Bad Performance on Decent PC

[buttockhat 0]

I've just had my old PC updated with a new graphics card, new HDDs, new processor etc., and have once again tried to get ArmA running smoothly...

Even on a far better machine, the in-game performance is not up to par. It runs fine on missions away from built-up areas and involving limited numbers of units (which is a major improvement), but the moment I'm anywhere near a small village or playing against more than a couple of enemy squads, it becomes laggy.

Cutscenes are horrible: objects appear as ugly-looking polygons and take a few seconds to show up properly. It is impossible to shoot anything mobile because it looks like they're teleporting from place to place. Any combat situations are a nightmare because I'm dead by the time the damn crosshair has crawled its way across the screen to the target.

There is no difference EVEN with most graphics settings set to low or disabled and view distance reduced to 600!!! I've tried many of the things mentioned on the stickies, including deleting the paging file, tweaking the NVIDIA control panel, and something to do with modifying Core2Duo...no difference at all.

Here is the config. of my PC:

GeForce 8600 GS 256MB with latest driver

Intel Core2Duo 2.01 GHz

1 GB RAM

160 GB HDD space

I'm at my wits end here, please help

[Jeff2121 0]

Uh....try getting at least 3GB RAM, an 256MB 8600GTS and...um...a 2.5Ghz AMD Athlon 5000+, cause Intel sucks when it comes to Hardcore gaming

[Mr_Tea 0]

You should have bought the 8600 GTS instead of the GS.

The GTS is a little more pricey, but worth the additional cost`s.

256MB videoram is not that much too, so try to return that card and get the GTS with 512MB.

What OS do you use?

[Jeff2121 0]

Meh, ArmA is too poorly optimized for my PC anyways, I'll wait until they can fix it up. If they can fix it up.  

Besides, the 512MB 8800 is about $400, so if your willing to shell out the cash for a card that'll prolly be about $200 next March, go for it.

[ArmaVidz 0]

2.5Ghz AMD Athlon 5000+, cause Intel sucks when it comes to Hardcore gaming

Sorry, bud, you're wrong there. These new Core2Duo's and Core2Quad's absolutely squash AMD's nowadays. I was an AMD fanboy and I'm running a Core2Quad after going through three different AMD's (4200+, 5200+, 6000+).

Also, when you're talking about performance in game, make sure AA/AF is disabled. Or at least AA is disabled. AF to low. Run the game native resolution of your monitor so it's still reasonably sharp.

AA in arma absolutely kills performance.

[Jeff2121 0]

If you have about $1,600 your willing to spend on a monster gaming PC, try this one.  

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227033

[Mr_Tea 0]

AA and AF kills not that much performance for me, and i only have an 7600GS AGP Card with 512MB vram (DDR2).

Edit:

Yust checked the settings:

AF is set to High, AA is set to Very High.

[buttockhat 0]

Mr_Tea: I use Windows XP.

...

Isn't it ridiculous that Operation Flashpoint runs like a charm on any outdated machine, but ArmA is unplayable on anything but a cutting edge PC? This is the second time I've gone and bought new hardware just for ArmA, and the second time it hasn't worked. The recommended requirements listed on the game box are absolute bullshit and should be much higher...how can BIS treat people like this?

[Mr_Tea 0]

Hm, i still use Win2K Prof. for gaming, but i asked because there are still performance problems with Vista.

btw:

I use the following hardware:

AthlonXP 3200+ (Barton Core)

2GB DDR RAM in Dual-channel mode

MSI GeForce 7600GS 512MB AGP

Audigy 2 soundcard.

[Jeff2121 0]

I hate Vista, I have on my new PC too! Good thing I have XP on my PC in my room, but I don't think an 8600GTS will work on a Motherboard from '01, will it?

[BraTTy 0]

Its something with your setup/settings....I am playing Arma on my laptop

XP4000+ cpu, 1 gig ddr,ATI X600 256meg video, XP Home

[Mr_Tea 0]

I hate Vista, I have on my new PC too! Good thing I have XP on my PC in my room, but I don't think an 8600GTS will work on a Motherboard from '01, will it?

There are plans from AMD/ATI and Nvidia, to release DX10 AGP Cards.

