ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[jackass888 0]

Just bought a gtx460 to replace my 2 year old hd4870. Jep thats 2x the price.

VERY dissapointed.

Numbers are as follows... Armabench1,2,OAbench

gtx460-35/12/39

gtx460OC-35/11/42

hd4870-38/12/44

To sum it up... i get crappier performance with a card that has almost 2x the computing power.

3d benchmarks and other games show a huge boost.

Setup:

Latest drivers and OA beta. Win7 x64. CPU quadcore 3,2ghz

1280*720 and 1440*900 3d reso.

Tex - vhigh; postp-high;shadows-h;terrain-h,objdetail-normal

Any ideas before i sell the card again?

[stk2008 14]

Ummm well I have installed me ATI 4890 and the difference is way better than me Nvidia 8800GT.

It still needs optimizing that's for sure cus it aint right realy but lets hope they get it running well.

P.S

The LOD system is terrible though even with me new 1GB card and texture loading etc :(

[Painless 10]

Just bought a gtx460 to replace my 2 year old hd4870. Jep thats 2x the price.

VERY dissapointed.

Numbers are as follows... Armabench1,2,OAbench

gtx460-35/12/39

gtx460OC-35/11/42

hd4870-38/12/44

To sum it up... i get crappier performance with a card that has almost 2x the computing power.

3d benchmarks and other games show a huge boost.

Setup:

Latest drivers and OA beta. Win7 x64. CPU quadcore 3,2ghz

1280*720 and 1440*900 3d reso.

Tex - vhigh; postp-high;shadows-h;terrain-h,objdetail-normal

Any ideas before i sell the card again?

Ive just upgraded from at gts250 to gtx460 and ive gained about 19fps everything on high .. delete your confige file and restart OA, then in the graphic option reset to default, then have a play about with the setting that best suits your system

[jackass888 0]

After some OC, fiddling with card settings, arma setting files and so on ive managed to gain ~3fps... compared to old card. Is that all i could expect?

For example in furmark i got a 90% gain.

3dmark vantage got ~p13700. Should be enough?

[stk2008 14]

Jackass ya read the Nvidia optimization thread?.

Have ya disabled SLI if ya not using it in the nvidia control panel

Disabled V sync

Changed render frames ahead to 0?

Hope ya get it sorted as I know what it feels like to not be able to play this game as ya want.

Though they really need to stop all DLC I think and optimize what they have.

[UncleKeith 10]

Outside of the arma series i only really play gta4, oblivion/fallout games (and an assortment of other less demanding games) none of which properly use sli/crossfire or dual gpu cards to their potential so i just down graded from a 5970 to a heavily OC'd 5870 and iam getting 5 or so extra FPS AND NO MORE MICRO-STUTTERING! the only time the 5970 was faster was at a 150% or over fillrate it also seemed to have a better minimum FPS - i think this due to the 2gb of VRAM - and i normally play at 1920x1200 with a 120% fillrate. so the 5870 especially when oc'd is a BEAST and has had me pleasantly surprised... better overall performance and $170 more in my pocket (i sold the 5970 for $550) :D

Edited September 5, 2010 by UncleKeith

[seelix 10]

@ jackass

When you switch from ATI to NVIDIA,dont you think its also important to set up a fresh OS ?

I can also say,tuning Windows and your HDD is a big goal.

I tweaked my little SSD drive and increased my game by about 8-10 FPS.

[stk2008 14]

Yes if you are coming from Nvidia to ATI you realy should reformat.

My brother did this and used ATI clean I said it wont work you really really should reformat he would not have it.

He complained games was crashing and still running no better than before.

I said ok now format he did and all was good.

I think some games OFP/ARMA benchmark your devices on install and then if you change hardware the game cant tell apart from OFP as I remember it had an option to retest your device for speed etc.

[Herr_kalashnikov 10]

Some helpful tips to get decent performance out of OA with mediocre CPU's (which IMHO is the bottleneck in most cases)...

- Viewdistance is the main performance killer and i run at max 1600 default. Of course missions can overrule it but there are mods about where u can change it in-game to force it to your likings.

- sceneComplexity, a setting in your profile file which gives some extra fps when u reduce it, i run at 100000

In-game settings

Terrain and object quality seem to be the big CPU killers, low / normal are the value i use and it still looks nice in-game (even with such low view distance)

Shadows off to give a extra boost, IMO fps>shadows.

