Cpu Limited or not?

[Iena 0]

Hi my friend,i have decided to write this thread because I tried all the solutions to solve this problem but I failed:(

This is my Spec:

language="Italian";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=100000;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1280;

Resolution_H=1024;

refresh=60;

Render_W=1280;

Render_H=1024;

FSAA=3;

postFX=2;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=928452352;

nonlocalVRAM=349175807;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=8;

Win XP 32 Bit

Asus Rampage Formula

8 GB Ram

Q6600 2.4 Ghz @3.8 Ghz

Power 750 w Corsair

Evga 295 GTX

Patch 1.4 with beta buildings 59210

I play Arma 2 at any resolution and any setting Ex (No AA, AA to very high,1680 x 1050,1280x1024,800x600 etc.) I have the same frame rate in campaign mode or 25 FPS...

In the Sp mission I can reach 60-80 FPS,why?

If i was CPU limited the SP,Editor and Campaign,should have the same fps,or not?

The campaign is very buggy but reading the forum, I know that some people with my same spec can play with better FPS,why?

Please help me...

[Leon86 13]

Q6600 2.4 Ghz @3.8 Ghz

nice!

but I guess that you should be happy with 25 fps in campain in a busy city. the only way to improve that would probably be a Core i5 @4Ghz or something. If I had money to spend on a new pc that's the cpu I'd get. The hyperthreading of the i7 isn't worth the extra 70 eu. imo.

Btw. I think there's plenty of threads on things like this already, no point in starting another one

[Iena 0]

I know,but i can't buy a new processor for a game,and i can't belive that 3.8 GHz quad core,is poor for an actual game...

nice!

but I guess that you should be happy with 25 fps in campain in a busy city. the only way to improve that would probably be a Core i5 @4Ghz or something. If I had money to spend on a new pc that's the cpu I'd get. The hyperthreading of the i7 isn't worth the extra 70 eu. imo.

Btw. I think there's plenty of threads on things like this already, no point in starting another one

[no use for a name 0]

I play Arma 2 at any resolution and any setting Ex (No AA, AA to very high,1680 x 1050,1280x1024,800x600 etc.) I have the same frame rate in campaign mode or 25 FPS...

In the Sp mission I can reach 60-80 FPS,why?

If i was CPU limited the SP,Editor and Campaign,should have the same fps,or not?

The campaign is very buggy but reading the forum, I know that some people with my same spec can play with better FPS,why?

Please help me...

you won't get the same FPS in all missions because of the amount of AI and scripts in each mission. The campaign uses tons of AI and scripts, so you'll typically get low FPS; but in the editor/single missions play fine.

also did you add -cpucount=4 to your shortcut?

[Iena 0]

Hi my friend,i have add -cpucount=4 to my shortcut,but it's the same...:(

you won't get the same FPS in all missions because of the amount of AI and scripts in each mission. The campaign uses tons of AI and scripts, so you'll typically get low FPS; but in the editor/single missions play fine.

also did you add -cpucount=4 to your shortcut?

[no use for a name 0]

just making sure since most people with i7's have the game run better when they disable hyper-threading or limit the cores.

[S-M 10]

I know,but i can't buy a new processor for a game,and i can't belive that 3.8 GHz quad core,is poor for an actual game...

It is not, dont listen to what the gimps try and tell you

I get the same FPS from my Q6700 @ 3.3ghz (nice result on your overclock!)

You have more cpu power then me and get the same results = broken game.

[bangtail 0]

It is not, dont listen to what the gimps try and tell you

I get the same FPS from my Q6700 @ 3.3ghz (nice result on your overclock!)

You have more cpu power then me and get the same results = broken game.

Way to make a point, by insulting anyone who doesn't share your opinion.

Funny how I've been playing all weekend (with my crew) with no issues to speak of, isn't it?

I guess that sinks your "broken game" theory :rolleyes:

Eth

Edited October 26, 2009 by BangTail

[whisper 0]

25FPS is considered "normal" in ArmA2, and you can't find options tweaking to get solid 50 FPS like it should be if performance was OK in this game.

Let's not blind ourselves, there are performance issues, not game-breaking for most of us, but still there

[S-M 10]

Way to make a point, by insulting anyone who doesn't share your opinion.

Funny how I've been playing all weekend (with my crew) with no issues to speak of, isn't it?

I guess that sinks your "broken game" theory :rolleyes:

Eth

Does this chap not have a CPU running at higher speeds then the i7 posted in your profile?

This thread is about "cpu limted?"

He said that he believes his 3.8ghz quad is more then enough for a "latest game"

IT IS!!!!!!!

and anybody who thinks otherwise can fall into my previous category (your good self included lol)

As long as your ok, then i guess the game is not so broken after all!

Jesus christ!

[bangtail 0]

Does this chap not have a CPU running at higher speeds then the i7 posted in your profile?

This thread is about "cpu limted?"

