Resolutions make no difference to my frame rate?

[Jackdaniels 10]

Can anyone here explain to me why changing my resolution has no effect on my frame rate? I have the game set at 1920 x 1200 which is my Lcd's native resolution, but If I set my resolution to a very low setting my frame rate remains just the same.

Windows Vista 32 bit, but also tried windows 7 with same result.

Asus crosshair motherboard.

Amd64 x 2 dual core 6400+ 3.21 Ghz.

Geforce 260 Gtx.

monitor 26" IIyama.

4gig Ram.

Audigy gamer soundcard.

HardDrive, Western Digital 600GB.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Jackdaniels

[Murklor 10]

Its just a show that your CPU is choking you... If its good enough fps at 19x12, be happy with that. At least its better than having poor fps at very low settings and getting even worse at higher ;)

[Jackdaniels 10]

Its just a show that your CPU is choking you... If its good enough fps at 19x12, be happy with that. At least its better than having poor fps at very low settings and getting even worse at higher ;)

It's just I have lost count of the number of people on these forums that say increasing your resolution leads to a lower frame rate. Why do they say these things when in my case the fps remain just the same? There are that many people saying that many different things on this forum that it's hard to work out the good advice from the bad.

[Steakslim 1]

Not sure on a solution to your problem, mate. I had the same issue with Vista but luckly Win7 fixed it for me. Hopefully whenever patch 1.03 comes out, it'll resolve most of everyone's performance issues in some form another. I don't think anyone really knows the definitive cause of the performance issues with the game other than...the game itself needs optimised badly, even if you don't have any issues, a great many do and they are waiting on an official fix.

[MaXyM 10]

I can confirm, had the same issue.

I have the same fps, no matter what resolution I set, or event what FSAA/AA I set. Of course it applies for single scene. Different scenes have diffrent fps.

Looks like CPU/memory/system bottleneck. However don't think so our configs are really weak.

Mine is:

C2D 6400 @ 2.6GHz

Abit C5KC, 4GB RAM@900

8800 GTS/320MB (2GB SYS)

[OUT FOX EM 10]

When you get the same framerate at multiple resolutions then it's almost always a CPU bottleneck. Surely that can't come as too big of a surprise to you though, considering that your processor is aging and ArmA II relies heavily on the processor.

[nuggetz 0]

I still think that Arma needs some tweaks and hopefully we see a patch before Christmas but generally if your FPS doesn't change with resolution then the CPU is the bottleneck. Since you have a better card than me, try upping the graphics to at least get more eye candy at that resolution.

[Jackdaniels 10]

Why is my CPU a bottleneck? I do believe the "Amd64 x 2 dual core 6400+ 3.21 GHz," the fastest dual core out there? And on the back of the Arma 2 box, under optimal requrements, it says: "Amd athlon 64 x2 4400+ or faster." Also, I heard that Arma 2 doesn't really use the quad core like you think it does - But ok, I am willing to go and get a different cpu, so which one would you recommend? Like I said already, I believe I have the fastest dual core already, so are we talking quad core here?

Here is a link on all the CPU's my motherboard can take and it's listed under CPU support > http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=9s5xj9DAuUWX35gT

Thanks!!

Edited July 22, 2009 by Jackdaniels

[ViperNL 10]

Yes Quadcore. Which one depends on your motherboard though. Which Asus crosshair do you own?

[Bulldogs 10]

I think it may be an issue with amd. The amd duel cores use a lower cache than normal (512mb x 2 if I remember correctly) The amds make up for the small L2 cache by using a large shared memory cache. Unfortunatly many games aren't designed to access shared cache memory easily so you end up playing as if you had only 1mb of L2 cache.

The more recent intel duel cores operate on at least 4mb L2, where the older duel cores are around 2mb.

I could be wrong but I've noticed that many people using a CPU with a smaller L2 cache have much worse performance.

---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

I should add something about the Arma engine as a lot of people seem confused as to why game "x" doesn't use so much CPU but Arma 2 does.

Basically with games like Crysis/CoD4, we're dealing with linear worlds (even if they create a non-linear illusion). Basically the way these games, and most others, work is like this :

You start in an empty world. You walk along and approach a village. As you get close enough to the village then AI begin to spawn, but when you move away from the village then the AI vanish. This way the world only gives you what you need to see, so as not to put too much pressure on your CPU.

