What can I do to improve performance?

[Coflash 10]

Before continuing, yes I have read the guide at the top of this forum.

I have been playing this game since Early Access + I bought the physical edition.

Back then (early access) I had a 2600K + GTX580, then I moved to GTX780s in SLI, and now I have a 5930K + GTX980s in SLI (all at 1440p). But nothing has changed with any of these configurations, and the only place I can achieve 60FPS is on an empty map.

The campaign starts off okay, but in the last phase of it the performance really takes a dive. MP is beyond horrible, and SP missions average 40FPS if I'm lucky, but the dips still go into the 20s/30s.

I am not trying to max this game out by any means. A lot of my settings are on standard, low, or even disabled. The only thing I have on Ultra is texture quality. View distance is at 2500 and AA is at 2X. The most mindboggling thing is that even if I do max it out, the change in FPS barely differs from the lower settings, there is a slight rise in FPS, but it's negligible. The same goes for lowering the game down to 1080p.

Nothing I try helps. I can't get 60, I can't play at 30 (aiming feels horrible), and no matter how much money I throw at my PC, nothing seems to fix these performance related issues. I know the engine doesn't have the best reputation for utilising hardware (and I realise that's an understatement) but surely others have got it running smoothly *somehow*.

Thanks for any assistance.

[eazye 10]

Wow, and I was about to come in here and cry over the performance of my single gtx 980. I pretty much have the same issues but I play on 21:9 3440x1440 monitor and get stuck between 10-20fps while at least trying to max out in SP. I dont want to mess with the settings to much if someone here has a good configuration they can share?

[chrisb 196]

I don't like clutter, which of course plays in my favour. I'm running a few islands and mods (one particular heavy mod), so the performance hit is a little here. But these are my settings for A3. This is me just stood on Altis, in the editor. These are not set for performance or anything, just to my liking. There is little difference changing Dy/Lts or x6/x8 aa. Its a very odd game where settings are concerned, as you know. Ultra on some settings run better than Standard. Anyway hope this gives you an idea to test from. Oh, turn off v-sync if you haven't already.

Pics

Also OP, there is something wrong somewhere, your performance should be much better than your saying for your setup. I was getting good performance (in the 50's fps), with an Athlon IIx64 with a HD5850 2gb card prior to giving it to the wife for housekeeping use.

:)

[windies 11]

No his performance sounds about right TBH. I get roughly the same performance IN ACTUAL SCENARIOS with a 4690K at 4.7ghz and 2 r9 290's crossfired as I did with a GTX 480 and a Phenom II 940.

To the OP, the only thing you can do to improve performance is limit the scenario's you play as much as possible, as few active AI as possible, as few scripts running as possible, certain area's of Altis are known for having bad performance due to whatever factor object count or something. It is what it is, accept it I guess or move on. At least that's the common philosophy around here *shrug*. As for others having it run smoothly, I doubt it honestly. I think people just accept the 20-30 FPS. I know what you mean, I can't stand aiming at 30 FPS in ArmA, it's like trying to aim under water or something.

[chrisb 196]

No his performance sounds about right TBH. I get roughly the same performance IN ACTUAL SCENARIOS with a 4690K at 4.7ghz and 2 r9 290's crossfired as I did with a GTX 480 and a Phenom II 940.

To the OP, the only thing you can do to improve performance is limit the scenario's you play as much as possible, as few active AI as possible, as few scripts running as possible, certain area's of Altis are known for having bad performance due to whatever factor object count or something. It is what it is, accept it I guess or move on. At least that's the common philosophy around here *shrug*. As for others having it run smoothly, I doubt it honestly. I think people just accept the 20-30 FPS. I know what you mean, I can't stand aiming at 30 FPS in ArmA, it's like trying to aim under water or something.

I record with msi afterburner and it costs me around -20-25fps (minus) and causes all sorts of performance issues. However, even with that msi performance hit, this test would still be running at a very good fps. We're in a town here, and there are around 20ai plus me. Its a small test, but I have no issues running SP or MP (private server), with A3. With lots of mods running and plenty of ai. Can't understand the performance problems some are having with the game.

[Coflash 10]

To the OP, the only thing you can do to improve performance is limit the scenario's you play as much as possible, as few active AI as possible

I do try, and since I have to limit it to SP, there's not much on offer in terms of quality missions (since I've played most). I can almost count the frame rate on two hands if I try any dynamic missions (DUWS, WLA).

It seems very odd that a PC-only game doesn't utilise the PC hardware on offer, and that the way to make it run better is to remove what makes the series so great (lots of AI/vehicles/large maps etc). It's mind-boggling.