He said that he believes his 3.8ghz quad is more then enough for a "latest game"

IT IS!!!!!!!

and anybody who thinks otherwise can fall into my previous category (your good self included lol)

As long as your ok, then i guess the game is not so broken after all!

Jesus christ!

Q6600 <> i7 JFYI. Clocks are irrelevant.

But you just keep on insulting people if it makes you happy. I can't concede that the game is broken because it works for me. Are you saying I am making it up?

Eth

[justice7 10]

Q6600 <> i7 JFYI. Clocks are irrelevant.

But you just keep on insulting people if it makes you happy. I can't concede that the game is broken because it works for me. Are you saying I am making it up?

Eth

Eth you have a killer rig, thats why it works well for you :)

People with more moderate rigs, have a much harder time getting the game tweaked just right. A faster system will hide such blemishes in the code much better than your average pc.

[S-M 10]

The poor lad has a better spec then the devs posted machine details.

Your definition of "works" is probably completely different from mine, i would hazard a guess that yours preforms the same as everybody else's, its just that you and your "crew" (what are you? some kind of fireman or something?) think that the current level of performance, is perfect.

PS. how can clocks be irrelevant, the lad posted a message asking if his CPU was to crap for this game, and

IT IS NOT!!

IT EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDED SPECS.

IT EXCEEDS THE DEVS POSTED SPECS.

I had to chuckle at somebody suggesting that he flogs it, and buys a quad that will clock to 4ghz = PMSL!

[justice7 10]

The poor lad has a better spec then the devs posted machine details.

Your definition of "works" is probably completely different from mine, i would hazard a guess that yours preforms the same as everybody else's, its just that you and your "crew" (what are you? some kind of fireman or something?) think that the current level of performance, is perfect.

PS. how can clocks be irrelevant, the lad posted a message asking if his CPU was to crap for this game, and

IT IS NOT!!

IT EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDED SPECS.

IT EXCEEDS THE DEVS POSTED SPECS.

I had to chuckle at somebody suggesting that he flogs it, and buys a quad that will clock to 4ghz = PMSL!

I agree, a Core2Quad (of any size) should run this game beautifully.

even a Core2Duo is all you really need to run most games, and a video card obviously that is up to par.

[bangtail 0]

The poor lad has a better spec then the devs posted machine details.

Your definition of "works" is probably completely different from mine, i would hazard a guess that yours preforms the same as everybody else's, its just that you and your "crew" (what are you? some kind of fireman or something?) think that the current level of performance, is perfect.

PS. how can clocks be irrelevant, the lad posted a message asking if his CPU was to crap for this game, and

IT IS NOT!!

IT EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDED SPECS.

IT EXCEEDS THE DEVS POSTED SPECS.

I had to chuckle at somebody suggesting that he flogs it, and buys a quad that will clock to 4ghz = PMSL!

Your argument is that the game is broken. If that is your contention, then my rig should have nothing to do with it. You can't have it both ways.

The guys I play with don't have the same level of PC that I do and they don't have problems either (one is on an 8800 GTX with an E8400 for example).

As to your "standards". I guarantee you that mine are much higher than yours when it comes to what is acceptable with regards to PC games.

I never said A2 was perfect. I don't agree with your assertions that it's broken, or with your puerile attitude towards users who don't agree with you.

Eth

Edited October 26, 2009 by BangTail

[justice7 10]

Your argument is that the game is broken. If that is your contention, then my rig should have nothing to do with it. You can't have it both ways.

The guys I play with don't have the same level of PC that I do and they don't have problems either.

As to your "standards". I guarantee you that they are much higher than yours when it comes to what is acceptable with regards to PC games.

Eth

"it works for me and the few people I know, therefor it should work for everyone". No, this statement is not always true.

Something can be broken for some people and not others, there are a lot of variables at play.

You pretend to know a lot about hardware setups, yet you lack basic understanding of troubleshooting and software inconsistencies. Either that or you're a major fanboy blind to the notion that this game still has some bugs to work out.

Not to be rude or anything but that is how I see it.

[bangtail 0]

"it works for me and the few people I know, therefor it should work for everyone". No, this statement is not always true.

Something can be broken for some people and not others, there are a lot of variables at play.

You pretend to know a lot about hardware setups, yet you lack basic understanding of troubleshooting and software inconsistencies. Either that or you're a major fanboy blind to the notion that this game still has some bugs to work out.

Not to be rude or anything but that is how I see it.

You are being rude but I won't sink to your level.

When have I ever said that (BOLD)? You're putting words in my mouth.

If the game is broken, then no amount of hardware is going to fix it. As I said, you can't have it both ways.

S-M says the game is broken, I am merely countering those assertions with my own experiences (and the experiences of those I play with).

If you are going to make blanket statements which are blatantly untrue, you can expect to have them refuted.

Do some people have problems? Most assuredly. Is the game "broken" for everyone? Not at all.

Finally, are there bugs (Most PC games have them and they are far less ambitious than A2)? Yes, but they are not game breaking in my case and certainly do not constitute the title of "broken".

