Unable to get more than 23fps

[zoog 18]

Hi all,

This are my pc specs (brand new computer):

Phenom II x4 955BE 3.2Ghz

Sapphire HD4890 1GB DDR5

MSI 790GX-G65 MOBO

2x2 GB DDR3 1333mhz Kingston RAM

Windows 7

Latest Ati drivers

With this machine I'm simply unable to squeeze more than 23fps out of the game (unless I'm in the armory in which I can run high to very high with maxed out viewdistance). But as soon as I'm playing the campaign (Manhatten) it's impossible to get more than 22 ~ 23fps. And since my CPU is the fastest Phenom II currently on the market I think it would be pretty strange that that would be the bottleneck during the campaign (AI etc.)

I've tweaked, tried the Armaholic tweaks, tried the scene complexity tweak, tried some other solutions scattered around these forum without any results. Doesn't matter if I run everything on normal or everything on high (no performance loss or boost). Changing the viewdistance between 1200 and 5000 doesn't matter either. Turning AA on or off doesn't do anything either. I get the feeling it somewhere has the rule "don't ever go over 22 ~ 23 fps, no matter what".

Any any ideas why the game runs such a low framerate compared to the machine running it?

[Bulldogs 10]

I read a similar issue here and I think we found a solution but I honestly can't remember right now. Have a look around the forums and I'll have a look myself and let you know if I find anything.

[zoog 18]

Ok thanks, I'll try to look for it too. Was it a similar type of pc / specs (might make it to search for it)?

[thr0tt 12]

Ah bugger, I was looking at upgrading my mobo and gfx card to exactly what you have and I currently get the same FPS as you with my sh!tty rig.

Specs: ASROCK AM2NF3-VSTA | AMD Phenom II x4 955 BE 3.2GHz | Sapphire HD3850 AGP (Latest Cats) CCC | Corsair - TWIN2X4096-6400C5 4 GB |Samsung 2232BW 22" LCD | X-Fi Ultimate Gamer (5.1) | LiteOn DH20A4P DVD-RW | Saitek Cyborg Evo Joystick | M$ Windows XP Pro SP3

Sounds like an upgrade is not whats needed...

[BaseJumper 10]

Makes you wonder what kind of machine Bohemia Interactive Studios, were testing ARMA 2 on .... :eek:

A supercomputer perhaps ? :p

Hey BIS ! I want to know how I can get 120 Frames-per-second on ARMA 2 !

Give us a recommendation computer will you ?

[pauliesss 2]

I have similiar problem, I am still stuck on 23-27 FPS, no matter if I use VERY HIGH or VERY LOW...:(

[kklownboy 43]

Hi all,

playing the campaign (Manhatten) it's impossible to get more than 22 ~ 23fps. And since my CPU is the fastest Phenom II currently on the market I think it would be pretty strange that that would be the bottleneck during the campaign (AI etc.)

...

Any any ideas why the game runs such a low framerate compared to the machine running it?

well the campaign is like that, playing on MP coopservers with te same amount of enemy AI the frames are much different...

i would not use the campaign for a true FPS of the game.

but your CPU and MB are good, you should be playing at 1400/900 or around that res to get up into the 30s 40s.

to compare, a i7920 at 2.4hz is = to your phenom in this game... maybe a lil faster... odd that that is like that.

BUT Now with the AA setting you can use 100% fill and low or normal AA, is a good IQ to frame setting

[RedRage 0]

Same problem. I get 34-110 during ship panoramic sequence/menu screens, but when i start the mission it does not go above 26 mark (being in area of 19 mostly). For GTX260 SLI and Quad CPU such performance is simply unacceptable.

[kklownboy 43]

Makes you wonder what kind of machine Bohemia Interactive Studios, were testing ARMA 2 on .... :eek:

A supercomputer perhaps ? :p

Hey BIS ! I want to know how I can get 120 Frames-per-second on ARMA 2 !

Give us a recommendation computer will you ?

i can hit 120 when i use 1280/1024 and my refresh is at 120hz.Vsync, Nice 60s on the fail.

these are very playable hardware to display ratios;

mixed settings, 100% fill + AA to even the jaggs out

4980,285gtx= @1400/900 ,good

cf4980,sli285gtx= 1600/1200, can

cfx4870,tri285gtx=1900/1200, in campaign is hard

but the campaign will still hit the 20s and can just bog in some urban parts. Online MP, same amount of AI, seems smoother,more fps.

v64hb

CPU i7-965 @3.8

Mb X58-eclipse (no Nf200)

RAM 6gb 605z

GFX CFX4870x2's

PSU PCPC 850

Display SNY06B0

current set

language="German";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=-4194304;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1792;

Resolution_H=1344;

refresh=120;

Render_W=1792;

Render_H=1344;

FSAA=2;

postFX=1;

