why do i get low fps? amd fx 8350, amd r9 270x

[Jackal326 1181]

Funny that you being totaly shit talking amd saying something like that, Intel fanboy

 

 

Funny how you have zero clue.

 

Just FYI, its kind of hard to listen (or rather read) anything you guys say and take it seriously, no matter how detailed or in-depth your knowledge may or may not be, when you lead with personal jibes and comments that would be more suited from a 5 year old. I'll just sit back and wait for the caps-lock fury to unleash as it seems the next logical step...

[olemiss 0]

turn AO and caustics off, either use PPAA ultra, OR AA X4 (about the same performance hit for me)  try object detail on normal (will make a big difference if your cpu is the bottleneck), and terrain detail on normal

[mr_loly_pop 0]

I get only around 20 fps on ultra and it fluctuate to around 10 fps and under while playing. on standard settings its the same fps while playing no difference. why is this? I have a pretty high end pc. heres my specs

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-D3P ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard

Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory

Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 640GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive

Video Card: Diamond Radeon R9 270X 2GB Video Card

Case: Cooler Master CM 690 ATX Mid Tower Case

Power Supply: Raidmax 535W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (OEM) (64-bit)

Okay i have this enough from the guys who say that "THIS DOSENT WORK"

 

Well Come out of the TEXT Books and get it real and really real i mean 

 

if your teacher says that you cant teach her or him sure you cant coz he or she is teacher and know more then you but there will be a time when you Get more knowlade (if you are not a Dum ) then sure you can beat your teacher and your teacher will be pround (Sound stupid)

 

this game might not work well on the AMD i can agree of some parts but HItting this Guy with telling him that this game dosent work on AMD ??? what nonsence is that all about ??

 

DID Arma made for MAC OS ? what a stupid thing you all of the pro heads talking about ???

 

i am not blaming you guys to putting this crap over and over again for 10 pages to tell him to get the intel and dont tell me that what computer i have and may be i will tell you that what i really have tested this game so far and on how many things i have tested a part you RUN on the AMD or what ever name you want to take and ever what ever OS you want to take 

 

they took a handsome amount of money and this guy have a problem insted of telling him a right way which he is looking for no one have a right way to explain him what is really a problem so keep you small mouth very silent i really want this anser too from the admins or some really tecnical person who can explain me the reason why this is happning 

 

 

its 2015 SEP there was a update on the Steam for these kind a crashes who ever downlowded and never Bothered to reead this all they mention that these fixes are there and those memorey errors are happning to everyone 

 

and let me tell you some of the very best Lovers who just reaply this GUy if all of the AMD users are quiet then it dosent mean they are quiet coz i am sure they dont have this issue and i dont have it all i have this isue on my intel one and i was looking for a solution so i came to this thing 

 

Intel dont give you 8 cores !!! you ashamed of it that AMD dose ? buy it its cheap lol (suckers) 

 

intel have more bugs and problems with my steam i buy this game which is not coming cheap also its a hard money (only if your mom never paid for it) you want to get a good time gaming experince and not having memory issues 

 

 

Okay time for the reply for this GUy who have it 

 

Brother good to have a AMD system Cut the Crap and dont listen to these GUys they dont have AMD and they dont like it and they dont even know how to even use it 

 

AMD use 75% of 8 GB memory (only if you are using)

 

the problem with the AMD is the system memory holds for more then 30% and if you call out Arma which is using 70% and it can go higer when you use the addons or even the game is in the intence mode like 50 players online the memory gose even more 

 

So 8 GB is not enough for you for sure i suggest more of it 

 

i have intel and AMD i dont get much of the memory loss on AMD coz its 32 GB and i do my lot of gaming and on Intel i wish i can get the help i have 64 GB ram i do video edting on my GTX 980Ti this i just got 1 i had GTX780Ti before it still works Good and with the MAC it is way worst 

 

 

so i sugest you to get on the 16 GB ram and good Hard drive with the more virtual memory on it and try not to use any other program when playing Arma 

 

let me know the results and may be someone else can help too insted of the FANBOY's

[mamasan8 11]

From my testing with AMD FX-8350, overcloking it from 4 Ghz to 4.8 Ghz, I gain maybe 5 FPS.

Local multiplayer scenario. The fact that I use client and server on same machine nets me another 5 fps compared to only running the mission in singleplayer.

