Low FPS

[Relemar 10]

I was using the FPS Helper modification which got me to 50+ fps, mostly around 50 ish but for multiplayer, most servers disallow it so i have been playing german servers for the past week or so... not good because i dont speak germany

i have a Q6600 2.4 GHz, 4GB RAM 1066 mhz and a 9800GTX+ (overclocked)

my system should be able to run this game just fine, i dont see what the problem is.

ive got all settings on 'Normal/Medium' whatever it is, res is 1280x1024, low Anti-Aliasian

i know my pc aint super anymore, but cmon 23 fps.....

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Wait for another 3-4 patches or "Operation ".

ArmA2 will run with higher fps.

MfG Lee

[Tankbuster 1733]

How long have you been waiting to use that smiley? :D

[mils 10]

Wait for another 3-4 patches or "Operation ".

ArmA2 will run with higher fps.

MfG Lee

ahaha

I have the same pc setup mate and I only get 24 fps WITH fpshelper! :(

[That guy 10]

note that ArmA2's recommended specs are a 2.8 dual core (or quad), you have a 2.4

unfortunately this game is very inhumane to processors :p

[-X- Charlie 0]

Overclock, overclock, overclock.

Exactly the same rig, apart from a GTX260, with my Q6600 @ 3.0Ghz. Trundles along happily, never really lower than 30FPS and genereally 40FPS+ in most situations.

ArmA2 is a highly CPU intensive game. Take heed of this.

[koroush47 10]

note that ArmA2's recommended specs are a 2.8 dual core (or quad), you have a 2.4

unfortunately this game is very inhumane to processors :p

I have a 2.83 quad... I also get around 25 26 FPS while a tiny town.

It's the game, not the computers.

[Relemar 10]

A quad has more cores, therefore can process more data which should result in better performance. A 2.4 quad, beats a 2.4 Dual.

[koroush47 10]

a quad has more cores, therefore can process more data which should result in better performance. A 2.4 quad, beats a 2.4 dual.

its the game not the computers

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

I have mostly the same rig, but I'm overclocked, have striped Raid 0 drives, no additional apps/crap running in background. But I'm at 2.6 before overclock and pulling 2.8 with. WITHOUT FPS helper I'm pulling 30-35 fps and is quite playable on Normal to High settings. I would check your BIOS flash, push your graphics card, run Gamebooster or AMD Fusion, run it on XP if you can.

The difference between running vista 64 and xp32 was about a 10fps jump.

---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 PM ----------

A quad has more cores, therefore can process more data which should result in better performance. A 2.4 quad, beats a 2.4 Dual.

Quad vs. Dual means nothing in reference to Arma2. The game is optimized for Dual Core with a minimal recommended speed of 2.8Ghz. It's also a matter of throughput, not how many cores you have.

Typically Quad cores run at a lower speed than Dual cores. The game was created and compiled for Dual cores, but since the Duals run faster, the dual core owners are reporting better performances than the Quad peeps. Now, the really HIGH END Quads do well, because they have a higher clock. But there is somewhat of a void for the slower quad machines.

Clock rate and hard drive throughput is king in Arma2.

[Llauma 0]

My game runs perfectly with everything on high/highest with my quad core and radeon hd 4890. When switching to an older geforce 8600 the game becomes unplayable even of very low settings.

Edit:Oops

Edited August 29, 2009 by Llauma

[Relemar 10]

Luhgnut;1424169']I have mostly the same rig' date=' but I'm overclocked, have striped Raid 0 drives, no additional apps/crap running in background. But I'm at 2.6 before overclock and pulling 2.8 with. WITHOUT FPS helper I'm pulling 30-35 fps and is quite playable on Normal to High settings. I would check your BIOS flash, push your graphics card, run Gamebooster or AMD Fusion, run it on XP if you can.

The difference between running vista 64 and xp32 was about a 10fps jump.

---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 PM ----------

Quad vs. Dual means nothing in reference to Arma2. The game is optimized for Dual Core with a minimal recommended speed of 2.8Ghz. It's also a matter of throughput, not how many cores you have.