I think the 8800 will never come in an AGP version, but the 8600 has a good chance.

But we have to wait, there are no specific info`s out yet.

[Jeff2121 0]

Well, if I can somehow manage to cram an 8800GTS into a PC from '01, I'll be fine.

I mean, I can get some decent FPS...by my standards while using a couple HMMWVs with .50's and a Marine Squad fighting some commies with a BMP-2, and all I have is a 6150LE.

IMHO, you shouldn't be complaining, your PC is better than mine in the GFX department, and equal in every other respect, except I have a single core AMD Athlon 3200+ 2.2Ghz. 

[buttockhat 0]

BraTTy, you couldn't tell me your exact settings, could you?

I'd be really grateful for that.

[Jeff2121 0]

Its something with your setup/settings....I am playing Arma on my laptop

XP4000+ cpu, 1 gig ddr,ATI X600 256meg video, XP Home

Um...I believe, using my infinite wisdom, Newegg.com and Wikipedia, that this is BraTTys specs:

AMD Athlon XP 4000+

1GB RAM DDR2

256MB ATI Radeon X600

XP Home Edition

Thats all I could get...

[Mr_Tea 0]

BraTTy, you couldn't tell me your exact settings, could you?

I'd be really grateful for that.

Set the Terrain detail to normal, shadows low or off and play around with the other settings.

[Jeff2121 0]

I get decent FPS with everything on normal, no AA or AF. And I have a 6150LE!

[-Puma- 2]

i know im waiting for x2900pro for a price under 300e. From what i've heard its just downclocked XT, so thats teh card for me in christmas...

I've found out that nvidia indeed has some probs with AA and hdr, so forcing AA off will give u a nice boost.

with ATI card theres probs with shadows, so disabling shadows gives u fps boost.

waiting for the day when a card would work like they should

i think ppl are abit mislead with the middle range cards like 8600, 2600. they really arent good gaming cards. I mean buying a 8600gts 512mb for 230e, is just BS, when u can get a real gaming card (8800GTS 320mb) for 300e.

[charliereddog 9]

but the thing is, to people like me who know very little, the 512mb card looks like much better value than the 320mb card. That's why I think people are getting the wrong cards.

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

Well it's about time that some detailed info got posted.

Here's my rig, specs and settings.

As you see not highest-end machinery, but tweaked to hell and back, running damn stable too.  If you spend the time and care to really tune your system then good results can be had.  The clock speeds should match up and mesh sensibly, and the RAM speed must be manually set high, else most mobos seem to strangle the ram to a lower setting.

This info might help someone, so here it is in full.

CPU: Core2Duo 1.86 @2.59270 GHz (432x6)

Mob: Asus P5W DH, FSB @1728.47MHz FSB @ 1728.47MHz, PCI @110%

    PCI-Ex PEG Buffer Length=Short.

OS: Win2Kpro

RAM: 4x512Mb Corsair @864MHz,2.1v

GPU: Asus (ATI) EAX1950Pro x1, core:608MHz, mem:1458MHz

    (CF was useless on 2x8, and XP for CF was slower too)

HDD: OS and swap on separate drive than ArmA

    ArmA installed on _fast_ SATA RAID-0 set (using EZbackup).

For ArmA I use these settings,

using both CCC Catalyst Control Centre, and ATI TrayTools:

SMOOTHVISION HD:Anti-Aliasing

Use application settings=TICKED (enabled)

Temporal anti-aliasing=NOT TICKED (disabled)

SMOOTHVISION HD:Anisotropic Filtering

Use application settings=NOT TICKED (disabled)

High Quality AF=NOT TICKED (disabled)

Per-pixel samples=4X, Quality with Trilinear

CatalystAI

Disable CatalystAI=TICKED (AI is disabled)

MipMap Detail Level=High Quality

Wait for vertical refresh=Default Off, unless application specifies

Adaptive Anti-Aliasing

Enable Adaptive Anti-Aliasing=TICKED (enabled), Performance

Geometry Instancing=TICKED (enabled)

Flip Queue Size=3

Triple Buffering=Unticked (disabled)

Anisotropic Filtering Optimization=NOT TICKED(disabled)

Trilinear Filtering Optimization=NOT TICKED(disabled)

IN GAME SETTINGS:

SOUND: Hardware ON, EAX OFF - using onboard sound. HAD TO manually edit arma.cfg to change this!

