Low FPS

[Landstriker 0]

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?

Tried tweaking the game in and out, but no real improvements. Got windows vista x64, 6gb of ram and dual 260GTX's. I'm not complaining, I'm just sad that i gotta be the one tweaking my system, when in fact it's not the system its anything wrong with. :(

I'll give ArmA 2 a go later on, when (and if) there has been some major improvements in the game optimization. I should add, that I'm not very technical with compturers, but so far, It's only been problems with ArmA 2, not any other game.

Edit: I got the Steam version of the game, if that should have anything to say?

Edited August 30, 2009 by Landstriker

[kozzy420 21]

Tried tweaking the game in and out, but no real improvements. Got windows vista x64, 6gb of ram and dual 260GTX's. I'm not complaining, I'm just sad that i gotta be the one tweaking my system, when in fact it's not the system its anything wrong with. :(

I'll give ArmA 2 a go later on, when (and if) there has been some major improvements in the game optimization. I should add, that I'm not very technical with compturers, but so far, It's only been problems with ArmA 2, not any other game.

Edit: I got the Steam version of the game, if that should have anything to say?

Sorry to hear bud, wish you the best in getting it working better, as the game is so much fun.

I remember I had similiar issues with The Witcher. I could run Empire Total War, Crysis, Crysis Warhead and other games very well, but The Witcher was giving me some performance issues for the longest time, was the wierdest thing. one out of like 50 games giving me problems. Sucks when that happens (was eventually fixed later on by a reformat which was wierd, as every other game worked great) :confused:

The only thing I can really suggest is that you could try Windows XP instead? A friend of mine was having problems with ARMA2 running at fairly low FPS, but a move to Windows XP from Vista seemed to improve things for him quite a bit. Just an idea to toss out there. Im sure youve done this, but have you done a defrag in awhile? and your graphics driver is up to date? I know those are obvious things, but just thought I would toss em out there just in case. I dont think having the steam version would be any issue.

Edited August 30, 2009 by kozzy420

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

If it's any help. I've got three Operating Systems on my machine with multi-boot. Those being:

Windows XP 32

Vista 64

Windows 7 64

The XP Arma2 Mark Score for my little system shows XP performing much better than both Win 7 and Vista 64. Both max out my Arma2 Mark at 17xx.xx and change. With XP (same visual settings), I'm up in the 28xx.xx range.

What I have noticed running Win 7 and Arma2, is that I don't get the POPs as graphics load as I do with XP. I'm also running ReadyBoost on Win 7, but not sure if it's doing anything or not. I see the pen drive flash a bit, then after a while, it goes dark.

What's truly odd, is that with the Arma2 Mark being so much higher with XP32, I don't "see" a graphic improvement over Win764 or Vista64. They all LOOK the same. Feel the same. Smell the same.

I wonder if we're making too much of an issue over FPS. I still find the game VERY playable and with Fraps on, I'm getting around 30FPS on Normal and High settings and somewhat happy. I consider this a "worse case" situation that will only get better as more optimizations, and drivers come out. So I'm stoked.:p

[Landstriker 0]

Sorry to hear bud, wish you the best in getting it working better, as the game is so much fun.

I remember I had similiar issues with The Witcher. I could run Empire Total War, Crysis, Crysis Warhead and other games very well, but The Witcher was giving me some performance issues for the longest time, was the wierdest thing. one out of like 50 games giving me problems. Sucks when that happens (was eventually fixed later on by a reformat which was wierd, as every other game worked great) :confused:

The only thing I can really suggest is that you could try Windows XP instead? A friend of mine was having problems with ARMA2 running at fairly low FPS, but a move to Windows XP from Vista seemed to improve things for him quite a bit. Just an idea to toss out there. Im sure youve done this, but have you done a defrag in awhile? and your graphics driver is up to date? I know those are obvious things, but just thought I would toss em out there just in case. I dont think having the steam version would be any issue.

Upgrading to win 7 soon, who knows, might be some improvement's in the game by then. It's no real biggy. I've just decided to put the game on the shelf, for now. Getting too old and impatient to be tweaking my machine just to get one out of my 20 odd games working.

ArmA 2 is playable on my rig, but compared to other games in the same "class", its no way near of being playable, least not on a 2500$ rig.

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

ArmA 2 is playable on my rig, but compared to other games in the same "class", its no way near of being playable, least not on a 2500$ rig.

Just an observation..... I think the relationship between being upset with the FPS in game is in direct proportion to the price of the users rig.

For myself, I'm quite happy with an older Dual Core machine that get's the same FPS as peoples with higher end setups. I don't see paying more $$$ and upgrading for Arma if it's going to get me another 5 fps.

[Bulldogs 10]

I get 26 fps average at 2.6, overclocked to 3.5 I get 40 fps average.

Using a core 2 duo e7300.

Keep in mind that's with all settings on very low/medium on 1280x1024, on high my video card suffers from being too old (9800gt)

---------- Post added at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 AM ----------

I should add that that's under xp, under win 7 64 I get much lower fps, under win 7 32 and vista 32 I get slightly lower.

