64-bit Executables Feedback

[turin turambar 0]

So no one with a dedicated gpu has done a frametime benchmark test?

[Guest]

I have two dedicated GPUs but I won't risk my display firmware turning on MSI Afterburner (Win10 killing panel bug)

[NoPOW 59]

3 hours ago, ruPal said:

5Gb of RAM used (out of 8Gb)

You do know your GPU (HD 530) uses shared memory?

[ruPal 143]

1 hour ago, NoPOW said:

You do know your GPU (HD 530) uses shared memory?

Is this sarcasm?

[NoPOW 59]

8 minutes ago, ruPal said:

Is this sarcasm?

If you did know: yes... If you didn't know: no. ;)

[Horus 83]

16 hours ago, ruPal said:

MSI AB shows 7Gb of page file + 5Gb of RAM used (out of 8Gb). I am confused about so huge pagefile usage. Need to recheck if MSI AB shows pagefile data as RAM+pagefile or smth. But it is definitly higher in 64bit. Just check yourself and show your data in comparison 32bit vs 64bit.

MSI Afterburner show Commit Charge not pagefile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commit_charge

 

Quote

M$ labels it PF in windows which is wrong, but Unwinder decided to use the PF label anyway since most users would be familiar with it.

 

[ineptaphid 6413]

31 minutes ago, dav said:

The community deserves better that's all I am saying. Small meaningless updates are not what the community deserve, the engine has been milked for too long.

regardless of what you are saying..Your saying it in the wrong thread. Either leave specific feedback fro the 64bit exe or move this conversation to the appropriate thread. Thanks.

[Drift_91 33]

Jeez, I left this thread alone too long... Anyway...

 

@jcae2798 if you set the pagefile too large then Windows will start overusing it by putting stuff that optimally should be in physical RAM on the pagefile.

 

@Godlikeru I completely agree that the 64-bit version is significantly better. Even with the problem I'll discuss in my next paragraph, I find the performance is significantly better even if still barely playable on my aging system.

@dwarden Umm... -maxmem=3071 resulted in this... I'll admit this is with a 36GB modpack, so not sure if a mod could be causing this. Unless it's possible for a mod to have a memory leak though, I think this is pretty serious.

Spoiler

 

 

 

@ruPal I'll try to get a benchmark using your method done sometime today or tomorrow. Not sure if it'll be of any use to you though since I only have a GTX 660.

[eriktrak 76]

 

Correct me if I am wrong but 64 bit more about stability, reducing FPS stuttering and pawing the road for future tech. At least on client side. Don't know anything about server but I can imagine a heavily modded server can benefit. 

[Vigil Vindex 64]

I was trying out the x64 build and noticed that RAM usage never went above 4gb, even though I have 16gb. I did notice higher page file usage. Running YAAB was more or less the same as stable branch with stutters and fps. But playing on Tanoa felt much smoother. Will be looking forward to when x64 gets pushed to stable branch.

[takehomethecup 13]

3 minutes ago, Vigil Vindex said:

I was trying out the x64 build and noticed that RAM usage never went above 4gb, even though I have 16gb. I did notice higher page file usage. Running YAAB was more or less the same as stable branch with stutters and fps. But playing on Tanoa felt much smoother. Will be looking forward to when x64 gets pushed to stable branch.

Did you check your start-up arguments? The -maxmem one.

[Vigil Vindex 64]

2 minutes ago, takehomethecup said:

Did you check your start-up arguments? The -maxmem one.

 

Yeah I set the maxmem param via the launcher to the maximum, 16gb.

[Dwarden 1125]

i repeat that since 1.66 you don't need anymore to define -maxmem= nor -maxVRAM= (except for some specific workarounds like 3.5+0,5 GB cards)

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

[Flax 397]

1 hour ago, dwarden said:

i repeat that since 1.66 you don't need anymore to define -maxmem= nor -maxVRAM= (except for some specific workarounds like 3.5+0,5 GB cards)

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

 

Wow well I guess that means I've been playing with 3.5GB for ever then... Stupid GTX970. Thanks for the info dwarden.

[Drift_91 33]

On 2017-01-30 at 4:48 AM, flax_ said:

 

Wow well I guess that means I've been playing with 3.5GB for ever then... Stupid GTX970. Thanks for the info dwarden.

I think he's saying the game automatically detects all 4GB but you might want to set -maxmem=3583 to avoid using Nvidia's gimped section of the VRAM. I've heard several reports of framerates more than doubling by limiting games to 3.5GB of VRAM on the 970.

 

Edit:
"-maxVRAM=3583" not "-maxmem=3583"

Edited February 1, 2017 by Drift_91

[bourne2kill 10]

I can't load anything with 64 bit enabled, it freezes every time on the loading screen.

[domokun 515]

1 hour ago, Drift_91 said:

I think he's saying the game automatically detects all 4GB but you might want to set -maxmem=3583 to avoid using Nvidia's gimped section of the VRAM. I've heard several reports of framerates more than doubling by limiting games to 3.5GB of VRAM on the 970.

As a GTX 970 user I find this promising but shouldn't that start-up parameter be -maxVRAM=3583 instead of -maxmem=3583?

[Flax 397]

1 hour ago, Drift_91 said:

I think he's saying the game automatically detects all 4GB but you might want to set -maxmem=3583 to avoid using Nvidia's gimped section of the VRAM. I've heard several reports of framerates more than doubling by limiting games to 3.5GB of VRAM on the 970.

 

Ah in that case I will double check tonight. Either way sounds like something worth checking.

[Guest]

Don't use maxmem maxVram. End of topic. If you do then game will be unstable or freeze and it's entirely your fault. These options should be disabled in launcher options for 64 bit client. 

[domokun 515]

23 minutes ago, Godlikeru said:

Don't use maxmem maxVram. End of topic. If you do then game will be unstable or freeze and it's entirely your fault. These options should be disabled in launcher options for 64 bit client. 

Thanks for the warning.

But I'm actually on the Performance branch so my question remains valid "As a GTX 970 user I find this promising but shouldn't that start-up parameter be -maxVRAM=3583 instead of -maxmem=3583?"

[Guest]

No. Don't use it. Nvidia GPU driver will cap vRAM automatically for you. It's been working like that for years. 

[Flax 397]

1 hour ago, domokun said:

Thanks for the warning.

But I'm actually on the Performance branch so my question remains valid "As a GTX 970 user I find this promising but shouldn't that start-up parameter be -maxVRAM=3583 instead of -maxmem=3583?"

 

Yes it would be -maxVRAM=3583 for the GTX970. 

[domokun 515]

@Godlikeru I'm not saying you're wrong. Quite on the contrary, for years I've encouraged other to avoid start-up parameters because they often cause more harm than good. But my system is old, my bank account bare and I'm familiar enough with Arma to take my chances ;) Seriously I'll be benchmarking -maxVRAM=3583 with YAAB tomorrow night.

@flax_ cheers mate

[Flax 397]

So I've done some benchmarking:

 

It seems that from the 32 to 64 bit - no real change as expected and noted on this thread many times before.

 

However in the 32bit Stable build, I actually benefited some 18% by using the maxVRAM=4096 start up parameter. So @Godlikeru  I would disagree with your advice to never use the start-up params in 32bit and as for the 64bit ones, no change so no need to use it.

 

 

[Guest]

I said don't use it with 64-bit builds or you will expect guaranteed crash after about 40 minutes of play with "Windows low on memory" notification.