GRAPHICS:

Visibility=2138

Terrain Detail=Normal

Onbjects Detail=Very High

Texture Detail=LOW

Shading Detail=Very High

Postprocess effects=LOW

Anisotropic filtering=LOW (overridden by card)

Shadow Detail=Very High

Anti-Aliasing=LOW

Blood=High

In AAS Close Combat I get consistent 50-75 fps

In AirCavOnslaught I usually get between 25-55fps at 1900 ViewDistance depending on situation.

Zoomed in at trees/shrubs or flying low over the Northern forests this can drop to 16.

Most of you seem to have a GPU that is faster and better than mine, all I can suggest is that you spend some time tuning the rest of your system to match it, and esure you have very latest drivers and latest Direct X redist.

The 110% PCI bus speed, the overclocking and the tweaking of other settings have made ArmA pretty damn smooth on this rig now.

It took time to get good performance from the machine itself, but the results were worth it.

The RAID array on which ArmA runs has made a diffence to stutters, and so has the reduction of textures to low and the PEG Buffer Length to short.  ON AGP use AGP Aperture to short/small whatever your BIOS calls it.

Most of the information used to tweak this all was found here on the forums, help is in there is you take the time to read it and ask for clarification if needed. The GPU is only part of your equation: FSB, RAM, PCI, CPU speeds and voltages all play a part in the performance stakes, as do drive speed and interfaces. Most of this is well known to you already I'm certain, but have you really spent the time to fine-tune your systems yet, even so?

edit: I should add that the heatsink (looks like a barbecue) and fans on this rig are huge, massive airflow through the case due to the overclocking heat-dissipation requirements.

If I had a faster processor etc then so much cooling wouldn't be needed, however I'd still probably gun the new chip anyway.

Based on bitter experience if faced with the choice of going CrossFire or SLI, or just getting a fast GPU card with more memory I'd now choose the fast single card with bigger memory every time. The more memory your card has the better for ArmA to reduce texture loading as the PCI-Ex is a bottleneck even at 16x.

[kklownboy 43]

WarWolf @ Sep. 28 2007,01:34)]...

GPU: Asus (ATI) EAX1950Pro x1, core:608MHz, mem:1458MHz

(CF was useless on 2x8, and XP for CF was slower too)

... the PCI-Ex is a bottleneck even at 16x.

CF doubled my frames.

theres is no way you will use all the bandwidth of a 16x PCIe buss. Aint going to happen. Need to run at a insane resolution, 30in lcd or more. 8x PCIE is fine for CF, with resolutions that the game gives you. Everything else is about right in your post. Though the game trumps the CCC settings, so AF is what you have in game. AI is better left on in my experience tho high to standard is a 5fps gain. And with my CF setup i get to run high accross the board, except on Evo, i turn down the shadows, and AA is always normal... my res is 1600/1200. view distance is variable 3500 down to 700(CQB). it allows allot of frames/quickness. 2900xt x2 and a x6800 conroe.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

If you can afford it, get another gig of ram, and if possible the same as you have now so it's dual channel (to be fair I'm not sure what performance boost you get, but it's a boost non the less). ArmA is very ram hungry, especially video card ram. With the extra gig you should get more out of it but in fairness getting a 512mb card would give the better result. It's more expensive I know. Anyway try with the extra gig of ram, it's not THAT expensive for a stick of ram at the moment (well, UK prices seem reasonable). I've just got a whole new rig with the same set up as you almost only a 512mb version of the same card, an extra gig of ram and the Athlon 5600+ (they had no 6000+'s in stock *cries*).

Also nVidia just released the final version of their 163.71 drivers today, give them a whirl. Things seem slightly smoother to me but maybe it's my brain telling me what I want to hear lol.

[buttockhat 0]

I have managed to get it running smoothly after lowering the view distance to 700 and setting all graphics settings to either disabled or low.

Thanks to all those who offered me advice.