Low FPS 2080TI

[VicMackie 0]

Hey guys, ive been looking at benchmarks online, at 4k resolution people are in the 90fps mark.
Im using 3440x1440p and only getting 58 to 70 (vsync disabled).
Overall visibility 3800
Object 2300
Shadows 100
Everything set to high or ultra where i can.
Anti aliasing on SMAA Ultra, FSAA 8x.
Funny thing is, disabling anti aliasing or changing the quality....the fps stays the same. Not even the slightest change.

I have a 4790k cpu at 4.6ghz and 16gb ddr3  at 2400 mhz.
It seems to be a CPU bottleneck, but this CPU was out after this game was released? 
Very confused.

 

[Valken 622]

I suspect the other users have a faster CPU and/or FASTER RAM than you.

 

Nvidia GPU offsets draw calls to the CPU between DX9-DX11 (but not DX 11.1 or 12.0), not sure about OpenGL or Vulkan, so it gets more FPS if you have a FASTER CPU. If you check other users with 4.8-5 GHZ CPU with FAST RAM, they  will see more performance even up to SLI if the game is supported.

 

Also ARMA is mostly CPU and the faster CPU + fast RAM makes the game run nearly the same for similar GPU... Weird but true...

 

 

[Janez 531]

55 minutes ago, VicMackie said:

Hey guys, ive been looking at benchmarks online, at 4k resolution people are in the 90fps mark.

 

This is mostly useless for games like Arma. It all depends on scenario you are in. If there is heavy AI presence for example, then naturally CPU is going to eventually struggle. I'm not saying there is no room for improvement but you have to be very specific about what mission you are playing, how many players, what part of the mission, what map, mission parameters, etc.

 

If you want to have somewhat realistic benchmark of Arma 3 on your system and possibly compare it to other systems, then have a look at Yet Another Arma Benchmark.

[VicMackie 0]

It was the training mission at the start, it can improve in some areas. But dropped to 30 during the part near the start, where  your driving through the town. (evening).

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

On 2/26/2019 at 2:37 PM, VicMackie said:

I have a 4790k cpu at 4.6ghz and 16gb ddr3  at 2400 mhz.
It seems to be a CPU bottleneck, but this CPU was out after this game was released? 
Very confused.

 

Arma seems to be weird regarding settings, I also never noticed any performance difference when changing AA and other settings, only draw distance, supersampling and amount of active AI on the map seem to visibly influence fps.

Just buy a current gen CPU and overclock it, 5.5ghz on a 9900k will send arma flying.

 

 

Cheers

[TiredGiraffe 1]

I've got a 980 TI and i'm usually getting above 60 on high settings. hm

[Hody 1]

Its lol!! I got MSI RTX 2080 Ti Sea Hawk + MSI MEG Z390 ACE with I9 9900K 16gb of corsair dominator ram, Samsung 512 GB 950 pro PCe M.2 on 12000 km visibility all on ultra settings 32 FPS by 45% using of GPU!!!!

[joostsidy 685]

5 hours ago, Hody said:

Its lol!! I got MSI RTX 2080 Ti Sea Hawk + MSI MEG Z390 ACE with I9 9900K 16gb of corsair dominator ram, Samsung 512 GB 950 pro PCe M.2 on 12000 km visibility all on ultra settings 32 FPS by 45% using of GPU!!!!

 

12000 km is pretty high viewing distance though, do you really need that? Usually I cap it at about 2000km, so I can just about engage CSAT low-orbit satellites. 😉

[pooroldspike 129]

I've found from experience that it's a 'butterfly's wing" thing, and if one video setting is out of harmony with the rest it can make your PC groan and creak.  

In the ingame Config Video settings, try clicking 'Auto-Detect' to let your PC decide what settings it feels comfortable with; that'll give you a streamlined uncluttered base line and you can do some trial-and-error tweaking from there.

 

[Gunter Severloh 4063]

17 hours ago, Hody said:

16gb of corsair dominator ram

12000 km visibility

At what frequency? and WTF are you seeing at that distance? are you in a fighter plane?

or on foot?

 

 

[domokun 515]

On 2/26/2019 at 2:37 PM, VicMackie said:

Hey guys, ive been looking at benchmarks online, at 4k resolution people are in the 90fps mark.
Im using 3440x1440p and only getting 58 to 70 (vsync disabled).
Overall visibility 3800
Object 2300
Shadows 100
Everything set to high or ultra where i can.
Anti aliasing on SMAA Ultra, FSAA 8x.
Funny thing is, disabling anti aliasing or changing the quality....the fps stays the same. Not even the slightest change.

I have a 4790k cpu at 4.6ghz and 16gb ddr3  at 2400 mhz.
It seems to be a CPU bottleneck, but this CPU was out after this game was released? 
Very confused.

 

@VicMackie Arma 3 is probably one of the most CPU-bound games ever released. So, to reach the highest framerates in A3, your PC needs a CPU with the highest possible clock speed AND the highest IPC.

This has been demonstrated for years...

... by the Poles

 

... by the French

 

...by the Aussies

 

Conclusion: as you've already OC your 4790k to 4.6 and you're running the fastest DDR-3, your last upgrade path is to move your OS and A3 onto an SSD.

If you've already done this, then MAYBE consider an i7-9700k as it runs A3 20% (Ryzen 2600 runs A3 similar to i7-4790k) but it'll also cost you €630+ (9700k @ €390 + HSF @ €40 + Z370 mobo @ €110 + 2x 8GB DDR4-3200 @ €90).

[chrisb 196]

I wonder when I look at this thread sometimes.. Players thinking if it's not 90fps its somehow wrong. This series only runs at 90fps if you count up the averages, but within those averages would have to be a period of time whereas you look at the skies constantly, around 50% of the time.. 😉

 

This series plays o.k. at much lower fps than that, if your getting around 40-50'ish pretty much regular, with drops when the hoards arrive, then your doing well. If your topping at 40 without anything much happening, then you have a problem.

A3 is much smoother than A2, I play A2 and would like A3 fps, the type I see when I'm in A3.

But I play A2 just fine. When the hoards arrive I tend to look to the heavens anyway, not for fps, but for help... 😉

 

There is nothing wrong with wanting huge fps numbers, but this series isn't really the one that will give those to you..

[Hody 1]

i just only mean that the game dosnt using out the GPU.... using not even 50% of the GPU... BTW if i have the possibility to play with 12km viewdistance why not? and yes i fly to 😄

[Dedmen 2714]

14 minutes ago, Hody said:

BTW if i have the possibility to play with 12km viewdistance why not?

Because you'll have low fps.