Back to Arma 3 - Still poor performance?

[St. Jimmy 272]

/Woops. I got an old tab open...

[RuecanOnRails 10]

maxmem 14336? Arma3 can not take more then 2-3GB ram, its 32bit.

maxvram 8192? Wont work, sli + crossfire is 2x vRAM, not 1+1 vRam. It does not count together. Tests for my gpu show that my vram is best used when i dont touch maxvram setting.

You're only half right, but mostly wrong. Arma 3 directly can only use 2-3gb of ram due to 32bit limitations, however it makes great use of external memory allocators to boost usable ram cache to a max of 32768mb. This is a great workaround for 32bit limitations, native 64bit would be better, but for the task at hand this works just as well. The OP's system only has 16gb of ram, my suggestion of 14336 will allow a lot of headroom but prevent low virtual memory errors from the OS.

I know how crossfire and sli work, the total available memory is mirrored and not shared. By setting maxvram to 8192 Arma 3 will use the full 4096mb available by crossfire and any overrun gets stored in ram for quick swaps, faster lods, and generally less stutter.

One of the main killers in terms of performance is I/O and how data is streamed instead of loaded directly into memory. Utilizing the high transfer speeds of ram is essential in getting smooth playing experience.

[stang725 10]

So for me, I barely have the "time" (w/ work, kids, and a non-gamer wife) to even play this awesome game, let alone spend the hours it would take to read through all the posts for further FPS optimization of this game....

My issue:

I can run almost any game with at near constant 144 fps on my rig at 1080p.

With ARMA, I'm everywhere from 30 - 100+ fps (single and MP) at 1080p. Changing graphics settings don't even seem to have any dramatic affect on FPS for some reason?

Does anyone have like a Top-5 for tweaks that may help me improve or at least stabilize things. I'm well aware that MP adds a ton of variability to a game that already has a ton of FPS variability... I play at max settings, but I have tried to reduce settings and draw distances with only minor improvements.

(I don't see my CPU being the bottleneck, but maybe it is? How do I tell other than finding a core that is at sustained 100% utilization)

My Build:

i4770k OC to 4.4ghz

8GB 2133

2x 770 SLI 4GB w/ current drivers

Win 7 and Arma on a 256GB SSD

Asus 24" 144hz @ 1080p

Short of picking up two new 780ti, I'm not sure what else to do. Sure, I feel bad complaining that I'm "only" getting 70-80fps with all my graphic settings maxed out on some of the better MP servers... but I do get down to 30 depending on the server and time of day of the map. I'm just at a loss as to what I can even do to improve my experience playing this game.

What are some items I can monitor to determine where the bottleneck is? I'm not very experienced with PC gaming (I thought I could spend my way out of this issue), so really looking for some insight to save some time. Trust me, its easier to bow my head and ask for advice than to go to the "wife" and tell her I need to drop $1.5k on a new SLI setup when I just spend $750 on the 770s... which in my opinion shouldn't be brought to their knees at 1080p...

Thanks guys...

[clawhammer 10]

a few ago days i tried Operation Flashpoint / Arma 1, what do you guys belive was my fps? Everytime over 25fps? :D

I tried Tonal island with all settings on Very High and i still got very low fps in the main city :D This game is from 2001 and it still kills my 2014 PC xD

[dreadedentity 278]

The i7 2600k was the first in the Sandy Bridge line to be released. While still being quite capable, it is simply not as good as later generations and all the Arma titles have been extremely CPU-intensive.

Your startup parameters have an effect on performance also, for example all I have in mine is "-noSplash -skipIntro -showScriptErrors". I tried setting some of those advanced settings like maxMem exThread and cpuCount, but it killed my FPS (by the way, you forgot to define how many threads you have in "exThread"). You mentioned 50fps as your max, if this is really true then I am getting better FPS than you 100% of the time and with a less powerful computer.

Unpark your cores. For some reason, when you buy a CPU, your extra cores can be "parked" which means what it sounds like, they are not running at their full capacity. There are plenty of tools you can download to unpark your cores so I'm just going to tell you to search google for that.

Also remember that the servers you play on have a huge effect on your FPS, if you play on a server that runs tons of unoptimized scripts and wastes your computers processing power that will kill your FPS faster than drawing shadows or calculating anti-aliasing (bad joke, shadows and anti-aliasing are the heaviest processes computers do in games).

