ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[Siddhi 10]

Okay, I have been playing Arma and all OFP predecessors back to 2001. It is practically the only FPS I play, and the reason why I decided to upgrade my old Vaio i3 laptop to a new i7 17-inch screen. So I put a lot of money into a new system and it is a total abject fail - I have FPS around 8-12 on the benchmarking.

This is my system:

Samsung 700Z7C-S03 (WIN 8)

:: Processor

Intel Core i7-3615QM 2.3 GHz (Intel Core i7)

:: Mainboard

Intel HM76 (Panther Point)

:: Memory

8192 MB, 4096MB + 4096MB (soldered)

:: Graphics adapter

NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M - 2048 MB, Core: 835 MHz, Memory: 1000 MHz, GDDR5, ForceWare 295.55

:: Display

17.3 inch 16:9, 1920x1080 pixel, Chi Mei, Anti-glare / matte, glossy: no

:: Harddisk

Seagate Momentus SpinPoint M8 ST1000LM024, 1000 GB 5400 rpm + SanDisk iSSD P4 8GB

I have tried EVERYTHING. I have of course activated -winxp, I forced NVIDA to run (or at least told it to on the nVIDA panel), started playing with maximum memory, deactivating threads and cores switches, put up to everything to maximum detail, tuned it down- nothing! Still stuck with around 10 FPS no on the benchmark scenario no matter what. There does seem to be a slightly faster subjective performance when I deactivate all threads bar 0, but the FPS rating still stays the same. Yes, I also went into the cfg. file and changed the values to 0. Nothing worked - although after game runs once it always goes back to 1 for strange reason.

No matter what - the CPU never uses more then 10-15%, the RAM 20% - the system is simply not being used at all. I think it is a problem with i7-3615QM but I have no clue what to do about it.

I really got my rig for DayZ and Arma3 but if BIS does not finally patch their engine to make it forward compatible then all this for the dogs.

I would be eternally grateful if someone would have something new and knowledgeable to say that would help - b/c I am at my wits end.

cheers

[Rokas 1]

Hello.Both of my arma 2 and oa are running slow.I only get about 9 fps.I tried to lowering the setting, but i didnt help.I tried going into singleplayer too, but it lagged too.I really don't know what to do now.So maybe you guys can help me?

My computer specs:

Proccesor : Processor Intel® Core i5-2450M CPU @ 2.50GHz, 2501 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 4 Logical Processor(s) (with turbo boost technology can reach up to 3.20gHZ)

Video card: NVIDIA GEFORCE GT 630M 2GB

Memory: 6GB

Operating system: Windows 7 64-bit.

Name of my computer: Acer Aspire 5750G.

I think my pc should run arma 2 atleast on meduim without lag, but i can't even play it on low.So please help me.

P.S Sorry for my English.

[Leopardi 0]

Thank you for that ChrisB. I was looking for info on that, but this is really hard to find.

I hope that Arma 3 will support up to 8 cores then were most likely set to play at 10kms everyone :)

When I first played Arma I had a "lousy" desktop version Opteron dualcore @ 2x 3,4 and that wasnt enough lol. Guess Ill just put in count 4 to not have to switch 1 core off all the time.

Not much improvement to my old CPU then, 4x 300 Mhz more a little bit more cache. And ddr3 ofc.

Well I guess its problem solved for anyone with a CPU with more than 4 cores.

That issue really has to be added to all the Tweaking guides for Arma 2.

Did it help? CpuCount=4 did nothing for me, still below 30fps in towns.

[vilas 477]

Processor Intel® Core i5-2450M CPU @ 2.50GHz, 2501 Mhz, 2 Core(s),

Intel Core i7-3615QM 2.3 GHz

i believe it is a problem

i had better results than you on old 2006's PC which had AMD6000+ 3.0GHz processor,

afaik it is important to have 3GHz and more than having newest but slow GHz and mobile processor

requirements of game say you must have at least 3GHz, look at CD box of Operation Arrowhead or manual

for gaming the best are desktops not laptops

having PC from 2006 i had 30 FPS in Chernarus cities with turned off grass and with 1.6 km viewdistance

you both guys should look for any PC with processor > 3GHz, even older few years PC will act better in gaming than your newest laptops, use desktops,

good for gaming laptop is under name AlienWare and costs 3000$

have you ever read CD box with game under "requirements" ? 3.0 GHz or more is listed on Arrowhead box

Edited February 7, 2013 by vilas

[ceeeb 147]

I have FPS around 8-12 on the benchmarking

The 3615QM is a good CPU, I have a 3610QM and it's performance is close to my two year old overclocked desktop (I7-950). My laptop (Samsung, 3610QM, GT 650M, SSD) and get ~35fps using the high graphics preset (and play with 40-60fps using lower settings).