With open ended worlds it's not as simple, but close to it. An example would be Far Cry 2. Effectively you can go wherever you like and there'll always be enemies there to greet you, but effectively they act the same. The world is empty until you approach where the enemies are, then and only then do they come into existence. You'll notice this in Far Cry 2 when you clear a guard post, then move about 100m away from it then come back and every guard there has miraculously come back from the dead.

Arma 2, on the other hand, works on the premise that if the enemy is there, then they always were there. This means that while you are doing your own little thing, there's hundreds of AI off doing their own thing. This is put into place so things in the campaign can happen like they do, for instance, AI actually find and clear camps and bases, you can link up with squads that have been searching the map for hours.

So what you are looking at is taking something that happens in Crysis or Far Cry 2 and multiplying it by at least 10, that's bound to put a strain on any CPU, but the reason this doesn't effect your GPU (graphics card) is that your GPU is only rendering what you see (Field Of Vision), this being evident that if you spin around fast enough you'll see a FPS drop, same as if you increase your view distance, but while your Graphics Card is handling that little screen in front of you, your CPU is handling an entire world.

[Jackdaniels 10]

I think it may be an issue with amd. The amd duel cores use a lower cache than normal (512mb x 2 if I remember correctly) The amds make up for the small L2 cache by using a large shared memory cache. Unfortunatly many games aren't designed to access shared cache memory easily so you end up playing as if you had only 1mb of L2 cache.

The more recent intel duel cores operate on at least 4mb L2, where the older duel cores are around 2mb.

I could be wrong but I've noticed that many people using a CPU with a smaller L2 cache have much worse performance.

Would it help if I got a quad core then, or does what you are saying apply to all Amd CPU's?

ViperNL - My motherboard is in that link I already posted > http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=9s5xj9DAuUWX35gT

Edited July 22, 2009 by Jackdaniels

[Bulldogs 10]

Quad Cores have a higher cache so it should help.

[Jackdaniels 10]

Quad Cores have a higher cache so it should help.

You seem to know what you are talking about and for me this makes the game alot worse then I first thought. How can it be a very good selling point for this game, if we all need quad cores to have any hope of playing this at a reasonable pace? Not many games out there are taken advantage of the quad cores yet and for that reason not alot of people have purchased them.

I would also bring into question what is written on the back of this games box, it states "AMD Athlon 64x2 4400+," as been an "Optimal Requirement!" So why write this on the back of the box when the game plays like a pile of crap with these specs? Isn't that a bit like someone telling you a car is in good condition, when he knows for a fact the engine is half knackered.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Jackdaniels

[Herbal Influence 10]

Don't forget there are many happy low end hardware users out there.

The game was playable to me with AMD X2 3800+, but indeed it is much more fun with higher to highest settings I can do now with AMD X2 6000+ (about a 60 Euros).

Your AMD 6400 should have 1024 L2-Cache for absolutely the most AMD 6000 do have. Mine is from that minor fraction ("Brisbane") and has only 512 MB L2-Cache but it works absolutely fine for me.

For AMD processors and my fraps take a look here

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=77206

Edited July 22, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[MaXyM 10]

Arma 2, on the other hand, works on the premise that if the enemy is there, then they always were there. This means that while you are doing your own little thing, there's hundreds of AI off doing their own thing. This is put into place so things in the campaign can happen like they do, for instance, AI actually find and clear camps and bases, you can link up with squads that have been searching the map for hours.

So what you are looking at is taking something that happens in Crysis or Far Cry 2 and multiplying it by at least 10, that's bound to put a strain on any CPU, but the reason this doesn't effect your GPU (graphics card) is that your GPU is only rendering what you see (Field Of Vision), this being evident that if you spin around fast enough you'll see a FPS drop, same as if you increase your view distance, but while your Graphics Card is handling that little screen in front of you, your CPU is handling an entire world.

I could agree with you but... You should remember there was OFP, 10 years ago.It also contained an open world with endless activity of all AIs. What about hardware these days? Today we have HW X times more powerful. So.. I don't think, that moving AI on the map is so CPU consuming. More I suspect there are no advanced physics calculation. So in overall ARMA2 should not eat such amount of modern CPU power.

But of course we don;t know details of the game engine. So it is hard to judge for sure.

[Murklor 10]

Why is my CPU a bottleneck? I do believe the "Amd64 x 2 dual core 6400+ 3.21 GHz," the fastest dual core out there?

It most certainly is not. The AMD x2 series is antiquated today, no matter how many thousands and plus signs they slap on them.

[Jackdaniels 10]

It most certainly is not. The AMD x2 series is antiquated today, no matter how many thousands and plus signs they slap on them.