I actually get better performance at 1080p on my laptop with a 970M (marginally). It makes no sense.

[icehollowpoint 10]

Unfortunately you can't do shit until BI decides to actually do something about the performance issues endemic with this game. Almost everyone is in the same boat as you at the moment. I know many people who straight up stopped playing because of the performance loss from the last few patches.

the only thing i can suggest is turning AA off completely.

[jumpinghubert 49]

@Coflash

Since the newest stable patch my cpu is idling ingame. I have to start the arma3.exe second time to get full clockspeed. A few questions I have:

1. Please post your complete ingame settings

2. Please run helo´s Benchmark http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151794-ArmA3Mark-Benchmark-your-ArmA-3

3. Do you have tried the malloc-tweak? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163640-Arma3-and-the-LARGEADDRESSAWARE-flag-%28memory-allocation-gt-2GB%29

4. Whats your cpu and ram clockspeed?

@icehollowpoint

The threadstarter have a highend-GPU so lowering aa is the last setting that will help. Lowering cpu-related parameters makes more sense because arma3 is (highend gpu assumed) cpu (-clockspeed + ramspeed) limited. CPU related parameters are:

-ai count

-object details

-visibility range

-object range

Edited May 14, 2015 by JumpingHubert

[ratszo 17]

....

-ai count

-object details

-visibility range

-object range

Our Op is being coy ..., his ultra texture & 2500 meter settings are object proof he's not interested in better frames.

The saying in Texas is, "All hat; No cattle." --Here the saying is, "All hardware; No settings."

Our OP expects certain frames with his hardware because he's 'Entitled' to those frames,

--least that's what he expects anyways.

Maybe the guy at the 'puter store told him that?

I'm still trying to figure why a guy needs ultra_texture AND 2500m. VD?

Can see a pilot wanting 2500m. vd, but not textures that cripple frames for no reason.

Same for a tank gunner.

Maybe the OP is a super-duper uber sniper --looking for that 2400m. headshot thu a window?

Yeah, that must be it....

[Coflash 10]

Is there a reason you're acting like a condescending child?

Considering that the 'auto-detect' function puts all of my settings to be MUCH higher than what I set them to, I don't know exactly what I should be 'entitled' to.

The top voted for ticket, by the way: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

Grow up.

@Coflash

Since the newest stable patch my cpu is idling ingame. I have to start the arma3.exe second time to get full clockspeed. A few questions I have:

1. Please post your complete ingame settings

2. Please run helo´s Benchmark http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151794-ArmA3Mark-Benchmark-your-ArmA-3

3. Do you have tried the malloc-tweak? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163640-Arma3-and-the-LARGEADDRESSAWARE-flag-%28memory-allocation-gt-2GB%29

4. Whats your cpu and ram clockspeed?

1. Settings 1 | Settings 2 | Settings 3

2. "Mission contains a bad link to a static object" - Are you sure this still works for the latest version? I disabled mods (RHS, RH M4s, HLC weapons) before running it.

3. Yep, I've tried that, multiple times.

4. 5930K @ 4.4ghz, RAM 2200mhz. Tried stock settings, with this and the 2600K I used to have. No difference, and utilisation doesn't seem to change.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Coflash

[jumpinghubert 49]

Thanks Coflash!

Here is a working link to the helo´s altis benchmark: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByhZc2l2kSOaQ2VJRTZjbFBoN1k/edit?pli=1

Please try the following:

-disable vsynch

-set shadow quality to ultra or high, not below because standard and below shadows will be rendered by cpu and high upwards by gpu.

-disable pip because it stresses the cpu in vehicles and air.

-max out all gpu related stuff, AA, AF and so on

Sadly arma3 likes only clockspeed so you have no big advantage with your new cpu compared to your 2600k.

And now my standard tip: overclock your cpu :p........

Generally I suggest to install logging software (riva tuner statistics server, hwinfo64 and afterburner to check gpu utilization. Then go into stratis forest and max out all gpu related settings to the point you get the most gpu utilization score. Thats the way I optimize my arma settings since armed assault.

Good luck :)

edit:

in the left upper corner you see in the second column gpu utilization (98%). Try to max it out in a test setting on empty map looking into lots of trees. Some settings you can max out without lost of fps. It will only increase gpu utilization.

Edited May 15, 2015 by JumpingHubert

[chrisb 196]

Sadly arma3 likes only clockspeed so you have no big advantage with your new cpu compared to your 2600k.

.

