Horrible Performance...

[rrhodes 0]

I did not realize that it streamed data from the hard drive. I may be getting some performance boost there as I am running a sata 3/gps drive with 16mb of cache spinning at 10k rpms

[Heatseeker 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

SLI requires sli ready mobo with 2 pcie slots and ofcourse two pcie cards. Tell us more about both your setups, wich one is kamikaze raid'ed, wich isnt and what fps they get.

"Double as much fps" sure got my atention .

[rrhodes 0]

How many people having lag issues are running the demo? I ran this on an intel 3gig with an older 9800xt video card on low settings and still got over 1500 on the view distance before I noticed any lag...

[crashdome 1]

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.

Whiskey, STFU already. You are of no help to anyone anymore.

[EDIT] LOL 5 posts in the time it takes to hit the "Quote" button.. anyways, you get the point [/EDIT]

[NeMeSiS 11]

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?

Because just the sara.pbo (the main island only, no buildings/sounds/vehicles/whatever) is 700mb, and you are not on the whole island at the same time, so why would you load everything into the memory?

Anyways, Suma is always right, he made the damn game ffs, stop talking about the HD, it isnt the main problem. (easiest way to prove it is this: Try a better videocard in the same system, and you get a performance boost, therefore the HD isnt the limiting factor otherwise the performance would stay the same)

[dm 9]

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.

... ...

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.

Oh my god, you really are a moron arent you?

Not only has Suma himself stated:

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

He's also stated that an Xbox version of ArmA isnt likely to happen. Yet you insist on pushing this "its designed for xbox" thing. ArmA inherits from an xbox title, this is why all the xbox features are apparent. Also, why is having code "optimised" for low RAM systems a problem? It simply means that it SHOULD run better on more powerful systems.

[Edit] Also, I love the way you continue to make such sweeping statements like "its because of the way the game is designed" when:

1. you don't even work for BI, and

2. display rudimentary knowledge about computer hardware, let alone the complexities of programming software for it... [/Edit]

You also have grabbed completely at the wrong end of the streaming stick. Taking your example of other PC games as an example. Look at flight simulators (the next comparable terrain size): They also have to stream their terrain data, as it is not possible to have it all locally in the RAM. The whole point of the streaming is to get rid of the loading screens which occur regularly in games like HalfLife or Doom (i.e. at the "end" of each level). Also, not everyone runs with 2Gb or RAM. You just have to look at the stats collected by valve to see that over 75% of the people (that took the survey) operate with between 256Mb and 1Gb of RAM, whilst a mere 13.9% have 1Gb or more. So this streaming is important, not just an xbox leftover.

The whole ATA-7 argument is moot, since SATA standards are much faster. The likelyness of anyone at BI having some specialist hard drives are slim. Simply put, its not a hard drive issue. LET IT GO...

[Chris Death 0]

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?

Because just the sara.pbo (the main island only, no buildings/sounds/vehicles/whatever) is 700mb, and you are not on the whole island at the same time, so why would you load everything into the memory?

Anyways, Suma is always right, he made the damn game ffs, stop talking about the HD, it isnt the main problem. (easiest way to prove it is this: Try a better videocard in the same system, and you get a performance boost, therefore the HD isnt the limiting factor otherwise the performance would stay the same)

I second that

Like i already said a few posts before, my HD is nothing

special - well i even didn't bother to look for it but i bought

a complete pc system: Medion for 1000 €uro's and we all know

that there are no high end components included in such systems.

The only thing i changed was:

GeForce 7500 LE 512mb --> out of pc

GeForce 7950 GT KO 512mb <-- into pc

And it runs like hellllllll without any performance loss.

I defragmented my harddisk once but even before doing this

the performance was identical.

Now changing the graphics card did not turn my pc into

an Xbox but made the game running smoot while before it

was running like ofp on very high in old days.

Now can we please exclude the harddisk thingy from this discussion as it's definitely not a bottleneck.

~S~ CD

[j w 0]

Ok, my setup for ArmA shall be:

Intel DG965OT G965 Motherboard

Intel Core 2 Duo Allendale E6400 2.13Ghz w/ Scythe Infinity 1000

2x1GB Corsair XMS2 PC2-6400 5-5-5-12 w/ heatspreader

Asus GeForce 7950GT 512MB

600W PSU from CoolerMaster

How would this run ArmA?

