Performance is still terrible even after todays patch....

[papanowel 120]

FPS absolutely fine here. Been playing all day online with many Zeus games and getting 60 FPS on client and server.

60 fps server? I would like to see that.

The last few patches improved a lot the framerate.

[kremator 1065]

Hehe sorry PN ... I meant 50 on the server (both FPS and CPS)

[TheBigOne_014 16]

@P0ci

As you said the major problem is your CPU, AMD and A3 for some reason don't match. But the server has a major part of influence on FPS in Multiplayer.

Use the maxMem on your startup parameter, the engine uses automatic values (512-1536 MB) w/o maxMem parameter. (but who cares, isn't that right badder)

Try to use Fred41 Memory Allocator, it will improve something. You can see

it shows how can you improve your fps, it talks about the startup parameters, GPU settings and the memory allocator i talked to you about.

[jcae2798 132]

While we all are here discussing FPS, wasn't it said that this game is not an intended high FPS game? I believe the normal range is between 30 and 40 for a playable experience and A3 is known for that. This game was not built like BF4 or COD for high FPS…you aren't running round 100mph shooting everything and everyone. I'm not disagreeing that the game could probably be better optimized, but then again this game was not build for high FPS optimization...

[TheBigOne_014 16]

While we all are here discussing FPS, wasn't it said that this game is not an intended high FPS game? I believe the normal range is between 30 and 40 for a playable experience and A3 is known for that. This game was not built like BF4 or COD for high FPS…you aren't running round 100mph shooting everything and everyone. I'm not disagreeing that the game could probably be better optimized, but then again this game was not build for high FPS optimization...

Yeap! You are right, but in MP with a lot of players (50-70 players) FPS can go below 30, and that's not good. ;)

[P0ci 10]

@P0ci

As you said the major problem is your CPU, AMD and A3 for some reason don't match. But the server has a major part of influence on FPS in Multiplayer.

Use the maxMem on your startup parameter, the engine uses automatic values (512-1536 MB) w/o maxMem parameter. (but who cares, isn't that right badder)

Try to use Fred41 Memory Allocator, it will improve something. You can see

it shows how can you improve your fps, it talks about the startup parameters, GPU settings and the memory allocator i talked to you about.

Are you implying that its the fact that the CPU is an AMD causing the performance issues? LOL another intel fanboi

Which is why people with hexacore i7s are having performance problems too.....

Like I said it doesn't matter the brand, if the game is only using 3 threads its not taking advantage of full CPU potential.

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:50 ----------

While we all are here discussing FPS, wasn't it said that this game is not an intended high FPS game? I believe the normal range is between 30 and 40 for a playable experience and A3 is known for that. This game was not built like BF4 or COD for high FPS…you aren't running round 100mph shooting everything and everyone. I'm not disagreeing that the game could probably be better optimized, but then again this game was not build for high FPS optimization...

This is a very ignorant statement.

Any fps shooter game needs 60 fps or more for optimal playability. Heck I can tell when it drops to the 50s. I have a very keen eye

[ProfTournesol 956]

This is a very ignorant statement.

Any fps shooter game needs 60 fps or more for optimal playability. Heck I can tell when it drops to the 50s. I have a very keen eye

Not that's not an "ignorant statement". Everybody here knows that ArmA series isn't the "kind of game" where you'll have a stable 60 FPS. Live with it.

[P0ci 10]

Not that's not an "ignorant statement". Everybody here knows that ArmA series isn't the "kind of game" where you'll have a stable 60 FPS. Live with it.

Yes it is an ignorant statement, you obviously are not a hardcore gamer. Claiming that "ohh this isn't BF or CoD so you don't need 60 fps" is straight up ignorance. Ill repeat myself all fps need optimal fps for smooth camera movement. So please don't debate me on this. And if your going to give me the classic misconception of human eye can only see 24 fps, well your mistaken as well, the 24 fps applys to 2D images like film or TV. 3D images is a different story.

[haleks 8212]

Ill repeat myself all fps need optimal fps for smooth camera movement. So please don't debate me on this.

Shall we let you debate alone with yourself then?

Oh, and repeating something doesn't make it true.

[TheBigOne_014 16]

Are you implying that its the fact that the CPU is an AMD causing the performance issues? LOL another intel fanboi

Oh,... another parashooter has landed in arma 3 months ago and he thinks he knows more than other playes that use arma over 5 years,...

Look at yourself, look at the forum, see the numbers! AMD CPU's have lower computation output in comparisson with Intel ones!

7 months before you Landed here benchmarks between AMD and Intel were already made:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Beta/test/a3%20proz%20ultra.jpg (102 kB)

Any question!?

