Jump to content
Richard.biely

64-bit Executables Feedback

Recommended Posts

64 bit is on its way, and DirectX 11 has been there from the start...

 

Why not accept that this engine has reached its limits, and no amount of snake oil is going to change that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NoPOW said:

Why not accept that this engine has reached its limits, and no amount of snake oil is going to change that?

For some reason people always believe that <insertbuzzword> automatically will make everything better.

"I have seen a tech demo of  <DX12, voxels, quantum computer, warpdiskdrive...>, PLZ devs we need this so it runs better"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

DX12 will make it much faster because it's not as CPU bound as DX11 and ARMA engine is just eating any cpu. Trust me, im a programmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Godlikeru said:

DX12 will make it much faster because it's not as CPU bound as DX11 and ARMA engine is just eating any cpu. Trust me, im a programmer.

I remember someone saying that according to the ArmA devs, it wouldn't help much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NoPOW said:

64 bit is on its way, and DirectX 11 has been there from the start...

 

Why not accept that this engine has reached its limits, and no amount of snake oil is going to change that?

I think that only small part of DirectX 11 capabilities used in Arma 3. IMO, devs will not switch to DirectX 12 because a lot of players don't have videocards that support DirectX 12, they will not be able to play.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ruPal said:

I think that only small part of DirectX 11 capabilities used in Arma 3. IMO, devs will not switch to DirectX 12 because a lot of players don't have videocards that support DirectX 12, they will not be able to play.

I think the "Feature Levels" thing in DirectX would still allow us to play. If not, they could still provide us with DirectX 11 support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2017 at 1:13 PM, Drift_91 said:

DDR3-1333 @666GHz 9-9-9

 

Back on topic, I'm pretty sure that BI have the whole 2017-2018 roadmap laid out with more DLCs planned. Hopefully after the 64-bit build gets pushed to stable they'll be able to start doing optimization of some kind though.

Well, 64bit support is that optimization :f:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
14 hours ago, ruPal said:

I think that only small part of DirectX 11 capabilities used in Arma 3. IMO, devs will not switch to DirectX 12 because a lot of players don't have videocards that support DirectX 12, they will not be able to play.

Right but about DX12 @takehomethecup is also right.

13 hours ago, takehomethecup said:

I think the "Feature Levels" thing in DirectX would still allow us to play. If not, they could still provide us with DirectX 11 support.

 

Exactly. Almost all cards support DX12 on reasonable feature level. Cards as old as Kepler (im using keplers SLI) or Radeon 7000 will do fine. Main reason to use DX12 is lower cpu utlization which is crucial for games like ARMA. Other DX12 features aren't mandatory so they can be omitted to let as much cards as possible to run the game. DX11 cpu overhead is also reason why AMD cards sucks so much with weaker CPUs and they work much better with Vulkan or in DX12 titles. Nvidia fixed that problem by using DX11 software VERY complicated feature in driver. 

 

If they will make DX12 engine then DX11 fallback renderer will be impossible because in DX12 command queue is working differently but as most of users have DX12 capable cards it won't be a problem. Rest with incompatible cards probably don't have enough CPUs to run the game anyway. Games with both DX11/DX12 engines are just funny, they have some features glued instead of complete rewrite and their performance is dissapointing(Hitman, Deus ex HR). Look how good can Gears of War 4 or Forza Apex work even with weak CPU. 

 

DX12 was too hyped and is now a disappointment for a lot of people mainly becuase stupid IT websites were promising +30% performance. And yes you can have +30% performance if game is CPU bound. Api like this is widely used on "next-gen" consoles so their funny 1.6 GHz cpus can still run demanding games. That's because CPU overhead is reduced. That's of course only one of optimization "tricks" like easier GPGPU, multi-core engines and blah blah but at least one  can now be achieved now on PC.

 

@Drift_91

 

Im playing with my friend on 64 bit devel build and it works much better than 32. Less stuttering and finally 10GB memory usage. I encounter a lot of bugs of course but I still want to play on 64 bit. 

 

Whoa, that was a big pile of text, hope someone will read this :don11:

 

Personally im a bit surprised about 64-bit exe. BI was doing almost nothing to improve performance for years so I was waiting for ARMA 4 to come but they started doing something now so I bought the game. Better late than never I guess :f:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
64bit has not helped at all on view distance on the Tanoa map or object distance. Using the CUP maps the 64bit has made a large difference allowing me to boost view distance up to 4000 and even boosting sampling up to 125-130 even 150 is still giving me high fps apart from in large towns. I have everything set at ultra apart from PIP which I have off as it always has halved the fps. Chenarus looks so good with the views up higher and is silky smooth with no stutters like the newer maps especially Tanoa has.
 
Tanoa crashes the game a lot with memory reference issues or reading issues even just in the editor flying around with the camera. The texture streaming on Tanoa can be very slow cause large areas to be blurred for a while until the texture pops in.


Lol you sound like a paid game tester, this is why I wiped Arma off my ssd. It is a stuttery mess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I rarely encounter stuttering with 64 bit build but I don't have APEX so I can't test Tanoa. Disable vRAM and RAM limits in launcher and try again. It's known to bugging on 64-bit build. 

 

*****************************

Arma 3 x64 Windows low on memory ERROR

 

Disable vRAM and RAM limits in launcher, it uses 10+GB without errors now

*****************************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So DirectX 12 is going to alleviate my burdened CPU, which isn't even stressed 50% in the most challenging scenario's?