[lee_h._oswald 0]

How would this run ArmA?

I hope that it runs great.

But at the moment I believe in nothing that concerns ArmA.

MfG Lee

[Rhodite 3]

Ok, my setup for ArmA shall be:

Intel DG965OT G965 Motherboard

Intel Core 2 Duo Allendale E6400 2.13Ghz w/ Scythe Infinity 1000

2x1GB Corsair XMS2 PC2-6400 5-5-5-12 w/ heatspreader

Asus GeForce 7950GT 512MB

600W PSU from CoolerMaster

How would this run ArmA?

Simply compare that rig to What Suma has posted Here

Speculation is pointless.

In a way Suma has posted a form of a PC benchmark, if ArmA runs adequately on those two rigs then anything equal to or greater should in turn be fine.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

DeadMeatXM2 when this all washes out here in a few months, youll look back and see that i was right. I far as the HD and XBOX issue goes, you cant make a XBOX game run on a PC because they are design to handle programs differently because of the way the hardware is used. So enjoy Armed Assault with the few people that can run it because the troubleshooting threading is going to become quite busy once it gets released state side.

[j w 0]

Well, since mine is seemingly alot better then both, it should do ArmA very good on medium-high settings.

Hopefully...

[Architeuthis 9]

DeadMeatXM2 when this all washes out here in a few months, youll look back and see that i was right. I far as the HD and XBOX issue goes, you cant make a XBOX game run on a PC because they are design to handle programs differently because of the way the hardware is used. So enjoy Armed Assault with the few people that can run it because the troubleshooting threading is going to become quite busy once it gets released state side.

Just an observation as a bystander, but you really seem fixated on this ‘I am right all the time’ concept. Might want to consider dropping that. To save face and all. Just a suggestion.

Arch.

[Potatomasher 0]

In a way Suma has posted a form of a PC benchmark, if ArmA runs adequately on those two rigs then anything equal to or greater should in turn be fine.

Well, it really doesn't run FINE on equal systems.

AMD has equal CPU, but obviously ArmA isn't designed to support AMD. I have even better gfx card, but still lag fest.

Well, i start playing this after patch 1.03 again or later if these issues don't get fixed.

[action man 0]

Quote[/b] ]My System (nothing very high end btw):

Pentium D 3,4ghz

2gb RAM (no special kind of)

GeForce 7950 GT KO (512mb VRAM)

Chriss Deathyou're having a laugh are you not? Nothing high end,what are you smoking boy.I'd kill for that comp youv'e got! In my book that's high end.Now i can rest my case,on the assumption that for some starange reason guy's with high end rigs think they arn't.In England their are a couple of saying's i can relate to this kind of thinking(1) More money than sense,(2) you guy's know the price of everything,but the value of nothing

[Heatseeker 0]

Everything should be taken into acount, i hope this discussion will continue at a reasonable level and based on peoples experiences and facts. 2 people with good system specs have posted that raid0 (2 HDD's setup) did improve their Arma performance significantly, Arma does use terrain streaming and if one increases visibility to very high HD access/use might increase.

Parvus and Djfrogstar are 2 people i respect and believe. I personally didnt have such a setup planed in my future hw upgrade but depending on other user findings and numbers i might consider it .

[NeMeSiS 11]

In a way Suma has posted a form of a PC benchmark, if ArmA runs adequately on those two rigs then anything equal to or greater should in turn be fine.

Well, it really doesn't run FINE on equal systems.

AMD has equal CPU, but obviously ArmA isn't designed to support AMD. I have even better gfx card, but still lag fest.

Well, i start playing this after patch 1.03 again or later if these issues don't get fixed.

It works fine on my AMD (x2 4200+)

It is really, really strange that all these laggy systems seem to have nothing in common whatsoever..

What do people here call a lagfest/is the minimum you want to play on? 5FPS? 10? 20? 30? 50?

[Jack-UK 0]

Yep that PC should run it very well JW...

And for those willing to tweak...