Oh and if you are saying that because players with i7's are having difficulties to get stable 60fps, thats not a performance issue of the i7 but of the RV4 engine, and in MP it's almoust impossible to achive thous fps at this time! But Dwarden it's working on it!

[mamasan8 11]

Framerate decides what speed the simulation is run at so FPS affects everything. Input, fluidity, Ai, the whole experience.

[windies 11]

Not that's not an "ignorant statement". Everybody here knows that ArmA series isn't the "kind of game" where you'll have a stable 60 FPS. Live with it.

Exactly why isn't it or can't it be though? Do you even know why, or is it just simply something you accept? I'm honestly curious.

[Sneakson 1]

Are you implying that its the fact that the CPU is an AMD causing the performance issues? LOL another intel fanboi

Which is why people with hexacore i7s are having performance problems too.....

Like I said it doesn't matter the brand, if the game is only using 3 threads its not taking advantage of full CPU potential.

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:50 ----------

This is a very ignorant statement.

Any fps shooter game needs 60 fps or more for optimal playability. Heck I can tell when it drops to the 50s. I have a very keen eye

AMD does worse in ARMA than Intel.

Also how many fps you want is subjective and how many you need for optimal playability depends on the game and in ARMA there's a lot less precisions shooting than most other shooters.

More is always better but not always necessary.

Yes it is an ignorant statement, you obviously are not a hardcore gamer. Claiming that "ohh this isn't BF or CoD so you don't need 60 fps" is straight up ignorance. Ill repeat myself all fps need optimal fps for smooth camera movement. So please don't debate me on this. And if your going to give me the classic misconception of human eye can only see 24 fps, well your mistaken as well, the 24 fps applys to 2D images like film or TV. 3D images is a different story.

Not that it matters much but you're wrong. The human eye can't only see 24 fps ever.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Yes it is an ignorant statement, you obviously are not a hardcore gamer. Claiming that "ohh this isn't BF or CoD so you don't need 60 fps" is straight up ignorance. Ill repeat myself all fps need optimal fps for smooth camera movement. So please don't debate me on this. And if your going to give me the classic misconception of human eye can only see 24 fps, well your mistaken as well, the 24 fps applys to 2D images like film or TV. 3D images is a different story.

I've never gotten above 40. My average is 20-25, and I've been playing ArmA for the last 7 years. You have no idea what a "hardcore gamer" is, sonny. There is no single definition. Somebody who plays for an hour here and there but does so with friends and intense missions could be "hardcore". Or do you think it means veterans of FPS and Milsim, tournament players and the like? I used to play 12 hour days every Saturday in one of the best tournaments out there. Does that make me "hardcore"? Pull your head out of your posterior orifice, get some fresh air, and toggle the little handle on the side of your head because right now you're so full of shit your eyes are turning brown.

[windies 11]

I've never gotten above 40. My average is 20-25, and I've been playing ArmA for the last 7 years. You have no idea what a "hardcore gamer" is, sonny. There is no single definition. Somebody who plays for an hour here and there but does so with friends and intense missions could be "hardcore". Or do you think it means veterans of FPS and Milsim, tournament players and the like? I used to play 12 hour days every Saturday in one of the best tournaments out there. Does that make me "hardcore"? Pull your head out of your posterior orifice, get some fresh air, and toggle the little handle on the side of your head because right now you're so full of shit your eyes are turning brown.

I would say being a "hardcore":rolleyes: gamer means accepting and being tolerant that there are many personal standards to what is and isn't acceptable as far as game performance, quality and concepts are concerned and being able to accept that as well as being courteous even to those they don't agree with without the need to get self righteous about their own personal opinions. I would say neither of you really have an understanding of what a "hardcore gamer" is. Hardcore, in the sense it's being used here, is a laughable term because it's a definition predefined on personal viewpoints and suppositions generally, the very same things most despise and can't even accept to begin with.

If you're happy with 20 fps, why does getting 60 fps or more fps threaten you so much? Do you feel there's no room for improvement? Do you stop and say, "ArmA is perfect the way it is, it can't get better!"? For that matter, why exactly is 60 fps an impossible number within the RV engine to strive for? I don't think anyone has ever given a real concrete answer on this. It generally revolves around people with little understanding arguing back and forth about why either it should or it shouldn't with nothing ever being done.

[P0ci 10]

Oh,... another parashooter has landed in arma 3 months ago and he thinks he knows more than other playes that use arma over 5 years,...

Look at yourself, look at the forum, see the numbers! AMD CPU's have lower computation output in comparisson with Intel ones!

