ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[domokun 515]

Shadows are a massive frames murderer, i have mine on normal cos i get around 25 frames with it very high, on normal i get 35+

What about "High" ? Have you tried that? Because as Iroquois points out when it comes to Shadows (somewhat counter-intuitively) many users will experience increases in framerates:

Low: CPU-calculated

Normal: CPU-calculated

High: GPU-calculated

Very High: GPU-calculated

[Pvtpile1981 10]

Lo guys, ive recently been playing alot ArmA and a few mods but my Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 just doesnt cut it when theres alot of AI in the mission so ive been looking at the Q9550/Q9650 as a last upgrade for this PC. Will I get a more stable frame rate from the quad core over the dual core cpu? Spec below and ingame gfx settings.

E84000 @ 4.2

Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3LR

Kingston Hyper-X 4GB KIT PC2-8500

Gigabyte GTX 460

Western Digital Black 600

Corsair 650W TX

Samsung 2232 bw

[neomatrix248 10]

3200rpm HDD? Or did u just mis-write 7200?

Anyway, install www.playclaw.com trial and use the overlay to see on the fly in-game how the game is using your GPU and CPU and monitor temps as well. That should give you a start at least to try to figure out what is holding you back.

Yes I meant 7200.

There is no CPU information on the overlay, butt he GPU info says that my temperature is between 55-60 at all times, and it is always using 100% of the GPU.

The weird thing is that switching all of the settings to the lowest possible value still doesn't have any kind of performance increase, it still stays at about 22 fps. That just seems ridiculous.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Gigabyte GTX 460

Crank Anisotropic filtering, Object, Terrain, Shadow Quality to V. High, textures High, vid. memory Default, Post-Proc. effects to normal, unless it's your preference for it to be disabled.

If I was looking into a quad, I'd go for i5 2500K; read the previous posts on CPU dependency/bottleneck.

neomatrix248, do the same & disable anti-aliasing. With those rigs you should be playing @ very high.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Pvtpile1981 10]

Crank Anisotropic filtering, Object, Terrain, Shadow Quality to V. High, textures High, vid. memory Default, Post-Proc. effects to normal, unless it's your preference for it to be disabled.

If I was looking into a quad, I'd go for i5 2500K; read the previous posts on CPU dependency/bottleneck.

neomatrix248, do the same & disable anti-aliasing. With those rigs you should be playing @ very high.

Believe me I would luv an i5 or i7 but right now and probably for a while to come I wont be able to afford a new MB/ram and cpu, im just trying to get the best 775 socket cpu for my MB and then ill start saving up for a new rig in the future.

I was wondering if anyone on here has went from a dual core to quad and noticed a big or any difference in the performance of the game.

[-=seany=- 5]

Believe me I would luv an i5 or i7 but right now and probably for a while to come I wont be able to afford a new MB/ram and cpu, im just trying to get the best 775 socket cpu for my MB and then ill start saving up for a new rig in the future.

I was wondering if anyone on here has went from a dual core to quad and noticed a big or any difference in the performance of the game.

For the moment clock speed seems more important than cores with this game. So going to a quad would not give much benefits.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

For the moment clock speed seems more important than cores with this game. So going to a quad would not give much benefits.

Definitely, I was running ArmA II with the settings mentioned @ 1920x1080 w/ a 2 core, 2 threaded Phenom II @ 3.4 & an ATi 4890 1 GB: warfare, ace2, campaign - no issues.

[domokun 515]

Crank Anisotropic filtering, Object, Terrain, Shadow Quality to V. High, textures High, vid. memory Default, Post-Proc. effects to normal, unless it's your preference for it to be disabled.

neomatrix248, do the same & disable anti-aliasing. With those rigs you should be playing @ very high.

Those suggestions seem kinda optimistic.

@Pvtpile1981: if your framerates are too low with those settings try these:

VD: 1500m

Tex: High

Vid Mem: Def

Aniso: Normal

AA: Low

Terrain: Norm

Object: Norm

Shadows: High

HDR: Norm

Post-Pro: Low + Oktane's noBlur mod

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Doesnt make any sense. If you want every fps you can get (using VD:1500m) you'd better switch AA to OFF also. AA enabled is far worse than a VD of 2500m for example.

Same goes for textures, set them to Normal if you want decent fps.

AA doesnt help you getting a smoother image anyway, at least not in ArmA2. What makes the ArmA2 image blocky/hard on the eyes are flickering / hard edges of transparent textures (bushes, trees, grass, fences) - these are not smoothed by AA anyway.

Edited May 4, 2011 by ])rStrangelove

[Atkins 10]

Yes I meant 7200.

There is no CPU information on the overlay, butt he GPU info says that my temperature is between 55-60 at all times, and it is always using 100% of the GPU.

The weird thing is that switching all of the settings to the lowest possible value still doesn't have any kind of performance increase, it still stays at about 22 fps. That just seems ridiculous.

You should get the CPU info on it as well. Just re-check your options.

The FPS depends on the mission you are playing. In the A2 campaign i had places where changing the settings as well did nothing to the FPS, so it was mostly cos if AI-calculations, i guess. And generally accept the fact that A2 sucks when it comes to FPS and to run the game without a hitch would take a SKYNET, or HAL9000.

I would have imagined that your pc could do better. Just search the forums, and u should find some possible solutions.

[Leon86 13]

Believe me I would luv an i5 or i7 but right now and probably for a while to come I wont be able to afford a new MB/ram and cpu, im just trying to get the best 775 socket cpu for my MB and then ill start saving up for a new rig in the future.

I was wondering if anyone on here has went from a dual core to quad and noticed a big or any difference in the performance of the game.

