ParameterPoor FPS with a HD4870, Q4 Phenom 9950

[DutchNeon 0]

Hello,

I'm new to this forum, and I'm rather new to ArmA. I ordered the Armed Assault Gold Edition a couple weeks ago, and received it Wednesday.

Before buying ArmA, I checked certain websites to see of my PC could handle it. From what I understood, my specs were pretty good for ArmA, and I would be able to run ArmA on max settings and view distance, with a decent 40-50+ fps.

System Specs (copied from one of my youtube videos):

Windows Vista Home Premium 64 bit OS

AMD Phenom 9950 CPU @ 2.9Ghz (overclocked).

Zalman 9700 Blue LED CPU Cooler

MSI K9A2 Platinum Mobo

Ati Radeon HD4870 512MB GPU

4GB Corsair DDR2 DHX RAM

640 GB Samsung Spinpoint F1 HDD

750W Corsair PSU

Antec 900 Case

Acer AL1914 LCD Screen

I installed the game, patched it to 1.14, and then 1.15 beta, and started up the game. I immediately turned up all the settings to the max, and started the tutorial mission. As the mission started, i noticed my FPS (I was running Fraps to see my FPS) was around 6-8 FPS, most of the time. I turned around a bit, but it wouldn't go any higher, except looking at the sky.

I tuned down my settings to high, but the same result. The FPS would increase, but not much. On regular 'High' settings, I would get a max FPS of around 15-25. After some tuning, I found out that I would only get 50+ FPS, with all settings on low, and a really low view distance (500-600).

I compared my computer specs with some other computers; computers which were able to run the game on max settings. I noticed my computer had better specs then most of them, although I wasn't able to run it on max settings.

I was kinda mad, and I started searching for solutions. I found out this website:

http://forums.tweakguides.com/showthread.php?p=58502

A pretty old topic. I tried to mimic the settings from one of the posts on that page, but I wasn't able to get a decent, playable FPS.

I found out that some people had problems with 4 GB of Ram and a 64bit OS. I got 4 GB of ram and a 64bit OS, and I had the same problems with the demo. I didn't had the problems anymore with the full version though.

I have tried numerous solutions, from maxmem and memory handling parameters, to affinity changes, windowed mode and setting changes, but nothing worked.

Are there any solutions for it, or would I have to wait for version 1.15? Do more people have the same FPS problems with computer specs, close to mine?

Edit: It seems I accidently added 'Parameter' to the topic title, oops :\

[Yoma 0]

One thing to look out for is vga memory size. Your's is only 512 and if you crank up settings that might turn out to be a tad low. Try to download some tool that points you to the vga memory usage.

Arma is a game that really stretches ALL PARTS of your system:

It needs

-the fastest cpu you can get (you may be overrating that phenom 9550, it doesn't seem THAT good in benchmarks i come accross, again Arma really digests CPU's especially in large VD and with loads of ai running about)

It seems to be in the intel Q6600 range and after all that's a 2 year old cpu by now.

There are multiple topics on these forums about "I upgraded my cpu and now i have decent fps".

-a very good graphics card (your's might have too little memory to really handle all the candy, start by lowering texture settings and put that VD on +-2500 max for decent performance) if you try to run the game on high resolutions (widescreen monitor...) that 512MB will most likely be too little.

-very good disk read speeds as the whole engine is constantly streaming stuff from disk.

Don't expect this to be your average 100 fps shooter, that's not what it is.

Also when you play with loads of addons the game will require even better hardware then "vanilla" Arma.

Some strange stuff can occur when overclocking too, i've actually seen systems running Arma BETTER when NOT overclocked.

Don't be sad over the "I can't crank up all options". Even on lower settings the game is very playable and still looks nice.

Besides all this there may of course be some software-issues on your system too.

When running Vista allways make sure you've upgraded to SP1, but that's most likely the case.

Also disable the Windows Search/Autodefragmentation in Vista as it tends to start running in background when you don't need it.

When tweaking settings, put shadows to high, this will run better on newer GPU's, but shadows will be a bit blocky.

For ATI cards i think i remember something like Ati catalyst AI that used to decrease framerates, don't know what it does on newer cards.

Hope you can get it to run like you want it too, but don't expect too much.

[echo1 0]

There's some problem with ArmA and the latest ATI cards that the developers are working on for the final release of the 1.15 patch. In the mean time, try searching Radeon 4870, you should find a few pages where possible solutions have been suggested before.

[desertjedi 3]

You mentioned "max settings and view distance". What view distance are you actually using.

I have an overclocked GTX 260 and I set my VD to about 3500.

[Sceaduwe 0]

The same thing is also happening with the some newer processors and nvidia newer graphics cards, it's not just limited to ATI's cards. A friend of mine reports about the same performance (8-12fps - using fraps), not in big cities but in open areas with not alot of objects around him.