However I use Windows 7 and my screen is only 1366x768. If you are using 1920x1080, that may be too much for the 650M, try using a lower resolution. Otherwise, check Arma is using your Nvidia card rather than the CPU/APU graphics (if I run Arma using mine I get 5-10fps)

Edited February 7, 2013 by ceeeb

[Siddhi 10]

The 3615QM is a good CPU, I have a 3610QM and it's performance is close to my two year old overclocked desktop (I7-950). My laptop (Samsung, 3610QM, GT 650M, SSD) and get ~35fps using the high graphics preset (and play with 40-60fps using lower settings).

However I use Windows 7 and my screen is only 1366x768. If you are using 1920x1080, that may be too much for the 650M, try using a lower resolution. Otherwise, check Arma is using your Nvidia card rather than the CPU/APU graphics (if I run Arma using mine I get 5-10fps)

WoW - I would kill for 35 FPS on high, currently I have around EIGHT (no shit).

How did you get that performance? As far as I can tell, my CPU is not being used AT ALL. 5% load!! I have tried deactivating all but 1 core, and then seeing which core would be "best", but even running in "single core" mode the load does not go over 22%. Now I do have a fairly slow HD but I know that is not the problem (the benchmarking scenarios, once loaded for the first time, run of the build-in SSD cache that I have, and I still have low performance).

The resolution question is interesting one as I am on 17inch widescreen - I could knock that down. However I am sure that my cores are not running at anything anyway, the 650M isn't really going anywhere as it is. I "forced" the card to deal with the game via the NVIDA pannel but I don't think it made any difference.

I do have Windows 8 but I am running in -winxp so that should be fine as well.

Any suggestion on how to force the 650m on, besides doing via the NVDIA pannel?

[jimos 10]

I am also having extreemly bad Fps on my computer.

Processor: Intel® Core i7-3770K CPU @ 3.50GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.9GHz

Memory: 8192MB RAM

Available OS Memory: 8154MB RAM

Page File: 2689MB used, 13614MB available

------

Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT

Manufacturer: NVIDIA

Chip type: GeForce 8600 GT

DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC

Display Memory: 4069 MB

Dedicated Memory: 997 MB

Shared Memory: 3071 MB

I think its my graphics card i has always had poor performace but i thought my i7 would comensate for the performance but i only get 12 fps in towns

[ceeeb 147]

How did you get that performance? As far as I can tell, my CPU is not being used AT ALL. 5% load!!

...

Any suggestion on how to force the 650m on, besides doing via the NVDIA pannel?

These systems are GPU limited in normal gameplay conditions, low CPU load should be expected. The 650M isn't a great card.

Arma definitely loves SSDs. I have replaced my stock HDD with an SSD (I only have one slot), and upgraded my RAM to 2x4GB 1600-CL9. I have installed a clean copy Windows 7, and only re-installed a few Samsung programs (Easy settings, SW update) as most of them are bloated and unnecessary. I have turned off Hyperthreading In BIOS.

To play, I turn windows power mode to high performance, and turn on Samsung Turbo mode using Fn+F11 (although I have never been able to find out exactly what this does!).

To force Arma to run on GPU or APU, right click on your Arma shortcut. You should get a "Run with graphics processor..." option.

For reference, my average benchmarks running High preset at 1366x768:

B1 : 40

B2: 20

E08: 37

Using the 3610QM APU at 1366x768:

B1: 9

Using 2049x1182 3D resolution (the closest I can get to 1920x1200)

E08: 21

Edited February 7, 2013 by ceeeb

[Siddhi 10]

These systems are GPU limited in normal gameplay conditions, low CPU load should be expected. The 650M isn't a great card.

Arma definitely loves SSDs. I have replaced my stock HDD with an SSD (I only have one slot), and upgraded my RAM to 2x4GB 1600-CL9. I have installed a clean copy Windows 7, and only re-installed a few Samsung programs (Easy settings, SW update) as most of them are bloated and unnecessary. I have turned off Hyperthreading In BIOS.

