Poor performance...

[bangtail 0]

timelife of cpu is about 40 50 years. degrade this to 10 , i still don't see the problem ...

As I've said, it's your choice how you run your hardware. 85-90 isn't good for the i7 CPU over long periods of time (90% of the Tjmax of any CPU is bad over long periods of time).

You can keep telling yourself that it's OK, the fact is, it isn't.

Again, it also contributes to the overall temperature inside the case.

Eth

@ Ice-RAVER - One of my friends insists on running his 940 at 3.8 on stock cooling, that is why his CPU gets so hot. I've tried to tell him that it's not good but he thinks he knows better :rolleyes:

Edited August 18, 2009 by BangTail

[ICE-Raver 10]

As I've said, it's your choice how you run your hardware. 85-90 isn't good for the i7 CPU over long periods of time (90% of the Tjmax of any CPU is bad over long periods of time).

You can keep telling yourself that it's OK, the fact is, it isn't.

Again, it also contributes to the overall temperature inside the case.

Eth

@ Ice-RAVER - One of my friends insists on running his 940 at 3.8 on stock cooling, that is why his CPU gets so hot. I've tried to tell him that it's not good but he thinks he knows better :rolleyes:

The stock cooler is garbage. I am very surprised he hasn't ruined his CPU already running that speed with it.

[bangtail 0]

The stock cooler is garbage. I am very surprised he hasn't ruined his CPU already running that speed with it.

It's not garbage if you don't OC. It is garbage if you do.

It's not rated for any OCing whatsoever and it's unwise to use it if you plan to OC..

I had the stock cooling on my 975 (@ stock) until a few weeks ago and it was fine. When I decided to OC, I bought and installed the H50. My 975 is back to stock because I simply don't need to OC, but I left the H50 on ;)

Eth

Edited August 18, 2009 by BangTail

[su27 0]

Damn, I have pretty good rig - C2D 3GHz, GTX260, 4GB RAM, I can run most games in 1680x1050 with high settings and full AF, sometimes with 2x or 4x AA.

With A2, everything on low or disabled I'm getting 10-20fps in Chernogorsk.

Don't tell me there is something wrong with my computer...

[ICE-Raver 10]

It's not garbage if you don't OC. It is garbage if you do.

Yea, that's what I meant.

[Silentace07 10]

Agreed.

I have:

Amd Athlon 64 x2 5200+ 2.7 oc'd to 2.98ghz

Nvidia GTS 250

4g DDR2

windows 7 64bit

I know my computer isnt extremely high end, but im able to run any game I throw at it, except Arma II. I was close to upgrading my cpu to a 3.0 quad but it just seems ridiculous at this point. Its simply not worth it.

Im starting to wonder if any patch will help optimize this game, or am I waiting for something that will never happen?

[kklownboy 43]

Damn, I have pretty good rig - C2D 3GHz, GTX260, 4GB RAM, I can run most games in 1680x1050 with high settings and full AF, sometimes with 2x or 4x AA.

With A2, everything on low or disabled I'm getting 10-20fps in Chernogorsk.

Don't tell me there is something wrong with my computer...

Nothing is wrong with your computer.Its just not beefy enough to use that rez..OR you have some lil issues that isnt found out yet (maybe Vysnc to off, VeiwDistance?)).

If you can play(here it comes) "Crysis" at 4aa and VH settings and get over 30fps,the you would get higher frames in the city. Or if Crysis had a town the size of Chernogorsk (that would be cool)you would be getting 10 to 20fps on low... So no A2 is much more than other games, by alot.. This game likes a GB of vram at minimum, 2GB is better.. your card is under a GB or over 1.5GB, and if under your just missing the (IMO) minimum to play at 1600/1200. And then we can only hope Bis makes performance patch.

[Silentace07 10]

Actually my card ( i know you are talking to him ) has 1gb of vram yet it doesnt seem to affect anything.

My specs are close to his and yet I cant get more than 27fps with all the tweaks on the planet during campaign, regardless of where.

The game is, no question, unoptimized. The engine is a nicely polished (on the outside) turd. Regardless of what you do to tweak it, its still a turd.

[Karhis 10]

My specs are close to his and yet I cant get more than 27fps with all the tweaks on the planet during campaign, regardless of where.

Does this happen on all campaign missions or just on some specific ones? Large missions with lots of AI (like "Razor Two" I used as an example) require a LOT of CPU power. With my Quad Core Q9450 @ 3,2 GHz it is only barely playable.