Typically Quad cores run at a lower speed than Dual cores. The game was created and compiled for Dual cores, but since the Duals run faster, the dual core owners are reporting better performances than the Quad peeps. Now, the really HIGH END Quads do well, because they have a higher clock. But there is somewhat of a void for the slower quad machines.

Clock rate and hard drive throughput is king in Arma2.

oh, i thought it was optimized for quad core. why make a game like this which isnt optimized for 4 cores? its unbelievably stupid.

[jeffroland 10]

i know my pc aint super anymore, but cmon 23 fps.....

Wow, I can't believe you're complaining about 23 fps. I've been playing with an average of about 20 fps and the game is fine. Cinema is 24fps and you can't see individual frames.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Cinema is 24fps and you can't see individual frames.

And the Earth is flat...

MfG Lee

[JAndreassen 10]

I also have an FPS at about 25-26, but the problem is that it's not running smooth, every other second everything stops for a millisecond making it laggy. Have tried changing settings, but no effect, it seems that the problem is the same wether I run lowest or highest settings.

Quite dissapoting since I've just bought a new computer with 6gb ram, quad i7 and HD4890 and SSD disk.

Any suggestions?

[funkee 0]

i have a Q6600 2.4 GHz, (...) low Anti-Aliasian...

its time to upgrade your CPU dude. 2.4 seems to be much too slow for this game. my C2D E8400 works at 4 GHz and im getting much better performance than you (even with 8800 GTS).

in addition, you could try other O/S or disabling Anti-Asian.

edit:

oops sorry, "Anti-Aliasian"

:D

Wow, I can't believe you're complaining about 23 fps. I've been playing with an average of about 20 fps and the game is fine. Cinema is 24fps and you can't see individual frames.

i LOL'ed here too :D you forgot in cinema don't need to move a mouse, you only watching. gl and hf at playing. :D

Edited August 29, 2009 by funkee

[Relemar 10]

Wow, I can't believe you're complaining about 23 fps. I've been playing with an average of about 20 fps and the game is fine. Cinema is 24fps and you can't see individual frames.

LOL, it's 3 fps. anybody would think it was like 30..

[Steakslim 1]

Cinema is 24fps and you can't see individual frames.

Depends on the standard, and yes, you can see individual frames, it's just that you might not recognize them. This varies on the shutter angle/speed used and other factors that lowers the amount of motion blur created while a scene is being filmed, creating a staccato effect with the motion. When this happens, individual frames are far more noticable, even while in motion.

[Reverend Crast 10]

note that ArmA2's recommended specs are a 2.8 dual core (or quad), you have a 2.4

unfortunately this game is very inhumane to processors :p

Not really.

My quad core normal clock rate is 3Ghz, but when I play ArmaA II it slows down to 2.1 Ghz or less and stays like that, because ArmA II uses only 30-40% of each core at max..(rarely, usually it's 2 cores working at around 40-50% each) so processor enters power saving/silent fan mode.

Setting clock to fixed 3Ghz (no silent mode) doesn't change anything frame - rate wise.

Same with graphics card, ArmA II doesn't really utilize full power of top end graphics cards (I have gtx295)

Hopefully we will see improvements soon.

Edited August 29, 2009 by acidd

[kklownboy 43]

Not really.

My quad core normal clock rate is 3Ghz, but when I play ArmaA II it slows down to 2.1 Ghz or less and stays like that, because ArmA II uses only 30-40% of each core at max..(rarely, usually it's 2 cores working at around 40-50% each) so processor enters power saving/silent fan mode.

Setting clock to fixed 3Ghz (no silent mode) doesn't change anything frame - rate wise.

