AMD CPU Bottleneck?

[technoxwalrus 10]

I dont know the reason for this but in all Arma games + DayZ Standalone i get bottlenecked on 20-30 fps no matter what settings on full multiplayer servers????? Pls help!!!

 

GPU: GeForce GTX 760

CPU: AMD FX - 8120 Eight-Core Processor

Memory: 8 GB RAM

OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium

[calin_banc 19]

That's ArmA and Day Z standard experience on bigger maps and in cities. Try to put to low object quality, reduce to the maximum you can the draw distance client side, but also server side.

[rob1 4]

I have an AMD A10-6800k oc'd to 4.7Ghz, r7 260x 2gb, 8gb RAM & have similar (sometimes worse) fps on a3 but people I play with that have intel cpus claim they get 45-60 :(  I came to the conclusion that arma doesnt like AMD cpus, so is that a false assumption?

[BL1P 35]

I think its more of a case that we pay less for our AMD than for Intel and on very few games does this price difference show.

Alas Arma3 is one of the games it shows on :(

[I give up 152]

I dont know the reason for this but in all Arma games + DayZ Standalone i get bottlenecked on 20-30 fps no matter what settings on full multiplayer servers????? Pls help!!!

 

GPU: GeForce GTX 760

CPU: AMD FX - 8120 Eight-Core Processor

Memory: 8 GB RAM

OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium

Maybe because AMD 8 core processors are in fact 4 core processors, similar to Intel HyperThreading. Probably courts will say.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3003113/components-processors/lawsuit-alleges-amds-bulldozer-cpus-arent-really-8-core-processors.html

[Llano 11]

Maybe because AMD 8 core processors are in fact 4 core processors, similar to Intel HyperThreading. Probably courts will say.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3003113/components-processors/lawsuit-alleges-amds-bulldozer-cpus-arent-really-8-core-processors.html

Doens't matter since the game can barely utilize more than 2 cores.. 

[I give up 152]

There is no game engine that uses more than 4 cores and all games based on DirectX 11 are stuck at one core, that's a DX11 limitation. Also for Intel users with HyperThreaded CPUs I can assure that they perform better with every game having HT disabled.
The issue with AMD "8 cores" is that they are really weak.

[Llano 11]

There is no game engine that uses more than 4 cores and all games based on DirectX 11 are stuck at one core, that's a DX11 limitation. Also for Intel users with HyperThreaded CPUs I can assure that they perform better with every game having HT disabled.

The issue with AMD "8 cores" is that they are really weak.

 

You earlier said that TS got bad fps because of that the cpu has 4 cores instead of 8. And now you are stating that no game can even use more than 4 cores.

[maquez 141]

simple solution sounds hard but

 

buy a Intel CPU and never again touch an AMD

 

you did try to safe money at the wrong place, you can believe me was confronted the same situation until I did buy a Intel

this will be for you a never ending story and not only with arma3, AMD suffers a way with too much games

[schadler17 36]

AMD A-10 5800k OC'd @ 4.3ghz

8gb 1866mhz

1gb AMD Raedon 7750 GPU

 

Stuck at 20-30 FPS on servers with 40+ players, sometimes dropping to below 10-15 FPS.

 

Tried to save money with AMD, works for most games fine, but not for Arma (which sucks cause its the main game I play.)

Plan on upgrading to an Intel CPU next time around.

 

From what I've heard, Single Threading performance is what you need to look for in Arma. Dont take my word for it, but I'll be looking into it when I do upgrade and we'll see what happens.

[KeyCat 131]

There is no game engine that uses more than 4 cores and all games based on DirectX 11 are stuck at one core, that's a DX11 limitation.

 

Not true!

 

/KC

[redface6666 11]

I think its more of a case that we pay less for our AMD than for Intel and on very few games does this price difference show.

Alas Arma3 is one of the games it shows on :(

 

Actually the difference is huge, but most users won't notice it, because usually games only need a decent CPU (my i5-4690K for example only uses 40% in most games) but a pretty good GPU (Graphics Card).

