Unable to get more than 23fps

[BaseJumper 10]

I can see the sales pitch coming now...

Dedicated AI card @ $199

Just plug into your PCI slot !

Works just like a dedicated Physics card !

Come 'n' geddit !!! Hurrr eeee Hurrr eeee ....

[nominesine 0]

My game flows very smooth and I was puzzled when I noticed that I only had 20-22 FPS while playing. I don't experience any lag and textures are loading as they should. Hence I don't think FPS measures how smooth the game will look and feel on screen.

To test this further I fired up ArmA 2 and Armed Assault in windowed mode at the same time. Both games dropped heavily performance wise (as expected). The FPS count remained stable around 18-20 during the whole experiment however.

My advice: Don't get hypnotized by the FPS counter.

[flake 10]

I have the exact same problem with my E8500 PCU and GeForce GTX275.. great fps in the menu's, yet when ingame I get abour 22-25.

I tried OC'ing my processor to see if that would make any difference at all, but it stays exactly the same.

gah! i was just about to post the same thing but i have an ATI 4870.

E8500 @ 3.16 = 20 - 26

E8500 @ 3.8 = 20 - 26

even disabled the soundcard, same result lol. low vid settings = same fps! only thing that changes fps is the ingame AA.

Edited June 29, 2009 by flake
added vid card

[Hans Ludwig 0]

My game flows very smooth and I was puzzled when I noticed that I only had 20-22 FPS while playing. I don't experience any lag and textures are loading as they should. Hence I don't think FPS measures how smooth the game will look and feel on screen.

To test this further I fired up ArmA 2 and Armed Assault in windowed mode at the same time. Both games dropped heavily performance wise (as expected). The FPS count remained stable around 18-20 during the whole experiment however.

My advice: Don't get hypnotized by the FPS counter.

After thinking of what you said, which wasn't long, I have to say you might be right about the FPS. If I was getting low FPS, wouldn't I be experiencing lag in-game? Oh, by the way, I used Fraps to check the FPS.

[BaseJumper 10]

Are there any Motherboards that can support two physical CPUs ?

I'm thinking of getting 2 Quad Cores and fitting them in there.

Think it might help in getting higher framerates ?

@kklownboy

Thanks for your system specs!

Will be very useful in my next hardware upgrade :D

TYVM !

[zoog 18]

My advice: Don't get hypnotized by the FPS counter.

It's a good advice, but when it drops to 19 or lower (even 14 ~ 15) in urban areas you will definitely feel that the game will stutter. I'm really not an FPS junkie, in fact this is the first time I use FRAPS to measure fps simply because I experienced bad performance while playing the game.

You're telling me. I just ordered a Phenom II 3Ghz black edition which I plan to OC to 3.4Ghz to PLAY THIS GAME.

I feel ya. I bought this complete new machine based on the Phenom II worth $950,- to play ArmA II :(

[Baff1 0]

Are there any Motherboards that can support two physical CPUs ?

I'm thinking of getting 2 Quad Cores and fitting them in there.

Think it might help in getting higher framerates ?

@kklownboy

Thanks for your system specs!

Will be very useful in my next hardware upgrade :D

TYVM !

I suspect not, none of my 4 cores are running at 100% at any time during the demo.

Try playing those missions people are complaining about with the resource monitor running and see if you are maxxing any of your cores out.

If not, it's not your CPU.

Either way the AI are all running off the same dedicated core. Quad core or dual core, the AI only use a single core, so get the chip with the fastest core.

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 PM ----------

Can be a catastrophic when the game writes to it self.It hasnet yet in ARMA2, but it has in ARMA1, four sec frame count........nice four second a frame slide show! this is with MLC and evil JM! on a intel10

Thanks for the tip, am I right in thinking it only writes during savegames?

I don't really mind it pausing while it saves so much if it gains me the FPS on all the constant loads. I can't afford SSC but I'm planning on a Samsung MLC controller. It should still have an ugly write speed I expect.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Baff1

[Bulldogs 10]

Now I'm going to get my drinky drink on so I can relax before I send my pc flying into orbit.

Best feature of a PC... Drag and Drop, only issue is finding a high enough building.

[KillerHawk 10]

Well i have the same problem to, im running on an E8500 @ 3.16 Ghz and an XFX Radeon 4870 1GB DDR5, and im not getting any higher than 24fps in campaign mode. So i tried some things, i OC my GPU, that didn't work. So i had my Catalyst Control Center open on my second screen, and what i see now, is that the Activity, is NEVER 100%, it stays at like 60-70%. So thats my why i cant get higher as 24fps i suppose.

I think the 4870 cards just doesn't run well with Arma 2, i hope they can fix this, or give an good solution!:(

[zoog 18]

Ok, so I've been doing some performance testing, below are some screens of the CPU usage history in Windows 7 in different tests (the menu, driving in mission Manhatten (no enemy/friendly units visible and driving in the Armory).

The regular in game menu ~70 FPS

Driving around during Manhatten mission in woods/plains ~ 21/22 FPS

Driving into FOB Manhatten ~ 20 FPS

Driving around in the Armory Chernarus world ~ 50-65 FPS

It seems that the processor is constantly used, but in the Armory it gives normal FPS, in the campaign mission it doesn't while the usage is more or less the same. Why would this be the case? What is happening here??

[Bulldogs 10]

I can't confirm it myself as I've never had the issue but some people are claiming that enabling Anistrophic filtering (possibly putting it to very high) fixes the problem.

