Arma2 - GTX295 Disaster

[-=seany=- 5]

So, I managed to get my hands on a GTX295, through various means. I was running a GTS250 for a while, so I was expecting at least the same, if not better performance in CPU limited areas (Cities) and a massive boost in GPU limited areas (forests). Not so, just look at the numbers below: :eek:

If you have ever read any of my previous performance threads (there are a few :) ) you will know that I have two areas I use for testing. One is in a forested area with lots of complex trees and bushes etc (GPU), the other is in Chenogorsk (CPU). Both scenes are just me, on my own, facing one direction with FRAPS running.

GTS250:

-------------------

City : 31FPS

Forest : 24FPS

GTX295:

-------------------

City : 27FPS

Forest : 45FPS

GTX295 SLI disabled:

--------------------

City : 37

Forest : 31

I was shocked when I ran with the GTX295 first time and I got less FPS in my CPU test area than the GTS250. But in the GPU area it destroyed the GTS250. 27fps in CPU limited areas is not good enough because this is after all, me on my own in the editor, if I go online that 27FPS for the gtx295 turns into 19-20fps.

I discovered that disabling SLI in the Nvidia control panel gives me a whopping 10fps increase in CPU limited areas. Note that just switching to single GPU option in the Arma2 profile doesn't work for some reason, which I find odd. You have to fully disable SLI. As a side affect of this 10fps increase, I loose about 13fps in GPU intensive areas. :rolleyes:

You have to laugh, I mean this game just throws curve ball after curve ball at you no matter what hardware you give it.

Does this happen with other games that are cpu limited? 10fps for the overhead of running SLI seems outrageous to me. I used to run 9800gtx's in SLI and I don't think this problem was as bad, but then again I never actually tested it.

Is this an Nvidia problem or an Arma2 problem? I know we are getting lots of fixes in the betas that I'm ever grateful for, but in my opinion we haven't seen the most important fix yet and that to me is much better CPU optimisation/usage for buildings & cities. With a GTX295, on an empty Island a range of 45fps to 27fps is a real killer when you try to actually play.

Thanks for reading and any ideas or opinions, if any other GTX295 owners would like to chime in that would be great.

Edited November 14, 2009 by -=seany=-

[InFireBaptize 0]

arma2 community have arrived at a conclusion that high end hardware doesn't necessary run this game better. I'm able to run this game at 70fps with desktop override and vsync disabled with minor tearing but does game run better? not really, i still have texture pop up, flashing and stuttering. If you had waited a bit, you could at least get the 300 series and that would also give BIS enough time to continue their tweaks.

[kklownboy 43]

arma2 community have arrived at a conclusion that high end hardware doesn't necessary run this game better. I'm able to run this game at 70fps with desktop override and vsync disabled with minor tearing but does game run better? not really, i still have texture pop up, flashing and stuttering. If you had waited a bit, you could at least get the 300 series and that would also give BIS enough time to continue their tweaks.

hmmm. it depends on what you call highend at what rez and fillters you like to play at, and to play with Vsync on, and the hitch is all but gone with "highend"... And it takes alot of CPU to push dual/tri or quad vidcards and then you have less pop at higher VD. A GT300 card wont be around for under 1000$ till june maybe...

@ seany it seems your SLi set up is fubar. Maybe you need to use the old -winxp if your on vista/win7?

[WILLUR 10]

So, I managed to get my hands on a GTX295, through various means. I was running a GTS250 for a while, so I was expecting at least the same, if not better performance in CPU limited areas (Cities) and a massive boost in GPU limited areas (forests). Not so, just look at the numbers below: :eek:

If you have ever read any of my previous performance threads (there are a few :) ) you will know that I have two areas I use for testing. One is in a forested area with lots of complex trees and bushes etc (GPU), the other is in Chenogorsk (CPU). Both scenes are just me, on my own, facing one direction with FRAPS running.

GTS250:

-------------------

City : 31FPS

Forest : 24FPS

GTX295:

-------------------

City : 27FPS

Forest : 45FPS

GTX295 SLI disabled:

--------------------

City : 37

Forest : 31

I was shocked when I ran with the GTX295 first time and I got less FPS in my CPU test area than the GTS250. But in the GPU area it destroyed the GTS250. 27fps in CPU limited areas is not good enough because this is after all, me on my own in the editor, if I go online that 27FPS for the gtx295 turns into 19-20fps.