Played around with the editor today. It is easy way to see how much processing power this game potentially needs. Start by setting only yourself in the map and run the mission. It should run pretty fluidly. If not, adjust details and resolution.

After that, add some AI squads and watch the FPS go down. I understand that with hundreds of AI soldiers this game brings any machine to its knees - and that is logical. But what I fail to understand is why the campaign (or some missions in it) is designed so that it is only barely playable with decent quad core processor (at least for me).

[Slain 10]

People keep thinking this game is CPU limited but neither my graphics or CPU hit 100% usage overclocking doesn't seem to help a bit. Theres some other issue at play here that is out of our hands until they can fix this...I'm about burnt out on fussing with settings/drivers etc. Guess I'll just have to live with 22FPS until they can patch.

My "guess" is that it is more of a memory issue (2gb limit etc)

[GunSlingerAUS 10]

Quick note guys - a CPU is a VERY complicated piece of technology. Folks like to think of CPUs as a garden hose - if it's running at 100%, the hose is full of water and is being fully utilised. Yet that analogy is far too simplistic for these intricate devices. There could be one bottleneck within the CPU's architecture that is limiting it, and is running at full capacity, yet the overall CPU capacity will still appear to be running at 50%.

[Karhis 10]

Quick note guys - a CPU is a VERY complicated piece of technology. Folks like to think of CPUs as a garden hose - if it's running at 100%, the hose is full of water and is being fully utilised. Yet that analogy is far too simplistic for these intricate devices. There could be one bottleneck within the CPU's architecture that is limiting it, and is running at full capacity, yet the overall CPU capacity will still appear to be running at 50%.

This is a really good point, something I've considered myself as well. Maybe the CPU is bottlenecked in some parts and therefore unable to reach its full potential (100% CPU load in task manager graphs). And with multicore systems and applications it becomes even more complicated.

But I guess this is where the optimization of applications should kick in to avoid such bottlenecks. To what extent it can be done, I don't know.

I have sort of accepted that my CPU just isn't powerful enough for some missions in the game and there is nothing I can do about it but to wait for the performance to increase in future patches (hopefully).

[Karhis 10]

Got Windows 7 Professional x64 (Build 7600) today from Microsoft Academic Alliance program and I installed it on my other hard drive to see whether ArmA2 performs better like many have stated on these forums.

I once again briefly played the mission Razor Two and the FPS did increase about 5 fps. ArmaMark score went up 300 points. The game does feel smoother to play. I'm actually pretty happy with it.

Of course this is a clean install of Windows 7 versus half-a-year old Vista installation, don't know how much that affects.

[Masterfragg 10]

Quick note guys - a CPU is a VERY complicated piece of technology. Folks like to think of CPUs as a garden hose - if it's running at 100%, the hose is full of water and is being fully utilised. Yet that analogy is far too simplistic for these intricate devices. There could be one bottleneck within the CPU's architecture that is limiting it, and is running at full capacity, yet the overall CPU capacity will still appear to be running at 50%.

You are very correct Gunslinger the CPU is a very complex chip.

But lets not pretend that this is a CPU bottle neck this is strictly a game engine issue and we in the Armaholic Optimization thread have more than enough evidence to back this up now including RAM optimization problems, CPU optimization problems with CPU thread problems and a major issue of lack of page file support within the engine.

So even though you are 100% right about the CPU, lets not put that in the way of blasting BIS until they fix it :P

Although I do urge people NOT to overclock their hardware for this game, your efforts would be better suited to sitting here and either

1) Trying to find some other solution (even though that is hugely unlikely)

2) Just keep posting and complaining until BIS stop working on the stand alone expansion to Arma 2 and get their act together!

Lets not hide from the fact that BIS have still to give a statement on these problems.

Hell, no one on the BIS development staff have even confirmed these issues have they?

How about giving the developers system specs to us? and what settings they run at? that'd open some options to us!

And considering it's US that are determined to fix this game and not them I think we deserve it.

In fact...I'm starting a thread now!

[Rogue_Trooper 10]

2) Just keep posting and complaining until BIS stop working on the stand alone expansion to Arma 2 and get their act together!

And do you really think there listening:confused:

[Masterfragg 10]

And do you really think there listening:confused:

Course not lol but I don't think you sensed the sarcastic nature of #2 :P

I should stop the use of sarcasm online it's impossible to sense in test lol

[GunSlingerAUS 10]

The devs recently mentioned that they're looking at performance in urban areas in 1.04. While it doesn't mean our woes will be solved, this news is at least better than nothing...