Lastly, you just need to get over your pride and turn your settings down. You don't need x8 anti-aliasing, you don't need a 12km render distance, you don't need high texture details, and you definitely don't need shadows. In fact, I play with shadows disabled and shadow visibility at it's minimum of 50 meters. It's a setting that will actually make you worse since everybody else turns shadows off anyway. You think you're safe under that tree, but you're not.

Edited September 4, 2014 by DreadedEntity

[nikiforos 450]

The i7 2600k was the first in the Sandy Bridge line to be released. While still being quite capable, it is simply not as good as later generations and all the Arma titles have been extremely CPU-intensive.

Your startup parameters have an effect on performance also, for example all I have in mine is "-noSplash -skipIntro -showScriptErrors". I tried setting some of those advanced settings like maxMem exThread and cpuCount, but it killed my FPS (by the way, you forgot to define how many threads you have in "exThread"). You mentioned 50fps as your max, if this is really true then I am getting better FPS than you 100% of the time and with a less powerful computer.

Unpark your cores. For some reason, when you buy a CPU, your extra cores can be "parked" which means what it sounds like, they are not running at their full capacity. There are plenty of tools you can download to unpark your cores so I'm just going to tell you to search google for that.

Also remember that the servers you play on have a huge effect on your FPS, if you play on a server that runs tons of unoptimized scripts and wastes your computers processing power that will kill your FPS faster than drawing shadows or calculating anti-aliasing (bad joke, shadows and anti-aliasing are the heaviest processes computers do in games).

Lastly, you just need to get over your pride and turn your settings down. You don't need x8 anti-aliasing, you don't need a 12km render distance, you don't need high texture details, and you definitely don't need shadows. In fact, I play with shadows disabled and shadow visibility at it's minimum of 50 meters. It's a setting that will actually make you worse since everybody else turns shadows off anyway. You think you're safe under that tree, but you're not.

Everyone is missing the point here, the problem is the Arma engine and mostly regardless of what you do performance will still suck big time when AI is loaded and medium to large battles take place.

Ohh an the i7-2600k is a good processor don't try to make it his fault that Arma runs bad.

[stang725 10]

So throwing cost out the window, what is the best ARMA 3 processor on the market (taking OC potential into account) since its pretty obvious 1080p FPS is not being gated/limited by high-end GPU setups?

[dreadedentity 278]

So throwing cost out the window, what is the best ARMA 3 processor on the market (taking OC potential into account) since its pretty obvious 1080p FPS is not being gated/limited by high-end GPU setups?

Go with the latest Intel-released CPU's. I'll highlight the main differences between Intel and AMD processors:

Intel:

1. First and foremost, roughly double the cost of an equally-capable AMD processor.

2. Not all of their releases have hyperthreading. You want one with it. You should see vast improvements when playing on servers that run tons of background processes.

3. Real, actual, physical cores.

4. Better, more efficient architecture.

5. Usually less cores than a similarly-spec'ed AMD processor.

AMD:

1. Roughly half the cost of a similarly-capable Intel processor.

2. No hyperthreading. They have a similar solution, called hypertransport but I haven't heard much of anything about it.

3. Core "modules", not real cores. I seem to remember that 2 modules share processing power, but each module is listed as a separate core under specifications. I need to do more research about them and you should as well.

4. Weaker architecture. A similarly-spec'ed AMD processor will require a few more cycles to run the same calculations. You can overclock to match the speed of an Intel processor, but then you need to run your fans at higher speeds or buy an aftermarket cooling solution to deal with the extra heat. Also, you will be drawing more power from your power supply, but it's not that much more expensive.

5. More cores than a similarly-spec'ed Intel processor. Although weaker, and most modern games only support up to 4 cores, having extra cores can increase performance in other areas like running background processes like recording while playing, listening to music, or streaming gameplay.

My processor is an i5-4670k non-hyperthreaded and without overclocking at all and I only see major performance loss if a leave a loop open while scripting, I haven't ever seen less than 50fps during normal gameplay in Arma 3. This is because in combination with the things I said in my last post, I also keep my computer free of any crap background programs, those seriously kill a CPU's strength.

Edited September 4, 2014 by DreadedEntity

[nikiforos 450]

I haven't ever seen less than 50fps during normal gameplay in Arma 3. This is because in combination with the things I said in my last post, I also keep my computer free of any crap background programs, those seriously kill a CPU's strength.

