Cpu Limited or not?

[.kju 3245]

Leon86 we all would love to.

Unfortunately BI did not implement this (yet).

[Alex72 1]

Memory and HD. Memory is limited for ARMA2 atm, and all the testing weve seen from Quertz about the HD issues "micro stutters" (HD lag). He came up with a smart thing that works for those i know - RAMDISK. For that you need at least 8GB ram to put the essential PBO's up to ram. Or even better is 12GB ram to move it all up. They report great performance with this.

Ofcourse one shouldnt have to buy 12GB ram to get a game to run well. But thats a solution, and as Kju said, you have to remember that ARMA is not like other games. Its a huge open world with tons of objects to be updated all the time plus all the AI. Im sure this game is heavier to run than other games.

Hopefully the memory limit will be lifted, and the trees made a bit simpler. Plus making cities easier on the hardware as well. They managed to get the performance up a lot in ArmA1 with patches.

[Iena 0]

I have a RamDisk,but the situation little better :eek::eek:

Memory and HD. Memory is limited for ARMA2 atm, and all the testing weve seen from Quertz about the HD issues "micro stutters" (HD lag). He came up with a smart thing that works for those i know - RAMDISK. For that you need at least 8GB ram to put the essential PBO's up to ram. Or even better is 12GB ram to move it all up. They report great performance with this.

Ofcourse one shouldnt have to buy 12GB ram to get a game to run well. But thats a solution, and as Kju said, you have to remember that ARMA is not like other games. Its a huge open world with tons of objects to be updated all the time plus all the AI. Im sure this game is heavier to run than other games.

Hopefully the memory limit will be lifted, and the trees made a bit simpler. Plus making cities easier on the hardware as well. They managed to get the performance up a lot in ArmA1 with patches.

[Bulldogs 10]

The speed of the processor isn't the only thing that determines how good a CPU is. Don't forget about cache (major factor for gaming), Floating Point Ability (can't overclock that), and many other aspects.

That said, this is a troubleshooting forums, so let's see if we can troubleshoot.

First thing, -cpucount=4 won't do anything (Core2duos and Core2Quads don't have Hyperthreading), you could try -cpucount=2 though to see if there's an issue with one of your cores. As a side note, if you set that number to higher than the amount of cores you actually have then you introduce massive performance issues.

For the 25fps in campaign, it could be CPU related (possible a cache problem or a lack of power in the FPU), or it could be a bottleneck somewhere else, suffice to say it's not your graphics card.

Personally, I'm running an E7300 right now, and if I run it at stock (2.6GHz) I get 24 fps in the later campaign missions and 44 fps outside campaign, if I run it overclocked (3.5GHz) I get 24 fps in the later campaign missions and 60 fps outside campaign. Fortunately I get a lot better frame rates in the earlier campaign missions.

I've noticed a lot of complaints about getting roughly 25fps in the later campaign missions, but the common complaint seems to come from q6600 users, as ones with higher, more recent quad cores seem to be getting 35+ fps in the later campaign missions.

[kklownboy 43]

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.

well i get some gain at 3.6(5fps) but i get a jump at 3.8(10fps) and 4.1 is flying...I have multigpu so that may help. But where talking 15fps in the 4.1gz. But then my CPU is 3.2 at start anyways...your Q6700 is getting old, like my X6800 conroe was..

[liquidpinky 11]

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 :/

I would agree with this, my CPU barely goes above 50% usage and mt SLi GTX285s barely get hot with an OC and low fan setting. Neither the CPU or GPU are doing any real work.

The game performs much better with RamDisk and pagefile exclusively on the RamDisk as well, the HDDs just slow it down with paging on them.

There is also a nice little memory leak somewhere too as I can gradually watch it creeping up on my G15 display, flushing keeps it at bay for a while but it wins in the end and I get a lock up after a good 4 or so hours play. This time reduces the higher I put the GFX settings.

[bono_lv 10]

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.

What? 20-30fps is great? I wish you could know how I feel after 30 minutes of playing Arma 2 with 20-30fps. It really hurts my eyes.

Do I want too much? 40+fps

I don't think so...

[bangtail 0]

What? 20-30fps is great? I wish you could know how I feel after 30 minutes of playing Arma 2 with 20-30fps. It really hurts my eyes.

Do I want too much? 40+fps

I don't think so...

Turn fraps off and enjoy the game.

