Why is Arma 3's performance so bad?

[mcarma 19]

Tired different tuning techniques and not much improvement is noticed.

Game needs a serious tuning update.

 

Do any of these parameters make a difference?   -high -exthreads 7 -maxMem=2047 -cpuCount=4 -noBenchmark -noLogs -enableHT

 

Windows 7 64 bit, gtx 980, 16 gb 1866, i7-4790k

[ozzbik 71]

What is the performance you seek?

 

What FPS do you have at the moment? What are your settings in-game and driver?

 

Arma 3 is a mostly CPU intensive game, but can be severly affected by used scripts in user created missions and mods.

[mcarma 19]

My CPU runs at 4.4.  My monitor can run at 120 hz.  My GTX 980 is not overclocked.

 

In-game frame rate, for Unsung anyway, is from 33 to 55 on High settings.

FSAA at 8, Filtering at Ultra, lighting Low, and a few others are disabled.

All Blurring is disabled so I don't upchuck on my keyboard.

 

Graphics look very nice. Haven't noticed any real difference between missions.

 

I only have a couple of mods loaded, and they all seem to perform the same way.

 

Battlefield 4 frame rate was 120 with most settings on Ultra.

 

This parameters I listed don't seem to have an noticeable affect.

 

If anyone gets more that 60 fps, please tell us the secret.

 

Just found this article:   http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-970-maxwell,3941-9.html

frame rate per that test is 63 to 70 using Ultra

 

 

Arma 3 benchmarking:  http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/

[Jackal326 1181]

Just found this article:   http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-970-maxwell,3941-9.html

frame rate per that test is 63 to 70 using Ultra

An absolute crock. No mention of what scenario was running (if any), he could be taking those readings from the main menu. I get ~60 FPS on the main menu where fuck-all is happening too, but in game its around the 30-45 FPS range. Frankly your performance and settings are actually fairly good. Also keep in mind that article is 2 years old, so any reference FPS should be taken with a pinch of salt regarding recent engine changes etc...

[dmarkwick 261]

If you're getting 33-55 fps in regular gameplay on high settings then you're doing just fine.

 

Do yourself a favour and disable your FPS counter, and just play :)

[oldbear 390]

From my own experience without using XP in your Arma* games, the only startup parameter you can have is -noLogs

It will help not to get your [AppData\Local\Arma 3] loaded with dumps and .rpt files created by badly built/tweaked objects&scripts.

You must NOT use it if you are doing missions or helping a friend to understand why his missions are nor working.

 

I clearly don't understand why with a  GTX 980 you are not  playing "Ultra"

 

You know quite well that in Arma* games FPS are a CPU job.

A high end GPU can help of course ... but only help.

 

The [H]Hard|Ocp combo is still working well ...

 

... When it comes to AA in ARMA III there are a few things to remember and consider. SMAA is the worst graphics option in this game. Why? Because it literally reduces the texture quality on every single object in the game. Sure, it does a great job reducing rigid lines in some places that other AA solutions can't touch, but having that done is not worth looking at a world full of blurry objects. Next, enabling FSAA (MSAA) by itself, with no other aliasing will actually reduce the quality of textures very slightly. This can be counteracted by enabling some level of FXAA.

We recommend just enabling and leaving FXAA on ultra, because it doesn't cost much performance at any resolution. It also reduces a vast amount of aliasing and truly "crisps up" the image, making it appear sharper and clearer. It's best to use this with some level of FSAA enabled. With 8X FSAA enabled there is a large drop in performance. That being said, 2X is pretty affordable and 4X FSAA provides a great quality image.

Therefore, best AA combo in this game, FXAA Ultra + 2X/4X or 8X FSAA and you will get the best texture quality, no blurring, crisp textures, and well anti-aliased objects and vegetation.

 

From what I had experienced in game with my Team,  Da Krong terrain for The Unsung is pulling FPS down.

One of my hypothesis is that here are used some models sucking FPS as vampire.

Like it was the case with "phragmites" marsh plants on my own A2 terrains.

 

I have stable 150 FPS on War of Warplanes and 25 to 80+ FPS in Arma3, PC gaming is like that ...

[mcarma 19]

Futz with everything I could think of and my almost constant frame rate is now 72 to 75.