Are we talking editor? Single player? Or Multiplayer?

[stang725 10]

I have a i4770k... so not sure if there is much room for improvement for ARMA3 by getting a better i7.

I use process lasso as well.

[shankly1985 1]

@DreadedEntity

2600k is still a very powerful cpu, it even keeps up very well with ivy bridge and Haswell.

It's only 2011 that really run the show. My total cpu usage would show am far from maxing out my i7.

Already un-parked cores even though windows 8 don't Park cpu cores like windows 7.

I would be happy turning down some settings am not fussed. But switching off aa and 8x shown me zero fps change. Just look at ultra vs low something isn't quite right.

I don't play arma for its competitive play I want to just enjoy it and have all the fancy settings up. They is no excuse a system like mine to not run this game on max settings and still get enjoyable fps.

Edited September 5, 2014 by shankly1985

[mamasan8 11]

Amd 8-core has 8 cores but they share 4 FPUs (floating point units, handles doubles etc ie. very handy in games) so thats why they are not considered 8 'full' cores.

CPU+FPU has been the standard since the 486DX-days I believe for a Core.

Edited September 5, 2014 by mamasan8

[nikiforos 450]

Unparking cores has no effect in my game and to be honest I think it's crap that it improves the game performance.

[mezamorphis 10]

Hey guys , I have a really annoying issue with Arma3

Search my videos on google "Zxcab youtube" and you will see the 2 videos

arma3 vehicle lag 2 and arma vehicle lag

"arma3 vehicle lag 2" shows how I see cars moving when I'm in my own car or with someone in their car

"arma vehicle lag" is better but it rarely happens .

I can't post links because it's my first day ...

Any solution ?

FPS is fine , pc has much better specs than what the game requires

100mbps fiber link (RO)

Ping is about 40

It's something like a vehicle desync and many times it made me crush into other cars because I didn't realize I was that close until the moment they teleported into me .

NOTE that it wasn't me driving right now but a friend , this is how I see everybody's vehicles teleporting . If I drive the car I will see only my car running smoothly but the others still like this.

[dreadedentity 278]

NOTE that it wasn't me driving right now but a friend , this is how I see everybody's vehicles teleporting . If I drive the car I will see only my car running smoothly but the others still like this.

The desync is strong when you are not the driver. I'm sure this has something to do with reducing bandwidth for people that don't really need an exact picture of what's happening, so you get updates less often than the driver. It happened in Arma 2 also.

I haven't ever seen less than 50fps during normal gameplay in Arma 3. This is because in combination with the things I said in my last post, I also keep my computer free of any crap background programs, those seriously kill a CPU's strength.

Are we talking editor? Single player? Or Multiplayer?

I guess it's not entirely accurate to say that I've never seen less than 50fps in Arma 3, I've been playing since release-day. Now, that was seriously unoptimized. You guys have it easy. When I bought the alpha, I was getting 15 fps in the one campaign mission that existed, with lower settings than what I use today. But that could also be because I had a computer much less capable than my current one that I custom-built to get rid of that old piece of crap.

Edited September 6, 2014 by DreadedEntity

[shankly1985 1]

The desync is strong when you are not the driver. I'm sure this has something to do with reducing bandwidth for people that don't really need an exact picture of what's happening, so you get updates less often than the driver. It happened in Arma 2 also.

I guess it's not entirely accurate to say that I've never seen less than 50fps in Arma 3, I've been playing since release-day. Now, that was seriously unoptimized. You guys have it easy. When I bought the alpha, I was getting 15 fps in the one campaign mission that existed, with lower settings than what I use today. But that could also be because I had a computer much less capable than my current one that I custom-built to get rid of that old piece of crap.

You not the only one who played alpha. :p I also had shocking performance and reason for me not playing it.

Reason for title back to area 3 :D

[sgtsev3n 12]

shankly watch this, its explained why the performance wont be better if you buy the newest GPU & CPU and if you would buy 128 gb of ram

[shankly1985 1]

Very good watch. What he is explaining is the same what I getting. Low cpu usage not enough to boost the GPUs.

Guess I'll just call this game quits. Am not one for wanting to play on low settings, I don't care if it helps me to see better etc

I want to play the game in its full potential, and because it's not even my hardware stopping me I give up.

