Horrible Performance...

[suma 8]

also can anyone find the system spec that the makers of the game tested and ran the game on before release.

Quote[/b] ]Primary configuration of most of the development hardware we currently use is:

- Wide range of graphics card with Vertex/Pixel Shaders 2.0

- CPU 2 - 4 GHz

- 512 MB - 2 GB RAM

(Was in very old ArmA topic.)

My system specs are:

Primary:

Intel P4 3.6 GHz, nVidia G6800 GS 256 MB VRAM (PCIex), 2 GB RAM

Secondary:

Intel Xeon 2.8 GHz, ATI X 800 256 MB VRAM (AGP), 1 GB RAM

Both are running ArmA quite fine, smooth and playable. We tested the game on both minimal and recommended configurations and we have found the experience acceptable on both of them.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

i guess my question suma is it the hard drive thats the issues thats bottlenecking the performance? Thanks for giving some imput

[suma 8]

While the hard drive performance may be significant in some situations, I would be surprised if it would play a major role.

Hard drive definitely should have little to no influence in a static or a slow moving scene - all data which are streamed from the hard drive are cached and reused between frames.

However, I would certainly recommend basic performance house keeping here - especially using defragmentation, as fragmented drive may cause excessive seek times during data loading.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

So if a person had theres set at the default view distance of 1200 what would be the X Mbps of bandwidth needed from the hard drive for it to stream correctly.

[Maddmatt 1]

So if a person had theres set at the default view distance of 1200 what would be the X Mbps of bandwidth needed from the hard drive for it to stream correctly.

Hard Drive is keeping up fine, it is not the problem. Give up on that already.

GPU, CPU and RAM are what you need to worry about.

[Rhodite 3]

So if a person had  theres set at the default view distance of 1200  what would be the X Mbps of bandwidth needed from the hard drive for it to stream correctly.

I use a Standard SATA drive with 8mb Cache.

I have no issues.

I think you are taking the HDD thing a little to far.. or rather looking for something that really isnt related to them.

imho the Drive cache/rpm are the key aspects to watch out for.

Past that performance issues will be related to other issues such as Memory, GFX and CPU.

In short there is no magic answer every one has a different setup identifying a given bottle neck is the key.

[Chris Death 0]

Im no computer expert and know nothing about the ins and outs of making a computer game.

What i would love to know is that will armed assault ever run as smooth as the likes of BF2 what i get about a average of 50-60 fps

but is armed assault gunna be like soldner !!! a great idea but never

run fast or smooth, i have been bored of Bf2 for ages now and it dont tickle me fancy any more and i loved soldner but that was unplayable.

i was very very happy to see armed assault and downloaded the german version but then unhappy to see poor frame rates. i love the idea of the vastness of the game and that it is a simulation.

so please could anyone who knows what is what tell me if in the near future that this game will run at 50-60 fps when the the going gets tuff. thank you if you could tell me the ins and outs of my question.

oh yeah i have a high end sli system and getting about max 30 fps in town areas.

Well, to answer your question:

ArmA is running smooth without performance loss at frame rates you mentioned and even above.

In worst case i'm getting 48 fps which i assume still fits to your expectations.

My System (nothing very high end btw):

Pentium D 3,4ghz

2gb RAM (no special kind of)

GeForce 7950 GT KO (512mb VRAM)

If you read the thread it's comming out clear that there

are performance issues with ArmA but not for everybody.

Some may have problems - some not (while at the moment

it seems more do have them), no matter wether they are

using high end systems or just past the recomended system

specs (note: i don't want to mention anything below recomended specs since it doesn't make sense being discussed in any way).

I've seen somewhere during the last pages of this thread

the question popping up, wether L.H's alt-tab problem

appeared for anybody else too.

The only time i could find for now was also on these forums

and also in combination with a GeForce 8800 - so it's not

a single case but probably related to the 8800.

I don't have some special kind of hard drive nor it is optimized

in any way (just a single defragmentation with standard win

defrag) and i don't experience any performance loss in the

described way.

~S~ CD

[Kevlar2007 1]

As I see on the Suma's post there are only Intel CPUs stated.

My question is: Is Arma ever been tested on AMD CPUs?

[Kamikaze666 0]

they knew the performance was shit but decided to release it anyways...just to make us the beta testers...

[shadow 6]

they knew the performance was shit but decided to release it anyways...just to make us the beta testers...

Comments like that is misinforming to those who dont know the truth. Stop spreading lies.  

Stick to the topic.

[Kevlar2007 1]

Please tell us the truth! I would very much like to know it!