To play, I turn windows power mode to high performance, and turn on Samsung Turbo mode using Fn+F11 (although I have never been able to find out exactly what this does!).

To force Arma to run on GPU or APU, right click on your Arma shortcut. You should get a "Run with graphics processor..." option.

For reference, my average benchmarks running High preset at 1366x768:

B1 : 40

B2: 20

E08: 37

Using the 3610QM APU at 1366x768:

B1: 9

Using 2049x1182 3D resolution (the closest I can get to 1920x1200)

E08: 21

I of course also did the right-click "run with graphics processor" option, no difference... I really think it is just not coming on.

CPU loads of 5% on muliti-core and 20% for a single core can't be right. Also, my RAM use is stable at 40%.

I deactivated hypherthreading - not an iota of difference.

Haven't tried:

There is an option in BIOS for enable/disable/auto ACMH (sp?) which is somehow related to the OS.

No idea why Samsung Turbo would be of use as my system is not even running close to capacity but I could try

The HD does max out on tr often, but when you "reload" a scenario (such as the benchmarking scenario) it does not react at all, presumably because the scenario itself is in the cache. Makes no difference to my FPS.

I very much appreciate your help ceeb - but any other ideas.

Also, COULD I TROUBLE SOMEONE FROM BIS SUPPORT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE because sure as heck it is a BIS-caused problem and deserves some attention.

Do I need to write to the CEO Marek Španěl to get BIS to take responsibility??

Thank you kindly.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Siddhi

[domokun 515]

Siddi: try these tweaks:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-%28low%29-performance-issues&p=2081466#post2081466

Before throwing toys out of pram

[chrisb 196]

@siddhi

&

@rokas

I think you will both struggle to run the game with those systems, lowering settings is not going to make much difference anymore, the later patches seem to have messed that up.

AA, PP, AF & Atoc all off, may help some, but I still think you will struggle, both cards are not going to help.

Sorry, but BIS can’t do much about it..:(

I would love you to prove me wrong, and hope you do..:)

[Siddhi 10]

Siddi: try these tweaks:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-%28low%29-performance-issues&p=2081466#post2081466

Before throwing toys out of pram

how about reading my post before making obnoxious comments.

but for those who apparently just want to push their post numbers: yes I did read the friendly sticky, and, as I said: it did not work.

@more helpful poster:

thanks..did o/c all that already, but you think that previous patches to the game would have handled our CPU/Cards better??

Actually I do think BIS has a responsibility here, but going by their general management FU (Greece et al) I am going to presume they only respond to something a little more drastic then a couple of thousand customer complaints.

[domokun 515]

how about reading my post before making obnoxious comments.

but for those who apparently just want to push their post numbers: yes I did read the friendly sticky, and, as I said: it did not work.

@more helpful poster:

thanks..did o/c all that already, but you think that previous patches to the game would have handled our CPU/Cards better??

Actually I do think BIS has a responsibility here, but going by their general management FU (Greece et al) I am going to presume they only respond to something a little more drastic then a couple of thousand customer complaints.

How about reading more posts before such obnoxious comments about the community and the developers of this game?

Maybe you'd care to tell us about BIS' general management that we don't know?

[Horus 83]

@siddhi & @rokas both of you have problem because you have low RPM HDD @5400

[JoeSheep 1]

Hey!

I recently reinstalled Arma 2 Operation Arrow Head and Arma 2 Free.

Upon installing the DayZ mod again and joining a game, I find that

absolutely no server I join, provides a good frame rate. In fact it drops

to 5fps when I look straight across the landscape in Cherno. When I

look up into the sky it will give me about 15fps.

This is a ridiculous drop in fps from what I used to have. I have no idea

why it is so low.

Some which is odd that I did notice though, is that the writing on the

screen is distorted and blurred as though it is in a very low resolution.

Everything is almost impossible to read.

I cannot see any reason that I would suddenly get ridiculously low fps

when I previously ran the game at around a very playable 35-40 fps.

My specs are:

Intel i3 4 Core M 370 2.40GHz.

8gb DDR3 Ram.

64-bit OS.