 

 

Update:  Now that Apex is out I noticed the fps jumps a lot more, but I can hit 85 fps now. Didn't change anything either.

[Marc Reis 0]

Another Performance Problem - and yes I have googled, and played through all the "flags" i can pass on to the game.

 

Hey Folks,

I am getting a bit wound up with ARMA 3 / APEX and i would appriciate your advice!

 

In Short: I get around 10 - 25 FPS in game (Still in the ALTIS Scenario) - I guess that is not "usual" - or is it?

 

In the "Configuration" Screen for the Video settings, I almost always can achive around 60 - 85 FPS

 

My System:

Windows 10 Pro, Core i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz, running at 4,4Ghz, 16 GB RAM and a Asus GTX 1080 Strix 8GB VRAM on a 3440 x 1440 pixels @ 30-100 Hz

 

Fully Validated detailed Spec's are here at -> CPU Z.

 

Is something messed up?

 

I would invest in a "modern" CPU, but in average the 2600K is known to be "still good" so for onlya max of 13 - 27 FPS, I would dislike to invest more into my maschine.

 

Kind Regards!

 

 

 

 

[mcarma 19]

 

Another Performance Problem - and yes I have googled, and played through all the "flags" i can pass on to the game.

 

Hey Folks,

I am getting a bit wound up with ARMA 3 / APEX and i would appriciate your advice!

 

In Short: I get around 10 - 25 FPS in game (Still in the ALTIS Scenario) - I guess that is not "usual" - or is it?

 

In the "Configuration" Screen for the Video settings, I almost always can achive around 60 - 85 FPS

 

My System:

Windows 10 Pro, Core i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz, running at 4,4Ghz, 16 GB RAM and a Asus GTX 1080 Strix 8GB VRAM on a 3440 x 1440 pixels @ 30-100 Hz

 

Fully Validated detailed Spec's are here at -> CPU Z.

 

Is something messed up?

 

I would invest in a "modern" CPU, but in average the 2600K is known to be "still good" so for onlya max of 13 - 27 FPS, I would dislike to invest more into my maschine.

 

Kind Regards!

 

 

Marc Reis

 

 

That cpu is a good cpu, make sure it's not throttling back. Also playing this game at 3440 x 1440 might be your main problem.

I would try a lower resolution. I play at 1920 x 1080 and with my settings the game runs very well now.

In the game options turn some of that stuff off, like lighting and burr.

I sure hope a performance patch comes out one of these days, it's an awesome game and could have a long lifetime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dmarkwick 261]

I am getting a bit wound up with ARMA 3 / APEX and i would appriciate your advice!

 

 

 

 

 

I would suggest a couple of things.

First, resolution :) drop it to 1920 x 1080 (I understand you might only have listed your monitor's ability not necessarily the res you're trying to play at).

 

Drop ALL graphic properties to their minimum. If you get great performance, start to raise the properties gradually. You'll soon see what properties have the biggest impact. Start by raising the view distance, terrain detail & object distance to your liking.

Then change shadows, reflections etc.

Then the various post process fx.

 

As you begin to hit a performance loss, decrease some of the previous properties. Example, as you increase the post-process fx & hit some wall, try lowering object view distance etc.

Try different approaches to problems, example instead of AA, try no AA but render at 150%, 125% etc. Or some combination of AA and render %.

[the1krisrob 67]

 

Do yourself a favour and disable your FPS counter, and just play :)

 

This is the smartest thing I've read all day.

People need to stop tying their fun and enjoyment to their frame rate.

[Boss-Starstreams 10]

@mcarma

Are you familiar with how background services in windows works? If you are, sorry to be redundant. But I'll explain for those who don't know.

Windows (itself) has a ton of things running in the background that are designed for allowing your computer access to services and features in both corporate and consumer environments . Many of these things you don't need running if it's just a gaming / work station. This is why I don't like Steam, it's another unnecessary. I don't care how fast a computer is, The computer will be brought to it's knees if you don't trim down background services. Also, how much stuff is running in your system tray by the clock? Think about all the programs you might have installed that are starting up with the computer, even though you might not be using them. Such as iTunes. These all consume your CPU and Memory. I realize somethings do need to run, but many things can be started with a desktop icon only when you need them.