HDRPrecision=32;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=2014226176;

nonlocalVRAM=2014226176

anisoFilter=2;

TexQuality=3;

TexMemory=3;

sceneComplexity=300000;

viewDistance=1085.8491;

terrainGrid=25;

Steam "S:\steamapps\common\arma 2\crysis64.exe" -nosplash On a SSD

.DE "C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA 2\crysis.exe" -winxp -nosplash On a HDD

Edited June 28, 2009 by kklownboy

[BaseJumper 10]

i can hit 120 when i use 1280/1024 and my refresh is at 120hz. ati4980,285gtx= @1400/900 great frames butter

2x4980,2x285gtx= 1600/1200, great frames butter,

4x4870,3x285gtx=1900/1200 great frames smooth, but the campaign will still hit the 20s in the urban parts, but on line MP same amount of AI, its all good plays smooth on a good server.

Thank you very much for your input ! :D

Could you share with us your computer configuration please?

I want to get exactly what you have. :)

CPU

Motherboard

RAM

Graphics Cards

Power Supply Unit

LCD/CRT Display model number(and resolution)

Operating System

Thanks !!

[zoog 18]

well the campaign is like that, playing on MP coopservers with te same amount of enemy AI the frames are much different...

i would not use the campaign for a true FPS of the game.

but your CPU and MB are good, you should be playing at 1400/900 or around that res to get up into the 30s 40s.

to compare, a i7920 at 2.4hz is = to your phenom in this game... maybe a lil faster... odd that that is like that.

BUT Now with the AA setting you can use 100% fill and low or normal AA, is a good IQ to frame setting

Why would that be more "true"? :rolleyes: If you're playing the Single Player campaign why on earth would you benchmark in a different mode. I don't think it's really an argument to test the game in MP mode simply because that mode gives you better FPS ;) And all the AI in the campaign should be bottlenecked by the CPU and not the GPU. I don't think that a quad core 3.2 GHz CPU would be the bottleneck unless there is an optimization problem or a problem in the code using this specific processor etc. On paper this machine should run the game fine.

And I'm playing at 1440x900 so I'm using a very reasonable resolution. It's really weird.

[krazypoloc 10]

Yeah I am experiencing the same thing.

Q6600@3.0GHz

4870 1GB

8GB DDR 900

Server 2008 using the -winxp switch

1900x1200 display

Playing at the native rez of 1920x1200

1st mission and most multiplayer maps play around 40-60 FPS which is quite playable.

2nd mission and some multiplayer maps never get over 23 FPS and sometimes drop in the single digits which is nowhere near playable. Seems to be mostly in the cities that I have issues.

Even if I lower everyhting and play on a much lower rez I get the exact same performance than I do with every setting maxed out.

Here is my attempt at making the game run faster which was unsuccessful

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=80000;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1920;

Resolution_H=1200;

refresh=60;

Render_W=1600;

Render_H=1000;

FSAA=0;

postFX=2;

HDRPrecision=0;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=1061224448;

nonlocalVRAM=2140860416;

[kklownboy 43]

Why would that be more "true"? :rolleyes: If you're playing the Single Player campaign why on earth would you benchmark in a different mode...

well the SP is very short, and after three runs of the campaign, time to play MP.(not that that helps the campaign/SP game) the benching was on the hardest/lowest frames in the campaign, and on MP coop same areas lots of enemy AI , no friendly's= better fps.

And all the AI in the campaign should be bottlenecked by the CPU and not the GPU.

yeah, but warfare has lots of mixed AI and runs better in the same spots/urban areas. Maybe the campaign mission scripting is more advanced than typical warefare or coop.

So some IQ sacrifice to get 5 to 10 extra fps is helpfull in the SP/campaign. Its a frame dropper in a few urban areas

I don't think that a quad core 3.2 GHz CPU would be the bottleneck unless there is an optimization problem or a problem in the code using this specific processor etc. On paper this machine should run the game fine.

a small boost to you CPU and RAM may help allot.

And I'm playing at 1440x900 so I'm using a very reasonable resolution. It's really weird.

100%fill ,Normal or LowAA. Try the flag "-cpuCount=2" to test it as a dualCPU.

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Startup_Parameters#Modifications

[Baff1 0]

I suspect it's a streaming issue Zoog.

My suggestion, (and I've yet to try it myself but plan to imminently), is to buy an SSD drive and install ArmA to that.

I suggest that the game lags when it has to load a lot of textures and graphics direct from the harddrive to the game. Streaming. At this point frame rates should radically drop and towns are where I would expect this to occour more.

SSD drives are RAM not harddrives, the access speed is 0.01-0.03 ms as opposed to 5.8-6.1 ms on a mechanical hard drive.

Any old cheap one will do. This will also increase your frame rates for other streaming games loaded onto it, such as World of Warcraft or Crysis.