NVIDIA GeForce GT 420m

• GPU Engine Specs:
  
• 96CUDA Cores
  
• 1000 MHzProcessor Clock (MHz)
  
• 6.0Texture Fill Rate (billion/sec)
  
• Memory Specs:
  
• 800Memory Clock
  
• 128-bitMemory Interface Width
  
• 25.6Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec)
  

My arma 2 free settings:

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=100000;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Windowed=0;

Resolution_W=1366;

Resolution_H=768;

refresh=60;

winX=16;

winY=32;

winW=800;

winH=600;

winDefW=800;

winDefH=600;

Render_W=1440;

Render_H=900;

FSAA=0;

postFX=2;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=1;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=895486976;

nonlocalVRAM=895486976;

My arma 2 OA settings:

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=93750;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Windowed=0;

Resolution_W=1366;

Resolution_H=768;

refresh=60;

winX=505;

winY=63;

winW=800;

winH=600;

winDefW=800;

winDefH=600;

Render_W=1366;

Render_H=768;

FSAA=0;

postFX=0;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=1;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=268435456;

nonlocalVRAM=1711276032;

vsync=1;

AToC=0;

FXAA=0;

PPAA=0;

PPAA_Level=0;

serverLongitude=2147483647;

serverLatitude=2147483647;

class ModLauncherList

Any help or advice is greatly appreciated.

[Siddhi 10]

How about reading more posts before such obnoxious comments about the community and the developers of this game?

Maybe you'd care to tell us about BIS' general management that we don't know?

domkum, probably more then 50% of your recent Posts have involved linking to your previous post, which itself a rip-off of other Posts without however you crediting the OP. You have nothing to offer to help us. please troll someplace else. and i very, very much hope that you are not part of BIS - otherwise that company should have its bookvalue slashed.

@horus:

at this Point I am ready to believe anything, but 1 question then: when I load the benchmarking scenaro, the HD does constantly max out in individual bursts. However, when I re-load the Scenario (which starts up much quicker) the HD is not used, I persume because the scenario is in the cache. However there are still no differences in Frame rates despite the fact that the HD is not being accessed. Keep in mind I do have 8GB SSD as well.

[Horus 83]

Believe it or not ArmA 2 don't like low rpm HDD...read this :rolleyes:

[NeMeSiS 11]

Also, COULD I TROUBLE SOMEONE FROM BIS SUPPORT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE because sure as heck it is a BIS-caused problem and deserves some attention.

You could just contact customer support instead of a forum. :p

EDIT: Anyway, slow disks cause stutter, not low FPS.

[kklownboy 43]

... laptop .. is a total abject fail ... benchmarking.

very slow laptop with to much display screen

...

maybe i should return this crappy slow ass laptop?

cheers

I did some changes to your story.

As said your HDD is a pig, to save power, your CPU and GFX is slow to save power, your laptop wants to save power...

You can try to turn off all power saving, and buy a 64GB SSD.. But you will never ever run A2+ well with a 2.3GHZ LAPTOP CPU and your display is way to big for your weak on board graphics. For Intel its all about the "C_states". Also dont ever use the battery, it will reduce your power options. Your 8GB SSD is only for cache and quick boot(which you should turn off for more power). But no amount of speedy cache will make up for a slow ass HDD.

Oh there is the set core count, and thread you could use in your shortcut Params. Alot of Intell Laptops say they are multicore, but when running more than 1/2 cores it will down clock all the 4 cores to some lame 1.8 some such...

Edited February 9, 2013 by kklownboy

[NeMeSiS 11]

I did some changes to your story.

As said your HDD is a pig, to save power, your CPU and GFX is slow to save power, your laptop wants to save power...

You can try to turn off all power saving, and buy a 64GB SSD.. But you will never ever run A2+ well with a 2.3GHZ LAPTOP CPU and your display is way to big for your weak on board graphics. For Intel its all about the "C_states". Also dont ever use the battery, it will reduce your power options. Your 8GB SSD is only for cache and quick boot(which you should turn off for more power). But no amount of speedy cache will make up for a slow ass HDD.

Oh there is the set core count, and thread you could use in your shortcut Params. Alot of Intell Laptops say they are multicore, but when running more than 1/2 cores it will down clock all the 4 cores to some lame 1.8 some such...

To be honest i just compared his benchmarked specs to mine, and his CPU is a lot better then mine(http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html (I have a 955)), while my GPU is a tiny bit better (http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+HD+4870&id=30 vs http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GT+650M) than his.