With these settings i can run most content on 40+ fps @1900x1200 (despite some occasional spikes). It feels smooth and responsive with merely a C2D 3ghz.

[langgis08 10]

related to pure performance what I can say about my rig are these (not very scientific facts, indeed, and not measured except of ArmA2 FPS analyser, in-game-benchmarks, in-game experiences meaning FPS-meter by Ati Tray Tools) things ...

here some facts/experiences after 10 months of having played A2/OA

1) my rig does not contain any actual high-end components, my board is OEM, no chance for me to OC (anyway, doesn't matter for me as being casual gamer)

2) at everything very high (AA=high, limited by my ati 4870), vd = 2000 I got at A2 Harvest Red CP av. 20 FPS

3) playing MP I get around 30 FPS, approx. 25-35

4) playing SP missions which don't contain "too much" AI I get 30-50 FPS, depending of natural environment (forest, cities, towns, houses)

5) my most critical compenent is -of course- CPU (simplified: amount of AI-units = 100 -> FPS = 10 to 20, AI-units = 10 -> FPS = 30 to 50)

6) choosing the right missions for my rig meaning not overloaded with AI I get very acceptable FPS, even on Chernarus, hardest thing for my rig is Zargabad, there anything above 5 vs 5 (meaning 10 AI units) would be a showstopper

in-game settings: everything maxed out except (3d-res 1280 x 1024) ...

7) Antialiasing I keep on 'normal', lowering doesn't increase FPS in noticeable ways (except on Utes, but there I play at 30-50 with AA=high, and getting 50 - 60 by lowering AA isn't worth doing without AA)

8) VD does take impact on my FPS, I keep it on 2000 - 3000, on islands or with few AI I raise until 5000

9) Postprocessing is 'normal', eye candy meaning anything higher is poison for my FPS

10) Terrain Detail = 'low'

my rig -> spoiler in sig

[guttersnipe 1]

ATI users. Using 10.7 drivers - Anyone else get a decent boost by changing their AA filters towards 'edge detect' from 'narrow tent' - most noticable when using a scope in an urban environment. - in sp mission with high no's of AI I was getting 30-35 in zoom mode with narrow tent & 60-80 with 'edge detect' (bushes look a bit tidier too).

[Leopardi 0]

related to pure performance what I can say about my rig are these (not very scientific facts, indeed, and not measured except of ArmA2 FPS analyser, in-game-benchmarks, in-game experiences meaning FPS-meter by Ati Tray Tools) things ...

here some facts/experiences after 10 months of having played A2/OA

1) my rig does not contain any actual high-end components, my board is OEM, no chance for me to OC (anyway, doesn't matter for me as being casual gamer)

2) at everything very high (AA=high, limited by my ati 4870), vd = 2000 I got at A2 Harvest Red CP av. 20 FPS

3) playing MP I get around 30 FPS, approx. 25-35

4) playing SP missions which don't contain "too much" AI I get 30-50 FPS, depending of natural environment (forest, cities, towns, houses)

5) my most critical compenent is -of course- CPU (simplified: amount of AI-units = 100 -> FPS = 10 to 20, AI-units = 10 -> FPS = 30 to 50)

6) choosing the right missions for my rig meaning not overloaded with AI I get very acceptable FPS, even on Chernarus, hardest thing for my rig is Zargabad, there anything above 5 vs 5 (meaning 10 AI units) would be a showstopper

in-game settings: everything maxed out except (3d-res 1280 x 1024) ...

7) Antialiasing I keep on 'normal', lowering doesn't increase FPS in noticeable ways (except on Utes, but there I play at 30-50 with AA=high, and getting 50 - 60 by lowering AA isn't worth doing without AA)

8) VD does take impact on my FPS, I keep it on 2000 - 3000, on islands or with few AI I raise until 5000

9) Postprocessing is 'normal', eye candy meaning anything higher is poison for my FPS

10) Terrain Detail = 'low'

my rig -> spoiler in sig

I don't get the post processing, all it makes is additional blur making the game look like it's played on a 1995 CRT and brings the performance down. Only thing I'd like is the film grain for NVG and bloom for NVG.

[tpw 2315]

I don't get the post processing, all it makes is additional blur making the game look like it's played on a 1995 CRT and brings the performance down. Only thing I'd like is the film grain for NVG and bloom for NVG.