I'm not sure clock speed is all its hyped up to be, to be honest. I do agree a fast core is vital. But huge core speeds!, I'm not so sure. I've put in the other thread some links for when I've clocked down from 4.4 down to 3.8ghz. The performance is still very good. Above 3.0ghz with A3 and I think you should run it easy enough. I know not everyone is, but I would be looking internally for the problems and not externally i.e. at BI.

BI know players have problems but they have to optimise the best they can, to hit the masses, rather than the few. I know its not great for all, but what are they supposed to do, its pc gaming, not console, you'll never get 'even' performance, across the platform.

[x3kj 1247]

To optimize for the masses, BI would have to limit maximum viewrange by themself... people apparently dont understand that you can't just max out the viewdistance and particulary the object viewdistance with a normal computer, and play missions with gazillions of AI, just because there is no artificial limiter in the game. By doubling the object drawdistance you are quadroupling the objects that have to be kept track of/ be rendered

[jumpinghubert 49]

I'm not sure clock speed is all its hyped up to be, to be honest. I do agree a fast core is vital. But huge core speeds!, I'm not so sure. I've put in the other thread some links for when I've clocked down from 4.4 down to 3.8ghz. The performance is still very good. Above 3.0ghz with A3 and I think you should run it easy enough. I know not everyone is, but I would be looking internally for the problems and not externally i.e. at BI.

BI know players have problems but they have to optimise the best they can, to hit the masses, rather than the few. I know its not great for all, but what are they supposed to do, its pc gaming, not console, you'll never get 'even' performance, across the platform.

My experience is that malloc+high cpu overclock+ high ram overclock makes a huge difference. To see the real difference you have to compare ai and/or geometric (big towns) intense scenarios. There is only one ai intense benchmark in www: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?187658-Yet-Another-Arma-Benchmark

On empty map particular on stratis the gpu is more important. Its not easy to give generalized statements in arma3 because arma3 include too much scenarios so you have to assign the circumstances. The main problem is still ai eats cpu time. As long as BIS doesn´t change this you have to compensate the problem with clockspeed.

Edited May 16, 2015 by JumpingHubert

[chrisb 196]

My experience is that malloc+high cpu overclock+ high ram overclock makes a huge difference. To see the real difference you have to compare ai and/or geometric (big towns) intense scenarios. There is only one ai intense benchmark in www: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?187658-Yet-Another-Arma-Benchmark

On empty map particular on stratis the gpu is more important. Its not easy to give generalized statements in arma3 because arma3 include too much scenarios so you have to assign the circumstances. The main problem is still ai eats cpu time. As long as BIS doesn´t change this you have to compensate the problem with clockspeed.

I agree with some of your points. Yes, certainly players can't expect to have 100's of ai pottering around in towns (all visible). But that is more mission design, don't you think. The use of cache systems, ai numbers, locations, how many your likely to meet at one time in combat, what mods your running (if any), effects in-game, something as simple as weather and so on.

Players should always expect, that the game can only be played to the level their own pc will allow, when ai numbers, view distance and so on are taken into account, plus of course what other settings they use.

However, that said, players not being able to run the game when there is only one unit in the editor on an empty island, is not a fault of the game, its got to be more player side than BI side.

Benchmarks are great, if you play the game the way the benchmark is setup. But very few do, you would need hundreds of benchmarks really, because the game can be played so many ways i.e. pick the bench that suits your play. That isn't going to happen, so the better way, is get into the editor and make scenarios, until you find the level at which your pc can handle the detail thrown at it.

But again, that is only good for those that can, at least, run the game. Those that have bad performance from the outset, are never going to run the game anyway. Sad, but mostly true.

Regards overclocking, its something I've never gone into much myself. I would tend to buy the machine that does the job I want it to do from the outset and that would be after seeking advice about it. I know some would argue, that's fine if you can afford it.

But.. If your going to OC your pc, 1/ you have to know what your doing and 2/ you can't guarantee it doesn't have the opposite effect, which it can (just read online some of the stories people have about OC'ing gone wrong :butbut:).

Before doing any of that, you have to be sure you can get beyond the start of the game and at least (test in editor) have a number of ai and things happening around you in-game before attempting any OC'ing. Then after trying OC'ing, run that exact same test, the same way, a few times to see if its making any difference at all.

I'll be honest, I don't think it would make a huge difference, if your pc was bought at 3.0ghz, its not going to ever run like a 4.0ghz machine (of the same make). Well I don't believe that anyway.

[jumpinghubert 49]

Thats all true what you write. But I like benchmarks because its a simple and powerful instrument to make diagnostics in possible bottlenecks provided that the compared systems are similar. The YAAB-Benchmark for example simulates small and heavy AI-Battles in a mediumsized town. I am interested in your results with different cpu-clock.