I discovered that disabling SLI in the Nvidia control panel gives me a whopping 10fps increase in CPU limited areas. Note that just switching to single GPU option in the Arma2 profile doesn't work for some reason, which I find odd. You have to fully disable SLI. As a side affect of this 10fps increase, I loose about 13fps in GPU intensive areas. :rolleyes:

You have to laugh, I mean this game just throws curve ball after curve ball at you no matter what hardware you give it.

Does this happen with other games that are cpu limited? 10fps for the overhead of running SLI seems outrageous to me. I used to run 9800gtx's in SLI and I don't think this problem was as bad, but then again I never actually tested it.

Is this an Nvidia problem or an Arma2 problem? I know we are getting lots of fixes in the betas that I'm ever grateful for, but in my opinion we haven't seen the most important fix yet and that to me is much better CPU optimisation/usage for buildings & cities. With a GTX295, on an empty Island a range of 45fps to 27fps is a real killer when you try to actually play.

Thanks for reading and any ideas or opinions, if any other GTX295 owners would like to chime in that would be great.

looks to me to be a psu problem, i would go for around 850watts

[Nazul 10]

Using the latest drivers? I dont notice different framerates like that with my GTX295.

[gulag 10]

I had gts250 and I changed with HD 5850. With gts250, I had all settings on normal, without shadows, no AA, city 18-24 fps, and forest max 40 fps. Now with settings on very high, vsync off, shadows normal 23 fps min in city, and forest 43 fps max. game runs with 18-65 fps, depending on the number of AI.

may be it's a psu problem.

[-=seany=- 5]

The PSU I have is lower than what nvidia recommends, but corsair themselves say there should be no problems with this PSU. They say Nvidia gives that recommendation because so many PSU's have loads of watts but are rubbishly made with inadequate amps on the various rails. Many other users are using the GTX295 with with my PSU and have no problems. It's possible, but I don't think that is the case. 3DMark Vantage for example shows exactly what you would expect between a GTS250, GTX295 with multigpu disabled and a full GTX295. Also I used to run 2 9800gtx in sli with out problems, which afaIk uses more power than a 295 (single PCB version).

I found this thread : http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=75396 after I made this one. It seems many of them also get subpar performance with the 295. I notice most of them have not many posts, I guess they gave up and went else where.

I thought I could live with running Arma2 with multiGPU switched off in the nvidia control panel. But the game wont even let me do this, because now after about 20 minutes of play all my textures go white and the game crashes. :(

---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

Being paranoid, I reset my over clock to stock settings, just to compare FPS and free up more power. Guess what...identical frame rates. I find it bizarre that a game that is so cpu limited gets no change, not even one FPS, between 2.5ghz and 3.2ghz on a core2quad :confused:

Edited November 15, 2009 by -=seany=-

[rocket 9]

Power is everything. The game studio I used to work at, we did huge amounts of testing as we had our own test lab. Psu's and lack of/spiking voltage was the single biggest source of issues we ever encountered.

I personally spend the biggest dollars of my entire system on the psu. Hardware is extremely sensitive to voltage and it is THE source of instability and poor performance. If i were you, I'd upgrade your psu. ~600W is really low for your system.

I only EVER run a silverstone 1000W powersupply as a minimum

Edited November 17, 2009 by Rocket

[fantsu 10]

I have GTS250 myself and the game is totally unplayable in cities, everything OFF (or LOW if there isn't OFF, view distance at 500, 640x480 resolution), I get something like 15FPS.

In forested areas it is something like 25FPS.

So goodbye to ArmA2 for me, I have buyer already.

I will test this game much later on when new patches are around.

I have 3 gigs memory on XP 32bit and get decend frames in every other game easily, even topped out graphics.

It is ArmA2, not your power.

[Alex72 1]

I have GTS250 myself and the game is totally unplayable in cities, everything OFF (or LOW if there isn't OFF, view distance at 500, 640x480 resolution), I get something like 15FPS.

In forested areas it is something like 25FPS.

So goodbye to ArmA2 for me, I have buyer already.

At what settings are you running? I have 2500VD, 1280x1024 res, All normal except PP=low and terrain detail low (grass). And i run out of cities around 40-50FPS normally but with higher in some places and bit lower in others. Cities are hard on my crap PC, but not total fubar. Ofcourse im not running GTX295, but there are videos out there on youtube showing superb very high settings gameplay with that card.