I actually really like the effect of the PP, especially the depth of field stuff. I'm using a GTX460 which doesn't get too upset about having to do it. When I turn PP off the framerate goes up slightly, but the visuals (to me) just seem so much flatter.

I don't use AA, and on my rig (E6750 3.2G OC, 2Gb RAM, GTX460, XP) I usually get 35-60 FPS in OA, reasonably smooth. For a CPU limited system like mine, it's buildings and AI which kill the framerate. So I usually limit myself to editor made battles with less than hordes of AI, and I have a little script running which drops the viewdistance dependent on how many buildings are around.

That all said, I'm starting the saving for a i7 rig in the next few months.

[johncage 30]

all settings on normal to low

i7 930, 3gb ram, 9800gtx+

game is a sluggish mess. looking at trees, especially when through a scope, is a nightmare.

[ast65 10]

ATI users. Using 10.7 drivers - Anyone else get a decent boost by changing their AA filters towards 'edge detect' from 'narrow tent' - most noticable when using a scope in an urban environment. - in sp mission with high no's of AI I was getting 30-35 in zoom mode with narrow tent & 60-80 with 'edge detect' (bushes look a bit tidier too).

Well, the default setting for AA mode is "box" for me and I notice a performance hit when changing to "edge detect" (maybe because I´m downsampling the picture also).

---------- Post added at 09:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 AM ----------

all settings on normal to low

i7 930, 3gb ram, 9800gtx+

game is a sluggish mess. looking at trees, especially when through a scope, is a nightmare.

This game is shader- heavy so your 9800gtx is a real bottleneck.

With ATI 5... or Nvidia 4... series everything`s fine.

[Rapala 10]

spent man days 6 months back trying to get a reasonable framerate on this game. (won't go into details but many OS reloads were done etc.) Eventually I gave up cos it was making me too grumpy. I wandered in here the other day to see there is a new patch 1.07 which apparently helps performance. Installed it and performance is still terrible.

At start of Harvest Red - Harvest Red I get between 15-25FPS. This just seems so wrong when I have other games with much higher texture detail getting 60+. Back in the cupboard it goes.

My rig: amd phenom II x4 955, 3.2ghz

4GB ram

ati 5850

[stevedrumsdw 10]

Yeah it is slow like malassess:

I7 920 quad@ 4.0 ghz

6GB ram

GTX 260 overclocked edition

WIN 7

I had 45-60 fps in most ARMA 2 maps except for some areas of high vegatation, I get half that in this game in the desert map. I really would not have purchased this if I new prior that this would be the case. Great game, but I don't have weeks to test my settings anymore like I did before. I thought because the maps were going to be sparse with plant life that we would all have better FPS, wow was I uninformed.

I am getting 35 fps on Utes, in ARMA 2 I had 60 fps constantly, What could possibly be the issue here BI? Nothing has changed about my settngs on my cpu or video card and I have a 50% drop in FPS? Ok i am done with this, at least until theres evidence to prove what is going on here, I don't have time to crack the Enigma code this week.

Edited October 2, 2010 by stevedrumsdw

[stevedrumsdw 10]

EDIT.........Ok the one thing I had not tried worked, but how does hyperthreading being disabled affect other games on my cpu and programs as well?

With hyperthreading disabled I have about a 40% increase in FPS ? So what changed in the programming of OA compared to ARMA2, does anyone know what this is realted to? I can only figure that the inactive cores are slowing the game down I guess.

When I turn vertical sync off I get massive amounts of clipping, does anyone know how to remedy that problem?

Edited October 2, 2010 by stevedrumsdw

[jackass888 0]

All HT does is virtually split your cores so that the cpu can have 8 seperate threads. But almost no program/game benefits currently from it. Rendering programs that support 8 threads eg 3ds max, cinema4d probably gain speed.

[prysk 10]

Hello all

My setting for A2/OA

Visibility 3000m

Resolution - 1680x1050

3D res. - 1680x1050

Texture Detail = HIGH

Video Memory = DEFAULT !!!!

Anistrophic fil. = HIGH

Antialising = NORMAL

Terrain Detail = HIGH

Object Detail = VERY HIGH

Shadow detail = VERY HIGH (always better then off,normal,high...dont know why :))

V-sync OFF

HT- OFF

40-130 FPS

and im using just -noSplash -cpuCount=4

[langgis08 10]

Shadow detail = VERY HIGH (always better then off,normal,high...dont know why :))

I know about this phenomenon and can repro it on my system any time, any mission.