Friends system is:

Windows Vista - 64 Bit (All updated)

Intel Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz.

Nvidia GTX295 - Latest Drivers

Asus P5K

8GB's Ram

We've been through the crysis profile swapping, turning off windows searching, fiddling with all options in game and out.Any other suggestions are very welcome.

Sceaduwe.

[kklownboy 43]

In your Contol Panel, the CCC, for ATI, make sure you have it all to AppPreferences. That would be for AA and AF. Try Vsync off.

Cat 9.2 drivers have been good for me so far. AI on.

Is 1280x1024 your resolution you use with your Display?

Is your 4870 running at 3d speeds?

You will never run all uber high and 10,000VD... your vidcard hasnt enough vidram. 1200vd and some combo of settings that you can accept is all you can do. Low AA, High AF, No or Low Shadows, Normal all else, but verylow terrain will boost it about 15/20fps. OH and Post Process to low is 15 fps right there too.

Most people who post they run all high or higher at uber VD with kits less than yours, are running really low frames or very low res.

good luck.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Dang Yoma...your good

I find drivers being the main issue... assuring proper un/installs and cleaning out old drivers being a major factor.

Occasionally I will delete my "ArmA.cfg" from my docs, and that also will make a bad driver run ArmA differently.

[Alex72 1]

Didnt read everyhing here but another tips for ArmA is to change around the settings (video settings in ArmA). ArmA to my experience and many friends is that it doesnt play well with using only the LOW, NORMAL, HIGH button that sets every setting. Take your time and change them all separately.

And also dont think the viewdistance can be set to max and have a full war.

I just got a newer system and was a bit disapointed in the beginning. It ran worse than my 1ghz lower system. But now 2 days later i play without lag anywhere. This after a lot of testing with different settings in ArmA.

Anyway, just a small tips on the way. Hope you get it sorted.

Alex

[DutchNeon 0]

I'm not sure if my Vsync is actually off in ArmA. I followed the steps to turn Vsync off, but it seems my FPS is still capped to my Screen's Refresh Rate (75hz). I have had most CCC settings on AppPreferences already, and I'm running the latest driver for my HD4870.

I'm running ArmA on a 19" LCD screen, with 1280 X 1024. I doubt 512mb of Video RAM is too little. I have already tried settings with a low View Distance (1k, 2k, 2.5k), but I still tend to get low FPS with it, including normal to low settings next to it.

I have already tried changing the settings since the beginning (after problems with max settings) Alex. I don't expect to have a full war, but I already get FPS problems with small gunfights, like the first mission of Queen's Gambit.

[Yoma 0]

I'm running ArmA on a 19" LCD screen, with 1280 X 1024. I doubt 512mb of Video RAM is too little. I have already tried settings with a low View Distance (1k, 2k, 2.5k), but I still tend to get low FPS with it, including normal to low settings next to it.

-A viewdistance of 2-2.5 K is NOT LOW(it's NORMAL-Medium High)

-Instead of guessing you still have VGA Ram left: look for a tool that can TELL you if you do. Trust me: Arma needs more VGA ram then 512 if you want all the eyecandy.

-Be sure to set terrain details on low (so you dont get the laggy grass stuff),object detail to normal, textures to normal , shaders to high,shadows to high.

-Have you measured your fps? What framerates do you get?

Allso framerates in Arma can vastly vary between actual ingame situations, loads of AI sucks away framerates as much as loads of objects do.

[DutchNeon 0]

I thought 2-2.5K view distance was pretty low, although I would still get bad FPS with it.

I will try your setting with low terrain detail, and measure the FPS.

As to explain what I said about the VRAM; One of my classmates in College has a RIG close to mine (same CPU and mobo), but he has a 8800GT 512 MB. He is able to run ArmA on high to max settings, including a high view distance (6k+), with decent FPS.

[desertjedi 3]

Quote[/b] ]but he has a 8800GT 512 MB. He is able to run ArmA on high to max settings, including a high view distance (6k+), with decent FPS.

Yeah, I was just about to post that I ran Arma on an 8800GTS 512 with about a 3-3.5k VD and it ran great. Settings on med to med-high.

At one point I even ran Arma (for a very short time) on an X1950XT (256MB VRAM) with a oc'ed E2180 cpu (not that powerful) and was impressed with the frame rates with settings on Low to Med most likely.

It's hard to believe that a killer card like the HD4870 (even with only 512MB VRAM) would not do well with ArmA. I'd love to see what that card would do with my E8500 running at 4.2Ghz. I'm just wondering if your cpu/platform is holding that card back.

VRAM aside, the HD4870 is supposed to be on a par (or better) than my GTX 260 (old model). And my GTX 260 devours ArmA.