 

Check out Black Viper's site to see what I mean. (That link is for windows 7 specifically)

You can use Autorun to see what is starting with your computer, and disable it from a friendly window. You can also see the location of where the process is starting from as well as find info on it. Also good for killing virus startup locations. Autorun.

 

WARNING: Do not disable windows services unless you know what they are, and more specifically their dependency's. Google what this means.

 

 

On a side note: @ the thread group

 

I'm curious, how many Intel/AMD CPU cores will ArmA 3 utilize now? I think the 8 cores are out now.

I need to upgrade. I'm still running with these specs below. ArmA 2 has great performance, and ArmA 3 still runs good even with all my settings @ Ultra, except for distance. I have to be conservative, but I can still set it about 45% with good performance. But I'm ready for an upgrade.

[mcarma 19]

Just curious, how many Intel/AMD CPU cores will ArmA 3 utilize now? I think the 8 cores are out now.

I need to upgrade. I'm still running with these specs below. ArmA 2 has great performance, and ArmA 3 still runs good even with all my settings @ Ultra, except for distance. I have to be conservative, but I can still set it about 45% with good performance. But I'm ready for an upgrade.

 

What kind of frame rate do you get?

What CPU are you using?

[Boss-Starstreams 10]

What kind of frame rate do you get?

What CPU are you using?

The video settings menu shows about 32fps. (using an external program such as Fraps will add more fps). But the fps means nothing imo because in game, fps depends:

• What is being rendered (in viewing distance).
• How many AI assets you have running.
• Weather or not they are fighting or standing still.
• Cycle way-points (are big hit on CPU)..
• Damage collision...
• Video, Chipset, Audio drivers..ect

 

I don't look at fps. The best way to tell is setting everything to full (except for view distance (VD) seeing how smooth the game plays and then slowly moving the view distance up to get an idea of - at what point your system starts to struggle. Then backing off the (VD) a little bit to give it some head room. I think it's something you have to get a feel for because every system is different. fps don't prove anything.

 

O sorry, I have to edit my sig again, I meant to put it in there.

Intel Duo E8400.

I picked that CPU when I built the system over the quad cores because the quads at the time had separate access to each CPU/core's memory cache. On the other hand, the two core E8400 had shared access to the cache so for games it was faster and ArmA2 didn't support more than two cores at the time.  This CPU still keeps up pretty well with today's games.

 

By the way, anyone know how to turn off the double spacing in Firefox, or what ever is causing this to happen?  Everything on post on forums comes up with a space. I don't understand why they would change something like that in an update.

[ceeeb 147]

I'm curious, how many Intel/AMD CPU cores will ArmA 3 utilize now? I think the 8 cores are out now.

 

When Arma 3 is running, I have higher load on 4 of 4 cores. One core is generally working hard at 90%, while the others run at 50-75% (i7 6700K)

How much the load is Arma itself and how much is drivers etc, I do not know. The key point is 4 cores is not too many. 

[Boss-Starstreams 10]

When Arma 3 is running, I have higher load on 4 of 4 cores. One core is generally working hard at 90%, while the others run at 50-75% (i7 6700K)

How much the load is Arma itself and how much is drivers etc, I do not know. The key point is 4 cores is not too many. 

The percentage doesn't mean the other cores are doing any less work. The percentage is based on clock cycles. The game could be using the instructions in them other three cores. Instructions don't need to be processed by the CPU clock as they are executed almost instantly, that's the beauty of them. So the other three clocks might not show as many rounds (or percent), but the instruction sets in them other cores could still be getting hammered by subroutines. So the other core's clocks reading 50-75% could just be pushing the data to the instruction sets and don't need to process the data themselves, ...because the instructions are doing that. But them cores are taking a HUGE load off what any single core could do.

 

I'm curious if arma3 can utilize the new 8 and 12 core cpus.

[Valken 622]

The issue is CPU load based on the AI thread (mostly). This is a well known issue.If you are saying you have bad FPS due to the terrain, then it is both GPU and VRAM.