I've tried adding a HC too but that requires more than 8 gigs of RAM. I only have 8 gigs so running the HC means the game puts additional 2 gigs on pagefile. Game gets really slow and bad dips, we are talking dips to 3 fps when theres action.

 

Normal FPS at start of mission with 150 stationary AI (mostly, AA, mortar etc, maybe 50 units moving):

 

40-50 FPS

 

At a total of 200 units it's down to 30 FPS

 

At a grand total of 300-350 units, I'm getting 10-20 fps, depending on the level of action.

I have planes coming in to bomb the place etc.

 

The mission is staged at Kavala and I feel it becomes like finding a needle in haystack as infantry if theres any less than 100 enemy infantry in town.

So yes, I'm getting real poor performance at mission start but the gameplay when theres 150 enemy units left is what I like.

You could say, why don't you just put down 150 units? Because they would be 100 or 80 in a matter of minutes, which would be really boring (needle in a haystack, again).

 

 

 

 

 

Now, to settings. I feel Arma 3 suffers from the same thing OFP did with it's Transform & Lighting (Pixel and vertex shaders, it was new back then).

Don't go crazy with it, set to low or turn off. Otherwise I experience mouse input lag and aiming becomes impossible. Was like that in OFP, is still like that in Arma 3.

Rest of the settings I think others have covered. Objects Standard, 2km draw distance, Shadows high, Textures whatever you like, particles and clouds low, PIP low or off.

Vsync always off unless you want even more input lag.

 

I have an AMD 290X and it's sleeping half the time. It can go up to 1070 Mhz but it rarely goes over 600 Mhz. So yeah, big bad bottleneck in the CPU.

From what I gather, an i5 would net me maybe 3 fps more. Still doesn't make the game playable.

I have 1000 hours in Arma 3 but most of it is from mucking about in the editor, trying scripts, mods etc in various missions.

I used to be an online player, Arma 3 killed that for me.

Various issues, like pisspoor performance, systems I don't like, like Sway and fatigue. I would never pay for those features but I would pay to have those removed!

Non-existant injury system (pretty much), poor physics when it comes to driving anything with wheels. Can we please have a motorbike that isn't used in the circus? It rolls over at every bump in the terrain. Ragdolls that just look stupid, dead enemies rattling all over the place. The list just goes on and on.

 

Still an early access game and mostly nothings been fixed of the original issues.

Yes, I'm annoyed.

[Mirek 166]

I used to have AMD CPU Untill i bought I7 last cristmass. Here is what i used to do to get more FPS from Arma II, and might work for Arma III:

 

-ATOC off.  It looks terrible anyway.

-V-sync off.  I dont even know whats it for, as i cant see any difference if its on or off

-Shadows medium or high.  Used to have them low, but oddly  got some fps by changing settings to high.

-Antialiasing off. instead use the Postprocess antialiasing on some higher settings.

-Postproces effects off

-Headbob off.  Seriously this feature doesnt make any sense.

-View distance 2.5 km max. If you are sniper. If you are normal rifleman then 1000-1500m. This has the most noticeable impact.

-Start game with Parameter -Nologs.  Someone recemended it to me on forums and it trully gained me some FPS.

-Keep your GPU drivers updated!  A friend of mine gained almost 15 FPS by simply updating his GPU driver to the latest. Would you believe, he didnt upgrade since he bought the card, and didnt realize that that might be the source of his performance issue?

 

One last thing: I remember there was some thread in Arma 2 forums about how to make Arma 2 utilize CPU better. Might try if it wouldnt work for Arma 3 also. Dont remeber where it was tho, sou you would have to search.

[Ranwer135 308]

Low FPS is caused by the workload of the computer, that processes thousands of objects within a distance, not to mention it renders also.

This applies to BF as well. In order to have better FPS, objects are deleted within a specific distance. However, antializing, terrain detail, cloud detail and ambient occlusion are also one of the big killers for FPS.

Turning your antializing down to 2x will maintain a pretty effect, as well as low FPS. Mostly low FPS is usually caused by how much memory you have or how powerful the graphics card is.

But it is all up to you for personalizing the graphics, as It is not always gloom and bloom for the best entertainment. ;)

[mamasan8 11]

Turning your antializing down to 2x will maintain a pretty effect, as well as low FPS. Mostly low FPS is usually caused by how much memory you have or how powerful the graphics card is.

 

 

True to a point. I upgraded to 290X from a Nvidia GTX760. I get double the framerate in other games with 290X compared to GTX760, in Arma 3 I get the exact same FPS.