3 Youtube GTX260SLI (This looks like something i want - super FPS!)

4 Youtube GTX295 (This guy running TripleHead2Go with GTX295 - 3 screens - very heavy for a computer...)

Seems people play the game with 295 and awesome performance. Dont know why some say they have 15FPS and everything on LOW. Doesnt make sense.

[-=seany=- 5]

For a start most of the guys in those videos have an i7 @ 4ghz+. Except for the last one, the rest arnt particularly impressive.

In video 1 the mission is pretty basic and the guy still gets pretty bad stuttering when he goes near the town.

Video 2 that is pretty impressive, but it is however done on an area that gives really great FPS (in that area in the editor I get nearly 100fps.)

Video3 looks pretty good, but the guy is using a gtx260. And again its not a very dense town.

Video 4 is the most impressive.

Lets see these guys try and play Domination or Evo online, or go for a stroll around Chenogorsk.

[jw custom 56]

Lets see these guys try and play Domination or Evo online, or go for a stroll around Chenogorsk.

I have i7+GTX285 and i have played a lot of domination and have been in Chernogorsk many times also with server having grass enabled... i can play just fine!

[Terminator5665 10]

The PSU I have is lower than what nvidia recommends, but corsair themselves say there should be no problems with this PSU. They say Nvidia gives that recommendation because so many PSU's have loads of watts but are rubbishly made with inadequate amps on the various rails. Many other users are using the GTX295 with with my PSU and have no problems. It's possible, but I don't think that is the case. 3DMark Vantage for example shows exactly what you would expect between a GTS250, GTX295 with multigpu disabled and a full GTX295. Also I used to run 2 9800gtx in sli with out problems, which afaIk uses more power than a 295 (single PCB version).

I found this thread : http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=75396 after I made this one. It seems many of them also get subpar performance with the 295. I notice most of them have not many posts, I guess they gave up and went else where.

I thought I could live with running Arma2 with multiGPU switched off in the nvidia control panel. But the game wont even let me do this, because now after about 20 minutes of play all my textures go white and the game crashes. :(

---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

Being paranoid, I reset my over clock to stock settings, just to compare FPS and free up more power. Guess what...identical frame rates. I find it bizarre that a game that is so cpu limited gets no change, not even one FPS, between 2.5ghz and 3.2ghz on a core2quad :confused:

You really should have at least a 750watt to run a GTX295, if you think about it your really pushing it, especially since the GTX295 is just two cards smacked together into one package. And about the stuttering, have you updated to the latest release of the nivida drivers? The last update i got supposedly gave a 10-15% performance increase in ArmA2

[-=seany=- 5]

Using 191.07. I really don't think its the PSU. I know I'll just spend 150 on a new PSU and it will do nothing. Low performance is not a symptom of an inadequate PSU.

I keep using my two test areas and getting better FPS with different settings etc. The last thing I did was try on winXP64, which gives a nice boost in Cities and I can run SLI without it sapping performance in cpu intensive areas. When I start up the game and it shows the "flying across the carrier" scene, I get over 100fps! that's the fastest I have ever seen.

But then I try to play a Dom match online and performance goes to crap, hovering around 25-28 fps (which is playable) but dropping to 19-20 if I go anywhere near a town.....arrrrg what is going on? No matter what gfx settings (view distance, grass, object detail etc) I change when I am online I cannot get passed 22FPS when near a few structures....

[fantsu 10]

new nVidia drivers (released 5th day of this month) doesn't give any frames in ArmA2, the promised 12% of performance is given to low end cards or GT, GTS series, not GTX.

Also that performance didn't increase even one frame to me, so it must be only for those who use high AA.

:(

[InFireBaptize 0]

i'm not sure where i read this but PSUs are not only about how much watt they supply, you need to make sure that rails provide sufficient ampere as well.

[-=seany=- 5]

Ok, I have done some more testing and have come to the conclusion that the problem I am having is not decreased performance with my GTX295 but WAY more stuttering making the game feel like it's running a less FPS than it is.

Don't get me wrong, the performance near structures is still bad, but its no worse than before I had the 295. At least on XP64.

I run fraps while online playing Domination and I'm getting 25-30fps, should be playable. But the amount of, what I can only describe as stuttering, I am getting is making the game feel like its running at 10-15 fps. Panning the mouse or moving around just feels horrible. On my own in the editor this is not a problem, it's as smooth as you would expect for the given FPS. But in a mission online every input/ keyboard/ mouse / trackIR is unsmooth, resembling 10fps.