And whether you get 40+ FPS is hardware, as well as situation (in game location, AI situation, etc etc) dependant.

Eth

Edited October 27, 2009 by BangTail

[liquidpinky 11]

What? 20-30fps is great? I wish you could know how I feel after 30 minutes of playing Arma 2 with 20-30fps. It really hurts my eyes.

Do I want too much? 40+fps

I don't think so...

Without stuttering 25 to 40 FPS can be quite smooth.

[bono_lv 10]

Turn fraps off and enjoy the game.

And whether you get 40+ FPS is hardware, as well as situation (in game location, AI situation, etc etc) dependant.

Eth

I'm playing without fraps. Using it only when trying to tweak something.

I don't think it's ok, when I'm alone on map, near small town and some trees and getting really low fps, despite that my hardware is almost twice better as recommended system requirements. Weird, but in forest, where is no buildings and red leaf trees, game runs great. But that's it. If building, leaf tree or smoke effects on screen - that's it, I can't enjoy the game because I can't even aim fluently.

[bangtail 0]

I'm playing without fraps. Using it only when trying to tweak something.

I don't think it's ok, when I'm alone on map, near small town and some trees and getting really low fps, despite that my hardware is almost twice better as recommended system requirements. Weird, but in forest, where is no buildings and red leaf trees, game runs great. But that's it. If building, leaf tree or smoke effects on screen - that's it, I can't enjoy the game because I can't even aim fluently.

Are you still running

9550

4870x2

3 GB RAM

What HDD, Motherboard etc?

Eth

Edited October 27, 2009 by BangTail

[bono_lv 10]

Did some experiments.

Once again, my rig:

Vista 32bit Ultimate

Q9550 at 3.4GHz

4GB Ram (I know 1GB useless, will upgrade to Win7 64bit soon)

Asus HD4870x2 (All settings to apllication controled, v-sync off doesn't work, AAA disabled - it kills fps even more)

Gigabyte EP45-DS3R mobo

2xraid0 Western Digital 7200rpm HDD

Monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 245B 24" 1920x1200, aspect ratio 16:10.

As I said, did some experiments. I set in ccc gpu scaling to centered - if I run on smaller resolution than my monitors native, gpu will no stretch image to full screen, but will draw actual resolution in center of monitor.

I set ingame resolution and 3d resolution to 1280x1024. Played single player warfare scenario. FPS was good, despite lot of AI activity. Maybe because scenario is placed on Uthes Island?

On editor in chernarus map I got better results near towns. Settings as previous impacts fps by little as almost nothing. Didn't feel any difference.

And here comes the most important part...

I join multiplayer game. And that's it. I can't play it. Even standing still and turning with mouse is very jerky. I can't imagine how should I aim with that at distance.

I just don't get it... What's wrong? SP scenarios all smooth. Donno about campaign, I don't play it. Multiplayer - unplayable.

Even on game types like Hold, where is no AI, only real players - I get same jerky mouse movement.

I'll try to revert all my settings back. To resolution 1920x1200 etc... Will report soon.

EDIT: Maybe it's somehow related to mouse settings? I'm using Razer mouse with 1000Hz polling rate.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Bono_LV

[bangtail 0]

Did some experiments.

Once again, my rig:

Vista 32bit Ultimate

Q9550 at 3.4GHz

4GB Ram (I know 1GB useless, will upgrade to Win7 64bit soon)

Asus HD4870x2 (All settings to apllication controled, v-sync off doesn't work, AAA disabled - it kills fps even more)

Gigabyte EP45-DS3R mobo

2xraid0 Western Digital 7200rpm HDD

Monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 245B 24" 1920x1200, aspect ratio 16:10.

As I said, did some experiments. I set in ccc gpu scaling to centered - if I run on smaller resolution than my monitors native, gpu will no stretch image to full screen, but will draw actual resolution in center of monitor.

I set ingame resolution and 3d resolution to 1280x1024. Played single player warfare scenario. FPS was good, despite lot of AI activity. Maybe because scenario is placed on Uthes Island?

On editor in chernarus map I got better results near towns. Settings as previous impacts fps by little as almost nothing. Didn't feel any difference.

And here comes the most important part...

I join multiplayer game. And that's it. I can't play it. Even standing still and turning with mouse is very jerky. I can't imagine how should I aim with that at distance.