A 2 gig VRAM card released in the last 4 years should do it graphicswise. Rest is down to CPU.

[Greenfist 1863]

True to a point. I upgraded to 290X from a Nvidia GTX760. I get double the framerate in other games with 290X compared to GTX760, in Arma 3 I get the exact same FPS.

A 2 gig VRAM card released in the last 4 years should do it graphicswise. Rest is down to CPU.

Exactly. If your GPU usage is low in normal missions, and it most likely is, you might as well give it something to do and turn up the anti-aliasing and ambient occlusion. Maybe even the sampling rate.

These also put a tiny bit more load on CPU too, but it should be negligible.

[kevinnick1120 0]

u have amd cpu thats why its shit for arma 3 intel run it much better but its horrible optimised aswell thats why 

[Pikmonster 10]

I'm actually going to get a FX-8350 for ArmA 3; to hear that it's not working well is saddening to me. I really want good performance on ArmA 3 multiplayer and DayZ SA, so I'm ditching my old FX-6300 for a new 8350. Before I'm told to get a Intel CPU, that is just out of the question. My motherboard is incompatible with it (Gigabyte 78lmt-usb3) and I'm not paying for a new motherboard. If I did I would have to also buy new RAM, because I only have two 4GB DDR3 sticks. 

All the talk about AMD CPUs sucking for the ArmA engine is disheartening, but I'm hoping my GTX 960 will help me pull through any bad performance.

[wilsand 1]

I'm actually going to get a FX-8350 for ArmA 3; to hear that it's not working well is saddening to me. I really want good performance on ArmA 3 multiplayer and DayZ SA, so I'm ditching my old FX-6300 for a new 8350. Before I'm told to get a Intel CPU, that is just out of the question. My motherboard is incompatible with it (Gigabyte 78lmt-usb3) and I'm not paying for a new motherboard. If I did I would have to also buy new RAM, because I only have two 4GB DDR3 sticks. 

All the talk about AMD CPUs sucking for the ArmA engine is disheartening, but I'm hoping my GTX 960 will help me pull through any bad performance.

 

 

Here, on this article theres a couple of cpu benchmarks, one is with Crysis using all avaiable cpu cores and scaling nicely, the more expensive intel ones on top like they should be, and the FX8350 being pretty good considering its price,  afterall its 25% cheaper than a i5 6600k and only 13% slower. Now, below, there's the ArmA 3 cpu benchmark with i5´s being the best cost/benefit ones, while the most expensive highly threaded intel cpus fall short with bad performance, and the amd cpus are really bad in it, since ArmA does not use more than 2 cores and amd strenght relies on proper multithreading software..

 

Heres the article with said benchmarks: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/940-15/cpu-jeux-3d-crysis-3-arma-iii.html

 

Now, here is another article, and amongst the tests here is a cpu usage one, showing how ArmA is not cpu heavy or cpu intensive, what it actually is, is stuck to a 1 core bottleneck whislt having low cpu usage for not taking advantage of modern multicore cpus.

 

cpu usage on ArmA 3: http://cdn.overclock.net/a/a5/a5e3d5a7_http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-ARMA_III-test-a3_2560_amd.jpeg

 

cpu usage on Crysis 3: http://gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Crysis%203%20The%20Lost%20Island/test/crysis3%20amd.jpg

 

 

 

Thats it, ArmA is dual core game, in a 4-12 core world. (current mid-highend cpus). It simply does not take advantage of modern hardware and its been like this forever, including previous games.

 

 

So to sum it up, if you match your fx6300 clock to a fx8350, youll get the same performance.

[ratszo 17]

View distance --will bring your cpu to its knees, if set too high.

 

As a grunt, my VD is 500m.

 

A 2.5 km VD ain't gonna help you in a 200m firefight @15 fps.

 

"Object Detail" will also crash frames when you need them the most in a busy scene.

 

Read my sig:

[c0V3Ro 0]

Sorry digging this thread, but I liked the game despite the suffering from low fps.

Read the guide below and could squeeze few more fps from my AMD rig.

http://wiki.day0.com.au/ArmA_3_Performance_Tweaks_and_Settings_Guide

My rig has some kind of issue for sure, since Firestrike score are way below the average.

Probably the MB.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1202751/amd-fx-cpu-throttling-fixes-please-sticky

Anyway, view distance had the major impact.