 

I have I7-4970K @ 4.4 GHZ all cores, 32 GB DDR 2400 CL10 RAM (gave me almost 10 FPS on min frames!) and AMD 6950 2 GB unlocked in Crossfire (yes ARMA 3 does support CFX and SLI) and get killed on Tanoa, yet better on Altis and Stratis.

 

So I have changed to these settings now until I get a new GPU:

 

Everything on LOW except:

 

Textures - Ultra

Anistropic Filtering - Ultra

Water Reflections - Ultra - Shader Heavy so turn it up if you have lots of shaders

FXAA Ultra

 

No AA, PIP and Shadows on LOW.

 

I get 25-30 FPS in multiplayer games now. Not perfect but smooth on a good server playing Escape Tanoa in COOP with ~ 12-14 players.

 

If you are lagging out, or stuttering, it is the AI thread in single player or the AI thread on the server (too many) AI.

 

Nothing you can do about it unless you and the server have 8 - 10 GHZ cpus or the mission will need to be updated.

[chacne 17]

I actually don't think ARMA 3 does run that bad, I have a fairly old rig by most people's standards and I'm running it flat out (ultra everything I can and sensible shadow and distance settings) running at 1920x1080

I have an i5 2500k overclocked to 4G. 8G ddr3 ram and a 2G ATI 7850 GFX card. None of which today would cost very much.

Yet I see people with much newer and expensive GFX cards and processors complaining ? I really don't get why.. Makes me reluctant to upgrade lol

My reply is not to brag but simply to stop the rumour that you need a super computer to run this game anything over 30 FPS, because you don't

Maybe like someone on here said before me, stop worrying about FPS and just enjoy the game ðŸ‘ðŸ¼

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

tcp network traffic + highly accurate and synchronized simulation of remote data

[Tornadic_Outlaw 0]

I have been looking into getting arma 3 for a few months now, but I am not sure if it would run on my computer.  I have attached a dxdiag and  would appreciate your input.

[Overkill C7 0]

Just keep in mind that the fps drops drastically as you add more and more units.  Performance tends to be effected more by the number of units that the processor(s) are trying to control rather than the graphics being displayed.  When making your own missions I recommend not going overboard with the number of units in the mission.  

[JeroenDV 0]

This game has always been bad for FPS, i got it for a long time and never played it a lot until now because of the low fps/lag/...

 

I followed a youtube guide i found somewhere that i had to change some settings in a file and now it is a lot better, no more stutter, only sometimes when i get killed but i guess that's normal.

Now i play it everyday :-)

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

The performance isn't bad, BI just hasn't hardcoded constraints, so community designers generally have:   too many players, too many AI, too many scripts.

 

If BI would do this, performance complaints would disappear:

 

- 40 player server limit

- 100 AI limit

- 10 scripts limit

 

 

No more FPS issues

 

But, we don't want that, do we ;)

[_Haywire_ 0]

hi guys im have some performance issues of my own im running:

• OS: Windows 10 Home 64-bit
• CPU: Intel Core i5 6600 @ 3.30GHz Skylake 14nm Technology
• GPU: 4095MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (EVGA)
• RAM: 16.0GB Dual-Channel Unknown @ 1067MHz
• Mobo: Gigabyte Technology Co. Ltd. B150M-D3H-CF (U3E1)
• HHD: 1863GB Seagate ST2000DX001-1NS164 (SATA)

and im only getting 9 - 15 fps on a blank altis mission with my settings on standard with some thing on high and view distance 1500.

if anyone knows whats wrong or how i can bump my fps up to 30+ let me know.

(i was able to get 40 - 50 fps on version 1.62 of arma on a pretty full out mission at high settings)

[DieselJC 196]

Sorry but you really cant expect the same frame rates as Battlefield or COD or any of those type shooters...Arma is in a  class by itself..does it have issues..yes it does..it has always had issues..but look at what it offers..look at how big the Mpas are..look at the Mod availibility..you just cant find that anywhere else..I'm lucky I get 35fps..i deal with it because I love the game..plenty of tweaks and settings you can do to help some stuttering and fps..lower view distance,tweak graphic settings,try different servers too..alot of them dont run well some run great..check youtube for some tweaking ideas..but dont go off just one..check around take notes and keep records of what you did..its a trade off between what Arma has to offer and fps..always has been and most likely always will be.

 

Diesel