Arma 3 & Multi threading, anyone noticed improvements?

[t-bone 10]

Stumbled on this article on reddit again and now wondering if anyone (whoever observed or investigated this issue) can possibly update us on this major Arma 3 problem. Have anybody noticed significant improvements to the engine's multi threading (before Nexus and after Nexus)? As far as I remember launcher in Arma 3 has "Enable Multi threading" or at least used to have, did that check box really enable multi threading or it just was another "hype" button in the launcher?  :)

[max1944 16]

No improvement. It is still running mostly on one core and my 980 Ti utilises maybe half of its performance due to CPU limitation (it is a i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz). I tried everything: -high -enableHT -cpuCount malloc ...

My dream is a overall/object visibility of 12000/12000 but that will never happen. I thought about buying a i7 6700K but the GPU would be still bottlenecked by the CPU.

 

I got rid of most mods and that helped a bit.  

[I give up 152]

What 12000 visibilty has to do with CPU?

Btw, 12000 here.

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

And you know why? Because its a small Island, means less textures to load. Purely graphics related.

If you want to l.oad Altis at 12000 you should get a second 980Ti.

[clawhammer 10]

No improvement. It is still running mostly on one core and my 980 Ti utilises maybe half of its performance due to CPU limitation (it is a i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz). I tried everything: -high -enableHT -cpuCount malloc ...

My dream is a overall/object visibility of 12000/12000 but that will never happen. I thought about buying a i7 6700K but the GPU would be still bottlenecked by the CPU.

 

I got rid of most mods and that helped a bit.  

I know your pain, i ugraded my fx8350 to an rig with an i7 4790k and a gtx 980ti and still had a lot of times where the fps was below 20fps while i tried to play with my friends.

[St. Jimmy 272]

If you want to l.oad Altis at 12000 you should get a second 980Ti.

Not sure if serious :D

[I give up 152]

I know your pain, i ugraded my fx8350 to an rig with an i7 4790k and a gtx 980ti and still had a lot of times where the fps was below 20fps while i tried to play with my friends.

In Campaign (or any official mission) or in some user made missions?

I am asking because I can play every official mission at 60 fps and im still looking for a usermade mission where I can do the same.

[max1944 16]

If you want to l.oad Altis at 12000 you should get a second 980Ti.

 

A second Ti would bring no benefit because even the first one isn't fully utilised. The game is limited by the CPU (default map Altis/Stratis).

[I give up 152]

No mate, that's not correct.
View distance (visibility) in matters of performance is mainly related with GPU, VRAM and RAM.
Altis in editor (without AI) at 12000 view distance in Ultra eats around 15 GB of RAM and around 6 GB of VRAM, to run at stable 60 fps a single 980TI is not even close from what is needed in matters of GPU power.
Also do not look at GPU workload having only in perspective the usage in matters of percentage, that is just one factor (from many) and is far from being the most importante.

[max1944 16]

Altis in editor (without AI) at 12000 view distance in Ultra eats around 15 GB of RAM and around 6 GB of VRAM, to run at stable 60 fps a single 980TI is not even close from what is needed in matters of GPU power.

 

I have tested it on Ultra 12000/12000. The whole system took about 6 GB of RAM and 3 GB of VRAM.

 

Also do not look at GPU workload having only in perspective the usage in matters of percentage, that is just one factor (from many) and is far from being the most importante.

 

If the GPU would be the limiting factor a increase or decrease in resolution should have a impact on FPS (which it has not). Therefore the low GPU workload of about 25% has to be accurate.

[St. Jimmy 272]

No mate, that's not correct.

View distance (visibility) in matters of performance is mainly related with GPU, VRAM and RAM.

Altis in editor (without AI) at 12000 view distance in Ultra eats around 15 GB of RAM and around 6 GB of VRAM, to run at stable 60 fps a single 980TI is not even close from what is needed in matters of GPU power.

Also do not look at GPU workload having only in perspective the usage in matters of percentage, that is just one factor (from many) and is far from being the most importante.

OK now you got to really prove that. 15GB of RAM, nope only 3GB. Maybe if you count Page File and RAM usage together. ///Little edit: Though I've only 8GB of RAM so I need to have Page File in my Hard Drive so someone with more RAM could lighten up things.

6GB of VRAM, I guess not because I haven't seen reports that of much over 3GB.

Adding second 980Ti with 12000/12000 view distance won't help anything, when the first one is likely overkill even in 4K resolution.

I saw around 3GB of RAM usage and 7,5GB of Page File for Arma 3 when I monitored yesterday.

[chrisb 196]

OK now you got to really prove that. 15GB of RAM, nope only 3GB. Maybe if you count Page File and RAM usage together.

6GB of VRAM, I guess not because I haven't seen reports that of much over 3GB.