In multiplayer you will not notice anything. In singleplayer you might, but I wouldn't spend anything on a s775 pc. Just save up for a new mobo+cpu+ram.

[Pvtpile1981 10]

Ok I just thought the extra 2 cores might help, im gonna leave buying a 775 quad core and start saving up for an i5/i7 MB and ram bundle from overlockers.

Thanx guys youve just saved me wasting nearly as much on an old chip as I would have had to pay for a nice new i5.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Pvtpile1981

[domokun 515]

)rStrangelove;1911695']Doesnt make any sense. If you want every fps you can get (using VD:1500m) you'd better switch AA to OFF also. AA enabled is far worse than a VD of 2500m for example.

Same goes for textures' date=' set them to Normal if you want decent fps.

AA doesnt help you getting a smoother image anyway, at least not in ArmA2. What makes the ArmA2 image blocky/hard on the eyes are flickering / hard edges of transparent textures (bushes, trees, grass, fences) - these are not smoothed by AA anyway.[/quote']

Actually it does make some sense. Perhaps not your sense. I didn't recommend he lower his settings so low without first getting some feedback. IIRC his GPU far outweighs his CPU. So prolly best to focus on dialing back the CPU-dependent options. Capish?

Edited May 5, 2011 by domokun

[BasileyOne 10]

AA not [seriously]benefited for IQ in VR-based games[like Arma2], as much as resources, they consume[w/o impressive result].

while keeping AF boosted, will at least give you better textured surfaces[esp for AF with tri-linear].

[Antikeen 10]

Hey Guys, got ARMA 2 (vanilla) two weeks ago.

For better performance i bought a ATI HD 6950 today.

My system:

CPU: q6600

Ram: 4 GB

Windows 7 64bit

Settings: 1920X1080, 2400m view distance, AA and AF on normal, postprocessing off, rest is set on high. vSync forced off.

I installed the card, got latest driver but when i am driving around on Chernarus i get 20-30 FPS, in city areas even lower -> not really nice.

Then i noticed something weired: with ATI Tray Tool i found out, that the GPU aktivity is between 50 an 70% and the CPU aktivity is at about 40% while i get about 20-25 fps...

Is this normal, or is the card fucked up?

Edit: I noticed a performance boost form ~30 to ~35 FPS in Benchmark 1 by disabling AA but using 150% 3D Resolution, which also looks good.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Antikeen

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

when u drive in chernarus, are u playing the campaign while u notice its only 20/30fps??

if so thats normal.

ive set it like

resolution=1280x1024

everything to highest except,

vsync=off

postprocessing=normal

antialiasing=low

viewdistance=2015

OA benchmark says 40fps average

Arma2 benchmark says 36fps average

Edited May 14, 2011 by =KCT=BlackMamba

[Atkins 10]

Hey Guys, got ARMA 2 (vanilla) two weeks ago.

For better performance i bought a ATI HD 6950 today.

CPU: q6600

Is this normal, or is the card fucked up?

If you havent OCed that CPU it won't push enough data to the GPU.

You should have bought a better CPU for better performance. A2 is CPU demanding, not GPU.

[Antikeen 10]

But the CPU activity is just at 40-50 %....???

Update: I OCed my CPU a from 2.4 to 2.6 gHz, gave me just 1 fps more in Benchmark 1.

Update II: Now i OCed my CPU the right way (from 2.4 to 3.33 gHz) and had 42 FPS at Benchmark 1, about 7 FPS more...

So i guess you were right, the CPU is limiting my system :-/

Edited May 14, 2011 by Antikeen

[Czech Mate 10]

arma2 needs a new engine.....this one is to old for such an awesome game

[BasileyOne 10]

Antikeen 6950 helps, esp if you get 2Gb version, but as said before, game underutilise GPU's. thats engine-specific and descend to OFP-tims[but BIS had Glide form "in box", too, but never tried it]. probably OpenCL/DirectCompute offloading serve VR needs better, than DX/OGP API's, cause "fair calculation"-nature-engine.

[FanBF2 13]

I have a big problem.

When I play a singleplayer mission my FPS are correct. (50-60 FPS)

But if I play in multiplayer (like warfare etc.) my FPS stay to 30 FPS and even if I put 640x480 resolution. :(

My specs:

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition 3.4 Ghz

Kingston ValueRAM 3x2GB DDR3-1333

Asus M4A87TD EVO

Gainward GTX-460 GLH 1GB DDR5

Acer H243 24"

[madmonkey 10]

I've got issues (first post BTW).

This is aggravating. It seems that my graphics settings are only working in Editor mode (testing maps and such). I can tweak any setting I want and see the difference... but when I enter a multiplayer game (even hosting) my graphics settings revert to high quality which causes FPS issues. I've tried changing my CFG file, which didn't work (trying read only and not) and multiple attempts at changing settings in-game, but there's ZERO difference in multiplayer.

Again, going back to Editor mode and previewing a mission is fine, all my settings work properly. Any idea what's going on?

My system:

Core i5 2500K

Windows 7 64

8 gigs RAM

GTX460 768

[gia251 10]

I have super lag and my requirements are somewhat good!:confused:

System: optiplex 360

Processor: Intel core Dual CPU/ E7500 @2.93GHz

RAM: 2 gigs

Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT

OS: Windows 7

WAY OVER 10GB of free space

If you need to know anything else, just reply ,thanks!:)

[demonized 20]

have you tried adjusting graphic options down at all?

does your internet suck?

2 gig ram is kindof on the very edge of what you should at least have.

[gia251 10]

ive heard people play fine on 1 gig of ram, or was that before some find of thing?

i play on very low, still bad

---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 PM ----------

does the maximum pre-rendered frames do anything to help?

---------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 PM ----------

nothings working, instead of the RAM part