[JAndreassen 10]

Something that worked for me was disabling HyperTreading or HT in BIOS.

[nyran125 10]

actually if you look at fps studies of GAMES(nothing else) of the same type of duo core processors and quad core you will find that there isnt much difference in FPS between the 2. I was going to buy a quad core version of the 2.66Ghz processor but when i saw most of the games were getting the same fps as the intel core 2 duo 2.66Ghz, i got that instead. Im getting an average of 30-50fps also. the only people that might be getting slightly higher are the people with nividia 295GTX's and the latest i7's. But judging their posts they too are getting low fps, they are still getting higher fps than me though just not by much. But then looking at the fps studies of the nividia 200 series , they dont look like much of an upgrade from the 9800 cards or even the 8800 Ultra's (couple that with this game needs a BEAST of a cpu to run). Next year's or the year after's hardware will be worth the upgrade for Arma 2 i reckon. Start saving now,lol. For 2011 hardware.

Edited September 9, 2009 by nyran125

[kklownboy 43]

a... Next year's or the year after's hardware will be worth the upgrade for Arma 2 i reckon. Start saving now,lol. For 2011 hardware.

Well its good to save up, but i just buy the best as it comes out. Upgrade all the time. I have a beast of a CPU now. A2 will get more and more improvements, and will use the 3rd and 4th cores even more, you cant go wrong buying more cores for this game now, the Quads have better all around cache usage than duals, but if 40$ is too much more, for two more CPUs on die, well then...

[Drew 10]

turn anti aliasing off, you will see beter fps performance, I'm running about 35-40 FPS with a SHIT machine.

HP Media Center AMD 64athlon x2 (dualcore) 2.0 GHZ 2 gigs of ram 4850 MSI ati radeon, www.youtube.com/demon575 those are my videos that I created with the PC, all graphics normal/high Antialiasing off, post processing off. and thats with 1280 x 1024 settings tho

Edited September 9, 2009 by Drew

[bangtail 0]

actually if you look at fps studies of GAMES(nothing else) of the same type of duo core processors and quad core you will find that there isnt much difference in FPS between the 2. I was going to buy a quad core version of the 2.66Ghz processor but when i saw most of the games were getting the same fps as the intel core 2 duo 2.66Ghz, i got that instead. Im getting an average of 30-50fps also. the only people that might be getting slightly higher are the people with nividia 295GTX's and the latest i7's. But judging their posts they too are getting low fps, they are still getting higher fps than me though just not by much. But then looking at the fps studies of the nividia 200 series , they dont look like much of an upgrade from the 9800 cards or even the 8800 Ultra's (couple that with this game needs a BEAST of a cpu to run). Next year's or the year after's hardware will be worth the upgrade for Arma 2 i reckon. Start saving now,lol. For 2011 hardware.

FFS, stop talking crap.

The 200 series is up to 2x faster than a 9800. I have provided multiple proofs of this and yet you insist on trying to tell people that the 9800 is "about the same".

THIS YEAR'S new hardware is already known to be up to 60% faster (In ATI's case) and rumoured to be up to ~90% faster (in Nvidia's case). You're saying that these will be worth the money but the last gen that provided exactly the same type of gains aren't?

What a crock.

Eth

PS : I would also like to address your assertions concerning not being able to play the game at high settings. I play at 1920 x 1200 with everything on vhigh (No post because I don't like it) and view distance between 3000 - 5000. Guess that invalidates yet another one of your "claims".

Edited September 10, 2009 by BangTail

[kklownboy 43]

... I play at 1920 x 1200 with everything on vhigh (No post because I don't like it) and view distance between 3000 - 5000. Guess that invalidates yet another one of your "facts".

Dont brag:p. You are using 32 HDR? And most other players should be using 16HDR if you have a 47xx and up and a 88xx and up.

[bangtail 0]

Dont brag:p. You are using 32 HDR? And most other players should be using 16HDR if you have a 47xx and up and a 88xx and up.

Wasn't trying to ;) Just trying to stop the endless flow of dross that spews forth from this guy's keyboard.

I have HDR set at 32.

Edited September 10, 2009 by BangTail

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

ah jeez in the case of A2 there isn't much of a difference in the 200 series cards and my 9800GTX OC card. Now the SPECS of the cards show about a 60+/- performance increase in favor of the 200 series. (Also there's some big variance in 200 cards) the reason being, is that the cards (all of em) are starved waiting on the Processor. Of which faster processors either dual/tri/quad are best. In light of A2, in my messing around, I found my Dual 2.66 pushed to 2.86 is running better with that and my 9800GTX OC than some guys with a Quad running at 2.4Ghz with a 200 graphics card. So that reflects that it's processor speed is king. Of course if you had a Quad running at 3Ghz that would be best. A2 is more reliant on Processor SPEED to generate the throughput than anything else. AT THIS TIME.