7 months before you Landed here benchmarks between AMD and Intel were already made:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Beta/test/a3%20proz%20ultra.jpg (102 kB)

Any question!?

Oh and if you are saying that because players with i7's are having difficulties to get stable 60fps, thats not a performance issue of the i7 but of the RV4 engine, and in MP it's almoust impossible to achive thous fps at this time! But Dwarden it's working on it!

Sigh and where did I say that AMD wins in benchmarks? What Im saying is that your acting like the performance issues only affect AMD when they affect both AMD and Intel. ANd btw congrats on posting a beta bench where the game wasn't even optimized yet.... And what I said about the i7 was just an example. You all still fail to comprehend this game engine only uses 3 threads and it doesn't matter if its AMD or Intel.

AMD does worse in ARMA than Intel.

The human eye can't only see 24 fps ever.

Can I have what your smoking?

I've never gotten above 40. My average is 20-25, and I've been playing ArmA for the last 7 years. You have no idea what a "hardcore gamer" is, sonny. There is no single definition. Somebody who plays for an hour here and there but does so with friends and intense missions could be "hardcore". Or do you think it means veterans of FPS and Milsim, tournament players and the like? I used to play 12 hour days every Saturday in one of the best tournaments out there. Does that make me "hardcore"? Pull your head out of your posterior orifice, get some fresh air, and toggle the little handle on the side of your head because right now you're so full of shit your eyes are turning brown.

Sonny? Please I PLAYED Operation Flashpoint on a Geforce 3 before practically anyone had one. I was one of the first players registered with WON for HL cd keys and had a 3 digit WON id for TFC and CS. So please save me the criticisim.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

I would say being a "hardcore":rolleyes: gamer means accepting and being tolerant that there are many personal standards to what is and isn't acceptable as far as game performance, quality and concepts are concerned and being able to accept that as well as being courteous even to those they don't agree with without the need to get self righteous about their own personal opinions. I would say neither of you really have an understanding of what a "hardcore gamer" is. Hardcore, in the sense it's being used here, is a laughable term because it's a definition predefined on personal viewpoints and suppositions generally, the very same things most despise and can't even accept to begin with.

If you're happy with 20 fps, why does getting 60 fps or more fps threaten you so much? Do you feel there's no room for improvement? Do you stop and say, "ArmA is perfect the way it is, it can't get better!"? For that matter, why exactly is 60 fps an impossible number within the RV engine to strive for? I don't think anyone has ever given a real concrete answer on this. It generally revolves around people with little understanding arguing back and forth about why either it should or it shouldn't with nothing ever being done.

I never called myself a "hardcore gamer". I think the term itself is ridiculous. As far as the fps limit goes, it's improved since ArmA 1, since ArmA 2, since OA. ArmA is not CoD or Battlefield, and never will be. It will never have the performance of those games because those are first person shooters, and ArmA is more a hybrid of FPS and simulation. ArmA terrains are 100x, 1,000x the size of the maps of any FPS, the AI is far more complicated if a bit stupid at times, and the engine itself is like an old racehorse. He gets smarter with age, knowing where to run the track, but bit by bit the younger horses gain on him. We're near the last race of the RV engine, I suspect, but the simple fact is that you cannot compare ArmA to any other game, so quit trying. If you don't like the FPS, don't play it.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Darkhorse 1-6

[MavericK96 0]

Sigh and where did I say that AMD wins in benchmarks? What Im saying is that your acting like the performance issues only affect AMD when they affect both AMD and Intel. ANd btw congrats on posting a beta bench where the game wasn't even optimized yet.... And what I said about the i7 was just an example. You all still fail to comprehend this game engine only uses 3 threads and it doesn't matter if its AMD or Intel.

It matters for AMD because they have lower IPC than Intel right now, which seems to hurt performance in ArmA 3 because it is not fully utilizing multi-core processors. So a 4-core Intel with higher IPC is going to perform better than an 8-core AMD with the same clock speed because ArmA doesn't care about 8 cores. AMD chose to expand outward and not up in terms of performance, and for applications that are not heavily multi-threaded it hurts them in performance.

I don't think anyone is saying that Intel is not affected performance-wise at all, but AMD is definitely affected more.

[P0ci 10]

It matters for AMD because they have lower IPC than Intel right now, which seems to hurt performance in ArmA 3 because it is not fully utilizing multi-core processors. So a 4-core Intel with higher IPC is going to perform better than an 8-core AMD with the same clock speed because ArmA doesn't care about 8 cores. AMD chose to expand outward and not up in terms of performance, and for applications that are not heavily multi-threaded it hurts them in performance.