I could understand it fixing the issue with x2/dual cards as it would force xfire/sli access but I'm not sure how it will fair with a single GPU.

[Herr_kalashnikov 10]

I can't confirm it myself as I've never had the issue ....

The point people are trying to make is that everyone is having this problem. Even if u get a quad Xenon CPU's and 4x of the fastest GPU u will still see the same results.

Perosnaly i tried on 640x480 resolution and scene complexity on 5000 every setting on low or lower. Still the same problems playing most missions and the campaign.

I can understand that AI is a strain on the CPu but then again why is has a MP game the same performance? I think on dedicated servers the AI calculations are made server side and only the results are transmitted to the clients.

[Bulldogs 10]

I'm guessing it has to do with scene complexity.. maybe. I don't know for sure as I don't get the problem and I've got a fairly low end system by todays standards.

[Herr_kalashnikov 10]

So are u saying that u have 30+ fps on a campaign mission? If so could u post you're specs please.

[zoog 18]

The point people are trying to make is that everyone is having this problem. Even if u get a quad Xenon CPU's and 4x of the fastest GPU u will still see the same results.

EXACTLY

No matter what we try, the performance is "capped" for some reason.

[Ruckus 0]

I have the exact same problem with my E8500 PCU and GeForce GTX275.. great fps in the menu's, yet when ingame I get abour 22-25.

I tried OC'ing my processor to see if that would make any difference at all, but it stays exactly the same.

I also have a E8500 with 4gig memory and a 9600GT 512mb vid card. I'm running windows 7. I overclocked to 4ghz and I didn't really gain much in the way of FPS. The 9600GT isn't a really good card by todays standard, but I wouldn't have guessed that it was the culprit for my less than expected FPS.

[Bulldogs 10]

I get 35-45 on campaign missions

e7300

9800gt

4gb ram

etc etc

running generally on high settings, shadows on normal, post processing on low, 1400 view distance, no AA, no AF)

If I change those stats around I can get up to 70fps, 55 in dense areas.

[Henry Rollins 10]

CPU i7 Core -965 @3.2 Liquid Cooled

2X Nvidia GTX 295's SLI

Asus WS Revolution

OCZ DDR3 6GB - 1600 Mhz Platinum XTC

OCZ Solid State HD

Vista 64

Real - 120hz Samsung Monitor

Even with this monster rig I get lag, "Very High" settings are not usable. How is that possible???

[Herr_kalashnikov 10]

I get 35-45 on campaign missions

e7300

9800gt

4gb ram

etc etc

running generally on high settings, shadows on normal, post processing on low, 1400 view distance, no AA, no AF)

If I change those stats around I can get up to 70fps, 55 in dense areas.

Oh my there is hope :)

Can u please tell what kind of release u have? As in a steam version (EU/US) or a boxed 505 version or maybe a other version.

[WarDog64 10]

i'm on XP pro, with 186.18 i'm running the game @ 1280x1024 normal AA high AF, shadows on high. draw distance 3km. shadows on high, and everything else on very high. oh i have post processing off!

on the campain missions im getting between 30-45 fps. sofar it hasnt dropped below 30fps ...

E8500 @ 4.1

2x eVGA 8800GTS 640mb @ 600/1500/900

eVGA 680i mainboard

PC2 8500 4GB

Realtek HD onboard audio

186.18 with eVGA SLi driver enhancement

750 Corsair PS

Win XP Pro 32 bit SP3

i wish i could run it at 1600x1200 but i drop into the low twenties :( i guess its alright. im guessing some optimized drivers and a patch or two might improve performance ...

[zoog 18]

People, let's try to keep this about the magical FPS cap in the mid 20 FPS area and not about other PC spec discussion or general FPS problems with the game.

There are enough other threads about general PC specifications and ArmA II performance. Otherwise this topic gets cluttered with irrelevant info for the topic at hand.

[jaundiced 10]

hi all, glad (and somewhat disappointed) that others are having the same issue. it drove me nuts yesterday and ate up the majority of my sunday just trying to make sense of it.

System:

AMDFX2 64 6000+ (2x 3.2)

BFG 8800GTX 768mb (186.18, also tried rollbacks all the way to 182.50)

Vista x64

4g OCZ ram

Description:

I have NO performance increase by dropping all settings & going to the lowest resolution. No matter what I do I always get 20-22fps. From 1680x1050 all high / very high (post process off) --> lowest resolution, lowest settings, no post process I get 20-22fps.

It makes NO sense whatsoever. It's as if the settings bear no impact on performance, but obviously impact the visual quality and pixels being rendered.

baffled. hoping for a quick fix - because this game is phenomenal from what i've been able to play :)

Edited June 29, 2009 by jaundiced

[Bulldogs 10]

Currently running the German boxed copy without issues, I'll soon have the US steam (Aus) version so if the cap starts appearing when that comes up then I'll let you know.

[jaundiced 10]

After thinking of what you said, which wasn't long, I have to say you might be right about the FPS. If I was getting low FPS, wouldn't I be experiencing lag in-game? Oh, by the way, I used Fraps to check the FPS.

i also used fraps.

is it possible fraps just doesn't like arma 2?

[POTS 0]

Guys, I think this might be a loop scripting error. Ever tried creating a loop that cycled too fast? Try it and you'll know what I mean. Dont have a delay in the loop and it will crash. Have a .5 - 1 second delay and you'll notice no performance difference. Have a small enough decimal and you can cap the frames really low.