 

The problem with A3 is not that the CPU is in over its head, the problem is that the engine never addresses the full potential of the CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, NoPOW said:

So DirectX 12 is going to alleviate my burdened CPU

Only DEVs choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ruPal said:

Only DEVs choose.

First: don't quote out of context, it's sarcasm; my CPU isn't burdened at all...

Second: What do the DEV's choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only DEVs choose how hungry a game will be. DX12 don't give any guarantees like 64bit too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put this to analogy and someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Choosing or not choosing is not the only factor here. And I would also mentioned that developers don't choose

this, game director or senior role in studio with engineers collaboration decide this through meetings.

 

So to return to analogy say Current engine is like house built in 80s but modernized in some aspects

like replaced doors, new garage, new paint and so on. But house is really showing its age through

the walls and the fact that is not built to withstand such a load on higher floors. So to solve this issue

(dx12) we would need to change complete architecture of the building to accommodate to higher standards.

 

Which takes time, breaks down lots of progress (need to fix) and some money of course. To add to that

there is Enfusion arhitecture where developers alongside are working on it but is not yet completed so does

it really make sense doing this now?

 

Food for though.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not having any problems with 64bit version and my A3 is on SSD. My page file memory is managed by OS and I am not using any launcher commands, so try the same?

On my old laptop the 64bit made noticable improvement, and on my current one, I have more stable FPS 40+ MP and 60+ SP. Again no issues of what so ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@en3x, you understood me the wrong way. By DEVs I mean the whole Bohemia Interactive company. About DX12 and 64bit I want to say that it depends on DEVs choice. They may be implemented different ways and may give a zero performance boost. For now you cannot say that DX12 will give the boost at all. 64bit and DX12 labels may mean nothing in performance. I agree with you that it is not an easy job so that is why I said that there will be no DX12 in Arma3 probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes in that notion Chris Roberts mentioned that you can take DX11 renderer and convert it to dx12 but you aren't going to get benefit of dx12

until you start doing more fundamental refactoring in the engine.

 

Most game engine including Real Virtuality 4 for arma are not really built with dx12 in mind they aren't parallelized to really utilize dx12 API.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

note: this thread is about 64-bit executables not DX12 speculations ...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dwarden said:

note: this thread is about 64-bit executables not DX12 speculations ...

the fun is that you  guys wanted to add dx12 with Tanoa...............but then abort it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

64bit and Multi Core would be enough though,,,,, and no A3 is not Multicore....  1core is at 90% usage and all other  like 10% that is not multicore for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game works with less stuttering with 64bits version even on a mechanical HD.

Improving the long distance  but - no optimized 64bits rigth now - no fps improvement right now.

The huge memory page dont work right now  as intended - I dont feel better fps, placebo maybe - and the xtbb works better than the game main memory allocator, I think will be improved in future release.

But only with the zoom lag removed, the 64bits is a great thing!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MrFies said:

the fun is that you  guys wanted to add dx12 with Tanoa...............but then abort it

You talk like it was fully abandoned. Alls that was said was it didn't yeild fantastic results right now.  but enough about that in this thread. 

 

Personally I see the positive here. 64 bit was added. So far it has brought the ability to increase view distance (great for the jet dlc).and smooth the stutters. Glad they made the effort and put resources to it.  It was a good decision. And right now I'm willing to fund these types of decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May somebody make a comparison between two versions of Arma3 32bit и x64bit?
Here what is needed:
1. Nvidia GPU!!!

2. Download and install MSI afterburner (Riva Tuner Statistics server included);
3. Configure MSI Afterburner:
- set refresh rate to 100ms in AB settings;
- enable Hardware Monitoring feature to save in file;
- enable monitoring GPU Load, VRAM Load, CPU Load, Memory Load, FPS, Frametime.

Then start 32bit game with Benchmark scenario (YAAB) and 64bit with the same Benchmark scenario (YAAB) and settings. Then upload Hardware Monitoring (hml file) somewhere or screenshot the results. It is important not to play Arma before benchmarking (to prevent texture preload), restart Arma before each test.

Will we see the same frametime bumps in 32 bit and 64 bit versions of a game?
 

Spoiler


VCxD0hb.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ruPal said:

May somebody make a comparison between two versions of Arma3 x86 и x64?
Here what is needed:
1. Nvidia GPU!!!

2. Download and install MSI afterburner (Riva Tuner Statistics server included);
3. Configure MSI Afterburner:
- set refresh rate to 100ms in AB settings;
- enable Hardware Monitoring feature to save in file;
- enable monitoring GPU Load, VRAM Load, CPU Load, Memory Load, FPS, Frametime.

Then start 32bit game with Benchmark scenario (YAAB) and 64bit with the same Benchmark scenario (YAAB) and settings. Then upload Hardware Monitoring (hml file) somewhere or screenshot the results. It is important not to play Arma before benchmarking (to prevent texture preload), restart Arma before each test.

Will we see the same frametime bumps in 32 bit and 64 bit versions of a game?

I did exactly that some time ago. Except with Fraps, because AB didn't save every single frame, only at refresh intervals.

I don't think I kept the results, so I can't show them here, but there was a slight difference in low frametimes. Something like 50% less frames below 15-20fps when the whole average was around 32.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×