Because of that experience my setting is "very high" for shadows, too.

Some time ago I read in a post about a plausible explanation for that:

setting "very high" for shadows is being managed/handled by your grafx-card, not by CPU -- any other setting (lower than "very high") is done/managed by CPU. So if your CPU might be too busy, it's better to give some of the hard work to GPU.

Escpecially for a system like mine where CPU is definite the weakest part in comparison to the other components this explanation might apply.

In my case (-> sig for specs) as CPU being the bottleneck (and not GPU) I would be much more happy if my CPU could get some rest and GPU would do more jobs for balancing out the system.

[Redrumsalad 10]

OK, my specs are:

OS: Windows XP Pro Service Pack 3

CPU: AMD Phenom x4 9650 2.3GHz (can get overclocked to ~2.6 or 2.7 GHz when i want it to be)

GPU: GeForce 9500 GT 1GB

Mother Board: FOXCONN M61PMV (if it matters)

Monitor: BenQ FP757 @ 1280x960

RAM: 4.0GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 401MHz

Good for ARMA 2, does anybody think so?

Or would this help immensely? -> a GeForce GTX 460 (possibly 1gb if I can raise the money, but currently looking at 768mb) and an AMD Phenom II x4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz

is there any tools that anybody could recommend to boost performance until i get a new processor and GPU?

[=wfl= sgt bilko 10]

I'm just in the process of buying up stuff for a new rig. One of the first things I aquired (because they happened to be on sale at local retailer) were two GTX460 1GB.

While waiting for the other bits and pieces, I swapped out my 9600GT 1GB in my old rig for one of the GTX460s. Result, a little bit better in most games, almost none in ArmA2.

The limiting factor (even for the 9600GTs) is the PCIe 1.0 specification on the MB. You just can't feed the cards quick enough. My new rig will have a new MB with PCIe 2.0 which doubles the bandwidth.

I'm guessing your MB is also running PCIe 1.0 specs.

So 9500GT 1GB --> GTX460 1GB: a bit better since 9500 is rather weak. Immensely, I doubt that!

ArmA2 is a different beast than other games. From reading this forums I understand that it is very much depending on CPU speed rather than raw GPU. Meaning that unless CPU can keep up, it doesn't really matter how fast GPU you have.

Edited October 3, 2010 by =WFL= Sgt Bilko

[Redrumsalad 10]

I'm just in the process of buying up stuff for a new rig. One of the first things I aquired (because they happened to be on sale at local retailer) were two GTX460 1GB.

While waiting for the other bits and pieces, I swapped out my 9600GT 1GB in my old rig for one of the GTX460s. Result, a little bit better in most games, almost none in ArmA2.

The limiting factor (even for the 9600GTs) is the PCIe 1.0 specification on the MB. You just can't feed the cards quick enough. My new rig will have a new MB with PCIe 2.0 which doubles the bandwidth.

I'm guessing your MB is also running PCIe 1.0 specs.

So 9500GT 1GB --> GTX460 1GB: a bit better since 9500 is rather weak. Immensely, I doubt that!

ArmA2 is a different beast than other games. From reading this forums I understand that it is very much depending on CPU speed rather than raw GPU. Meaning that unless CPU can keep up, it doesn't really matter how fast GPU you have.

OK, thanks Bilko. but my GPU is running PCI Express x16 (says speccy)...or is it the same as PCIe 1.0?

(how about sending me your second GTX 460? :D )

[battledonkey 10]

I seem to be getting better results than some with better hardware...?

Measuring with Fraps, I am getting 40-45 fps consistantly in SP-MP while running my settings mostly at the default for 1920x1080 resolution & 1920x1080 fillrate. This defaults the general settings to Very High and gives me a 2400 meter view distance. I am happy with this view distance, while I know that many run theirs much higher.

What I find funny is when I switch to map, is when my frame rate suffers the most. If I zoom all the way in, it drops to 10 fps and will stay there. If I zoom all the way out, it rises to 60 fps and will stay there.

OS=Vista 32, MB=Gigabyte EP45-UD3R, CPU=Q6600-2.4ghz, RAM=DDR2-1366, GPU=260GTX