 

Plan on upgrading to an Intel CPU next time around.

 

From what I've heard, Single Threading performance is what you need to look for in Arma. Dont take my word for it, but I'll be looking into it when I do upgrade and we'll see what happens.

ArmA uses 2 Cores (2nd for AI Calculation), no matter how many you have. But if you want to buy a new CPU always go for Intel (at least in my opinion) because after working in a computer store and configuring and building several Gaming Systems (AMD and Intel) I can definetily say, that the lower price of AMD CPUs is the only advantage these things have.

They have a much higher failure rate (actually i never saw an Intel CPU that wasn't working properly)

They build up a lot of temperature (especially when playing games) which means, that you have to spend more money on the cooling system.

Even with more GHz they actually are slower than Intel CPUs, because the whole Intel-Architechture is way more efficient.

The only downside to Intel CPUs is the higher price, but in return you get a longer living CPU

[I give up 152]

ArmA uses 2 Cores (2nd for AI Calculation), no matter how many you have.

Don't think that is true.

Looks to me a balanced 4 core use.

http://i.imgur.com/1MuaeUF.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/J64ETRH.jpg

Obviously 1 core is always working more because it is the one that is being used by DirectX 11 to communicate with GPU for rendering.

Make sure that you have the proper startup parameters adjusted for your CPU configuration.

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

[Greenfist 1863]

Don't think that is true.

Looks to me a balanced 4 core use.

http://i.imgur.com/1MuaeUF.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/J64ETRH.jpg

Obviously 1 core is always working more because it is the one that is being used by DirectX 11 to communicate with GPU for rendering.

Make sure that you have the proper startup parameters adjusted for your CPU configuration.

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

Yeah, the AI runs within the main thread. You can see it in this frame capture for example: http://i.imgur.com/FQezsfA.jpg

It's also clear that almost all processing is done on only one thread, so that balanced usage you see is just that one thread constantly switching between cores. They're used concurrently only rarely.

 

By the way, you don't need the cpucount and exthreads startup parameters because the values have been correctly auto-detected since Arma 2.

[calin_banc 19]

Don't think that is true.

Looks to me a balanced 4 core use.

http://i.imgur.com/1MuaeUF.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/J64ETRH.jpg

Obviously 1 core is always working more because it is the one that is being used by DirectX 11 to communicate with GPU for rendering.

Make sure that you have the proper startup parameters adjusted for your CPU configuration.

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

 

 

 

Set yourself a scenario in editor which you can control with about 40 AIs meeting at a point and fighting. Actually go in BIOS and deactivate your cores to 1, then test. After that enable 1 more and test with 2. Then with 3 and so on. The big jump is from 1 to 2 and a smaller one to 3. There is no jump to 4.

[I give up 152]

I suggest you to try the following.
You can use ALive, its a good way to see how cpu interacts with AI and the game in general.
Set up a server and choose whatever Island, create a simple mission using ALive module where you spawn 300 AI at mission start.
Follow your steps and you will see that with 1 core it will take about 3 minutes (or more) to spawn all AI and with 4 cores will take 30 seconds. Also check your fps (as client) while you are adding more cores, you will see a big difference.
That's why I cant see all this "one core theory".
And yes, you cant compare with those games, in fact (being fair) there is no game that you can compare with Arma, in matters of architecture and operation concept.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Highest total CPU usage with 4 cores has been 75% when I really pushed things. You can check some tests I made from this topic. https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/177466-how-effective-arma-3-really-is-at-ai-simulation-terrain-for-better-understanding/

Just if someone is interested, though I use Intel.

[I give up 152]

By the way, you don't need the cpucount and exthreads startup parameters because the values have been correctly auto-detected since Arma 2.

Not sure if is like you say.

This is what I get without start parameters.

http://i.imgur.com/V4Mw3cI.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6M6QVtZ.jpg

This what I get using -exThreads=7 -cpuCount=4 parameters.

http://i.imgur.com/J64ETRH.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/1MuaeUF.jpg

Looks to me much more balanced while using these startup parameters, also without parameters the first core is always running close around 90% (sometimes close to 100), while with paramters never exceeds 65%.

