ArmA and CPU power

[desertjedi 3]

I'm running an overclocked GTX 260 video card (Core Clock 575-->700) and an oc'ed E2180 (Core 2 Duo) cpu (2.0-->3.15Ghz) and felt like playing with the Video Options because I can't seem to get a feel for optimizing these options for maximum frame rate in ArmA.

So I change my Shadows from Normal to Very High and test. No difference in frame rate. Then I boost anti-aliasing from Normal to High and test. No difference in frame rate.

*Now wait a minute!*

My first thought...am I cpu-bound??? Meaning, is my video performance being bottlenecked by my cpu? It's starting to smell like it.

So I take the mission that hits my system the hardest - Ortego City Battle. It's city combat with a TON of soldiers. My lowest frame rate on that map is around 23. I bring the mission up in the editor and completely clear it. I then go to the same place in the map and my frame rate more than doubles. At another point in the map, where I got 40fps, I now get 90fps. All frame rates were captured with no soldiers in view, only scenery.

I was expecting a boost but over a 100% boost? That's pretty insane. And I thought the whole problem dealt with the complexity of the scenery in ArmA cities.

So now I'm wondering if I took an E8500 cpu up to 4 or 4.2Ghz I might see a major boost in my minimum frame rate.

Can anyone here confirm any of this? Is anyone using a cpu clocked at 4Ghz or higher with ArmA?

I now have a better appreciation for my GTX 260. I was putting the blame for the low frame rates on it. But now it does not seem to be the culprit.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

The fact that your CPU was bottlenecking you should be a dead ringer. Clearly your GTX260 is the second fastest card in NVidia's arsenal, and the E2180 isn't really all that fast, despite your impressive OC (which I salute - >150% FTW!.

What speed and how much RAM are you using - this could also be a problem.

However I would strongly suggest that upgrading your CPU would offer quite a large improvement in performance.

[LT.Schaffer 0]

Another thing to check is make sure Vsync is turned off in the NV control panel

[RAIDER32 0]

I'm running an overclocked GTX 260 video card (Core Clock 575-->700) and an oc'ed E2180 (Core 2 Duo) cpu (2.0-->3.15Ghz)

The problem is obviously the AI, the more men you have the more complex the processing,

same happens on my games, TONS of AI slow things down alot,

mainly due to masses of AI but also the number of effects (damage) that it going on aswell.

If the game was optimised for dual/quad it wouldn't be a problem,

so Arma 2 with multi core support shouldn't suffer with this AI lag,

I'm running a E6600 @ 3.0ghz with a 8800GTS 512

btw,

an E2180 ain't a Core 2 Duo, its just a Dual Core

one hell of an overclock though!

[desertjedi 3]

I guess I'm so tied into the "GPU power is king in gaming" that this caught me off-guard.

Yeah the E2180 is a poor man's overclocking champ. I used to run that chip at 3.5Ghz but my prior mainboard got sick and eventually died. I don't want to mess with NB and SB (and maybe other) voltages on my current stable setup. I can't think of what else may have killed my prior board. Plus the E2180 has only 1MB of cache while an E8500 has 6MB. And from what I've read, a larger cpu cache actually benefits gaming...of all things.

I'm running 4GB of RAM, DDR2-800 at 840Mhz with good timings 4-4-4-10. Not bad for 4 sticks. I'm not using the 3GB (PAE) switch though.

Vsync is off via nTune. I get 150-200fps in the beach areas.

Quote[/b] ]I would strongly suggest that upgrading your CPU would offer quite a large improvement in performance.

I'm thinking the same thing.

Quote[/b] ]an E2180 ain't a Core 2 Duo, its just a Dual Core

From what I remember, the Allendale architecture is identical to a Core 2 Duo (except for cache of course) but Intel wanted to distinguish it as a "lower" tier chip. Interestingly, an Allendale E4600 is called "Core 2 Duo". But you're right - the E21XX series is called "Dual Core".

[boneboys 0]

I built a mission while running a E6400, every thing worked well as far as way-points was concerned, enemy appearing at the right time and place, that sort of stuff...

I then upgraded to a E8400 and had to re-set a lot of the way-points to get the mission to roll out as planned.

OK the mission was just a "way-point to way-point" sort of affair but it proved just how much things can change depending on processing power.

Thanks...

[Deathstruck 375]

crap..so it means my laptop with Core 2 Duo T7300 2.0GHz is screwed ?