You'd hear about it if they did :D

Eth

Edited October 26, 2009 by BangTail

[justice7 10]

You are being rude but I won't sink to your level.

If the game is broken, then no amount of hardware is going to fix it. As I said, you can't have it both ways.

S-M says the game is broken, I am merely countering those assertions with my own experiences (and the experiences of those I play with).

If you are going to make blanket statemtents which are blatantly untrue, you can expect to have them invalidated.

Do some people have problems? Most assuredly. Is the game "broken" for everyone? Not at all.

Eth

So the question here, and the argument is simply that of what is considered "Broken".

Broken is true when it is broken for some, or all, or just the person involved?

Seems like you guys are argument semantics and not the actual issue at hand. Both acknowledge there are problems, and both acknowledge that not everyone is affected.

The game isn't perfect, either. It can always be better, there is a lot of code involved and optimization is an ongoing thing.

So arguing over what you want to call it is sort of silly. Everyone agrees, just disagrees on what to call it.

Call it a day and play some Arma2 i say.

[bangtail 0]

So the question here, and the argument is simply that of what is considered "Broken".

Broken is true when it is broken for some, or all, or just the person involved?

Seems like you guys are argument semantics and not the actual issue at hand. Both acknowledge there are problems, and both acknowledge that not everyone is affected.

The game isn't perfect, either. It can always be better, there is a lot of code involved and optimization is an ongoing thing.

So arguing over what you want to call it is sort of silly. Everyone agrees, just disagrees on what to call it.

Call it a day and play some Arma2 i say.

I am :D

Have a good one!

[whisper 0]

Case in point : too many people have not enough FPS even when reducing graphical options (I would say reducing these options do not reduce the load enough on the machine, still too much asked).

Call it broken or not, whatever floats your boat (in fact, it simply depends if it runs fine on your rig, it's very easy to label the game as "working" when you are lucky to not have issues), fact are there : too many people, with hardware above recommended one, can't play the game with acceptable FPS

[bangtail 0]

Case in point : too many people have not enough FPS even when reducing graphical options (I would say reducing these options do not reduce the load enough on the machine, still too much asked).

Call it broken or not, whatever floats your boat (in fact, it simply depends if it runs fine on your rig, it's very easy to label the game as "working" when you are lucky to not have issues), fact are there : too many people, with hardware above recommended one, can't play the game with acceptable FPS

Quite simply, S-M implied the game is universally broken and labelled anyone with a contrary opinion a "gimp".

If it had been worded in a non offensive manner, there wouldn't have been a problem.

Eth

Edited October 26, 2009 by BangTail

[IrishCoffe 10]

Hi my friend,i have decided to write this thread because I tried all the solutions to solve this problem but I failed:(

This is my Spec:

language="Italian";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=100000;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1280;

Resolution_H=1024;

refresh=60;

Render_W=1280;

Render_H=1024;

FSAA=3;

postFX=2;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=928452352;

nonlocalVRAM=349175807;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=8;

Win XP 32 Bit

Asus Rampage Formula

8 GB Ram

Q6600 2.4 Ghz @3.8 Ghz

Power 750 w Corsair

Evga 295 GTX

Patch 1.4 with beta buildings 59210

I play Arma 2 at any resolution and any setting Ex (No AA, AA to very high,1680 x 1050,1280x1024,800x600 etc.) I have the same frame rate in campaign mode or 25 FPS...

In the Sp mission I can reach 60-80 FPS,why?

If i was CPU limited the SP,Editor and Campaign,should have the same fps,or not?

The campaign is very buggy but reading the forum, I know that some people with my same spec can play with better FPS,why?

Please help me...

U should notice a slightly difference using:

language="English";

And by the way better u set too these param @

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=1;

Edited October 26, 2009 by IrishCoffe

[.kju 3244]

Steady 20-30 FPS is completely fine for any game of the series.

You have to understand how the engine works.

You cannot compare it to other games.

The engine always adds more complexity if enough resources are

available. Only once all internal cycles run with max power, FPS

starts to go higher than 30.

FPS is unrelated to micro stutters and LOD/texture loading issues.

So again as long as you can maintain 20+ FPS, the game runs great.

[Leon86 13]

Steady 20-30 FPS is completely fine for any game of the series.

You have to understand how the engine works.

You cannot compare it to other games.

The engine always adds more complexity if enough resources are

available. Only once all internal cycles run with max power, FPS

starts to go higher than 30.

FPS is unrelated to micro stutters and LOD/texture loading issues.

So again as long as you can maintain 20+ FPS, the game runs great.

I'd sure like to have some more control over the complexity via the options. First thing I'd do is put the detail of trees up close lower (the ones with the red leaf are the worst). what's the point of a 5000 polygon tree when the rest of the world is put on very low?

[ceeeb 147]

I suspect ArmA2 is bottlenecked by memory (MCH, RAM, etc) rather than the CPU or GPU. The on-die memory controller is probably the greatest difference between I7 and C2D systems. I've been meaning to test this theory, but haven't had the time or inclination recently - maybe one day :/