 

[Greenfist 1863]

Not sure if is like you say.

This is what I get without start parameters.

http://i.imgur.com/V4Mw3cI.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6M6QVtZ.jpg

This what I get using -exThreads=7 -cpuCount=4 parameters.

http://i.imgur.com/J64ETRH.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/1MuaeUF.jpg

Looks to me much more balanced while using these startup parameters, also without parameters the first core is always running close around 90% (sometimes close to 100), while with paramters never exceeds 65%.

 

Sorry, but I believe the devs more than your arbitrary screenshots from different situations in the game.

If the cpucount is autodetected wrong, you could try forcing it to 3 for example and see if it produces the same result.

 

Then again, the engine has surprised me so many times before with its oddities that I wouldn't completely rule out the chance of you being right. :)

I think I will test this myself by recording average core usage in a longer period of time with different settings.

[I give up 152]

Merry Christmas.

To you and all mates here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6KwDTKVkIA

[spanishsurfer 58]

Why do these topics get brought up every 2 days? 

 

AMD = poor single threaded performance

INTEL = superior single threaded performance

 

Arma uses 1 thread.... THUS

 

INTEL = better ARMA FPS.

 

 

ALSO, don't play on shitty ARMA 3 servers who host too many people and have too many scripts (which is many of Armas "top" servers)

 

***SIDENOTE : I have an AMD 8350 OC to 4.8 and my frames are 30-40.  

[I give up 152]

Lets see what some popular games say about multicore/multithread.
http://i.imgur.com/XsMDmFd.jpg
CS GO,
Absolutely no multicore/multithread support. Anyone complains about it?
http://i.imgur.com/CrSppAB.jpg
Civilization V (DX11),
One of the best examples on the subject, works flawless, unless you play against ALL Civilizations because then you will need a Nasa CPU.
http://i.imgur.com/PfVuDdq.jpg
ARMA 3,
With multicore/multithread support but with an "abnormal" CPU demand. Why? Because AI. Do you know what AI means? Artificial Intelligence. Want to see less CPU on ARMA 3? Point a valid solution that can manage all the Artificial Intelligence involved without using CPU.

[mobile_medic 43]

Arma will spread the load across all cores/threads, but if you add the actual usage up, it always tops out at around 200% (2 cores worth of cpu utilization). 

 

That's b/c Arma's engine doesn't actually utilize more than about 2 cores/threads worth of available cpu power. Hence why a cpu with better per-thread performance (intel, in this case) tends to perform better with Arma, and why your amd doesn't seem to suffer as much in some other games, relative to an Intel CPU. B/c those other games more effectively make use of modern hardware.

[the_noob 88]

Lets see what some popular games say about multicore/multithread.

http://i.imgur.com/XsMDmFd.jpg

CS GO,

Absolutely no multicore/multithread support. Anyone complains about it?

http://i.imgur.com/CrSppAB.jpg

Civilization V (DX11),

One of the best examples on the subject, works flawless, unless you play against ALL Civilizations because then you will need a Nasa CPU.

http://i.imgur.com/PfVuDdq.jpg

ARMA 3,

With multicore/multithread support but with an "abnormal" CPU demand. Why? Because AI. Do you know what AI means? Artificial Intelligence. Want to see less CPU on ARMA 3? Point a valid solution that can manage all the Artificial Intelligence involved without using CPU.

 

PC games in general have poor multi-core/multi-threading support. Here's BF4 running on 16 threads (very low CPU utilization):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bql4x9YIPZU

[I give up 152]

PC games in general have poor multi-core/multi-threading support. Here's BF4 running on 16 threads (very low CPU utilization):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bql4x9YIPZU

That's a real 8 core CPU.

Those who like 8 core CPUs should get this one instead of wasting time (and money) with some others.

Not that is going to do any better for games (in general), but for sure it will fix something (probably ego related).