[DutchNeon 0]

Well, from information in certain topics on this forum and on other websites, a lot of people seem to get poor FPS with the newest Ati graphics cards (HD4870x2, HD4870, HD4850, HD4830).

[Yoma 0]

I thought 2-2.5K view distance was pretty low, although I would still get bad FPS with it.

I will try your setting with low terrain detail, and measure the FPS.

As to explain what I said about the VRAM; One of my classmates in College has a RIG close to mine (same CPU and mobo), but he has a 8800GT 512 MB. He is able to run ArmA on high to max settings, including a high view distance (6k+), with decent FPS.

Have you actually SEEN this?

I cannot believe a 8800 GT with 512 MB can run arma decently on all high/max settings at 6K+ distances.

Put him in one of the more crowded east towns and have him show you his fps in say, a domination map.

I don't think the game runs particularly bad with 4780's (i heard some good opnions on it), allthough i cannot really tell as i have a 8800GTX.

[Grodin 0]

There's some problem with ArmA and the latest ATI cards that the developers are working on for the final release of the 1.15 patch. In the mean time, try searching Radeon 4870, you should find a few pages where possible solutions have been suggested before.

Source?

Im very much interested. I Upgraded my 280GTX to 4870X2 just to find out it was a downgrade for arma.

While all other games gained great FPS increases, from 40 to 60 fps, arma is the opposite, my fps went from 60 down to 40

[kklownboy 43]

There's some problem with ArmA and the latest ATI cards that the developers are working on for the final release of the 1.15 patch. In the mean time, try searching Radeon 4870, you should find a few pages where possible solutions have been suggested before.

Source?

Im very much interested. I Upgraded my 280GTX to 4870X2 just to find out it was a downgrade for arma.

While all other games gained great FPS increases, from 40 to 60 fps, arma is the opposite, my fps went from 60 down to 40

You have renamed your ARMA.exe? (crysis.exe works for me).

Set AA and AF to "application settings", Cat AI to Standard, in the ATI control panel. 9.2 drivers.

[slayertom 0]

I just buy a 4870 512 mb and arma run worst than with my old 8800 GT 512 mb with the same graphical setting

The strange thing is when i turn all graphical setting to very low i just have 10 fps diference with all in very high but the game is unplayable with all setting (it s move between 10 and 30 fps).

I try to delete arma directory (local setting, my documents, etc), i try to reinsall the games too, i try with or without mod, try to change options in ATI control center, etc etc but nothing change the fact i can t play in good condition to the game.

I have better perf on all other games i test (men of war, crysis, company of heroes, down of war 2, X3 terran conflict, left for dead, world in conflict).

Now i m fuck and i have to wait 1.15 final update or arma 2 for playing again to one of my favourite game

Believe me if you want continu to play armed assault, don t buy a 4870.

[Nicholas 5]

Quite odd...  I have a ATI Sapphire x1950 PRO GFX card with 512MB VRam, and a AMD Athlon 3800+ CPU not overclocked which runs at 2ghz i believe.  I have 2GB ram, my computer is 3 years old too!  I run ArmA on "Very High" with view distance set to 3k, and it runs perfectly with no lag until I get too many AI in my view.  Yet i can still handle it, it only drops like 10-20FPS from a 35-50FPS.  Running XP too.  I just ordered a new computer now im scared of this problem.  I knwo i won't be able to run it all on high with max view distance, i still can't run OFP at max view distance without it crashing!  But my new comp is gonna be with Raedon 4870HD with 1GB VRam, 4GB ram, and a AMD Phenom.

[Naku 0]

I just buy a 4870 512 mb and arma run worst than with my old 8800 GT 512 mb with the same graphical setting

The strange thing is when i turn all graphical setting to very low i just have 10  fps diference with all in very high but the game is unplayable with all setting (it s move between 10 and 30 fps).

I try to delete arma directory (local setting, my documents, etc), i try to reinsall the games too, i try with or without mod, try to change options in ATI control center, etc etc but nothing change the fact i can t play in good condition to the game.

I have better perf on all other games i test (men of war, crysis, company of heroes, down of war 2, X3 terran conflict, left for dead, world in conflict).

Now i m fuck and i have to wait 1.15 final update or arma 2 for playing again to one of my favourite game

Believe me if you want continu to play armed assault, don t buy a 4870.

I'll have 4870 and I'm not having any problems here. I can put all settings to max and I still getting about 30-40fps average. I think that 4870 is very good card for Arma

[Yoma 0]

I'll have 4870 and I'm not having any problems here. I can put all settings to max and I still getting about 30-40fps average. I think that 4870 is very good card for Arma  

Is it the 1024MB version or the 512MB version?