I don't think anyone is saying that Intel is not affected performance-wise at all, but AMD is definitely affected more.

And?

Congrats you want a cookie?

THat was not the point of the amd vs intel thing. THe French guy claimed AMD was my problem when its not. That's my point. If people with i5s and i7s are complaining as well then that's an issue. I rest my case

---------- Post added at 02:06 ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 ----------

I never called myself a "hardcore gamer". I think the term itself is ridiculous. As far as the fps limit goes, it's improved since ArmA 1, since ArmA 2, since OA. ArmA is not CoD or Battlefield, and never will be. It will never have the performance of those games because those are first person shooters, and ArmA is more a hybrid of FPS and simulation. ArmA terrains are 100x, 1,000x the size of the maps of any FPS, the AI is far more complicated if a bit stupid at times, and the engine itself is like an old racehorse. He gets smarter with age, knowing where to run the track, but bit by bit the younger horses gain on him. We're near the last race of the RV engine, I suspect, but the simple fact is that you cannot compare ArmA to any other game, so quit trying. If you don't like the FPS, don't play it.

Ohh please don't give me that crap, if BI wanted to they could make the game have better multithreaded support. Valve did it with their source engine what 6 years ago? BF does it now with frostbite engine and can do up to 8 threads, and Crytek added 64bit support to original FarCry back in 04. So your excuse of live with it and if you don't like it don't play is not a very good marketing strategy. Todays hardware is perfectly capable of running ARMA3 engine at 60 fps or more but it doesn't cause it barely uses 3 threads.

[TheBigOne_014 16]

Sigh and where did I say that AMD wins in benchmarks? What Im saying is that your acting like the performance issues only affect AMD when they affect both AMD and Intel. ANd btw congrats on posting a beta bench where the game wasn't even optimized yet.... And what I said about the i7 was just an example. You all still fail to comprehend this game engine only uses 3 threads and it doesn't matter if its AMD or Intel.

OK! September 2013 whit the final release!

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/712/bench/CPU_03.png (391 kB)

When you have an AMD CPU with 8 cores @ 4Ghz that has less performance than an Intel i5 with 4 cores @ 3.2Ghz that is not a PERFORMANCE ISSUE due to difference in IPC performance from both CPU's!?!?!?

I'm starting to think the problem it's not on your CPU, but in what's between the chair and the monitor!

[P0ci 10]

OK! September 2013 whit the final release!

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/712/bench/CPU_03.png (391 kB)

When you have an AMD CPU with 8 cores @ 4Ghz that has less performance than an Intel i5 with 4 cores @ 3.2Ghz that is not a PERFORMANCE ISSUE due to difference in IPC performance from both CPU's!?!?!?

I'm starting to think the problem it's not on your CPU, but in what's between the chair and the monitor!

Ohh god go away please. Maybe you don't comprehend English correctly or your just dense.

You keep on posting benches I already know about, stop trying to turn this into an AMD vs Intel flame war. The performance in this game affects BOTH platforms.

So please go away yet again I ask. Its like your trying to teach a father how to have kids.....

[Sneakson 1]

Can I have what your smoking?

Facts.

Anyways join a different server, with different missions.

[byrgesen 1]

Shouldn't you place you're max mem at the max amount you have in you're computer? like 16384MB?this is what i saw in the Armaholic tutorial

---------- Post added at 22:03 ---------- Previous post was at 21:52 ----------

Did you also changed the CFG file ? ...you have 16gb of ram and gonna limit you're game to only use 2 when arma is a game that needs at least 4 to run in recommended?

The game is hardcoded to 2047 mb of ram, so it will default back to this number, if you set it any higher.

256 is hard-coded minimum (anything lower falls backs to 256). 2047 is hard-coded maximum (anything higher falls back to 2047).

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Startup_Parameters

I found that most, if not all of the start up parameters, doesnt really make a difference as the game will figure it out by it self anyway.

At least i get the best performance with no start parameters.

Are you getting such low FPS on ALL servers?

I would have a look at View Distance, Object Distance, Object Quality and AA basicly, this is the places i can get most FPS out of the game.

[Seitan 8]

Playing Zeus on a open OFFICIAL server is imposible. Constant yellow/red chain. Zeus might be good for 15 player coop + Zeus on a locked server. But at current state the multiplayer is in this game, 3 side war with players connecting/disconnecting every second it is just not possible. :mad:

[jiltedjock 10]

Maybe you don't comprehend English correctly or your just dense.

You're. Best to get these things right when you're slinging the insults around.