Adding second 980Ti with 12000/12000 view distance won't help anything, when the first one is likely overkill even in 4K resolution.

I saw around 3GB of RAM usage and 7,5GB of Page File for Arma 3 when I monitored yesterday.

 

I was testing a little time back and if you put in pagefile, then I was at around 14gb (Ram & Pagefile). That is using a R9-290 @ only 1920x1080p, 12000, all the settings I like at Ultra, there again I don't like all the options, so take that as you will. But the main settings @ Ultra, PP turned off etc.

 

But yeah, add in pagefile and it goes up quite a lot. I think I have a video showing it, not sure, may look it out later.

:)

 

I would add, that playing @12000, unless flying, is.. well.. not recommended. Unless your saving on the central heating.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Not sure if something like setting up RAM disk and Page File there could help something. Though if you've already 32GB of RAM I don't know how Arma 3 uses the Page File so does it already somehow load them in the RAM. I guess not.

[I give up 152]

Not sure if something like setting up RAM disk and Page File there could help something. Though if you've already 32GB of RAM I don't know how Arma 3 uses the Page File so does it already somehow load them in the RAM. I guess not.

ARMA 3 needs pagefile and is exactly because of the 32 bit breaking barrier, depending of graphics settings and also the size of the Island can load easily above 10 GB in to pagefile.

 

As you know, pagefile is also known as swapfile means that the data keeps being swapped between physical memory and pagefile, also as you know page file is located/provided in/by the Hard Drive and since every disk (whatever may be) is considerably slower than any RAM, this by itself is a reason for hardware (CPU and GPU) bottleneck, however there are couple ways to minimize the constraints of this operation, like I have said several times on this forum.

 

Still is one more reason for CPU and GPU bottleneck related with this subject.

The pagefile is mainly used to store temporary data related with the graphics means that when your graphics processing unit (and also CPU) wants to process shaders, lighting, texture mapping, etc, most of the data requested is being "buffered" from the cache (pagefile) which is located in Hard Drive.

Obviously if the temporary data was only stored on physical memory (RAM), this buffering through graphics pipeline would be significantly faster, unleashing the CPU and GPU power.

 

Also we can call AI in to this, being the AI "brains" managed by the CPU still it has graphics that needs to be rendered and related data processed, means that the AI it is also a subject of the operation described above.

That's why when the AI becomes visible (that's when the GPU is called to process the data related with it) we all face a performance decrease and somehow a CPU and GPU bottleneck.

 

Obviously if ARMA 3 was a native 64 bit app, probably pagefile would not be needed and most likely we would see a huge performance boost.

 

[Incontinentia 339]

My understanding is that view distance can also be strongly limited by CPU as both objects and terrain require cpu processing alongside the GPU. Is that not correct?

[tinter 186]

Many problems with performance can be attributed to the CPU. Not because the graphics run on the cpu, but because the AI and scripts running end up so intensive that the CPU is the bottleneck. In MP, the way scripts and ai run is a bit different, but there's also the added synchronization between players to make performance worse. Since arma performance is mainly single threaded, they've explained their reasons before somewhere.

All in all, this means that the CPU is the main limiting factor, among others. RAM is a big deal, specifically frequency I've heard and graphics matter to the extent of wanting high graphics settings. As far as I know, more players in mp is more strain on the CPU and for many popular public server missions, they have unoptimized scripts running.

[spanishsurfer 58]

My understanding is that view distance can also be strongly limited by CPU as both objects and terrain require cpu processing alongside the GPU. Is that not correct?

Yes, this! It's a mix of cpu and gpu issues, mostly cpu though. ...common knowledge around these parts since 2001 guys.

[x3kj 1247]

with increased view distance the game has to use alot of drawcalls (or sections as it's called in Arma), which requires the CPU to process it and then send it to the GPU - meaning that your GPU is mostly just bored and waits for your cpu to finish.

 

 

Not because the graphics run on the cpu, but because the AI and scripts running end up so intensive that the CPU is the bottleneck

That would mean without AI and scripts you would have perfect fps - which isnt the case. It can be a big factor yes, but graphics also require a good chunk particulary on high draw distance.

Few people in modding know how to optimize their models properly - that's why they often have high impact on performance.

[Llano 11]

with increased view distance the game has to use alot of drawcalls (or sections as it's called in Arma), which requires the CPU to process it and then send it to the GPU - meaning that your GPU is mostly just bored and waits for your cpu to finish.

 

That would mean without AI and scripts you would have perfect fps - which isnt the case. It can be a big factor yes, but graphics also require a good chunk particulary on high draw distance.

Few people in modding know how to optimize their models properly - that's why they often have high impact on performance.

EDIT - nvm read wrong

[calin_banc 19]

If you want to l.oad Altis at 12000 you should get a second 980Ti.

Why on Earth would you do that?