We all seen arma 2 still performance is bad on today's hardware.

[stang725 10]

I was able to get near 100% GPU usage on both 770 SLI cards by going max settings on everything besides shadows and clouds (went with STD shadows and low clouds) + a 1600 / 1200 draw distance... (think draw distance freed up some CPU processing load, need to go back and test with shadows/clouds put back up to max) Would shadows need CPU resources for some calc?

With max setting (clouds and shadows maxed out as well) + 3k / *can't remember) draw distance that the NVIDIA Geforce experience preset called out, I was only getting ~60-65% utilization of my GPUs. So I think its more of finding that sweet spot where you are balancing your CPU dependent items with the GPU loading. Using the Altis 0.6 benchmark, I went from 42fps -> 78fps by dropping shadows/clouds and draw distance. Your mileage may vary....

Using: GPU_MaxFramesAhead=4; GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=3; for Frames being rendered in the ARMA .cfg file, no other tweaks. Also using the start up parameters for 4 cores, 7 threads, 4GB vram, 2GB of RAM (its 32-bit, so not sure why people are calling out more than 3GB?) and some of the other more commonly called out start up tweaks for loading world empty and turning off logs (don't have them in front of me)

4770k @ 4.3GHz

8GB @ 2133

SSD

2x GTX 770 4GB @ 1167Mhz (was getting about 2.3GB vram usage)

1080p 144hz

I see some people calling out the use of GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=0, while other people are calling for "3". Can someone explain this specific setting? Also can someone explain what the real optimal value for -maxMem "2047", right? I see people listing 4GB and 8GB? Its a 32-bit program, how it is able to use 4GB+? I'm running 64-bit Win 7 if that matters.

Can someone link a guide to get a 8GB ram drive created and populated with all needed ARMA 3 files and links at windows start up?

Edited September 8, 2014 by stang725

[S20 10]

The servers are more of an issue than your hardware, I'd suspect. I have an i5 and get good frames in single player or lightly populated servers, but as servers fill up the game bogs down due to low server side fps. Hosts need to lower their max players to something like 40-50 players, IMO.

[jiltedjock 10]

I see people listing 4GB and 8GB? Its a 32-bit program, how it is able to use 4GB+? I'm running 64-bit Win 7 if that matters.

A 32 Bit executable can use 4GB of address space on 64 Bit Windows.

[shboul89 10]

hi since i have no idea why i cant find anyone or anyplace to ask this. i bought the game yesterday and played for 5 minutes and it froze making me restart the computer the hard way, then played again after 30 min it happened again. i uninstalled and checked everything and nothing was wrong please help

[clawhammer 10]

Currently i have this equipment:

AMD-FX 8350

AMD Radeon R9 290X

16GB DDR3 1600 Mhz

Gigabyte GA-M907A-UD3 Revision: 3.0

Today i got extrem performance issues on our clan server, most of the time i had fps under 10!

Before patch 1.28 i had better performance in the multiplayer.

No matter wich graphic settings i choose, i can set everythink to very low i dont get a single fps more :butbut:

[Llano 11]

Currently i have this equipment:

AMD-FX 8350

AMD Radeon R9 290X

16GB DDR3 1600 Mhz

Gigabyte GA-M907A-UD3 Revision: 3.0

Today i got extrem performance issues on our clan server, most of the time i had fps under 10!

Before patch 1.28 i had better performance in the multiplayer.

No matter wich graphic settings i choose, i can set everythink to very low i dont get a single fps more :butbut:

Because your cpu is bottlenecking.

[mr burns 131]

Before patch 1.28 i had better performance in the multiplayer.

Because your cpu is bottlenecking.

As if his CPU downgraded itself when ArmA 3 got updated :rolleyes:

sad lol at those answers still being given on these forums..

Bohemia Interactive just love their performance ping-pong, it´s not our computers fault!

It´s been proven too many times to be wrong:

ArmA1: before patch 1.18 "this game runs shit on every pc" / after patch 1.18 "runs on full settings with 60 fps"

ArmA2: 1.00 ran totally good on some pc´s and worse on others, later patches swung that around by 180°, and 1.60 upwards basically made it playable for anybody again

ArmA3: first alpha horrible performance all around, people telling me left and right my pc is shit, then some update later performance was good again. (which later of course also got reverted)