Same with graphics card, ArmA II doesn't really utilize full power of top end graphics cards (I have gtx295)

Hopefully we will see improvements soon.

hmmm lets see if i OC my i675 to 3.8 or 4050z, i get 10~15 more frames, if i use only one of my 4070x2's i get half as much framerate as using both... Your 295 isnt in SLI i bet, and the dif from 2.x to 3.0 is not all that much if all your using is one core of your 295.. and if your going by missions in the campaign or in some of the SP missions you will not see much of any frame boost... but in MP and other user made SP you will see the full power of your H/W...as for your H/W down clocking in game.... your kit is borked.

[Reverend Crast 10]

hmmm lets see if i OC my i675 to 3.8 or 4050z, i get 10~15 more frames, if i use only one of my 4070x2's i get half as much framerate as using both... Your 295 isnt in SLI i bet, and the dif from 2.x to 3.0 is not all that much if all your using is one core of your 295.. and if your going by missions in the campaign or in some of the SP missions you will not see much of any frame boost... but in MP and other user made SP you will see the full power of your H/W...as for your H/W down clocking in game.... your kit is borked.

No it isn't borked :). The game is just under utilizing the hardware, so hardware switches to low power silent mode, that's it. When I play World in Conflict, I am getting 100+ FPS most of the time and processor is fully clocked all the time, same with gfx card.

I don't really believe you that just enabling another card in Crossfire or SLI automatically doubles frame rate. I've never seen it in any game.

I never played campaign, I only play MP and sometimes SP user made missions.

From the other hand, difference between XP performance vs Vista performance is so big that's it's not even funny. I get around 3k in Arma Mark under Vista, 4600+ under XP and that seems to be general trend based on other people tests. Can't tell that about other games, they perform almost the same under XP and Vista.

Hopefully fixes are inc... but I am not keeping my hopes high.

[Landstriker 0]

Blah, i got a high end rig, bought it a couple of weeks ago. Gonna take a break from ArmA 2 untill (and hopefully) there will be some improvement in the game optimization. I'm not very good with tweaking and frankly, ArmA 2 is the only game I've spent endless hours trying to read about how to.

Great game, but it makes me feel like I've just wasted 2500$ on a rig that runs every game out there maxed out, whilst struggling with 25-50 Fps on medium settings. :(

[kozzy420 21]

Blah, i got a high end rig, bought it a couple of weeks ago. Gonna take a break from ArmA 2 untill (and hopefully) there will be some improvement in the game optimization. I'm not very good with tweaking and frankly, ArmA 2 is the only game I've spent endless hours trying to read about how to.

Great game, but it makes me feel like I've just wasted 2500$ on a rig that runs every game out there maxed out, whilst struggling with 25-50 Fps on medium settings. :(

Thats crazy! 25FPS on medium on a 2500$ pc! Hope you getting working better soon bud. ARMA2 runs well for me and I only spent about 1500$ on a rig.

Crysis and ARMA2 are the only games that I cant run at highest settings with great framerates. But I can play them both on HIGH with 30 FPS at least thankfully. Just not HIGHEST settings (: Been pleasently surprised with how good ARMA2 runs for me after reading some of the complaints about its performance. Only time I really get any slowdown is right when I load a saved game sometimes it takes 2-3 seconds to settle down to real good FPS, but then its smooth while playing.

You try turning your AA down in arma2? Or Texture? I have everything on mine at high except AA, Process at Low and Texture sometimes at Normal and runs well.

Also just curius.. but what windows are you using?

Edited August 30, 2009 by kozzy420

[Relemar 10]

Yep, it's bullshit. The graphics in the game aren't that good, the faces look bad it's all this stupid grass you don't even need. literally 5ft grass everywhere.

turn grass to 'very low' and Im hitting 75FPS, but that's not what this topic was about. the devs need to optimize the game for 4 cores, aswell as 2.

[Lauri90 10]

For me, it doesnt matter if i play everything on high (AA normal) or most things on normal. Fps is the same. postprocess effects on normal gives me lower fps than on high. I play mostly everything on high, AA on normal, VD 3000. Fps can drop to around 20, but still playable. Also fps depends on server, mainly because of grass i think.

Q9550 @3.2

HD4870 512mb @790/1100

4gig ddr2

Vista Ultimate 64bit