[cjph 0]

Hi All

On a similar theme, I have the following (similar) setup and a little while ago tried a number of maps/details with the CPU clocked/unclocked along with the GPU clocked/unclocked to see if there was a CPU or GPU bottleneck (with an eye on quad core requirements for Arma2). I simply loaded up some of the maps with units, civilians following waypoints etc and drove/flew around the same routes, taking FPS measure via FRAPS.

My setup :

2160 o/c'd to 3.06Ghz / 2gb PC6400 / 965P-DS3 / Audigy2 / 8800 GTS 512 (o/c'd to 780/1100) / Win XP / Samsung 2232BW 22" LCD / 480W

In the 5 setups I tried (can post full result graphs if anyone wants them-standard maps plus Avgani and Al Sakakah, all SP) the framerate increase with each increase in CPU power, whereas the performance was no different with a clocked or unclocked GPU. I agree the 2xxx series are not premium chips, though it handles everything else game wise at 1650x1080 and reasonable (ie low) AA settings etc. Only Arma (and Crisis) stretch the performance out of the games I play.

So I deduced that a better upgrade for Arma would be a faster CPU (approaching 4GHz) instead of a better GPU - which would fit in with Sumas post on projected system specs.

cjph

[ArmaVidz 0]

Set your CPU to stock settings (no overclock) and retry. Sometimes overclocking proves to be counter-performance.

[cjph 0]

Hi

Yep - I reset to defaults each time I changed any settings, with the same results irrespective of numbers of units, map, settings.

Want to try again when I get another CPU at a higher rating.

cjph

[desertjedi 3]

I've got a buddy who might have trouble with the missions in the City Battles Co-op Pack - one of the mission packs I like when I'm in the mood for billions of West AI soldiers vs. gazillions of Opfor AI soldiers. What I might do is go in hack out some of the squads.

The Paraiso battle has like 7-9 full squads on each side (can't remember exact number). The only time I get to actually see all these soldiers is when they're lying dead on the ground in a huge pile!  

[ModaFlanker 0]

I've noticed a difference between 3d shooters and when you make a war simulation/battlefield over vast distances.  You aren't going to get the same kind of scaling as with the 3d shooters.

This was most evident to me when I played World War 2 online, which has a persistent battlefield (you can fly in a plane for hours from end to end and there are zero loading zones).  It didn't yield FPS increases easily, and seemed to prefer more CPU power.

ArmA 2 will make use of multiple processors [ArmA is only singlethreaded], so dual core or quad cores are going to shine here.  I hope it will turn out to be a breakthrough rather than yet another tiny/insignificant speed boost.

Edit/Added:

OMG.

ArmA 2 may REQUIRE dual core!!!.  They need one core to focus on AI decisions while the other focuses on the game, because they are stepping up the AI in the game.

http://www.bistudio.com/arma2ne....en.html

Click on the ArmA 2 Preview page and read the ArmA 2 First Look Preview article.  WOW.

Quote:  "Losing a battle may now be a likely scenario, due to the fact that BIS has significantly increased the amount of attention paid to AI. The game no longer uses scripts or waypoints to dictate enemy movement, but rather lets units "make decisions" based on information they gather from their environment. "We're now at the stage where your team-mates can hear which direction gunfire is coming from, and use that to take appropriate cover," a BIS representative told us. "Dual core processors will now be a requirement, because one core will be exclusively used to handle AI."

[gsleighter 0]

That's good, my Dual Core Celeron D will probably run Arma 2 better than Arma. I wish I was getting 23 fps in large battles, I've got an 8800GTX, so I'm getting 90 FPS when I'm by myself in Sahrani, but as soon as I throw a couple platoons down, it varies anywhere from 10-30 fps.

[RAIDER32 0]

an interesting read (click link below) I think relevant to this thread,

Custom PC - graphics have topped out

especially with the way Arma 2 is looking as regards to multi CPU support for AI.

We all know (as OFP/ArmA fans) that graphics aren't everything,

sometimes entertainment can come from actually playing the game, not just looking at how pretty it is  

RAIDER32

[desertjedi 3]

Quote[/b] ]Custom PC - graphics have topped out

I read the article and tend to agree but the title implies that graphics and AI are somehow mutually exclusive. Why not have both? Are Nvidia and ATI going to stop releasing more powerful, innovative video cards? I doubt it.

Quote[/b] ]That's good, my Dual Core Celeron D will probably run Arma 2 better than Arma. I wish I was getting 23 fps in large battles, I've got an 8800GTX, so I'm getting 90 FPS when I'm by myself in Sahrani, but as soon as I throw a couple platoons down, it varies anywhere from 10-30 fps.