[bangtail 0]

Luhgnut;1434988']ah jeez in the case of A2 there isn't much of a difference in the 200 series cards and my 9800GTX OC card. Now the SPECS of the cards show about a 60+/- performance increase in favor of the 200 series. (Also there's some big variance in 200 cards) the reason being' date=' is that the cards (all of em) are starved waiting on the Processor. Of which faster processors either dual/tri/quad are best. In light of A2, in my messing around, I found my Dual 2.66 pushed to 2.86 is running better with that and my 9800GTX OC than some guys with a Quad running at 2.4Ghz with a 200 graphics card. So that reflects that it's processor speed is king. Of course if you had a Quad running at 3Ghz that would be best. A2 is more reliant on Processor SPEED to generate the throughput than anything else. AT THIS TIME.[/quote']

A : He's not talking about A2 exclusively (he's said the 200 series is generally a waste of money on more than one occasion) and he spouts his misinformation in too many threads. He sounds like he is bitter that he can't afford new gear tbh. It's the only explanantion for the continuous denial.

B : I've posted benchmarks that TOTALLY refute what he says and, to some extent, what you are saying.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/

**Take note of the "lowest fps" results in those graphs, both the 8800 and 9800 are dipping into totally unacceptable FPS.

C : A2 is CPU limited but more graphics horsepower yields significant gains (especially outside of the campaign).

D : On the same properly optimized and well maintained system with A2 running as it should, your 9800 will NEVER beat a 275/280/285. Sorry. Even the 260 is a better choice.

There is some serious denial going on here. The 8800/9800 is a 3 year old GPU. In enthusiast terms, that's not even an option. I'm not saying it won't play games anymore but it is decidedly "old tech".

Edited September 10, 2009 by BangTail

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

A : He's not talking about A2 exclusively (he's said the 200 series is generally a waste of money on more than one occasion) and he spouts his misinformation in too many threads. He sounds like he is bitter that he can't afford new gear tbh. It's the only explanantion for the continuous denial.

B : I've posted benchmarks that TOTALLY refute what he says and, to some extent, what you are saying.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/

**Take note of the "lowest fps" results in those graphs, both the 8800 and 9800 are dipping into totally unacceptable FPS.

C : A2 is CPU limited but more graphics horsepower yields significant gains (especially outside of the campaign).

D : On the same properly optimized and well maintained system with A2 running as it should, your 9800 will NEVER beat a 275/280/285. Sorry. Even the 260 is a better choice.

There is some serious denial going on here. The 8800/9800 is a 3 year old GPU. In enthusiast terms, that's not even an option. I'm not saying it won't play games anymore but it is decidedly "old tech".

dunno. I'm getting 35 FPS (and will even spike to around 40 if I'm in an open field) in Warfare BE edition AI on and 32 players on a full server with High and Very High at 1920x1080 AA off. Athlon X2 4400 overclocked and a EVGA 9800GX Overclocked. When I get around the bigger towns it drops to around 20-25FPS.

I see no reason to upgrade a thing. And if this is the toughest game on a system out there now, I'm fine. I've seen A2 run on a very new system with all the latest, and yeah, I can see some smoothness to it, but really not enough to warrant a system overhaul. Save my money atm and go eat sushi.

Edited September 10, 2009 by [RIP] Luhgnut

[bangtail 0]

Luhgnut;1435124']dunno. I'm getting 35 FPS (and will even spike to around 40 if I'm in an open field) in Warfare BE edition AI on and 32 players on a full server with High and Very High at 1920x1080 AA off. Athlon X2 4400 overclocked and a EVGA 9800GX Overclocked. When I get around the bigger towns it drops to around 20-25FPS.

I see no reason to upgrade a thing. And if this is the toughest game on a system out there now' date=' I'm fine. I've seen A2 run on a very new system with all the latest, and yeah, I can see some smoothness to it, but really not enough to warrant a system overhaul. Save my money atm and go eat sushi.[/quote']

Hey, if your happy with what you have, and it suits your performance requirements, then why would you upgrade? It's all subjective. Your definition of "smooth" gameplay won't be the same as mine but it doesn't matter as you enjoy the game on your box :D

I'm not trying to put anyone down but I reject (and have subsequently refuted) Nyran's claims concerning the GTX 200 series of cards.

Eth

[desertjedi 3]

dunno. I'm getting 35 FPS (and will even spike to around 40 if I'm in an open field) in Warfare BE edition AI on and 32 players on a full server with High and Very High at 1920x1080 AA off. Athlon X2 4400 overclocked and a EVGA 9800GX Overclocked. When I get around the bigger towns it drops to around 20-25FPS.

No offense but that doesn't really compute. I'm surprised you can even play Arma II with that cpu.

I'm running an E8500 at 4.18GHz with an overclocked GTX 260 (GPU at 680Mhz) and I average between 25 and 38fps depending on the mission. When I average 25, everything is laggy and I have trouble aiming because it's so choppy.

Based on what I'm hearing and my own results, I don't think buying top-end hardware at this moment is going to get you much. The game needs patches.