This won't increase your frame rates overall but only during the streaming moments. The frame rate drop outs. Your peak FPS will be the same, your average FPS will be higher as will your minimum FPS.

Hardware review tests on Crysis have produced increased frame rates of up to 25 depending on the SSD manufacturer (Intel being the best but most expensive by a factor of about double). I intend to pay about £150 (OCZ Vertex) for an upper end 60GB drive, tested to improve Crysis frame rates by 20 during streaming. If nothing else the LODs will fill themselves in much faster.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Baff1

[kklownboy 43]

I suspect it's a streaming issue Zoog.My suggestion, (and I've yet to try it myself but plan to imminently), is to buy an SSD drive and install ArmA to that.

..

I suggest that the game lags when it has to load a lot of textures and graphics direct from the harddrive to the game. Streaming. At this point frame rates should radically drop and towns are where I would expect this to occour more....

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

[W1NDOWL1CKER 10]

I have read somewhere, can't remember where, that there seems to be an issue with ArmA2 when playing on a Phenom II processor. This combination performs much worse than it should when looking at the power of this processor.

EDIT: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/

Quote from that article: AMD's second generation Phenom CPUs are a little problematic though: An X4 955 BE overclocked to 3.5 GHz is 700 MHz (equal 25 percent) faster than an X4 920 (4x 2.8 GHz) but reaches only 1.1 frames per second more than the smaller CPU - thus the fastest Phenom II is still much slower than the C2Q Q9650. When rechecking the system with Cinebench R10 and Far Cry 2 we received the common, plausible results - the overclcoked X4 955 Be was more than 20 percent faster than the X4 920. Therefore we estimate that the abnormal behavior of the Phenom II CPUs is related to an incompatibility of ArmA 2. Possibly this problem (and several others) are fixed with patches.

I hope for you that BIS will fix this soon...

[R3APER 10]

It doesnt matter what set up you have the game seems to run very stodgy in the built up areas locked at 29fps it seems but if you move to the outskirts of the built up area and face with your back to it the frames shoot right up, then turn and face the bulit up area again and they drop to 29fps.

Im running i7 920 at 4.4ghz

evga classified

3 evga gtx 285 ftw edition watercooled

6 gig of dominator gt 2000mhz 7 8 7 20 versions

1200 tt toughpower psu.

SO its definatly something to with how the game is coded

[zoog 18]

Try the flag "-cpuCount=2" to test it as a dualCPU.

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Startup_Parameters#Modifications

Thanks, I'll try that out.

I suspect it's a streaming issue Zoog.

[....]

This won't increase your frame rates overall but only during the streaming moments. The frame rate drop outs. Your peak FPS will be the same, your average FPS will be higher as will your minimum FPS.

The problem is the overall frame rate, so I don't really see why this would fix the issue. Unless I'm missing something :)

I have read somewhere, can't remember where, that there seems to be an issue with ArmA2 when playing on a Phenom II processor. This combination performs much worse than it should when looking at the power of this processor.

EDIT: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/

Man that is some bad news.

[tf_nick 10]

i have a 4870 and q6600 oc'd to 3.0 running at 1680x1050 4gb dominator, vista 64 ultimate

whenever i am in the main menu i get usually around 50fps at high=very high settings, except MSAA disabled. but whenever i am in the campaign it drops to 20-23fps per sec, no matter the settings is very low or very high, i tried lowering the fillrate to 50% and interface still stays at 1680x1050, my fps doesn't go up at all. then this is definitely has to do with my cpu

you know why you guys getting good fps in the carrier or main menu but not in the SP , BECAUSE IT DOEESN"T INVOLVE ANY AI (WHICH IS VERY CPU DEPENDED)!!!

[FartFetish 10]

Man that is some bad news.

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.

[flake 10]

there is something odd going on but im sure the arma guys will sort it out

[Bulldogs 10]

Hopefully, btw, for the server 2008 guy, how do your framerates go in other games, from testing myself under 2008 I always had bad framerates being that server is not designed for games, and being that arma 2 is a resource hog I figured it would struggle on your setup

[daanvs 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.

[Karas 10]

Hello.

It's the AI. For me its like this - AI units active (SP + some MP modes) = 24-30 fps

MP modes w/o AI - 40+ fps.

FIY.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

I'm having the same problems with frame rates. I'm getting 23fps no matter if I go down to 1024 or old school 800x600. I have all the latest updates and think I have a pretty good rig to run this game on. So I'm kind of beating my head against the wall right now. All I can say is thank god for the demo; i'm feeling pretty bad for the people that bought this game to have to go through all this drama.

In addition, you guys (BIS) seriously need to get with the program of quality assurance. This is the reason why people switch to consoles because they are tired of having to spend countless hours figuring out if it's the game, their machine, God joking around or the game just decided not to work for the specific user for poop and giggles.

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