Yeah, that's your Celeron D crying for help. Another cpu could unleash the power of your 8800GTX.

[RAIDER32 0]

I read the article and tend to agree but the title implies that graphics and AI are somehow mutually exclusive. Why not have both? Are Nvidia and ATI going to stop releasing more powerful, innovative video cards? I doubt it.

I agree on the content that developers should look at the Gameplay and extra AI, not just the Candy.

I see the top-end cards that have come out in the past 12-18 months have only got better because of bigger monitors,

looking for more fps at higher res with more AA/AF to polish it off.

I've used Vista for over 18 months and I've yet to see anything substantial using DirectX-10 come into my life.

An original 8800GTX-640 is still going to do almost everything a new GTX260-896 will do on the same CPU.

Game developers on a budget will be looking at getting the best visual impact for sales reasons, so will spend most on design and visual work, meaning less on Gameplay,

If balancing Candy '& Gameplay' the budget would have to be lowered on Candy to fund Gameplay,

otherwise (and ideally) they would have to spend an extra 50% on making more Gameplay extras, something I'm sure most developers aren't going to get in the time given (see ArmA 1.00 - 1.04).

RAIDER32

[BraTTy 0]

I remember in OFP with the OFPmark benchmark.Users with lesser video cards were getting better scores than others with nicer cards just because of stronger cpu.

I would assume Arma is along the same lines that its more cpu demanding than most games.

Celeron has a small cache and must struggle for sure.

[gsleighter 0]

It's struggling mightily. It's only got a 533mhz FSB, which I suspect has a lot to do with how the real virtuality engine runs. I'm basing this on OFP, unfortunately, I haven't been able to test this with Arma. I've played OFP on two PCs with 3.0 ghz cpu's, and the slower 3ghz cpu had a nicer video card, and had a much better experience overall with the higher FSB and inferior video card.

I'm still able to run Crysis on high settings at 20-30 fps with my Celeron D, although I think that's because it's giving all of both cores. If Arma2 supports dual core, I think I'll have much better performance than I do in Arma with the same CPU. Although by then, it will be a moot point.

I'm reenlisting into the Army soon, should be much better financially for my family and I plan on upgrading this PC to give to my wife and building a new one for myself by the time Arma2 and OFP2 come out. GTX280's will be quite a bit lower in cost by then, I'm sure.

[Desrat 0]

@1280x1024 I gained an average 10fps by overclocking my E6600 from 2.4ghz to 2.7ghz and another 5fps when I overclocked to 3.0ghz...

The rest of my system consists of:

MSI P35 chipset mainboard

320mb 8800GTS

4gb ram

Vista Ultimate x64

[Auss 208]

I have an E8500 Which is OC too 4.2Ghz,also running a XFX 8800GT. I noticed a considerable increase in FPS when I Started to OC the CPU.

[desertjedi 3]

Quote[/b] ]I have an E8500 Which is OC too 4.2Ghz

Totally sweet! Did you do that on air?

Looks like a beefy cpu is very beneficial to ArmA.

[Commando84 0]

yeah in ofp a faster processor gave the a.i faster reaction time and stuff. The a.i soldiers turned around and shoot at me faster and scripts made the a.i do their things faster and stuff like that. I had a totally different experience playing ofp on my own old amd 2.0 cpu than on my friends 2500 amd cpu

[volkov956 0]

MY desktop with a E6850 and a GTX 280 has a little more slowdown then my Laptop with a E8600 and a 9800m GTX in arma

[Dwarden 1125]

yeah in ofp a faster processor gave the a.i faster reaction time and stuff. The a.i soldiers turned around and shoot at me faster and scripts made the a.i do their things faster and stuff like that. I had a totally different experience playing ofp on my own old amd 2.0 cpu than on my friends 2500 amd cpu  

i got that too on 4.3GHz and i must admit even there is 'increase' it's not as much as if i got 5Ghz c2q

anyway the key is to have very fast DDR-2 1066 (or faster)

ideally with like 8GB (ramdrive and all the important often accessed data of arma on it)

single player missions == always re-run/modify in MP mode with dedicated server running on different core than client (in this case quadcore become very usable because System I/O and drivers occupy 2, client 1 and dedicated server 1 core ...

[cjph 0]

Hi Dwarden

Would this core splitting also benefit a dual core set up ? I tried searching on how to do this in detail (in XP) but it throws up too many results to find anything quickly.

Thanks

cjph