[NeMeSiS 11]

Please tell us the truth! I would very much like to know it!

It works fine on most mid-range/high-end PCs, however, bushes give a big performance decrease when you are close to them (on all PCs), so low-end PCs have a problem then. And, several people have unreasonably low performance for their specs. However, this happens with every game, but most people can play it fine, even though the game is really heavy.

Oh, and people who expect 100FPS (on any PC) are going to be dissapointed, but more then 25 isnt really needed anyway, especially not in a game like ArmA.

Quote[/b] ]My question is: Is Arma ever been tested on AMD CPUs?

Works fine on my X2 4200+ (as long as you dont have a P4/celeron/sempron you should be fine anyway)

[shadow 6]

Please tell us the truth! I would very much like to know it!

I thought everyone knew by now that publishers set the releasedate, not the developers

Publishers decide when the game is in a shippable state.

When I see comments like the one by Kamikaze666 at BIS' forum it makes me think he is adressing BIS and not the publishers.

Back on topic please (I'm only saying this once).

[Kevlar2007 1]

Please tell us the truth! I would very much like to know it!

I thought everyone knew by now that publishers set the releasedate, not the developers

Publishers decide when the game is in a shippable state.

When I see comments like the one by Kamikaze666 at BIS' forum it makes me think he is adressing BIS and not the publishers.

Back on topic please (I'm only saying this once).

Ok when this is the truth what you say. Why then BIS stuff (Suma some pages before) is telling us they have tested enough and found the performance ok for releasing. It would be cool if they admit that instead of giving some contradictory infos and confusing the costumers.

[Gosia 0]

I have computer with Pentium D 805, motherboard Gigabyte 945, 2x512 MB RAM DDR2 and Gigabyte GeForce 6600GT 256MB DDR2 graphic card. My disc is Samsung 160GB with 8MB cash ATA100.

Every options in game is Hight (postprocesing sometimes I switch to ON, and the shadows are Low) and I use the 1024x768x32bit resolution and the performance is good. Sometimes in forest the fps are down.

Im thinking, hard drive is not a problem in Armed Assault. My hd is connect to RAID ATA133 controller on motherboard and is a single. Many peoples have more performance hard discs and have a problem with low fps.

[Jack-UK 0]

BIS test it till it goes 'GOLD' this means it gets sent to the publishers.

The publishers then do the final details and decide when it will be released to the public.

Correct me if im wrong though

-------------------------------

By the way.. when you 'alt tab' and back again into the game it reloads the graphics engine and clears the cache (hence the receiving screen) and thats why people can get a performance boost from doing this, but eventually it will slow down again as the cache is filled.

Im not sure why people can sometimes not play except for a few seconds after alt tabbing.. it sounds to me like theres not enough RAM/VRAM being used in the game... But it doesnt seem like anyone has a solution or has even identified how the problem is caused as of yet...

[rrhodes 0]

I am running an AMD64 3800, 1 gig of dual channel ddr 400 and a 256mb 7600gt and I can run on very high with the view distnace set at 3500.. No lag at all.. If I turn up the distance I begin to see lag... but I just ordered a second card to run SLI so that should take care of that...

[Jack-UK 0]

I am running an AMD64 3800, 1 gig of dual channel ddr 400 and a 256mb 7600gt and I can run on very high with the view distnace set at 3500.. No lag at all.. If I turn up the distance I begin to see lag... but I just ordered a second card to run SLI so that should take care of that...

What speed is your processor clocked at? 2.4ghz?

Also do you have an FPS reading?

It doesnt seem like a very high spec system to run on very high.. if it does run smoothly then it could be useful for those considering an upgrade =)

edit: oh is the 3800 dual core?

[Kevlar2007 1]

I am running an AMD64 3800, 1 gig of dual channel ddr 400 and a 256mb 7600gt and I can run on very high with the view distnace set at 3500.. No lag at all.. If I turn up the distance I begin to see lag... but I just ordered a second card to run SLI so that should take care of that...

Pleas tell me if you have checked your FPS with fraps or similar tool. For me it seemed also that everything is ok at the first sight but after some time I have seen performance drops in combat situations and in towns. My friend has same configuration as you only he has R1900XT 512mb and he has performance problems.

[ebud 18]

Are you sure about that? I have a month old system with an AMD 64 3800 Dual Core, 2 gig ram, 7950 GT 512, ASUS SLI board and I run pretty well (most all settings H/VH, AA low) other than I want a constant 5000+ view distance. Would a second 7950 in SLI really give that much of a boost in viewdistance?