I just don't get it... What's wrong? SP scenarios all smooth. Donno about campaign, I don't play it. Multiplayer - unplayable.

Even on game types like Hold, where is no AI, only real players - I get same jerky mouse movement.

I'll try to revert all my settings back. To resolution 1920x1200 etc... Will report soon.

Yep your machine is definitely good. Not sure what could be causing the problem.

Vista could be a problem, but that's not certain.

[Bulldogs 10]

Try lowering the texture detail and post processing. I'm not sure with Arma 2 but with an ATI card on Arma 1 I always had massive fps hits when looking at bushes or buildings with shading/texture on very high.

[bono_lv 10]

Just tried multiplayer CTI. I turned everything to minimum, even view distance to 1. Fps looks fine, but mouse movement is even more jerky.

Btw, tested single player scenario in chernaruss for Russian side. Almost everything maxed out - nice, playable fps.

In multiplayer however... If there's AI, or buildings - unplayable.

[bangtail 0]

Just tried multiplayer CTI. I turned everything to minimum, even view distance to 1. Fps looks fine, but mouse movement is even more jerky.

Btw, tested single player scenario in chernaruss for Russian side. Almost everything maxed out - nice, playable fps.

In multiplayer however... If there's AI, or buildings - unplayable.

So it sounds like an MP problem if the SP is ok. Are you running vanilla (no mods)?

Eth

[.kju 3245]

Bono_LV please do use a favor and do your homework FIRST.

There is millions of thread explaining in very detail how to sort

mouse problems. BI even addressed it by various means in 1.04.

So it is your turn now.

[bono_lv 10]

Running vanilla here, no mods.

I don't have "classic" mouse lag problem that many people are strugling with.

My mouse works fine in SP. It jerks on lot of servers. Not all. On those where is no AI players, mouse works fine.

So... I don't think it's classic mouse lag problem. Mouse is not lagging, it's stuttering at some points.

[Leon86 13]

did you increase the aiming deadzone? (in the options somewhere) I think aiming goes a lot better when the terrain isn't turning with you.

[Iena 0]

Please,can anyone that have an Intel Q9650, post how many FPS can reach?

Please?

[InFireBaptize 0]

check your bios settings and download bios update "if needed", bios has settings which will cap your cpu, bios settings are different but one setting to disable is Speed Step you will not see this setting unless switching CPU ratio from auto to any number for example you can try 6.0 then the speed step setting will appear, disable that and switch CPU ratio back from 6.0 to auto. You can find all these under advance configuration, give it a try.

[bourkie 10]

Please,can anyone that have an Intel Q9650, post how many FPS can reach?

Please?

q9650

8gb ram

9800gt

win 7 64 rc/winxp 32

unplayable on my win 7 boot even with the -winxp tag, 15-30 fps but the game crashes every 10 min or so

on the win xp boot it runs 30+ fps on last mission with higher detail than win 7 boot and dont have many issues.

i'v got a ssd, win 7 retail and a hd5870 on the way so i'm gona put the win 7 and arma on the ssd and try again when the next patch comes out.

this game still needs a lot of work, for now i'm just playing a1 untill a2 is better

[napps420 10]

there's nothing wrong with the game

running very smooth no crashes no lag in frame rate 64fps playing campaign

all settings very high

draw distance 1/2

draw distance eats up alot of cpu and video try lowering it all the way running 1600x1900 fame runs and looks great

win xp 32 bit

asus m2n32 sli deluxe

amd 2x 6400 3.4

2 gigs corsair xms ddr2

2x 8800 gt sli

thermal take 750 watt

had same issue as everybody else until i updated the nvidia drivers and disabled phsx in control panel

[yanquis 10]

it seems like nvidia made a point to tweak their drivers for this game, which was nice of them to do. us ati users can only hope they do the same. however, it really shouldnt need to be done. the game was made a year ago. i dont get why its so incredibly sensitive, but the fact is if you turn fraps off, its fine...MOST of the time.

[Bulldogs 10]

A year ago?

Eh, I'm confused

Anyways, Bono, Try raising the view distance in singleplayer and see if it introduces the same mouse jitter. In multiplayer the server sets the view distance so that may be the problem.

I think I know the jitter you're talking about as I get it in the menu when I load Namalsk Island, but don't get it in game. I think that's because it has a lot of detail to load and in the menu it shows a large view distance (that my com can't handle well, old piece of junk) so the mouse starts jittering.