just copy paste what I put here as your system will be different.

Disclaimer if ya PC blows up it wasn't me !

Edited March 8, 2014 by BL1P

[MavericK96 0]

EDIT: Never mind, doesn't work like I thought.

[Sneakson 1]

I don't think it was a big mistake as I don't have $500+ for a new MOBO and an Intel CPU, my computer crushes every other game but Arma.

Thanks for your help guys! Right now I have Object Detail on high, Terrain Detail on Standard and everything else on low or disabled, my view distance is at 1500m. I guess there isn't much else I can do but wait and hope they optimize some stuff.

What happens if you set everything else on the highest setting instead? :p

View distance, object distance, shadow distance, shadow quality, object detail, terrain detail and FSAA/ATOC (and old AO) are the only settings that have affected performance at all on any of my computers.

So you should be good to turn everything else up because otherwise you could be using low settings that make your game look bad even though you don’t have to. You can at least try it out anyways.

[opendome 91]

Thanks for your other suggestions guys! Ugh its so frustrating to have so much variation in FPS (I get 80-25 and some serious chopiness and screen tearing which is really annoying, doesn't matter what settings I use) while only 35% of my CPU is being used (max and none of the cores are being fully used either)