Edit: Just to add... no performance problems at all. Mouse lag in scope/sight view gone after dropping AA to low. Just want to know about SLI performance increase.

[rrhodes 0]

I am running an AMD64 3800, 1 gig of dual channel ddr 400 and a 256mb 7600gt and I can run on very high with the view distnace set at 3500.. No lag at all.. If I turn up the distance I begin to see lag... but I just ordered a second card to run SLI so that should take care of that...

What speed is your processor clocked at? 2.4ghz?

Also do you have an FPS reading?

It doesnt seem like a very high spec system to run on very high.. if it does run smoothly then it could be useful for those considering an upgrade =)

Proc is running at 2.4 I am also running a SATA300 drive but I have not checked my FPS because I have yet to see any issues unless I turn up the view distance over 3500.. Not sure if it matters but I am running a Sythe cooler so my proc never goes over about 31 celcius...

I have not played with any video setting other than very high and widescreen mode as well as changing the distance. My copy is a store bought German DVD running 1.02 on XP proffessional and the OS is a fresh install. I will check my fps tonight when I get home.

I know a friend is running this with dual 7950gt cards and he is running very high and has the view distance maxed out.

[Parvus 0]

Hello,

does somebody also have such good experincies, like me, with Raid0?

i got 2 PCs here with round about same hardware (3,4GHZ P4 HT / 2GB Ram / 800FSB / ATI 1900GT and nvidia 6800XT;

=> 1 PC has 2 harddisks combined as Raid0 (Kamikaze Raid) - therefore because you loose all data or OS if 1 HDD crash(s);

... but the Raid0 system has ~double as much fps like the single HDD system.

P.S. it is possible, at SLI system, to let 1xAGP and 1xPCI express grafic card work together?

greetz

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

Rhodite and others its quite simple and yes it is a hard drive issue because of the way the game was designed.

Lets look at the specs and what we know about about Armed Assault compared to every other game on the PC format.

Quoted from Suma

Quote[/b] ]Primary configuration of most of the development hardware we currently use is:

- Wide range of graphics card with Vertex/Pixel Shaders 2.0

- CPU 2 - 4 GHz

- 512 MB - 2 GB RAM

Note: this does not mean at all the required or recommended system specs will be like this. They can differ a lot in both directions.

CPU: 2 - 4 ghz

We know that AMD and Intell Chips in either single or dual core work. If it was a CPU issues then it would show up in other new games that are out.

GPU with Vertex/Pixel Shaders 2.0 support

We know that by this spec any pixel shader 2.0 having 128 or higher MB of Ram should be able to run it.

Hard Drive

No specs listed but we do know that it streams information from the hard drive.

Now you would have to ask yourself why would a Game on PC format need to stream information from the hard drive for anything when it has a large amount of system ram?

Name me one game on the PC format that does this? Because there isnt one. There alot on the XBOX that do this because of the low system ram.

Now you would have to ask yourself is this game design for the PC or XBOX format.

[crashdome 3]

Are you sure about that? I have a month old system with an AMD 64 3800 Dual Core, 2 gig ram, 7950 GT 512, ASUS SLI board and I run pretty well (most all settings H/VH, AA low) other than I want a constant 5000+ view distance. Would a second 7950 in SLI really give that much of a boost in viewdistance?

Edit: Just to add... no performance problems at all. Mouse lag in scope/sight view gone after dropping AA to low. Just want to know about SLI performance increase.

To respond to this post and the above with similar specs,

From my previous post, I am not very far off in terms of rig (E6600 should be above comparison and GPU/Mem are similar) and I cannot get AA at all let alone viewdistance past 1500. My HD is a 3gb SATA drive and running on an Intel DG965SS board (hence no o/c).

New drivers, the whole sha-bang..

I get very laggy mouse movement. I could careless about everything else, but I gotta crank down to normal or lower with no AA just to get the mouse to work (Demo version btw).

As much as I can get 16-22fps , the scope view takes forever to move around yet I can launch back into the game from the map screen like nothing!

Keep in mind, I am not an idiot when it comes to components. I manage a whole company's range of devices from servers to little LXE hand-scanners. I can work my way around XP very well also.

I am going to swap out my SB Live for an SB Audigy 2 I use upstairs on my HT PC. I don't plan on watching too many movies in the near future I get sound loss all the time in the demo (voices or firing sounds just suddenly stop) so we'll see what happens with that first.

[ebud 18]

I know a friend is running this with dual 7950gt cards and he is running very high and has the view distance maxed out.

Thanks for the info. Once the price drops some I'll pick another one up. Thats why I asked to have an SLI board, so I better take advantage of it.