Did you read what I said? I said that my Dual core was the quickest one I could get. Please show me another dual core that is quicker then the one I have.

The Amd x 2 series may be getting old, but there isn't really the need for quad cores just yet. Not many games support quad core, so they are just a waste of money in my eyes. They are only good for things like video editing at present, so it's daft to throw vast amounts of money away to play the few games that support it.

Take a look at the following link to see what Suma has to say about this, I don't think the dual core is as dead as you make it out to be> http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=3807

MaXyM - Totally agree with what you say, about Ofp been able to handle the ai with a much lower Cpu back then.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Jackdaniels

[kklownboy 43]

Did you read what I said? I said that my Dual core was the quickest one I could get. Please show me another dual core that is quicker then the one I have.

...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115054

AMD platform, unless using the new 780, 790 chipsets is way off the back.

As for your lack of frame improvement when lowering your resolution..? you have something screwy going on, maybe CPU bottleneck but thats the LAST thing. But since your on a LCD with a fixed refresh rate, you will never get higher than that unless you run vsync off. I guess you may have view distance set really high?. anyways your current CPU is a middle of the pack cpu. a 6000 isnt in the same league as the one i posted, It not always the cpu speed its also the chipset/platform. But still i am not sure why you have so many issues.. hope they get resolved. I get huge frame improvement with lower rez...

[Jackdaniels 10]

KKlownboy - My view distance is set at 1600 and vsync is switched off. Also, I do know that this intel dual core is faster, but I am talking about AMD here. This problem isn't only something I have either, many other people are experiencing the same thing and asking why?

Edited July 22, 2009 by Jackdaniels

[-=seany=- 5]

KKlownboy - My view distance is set at 16000 and vsync is switched off. Also, I do know that this intel dual core is faster, but I am talking about AMD here. This problem isn't only something I have either, many other people are experiencing the same thing and asking why?

I hope you mean 1600...

[Jackdaniels 10]

I hope you mean 1600...

I have very good vision lol. I do indeed mean 1600 :)

[jaundiced 10]

KKlownboy - My view distance is set at 1600 and vsync is switched off. Also, I do know that this intel dual core is faster, but I am talking about AMD here. This problem isn't only something I have either, many other people are experiencing the same thing and asking why?

ignore everyone suggesting its your hardware - they obviously don't understand the issue in the least.

even if you had insufficient hardware there would still be a marked difference in framerate with different render resolutions and settings.

[ginger mcale 11]

Why is my CPU a bottleneck? I do believe the "Amd64 x 2 dual core 6400+ 3.21 GHz," the fastest dual core out there?

Check it out where your CPU is at, at this test:

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

[Jackdaniels 10]

Check it out where your CPU is at, at this test:

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

I will not be paying that price for a Cpu just to get this one game running good. All my other games run perfect, so I won't throw my money at silly things like this. I think Bis should of given a proper account of the "optimal Requirements" for this game, then I wouldn't of purchased it in the first place.

Thankyou for the link, atleast I know where I stand with this game now and I think alot of people will be disappointed. I think some thought like me, that a patch was going to fix this. Maybe I will come back in a few years time when I have purchased one of these intel CPU's on the cheap.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Jackdaniels

[bangtail 0]

I will not be paying that price for a Cpu just to get this one game running good. All my other games run perfect, so I won't throw my money at silly things like this. I think Bis should of given a proper account of the "optimal Requirements" for this game, then I wouldn't of purchased it in the first place.

Thankyou for the link, atleast I know where I stand with this game now. I think alot of people will be disappointed, I think some thought like me, that a patch was going to fix this.Maybe I will come back in a few years time when I have purchased one of these intel CPU's on the cheap.

You pay to play. PC gaming is a fairly expensive hobby. If you prefer to run on older hardware, then you don't get the benefits that newer hardware affords you. Simulations are CPU intensive. Black Shark, LOMAC and FSX are all the same. As I said in another post, the "problem" with A2 is that you can run around with a gun and that attracts people who don't traditionally play sims and expect a constant 150 FPS. What's funnier still is the people who insist on referencing Crysis as the pillar of high FPS gaming. 4 x GPUs (2 x GTX 295) and a 4.00GHz i7 are barely getting it over 50FPS @ 1920 x 1200 with AA/AF enabled.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-295,2123-4.html

As far as all your other games running "perfect", that's great, congratulations.

Eth

PS : I do agree though on the box specs, they are a little "optimistic".

Edited July 22, 2009 by BangTail