 

 

 

 

As you can see neither the CPU or GPU is under heavy stress and that's at 5280x1050, all maxed out, except some Blur and other pesky settings that add nothing to IQ or performance, plus 2XAA.

 

 

That's 5,54Mpx compared to standard 1080p - 2,07Mpx, and that R290 (1090/1380MHz) is still not used at it should.

 

GTA 5 uses around 10,5GB of paged file, but runs waaaay more better than this (even when you compared it to ArmA 3 when is around 10.5GB of page file), so the page file alone is not the answer. Could it be that they don't handle all that data efficiently? Probably. Most likely Bohemia knows the issue, but it didn't chose to address it. Why? Well they said DX11.2 and Tilled Resources (which allows you to use tens of GB of texture data by smartly streaming them) is not worth it due to install base. Gamers don't upgrade because there is no point, so you keep going in circles.

 

Again, maybe when DX12 drops we'll see something better if they went ahead and optimized the code properly.

[dayglow 2]

What 12000 visibilty has to do with CPU?

Btw, 12000 here.

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

And you know why? Because its a small Island, means less textures to load. Purely graphics related.

If you want to l.oad Altis at 12000 you should get a second 980Ti.

Nope. I run an i7 4820@4.6ghz and r9 290x in crossfire and increasing view distance loads the cpu, not gpu. I run x3 1080P screens so really a 3K setup and with the graphic options I can run at 133% render with no drop in performance because my GPUs are waiting for the CPU.

The 3 graphic options that limit fps for me is terrain detail, object detail and view distance. Everything else can be cranked up with no effect onfps. Those 3 options increase draw calls and are bound by the CPU.

[I give up 152]

Increasing view distance loads more RAM and Pagefile and depending of graphics settings (object view distance, and shadow distance) it can load more GPU.. that's all.
Increasing AI loads more CPU. That's all.
The graphics settings that severely affect GPU and RAM are, Objects quality, Texture quality, Terrain quality, Shadows quality and Antialiasing, also these settings severely affect Pagefile load.
Saying the issues are related with CPU is not knowing the architecture of this game.
Memory management is by far the worst issue of this game, mainly due to heavy graphics related with terrain and objects.

 

Edit.

 

Also, like I have said several times with quality maxed and view distance and object distance at 6000 it can load easily 8GB of RAM and 6GB of Pagefile.
Now look at Windows processes, you will see arma3.exe process using less than 2GB you will see system process (kernel/pagefile) using less than 2GB and your system is using 14GB of memory (physical and virtual).
Where is being used? What process is using it? Can you see? I cant. I know this insanity started after "breaking 32 bit barrier", before the performance was quite nice and very balanced.

[kevaskous 10]

Increasing view distance loads more RAM and Pagefile and depending of graphics settings (object view distance, and shadow distance) it can load more GPU.. that's all.

Increasing AI loads more CPU. That's all.

The graphics settings that severely affect GPU and RAM are, Objects quality, Texture quality, Terrain quality, Shadows quality and Antialiasing, also these settings severely affect Pagefile load.

Saying the issues are related with CPU is not knowing the architecture of this game.

Memory management is by far the worst issue of this game, mainly due to heavy graphics related with terrain and objects.

 

Edit.

 

Also, like I have said several times with quality maxed and view distance and object distance at 6000 it can load easily 8GB of RAM and 6GB of Pagefile.

Now look at Windows processes, you will see arma3.exe process using less than 2GB you will see system process (kernel/pagefile) using less than 2GB and your system is using 14GB of memory (physical and virtual).

Where is being used? What process is using it? Can you see? I cant. I know this insanity started after "breaking 32 bit barrier", before the performance was quite nice and very balanced.

So far mate all you have are words and nothing to back them up yet. People here are posting evidence to the contrary and my own testing yields the same results, and also why i quit for several years. it's sad to know nothing has changed.

[ozdeadmeat 12]

I have what some would class as an above average machine. I am looking at 30FPS and my CPU and Video Cards are barely above idle. I hope they work out why the game doesn't tax the system more heavily.

[calin_banc 19]

If you're playing online it has to do with server architecture and performance. Try and lower the view distance and other image quality settings allowed server side and also on your machine keep the object quality to standard or even low, terrain to about high and draw distance not beyond 1,5-2km.

[St. Jimmy 272]

One of the bottlenecks I've noticed is that the ground textures don't always remain in the memory and they need to be loaded again. It would help the performance if the ground textures could be kept in memory in some forced way. One of the ways to load the textures "before" you start to do anything is to open the map and wait the tiles to load. Then zoom all around so you load the closer ground textures. Fresh restarted system they remain nicely in memory and you don't need to load them again for a while. That way flying with even high view distance is pretty smooth.After some time you likely need to load them again and the game stutters/loses fps.