I play @ 1080p@100% with medium settings and get double to triple his performance if the FPS he stated about the build in benchmark scenarios is correct. Taking into consideration that is HDD is shit and al his other parts are probably somewhat slower, i would say that his performance is somewhat lower than expected, though could be caused by stuff running in the background/oddly configured power settings, probably not the game if he patched it.

Though i wouldnt have recommended a system with such a slow gpu in the first place.

[domokun 515]

domkum, probably more then 50% of your recent Posts have involved linking to your previous post, which itself a rip-off of other Posts without however you crediting the OP. You have nothing to offer to help us. please troll someplace else. and i very, very much hope that you are not part of BIS - otherwise that company should have its bookvalue slashed.

@Siddhi: those tweaks in my post are the combination of personal experience and others' research. I don't ask for or claim credit for it. It has helped numerous members of this community over the years. Just as I have contributed in other many other ways. Rather than criticise me and BIS, how about contributing?

[Siddhi 10]

To be honest i just compared his benchmarked specs to mine, and his CPU is a lot better then mine(http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html (I have a 955)), while my GPU is a tiny bit better (http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+HD+4870&id=30 vs http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GT+650M) than his..

well, ARMA 2 was literally the first Thing I installed on a virgin System, after I killed some of Samsung bloatware...

The CPU isn't even running at Close to capacity. When all 8 cores are going the cummulative max load is around 15-20%. When I deactivate all cores - I ran through all eight cores individually to see if that would make a difference - only 1 core ever hit 100%, with a laughable increase in FPS. When I disabled HT the 4 cores I had each maxed only 25%. The processor is absoutely top-notch for Laptop. And btw - the perfomence is substantially less then my four year old Sony Vaio i3.

I will try to up the power, see if there is any difference ...

I am wondering about screensize, however. Not that is a power issue as such - afterall the CPU is never maxed - but I just wonder if the Screen size is somehow to big. Grasping at straws here. I did a total reinstall just for kicks and no dice....

I really wish there was a fix, I am not looking foward to ARma 3 as much as I absolutely love Chernarus...

[NeMeSiS 11]

well, ARMA 2 was literally the first Thing I installed on a virgin System, after I killed some of Samsung bloatware...

The CPU isn't even running at Close to capacity. When all 8 cores are going the cummulative max load is around 15-20%. When I deactivate all cores - I ran through all eight cores individually to see if that would make a difference - only 1 core ever hit 100%, with a laughable increase in FPS. When I disabled HT the 4 cores I had each maxed only 25%. The processor is absoutely top-notch for Laptop. And btw - the perfomence is substantially less then my four year old Sony Vaio i3.

I will try to up the power, see if there is any difference ...

I am wondering about screensize, however. Not that is a power issue as such - afterall the CPU is never maxed - but I just wonder if the Screen size is somehow to big. Grasping at straws here. I did a total reinstall just for kicks and no dice....

I really wish there was a fix, I am not looking foward to ARma 3 as much as I absolutely love Chernarus...

Well, you could try to turn all settings to off/very low with minimal viewdistance on 800×600, then compare benchmarks again.. If the CPU-usage is still so low something is wrong, if its better then your GPU is holding your CPU back, and your only choice is to turn down settings.

Also note that your CPU-usage will never be 100%, 1 core on 100% and 3 cores on an average of 25-50% is quite usual.

Edited February 10, 2013 by NeMeSiS

[chrisb 196]

@Siddhi

You have a couple of usb3 ports, so just thinking, maybe an external gpu to up the gaming potential. Not sure how much money that would run to, but may be something to think about..

[Siddhi 10]

Well, you could try to turn all settings to off/very low with minimal viewdistance on 800×600, then compare benchmarks again.. If the CPU-usage is still so low something is wrong, if its better then your GPU is holding your CPU back, and your only choice is to turn down settings.

Also note that your CPU-usage will never be 100%, 1 core on 100% and 3 cores on an average of 25-50% is quite usual.

I upped the power anyway I knew how - and the CPU remains exactly the same.

Interestingly, there is also no difference between me using intel card and the Nvidia - in both I get 8FPS. However, using the Intel card I get a strange red "snow" over the screen, really weird...

I have also tried -nocb as well as forcing a dual-core mode via parameters...still no dice. I even copied every single .cfg. that vaguely made sense, no difference.

While the HD is a little slow the CPU never really runs high...it is simply not being used. I can't believe it's related to the power either.