1) Defrag regularly, clean out spyware, turn off unnecessary background services

2) -maxmem=512/1024 (or whatever 50% of your ram is in the arma command line)

3) 'Systembooster' increases smoothness, disk caches...

4) Overclock your GPU/CPU (i overclocked my ATI 9550)

Any other suggestions would be useful...

Maybe we should compile some nice tweaks, good hardware combinations and stuff and make a sticky.. would save a lot of time and repeated posts...

[rrhodes 0]

I am still not sure why I keep seeing that this was not designed to run well on an AMD.. My 3800+ runs it fine with a 7600gt video card... and A friend plays on a 4600+ AMD with dual 7950gt's at max settings including 10k view distance with no lag at all..

Mine is a store bought copy that my Aunt sent me from Germany and his is a German download copy.

Seems like most of the people having issues are running systems that should run it fine, I can't believe all of these issues are hardware related.. There have got to be some windows based issues. I have run this on 3 different systems..

1: Intel 3 gig Hyper threaded w/1gig of dual channel memory and an ATI Radeon 9800xt 256mb sata 1.5gps- Running normal settings with a view distance of 2000m

2: AMD64 3800+ w/1gig of dual Channel memory and a Gigabyte 7600GT passive cooled sata 3gps - Running Very High with the view distance at about 3500m

3: AMD 4600+ w/2gigs of 800mhz ddr2 and 2 XFX 7950gt cards sata 3gps- MAX EVERYTHING

My second 7600gt card comes in next week and I will let you know what that does for me.

[action man 0]

What do people here call a lagfest/is the minimum you want to play on? 5FPS? 10? 20? 30? 50?

I'd settle for 25! But can only manage 18 Sorry system specs again(think this topic is going to get very very long) p4 3.2,1 gigg of ram,geforce 7600 gs 512mb's Edit= i'm running the demo,are their different settings option's in the main game?

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

Quote[/b] ]1: Intel 3 gig Hyper threaded w/1gig of dual channel memory and an ATI Radeon 9800xt 256mb sata 1.5gps- Running normal settings with a view distance of 2000m

2: AMD64 3800+ w/1gig of dual Channel memory and a Gigabyte 7600GT passive cooled sata 3gps - Running Very High with the view distance at about 3500m

3: AMD 4600+ w/2gigs of 800mhz ddr2 and 2 XFX 7950gt cards sata 3gps- MAX EVERYTHING

What all three rigs have in common SATA Hard drives. Which the SATA 3.0GPS giving you there best performance because of the bandwidth supplied from it.

[Potatomasher 0]

ple here call a lagfest/is the minimum you want to play on? 5FPS? 10? 20? 30? 50?

Well, i call a lagfest if fps drops to 8-12 at some point and stays there until i go to different area or look in to my legs in game.

There are times when fps is 20. That would be enough for me if fps don't drop lower than that.

And the HD discussion if so BS. It amazes me how many really think it has something to do with it. There's no way it could affect that much. SATA drives are equally fast as ATA so it can't be possible unless there is bugs in engine. In fact the search time in SATA drives is longer than in ATA.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

ArmA is playable with 30+ fps.

Best example is steering a car. Horror with 15fps. Very normal with 30.

MfG Lee

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

Quote[/b] ]1: Intel 3 gig Hyper threaded w/1gig of dual channel memory and an ATI Radeon 9800xt 256mb sata 1.5gps- Running normal settings with a view distance of 2000m

Now i know most here with a 9800XT would be happy with this performance. You take the SATA away and plug a IDE or EIDE hard drive and thats what is happening > Low hard drive bandwidth

Quote[/b] ]

2: AMD64 3800+ w/1gig of dual Channel memory and a Gigabyte 7600GT passive cooled sata 3gps - Running Very High with the view distance at about 3500m

3: AMD 4600+ w/2gigs of 800mhz ddr2 and 2 XFX 7950gt cards sata 3gps- MAX EVERYTHING

Here you can see that with the video card being different and the hard drive being the same you get the extra boost from the video card which you would expect

[NeMeSiS 11]

Another performance problem which i really cant understand (and to get off the HD subject, whiskey wont admit anyway):

Walking close to a bush cuts my (and other peoples) FPS in half! But the weird thing is that it only happens with bushes, not with trees