I have to run on xp64 now because with the additional FPS loss of running on Vista, the game is totally unplayable when combined with this stutter.

Why should this new GTX295 cause so much more stuttering than before. The only major difference I can see is the increase in Video ram from 512mb on my old cards to 896mb on the 295. One would think that would help with stuttering :/ .

This is how Arma2 detects my RAM:

localVRAM=919994368;

nonlocalVRAM=1878235136;

That local Vram looks wrong, isn't that quite a bit more than what I have? odd.

Anyone any suggestions given this new revelation? :) This whole constant stutter thing is new to me, so I have pretty much just ignored most threads about it up 'till now. But I think there where others who had the same problem.

If they have any suggestions or insights that would be great.

Edited November 20, 2009 by -=seany=-

[kklownboy 43]

turn off fraps. use the GPU_MaxFramesAhead=;

When i am testing in the editor with fraps, and then with it off same test, i get a hitch form it. Also if your running any logging or system info software like Everest, you will get lame hitches/stutter. Vsync off can help, but i see the tearing...

[desertjedi 3]

I know I'll just spend 150 on a new PSU and it will do nothing. Low performance is not a symptom of an inadequate PSU.

Your instincts are right on, Seany. And I'd take that bet any day of the week.

Chances are, if your card is not getting the juice it needs, you're going to see SOME anomalous behavior - other than low performance.

It's "interesting" to see so many technical solutions thrown around in many performance-related threads trying to compensate for what's plainly a problem with the game. But as stated earlier, I don't know of any other game with such ambitions view distances. Hopefully, patches will address this and so many other problems in Arma 2

[dogz 10]

@seany

arma2 is detecting your Vram correctly at 877megs... it always allocates just under the actual amount, you can set it closer to the actual amount by changing your config file and setting it to read only.

896 x 1024 x 1024 = 939524096

It is allocating 1791megs for non local Vram

localVRAM=919994368/1024/1024 = 877

nonlocalVRAM=1878235136/1024/1024 = 1791

I have 2 gig ram and 2 gig page file and have set my non lacal Vram to 512 megs... so far it seems to run smoother with less allocated than the 1+ gig it defaults to but you need to try for yourself.

Edited November 20, 2009 by dogz

[-=seany=- 5]

Cheers for the input guys, points noted.

I have done some more testing and have found the following:

Yesterday I joined a server called Sparta Domination Big (I play there often). As soon as I joined and was picking my gear I was getting about 50fps, which I thought was odd. I teleported to MHQ1 which was out side the current objective town, still getting fps between 40-44. Panning around with my mouse and moving about was smooth as silk. I noticed that the town area was pretty much cleared and everyone was scouting around for the last hiding enemies.

The town was then cleared, I hung around in the town for a bit before the next objective town become active. Suddenly, when the next town was activated, my FPS drop to 30 and the horrendous stutter, laggy input begins. My FPS are at a constant 30 so the game should be smooth. Also I am still in the last empty town, so its not like harddrive is loading anything from the new town....This stuttery input continues until I leave.

Then I open up the editor on Cheneraus and load a mission I made that has about 30 tanks + infantry squads facing each other off for a big battle. Unsurprisingly my FPS are at no more than 25....but even more surprising is that I have absolutely no input lagging or stutter!

This is bizarre, it appears that only playing online, when a server has lots of units active (bringing everyones max FPS to 30) I get this bad input stuttering, even when I can achieve 30 FPS.

I am so close to figuring this out, but damn it's a weird one. Especially since this only started happening since the GTX295. :confused:

One glimmer of hope is that I tested the second most recent Beta online and the stutter still happens, but it is not constant. It comes and goes, it's still very irritating though.

Thanks for anymore input/ideas. (and the patience for reading my long winded brain farts :D )

PS. I have turned off FRAPS to see if that stops the problem, but it makes no difference.

Edited November 21, 2009 by -=seany=-

[-=seany=- 5]

The problem:

When I am playing online and the server comes under load (eg new town spawns in a coop) my FPS will lower to 30 and my input becomes non fluid and stuttery (not HD related). When the server is not under load everything is perfectly smooth.

Discovery:

When the server is under load and I am getting the unsmooth movement, I have found out that changing my View distance from 1500 to 4000 smooths out mouse panning and movement around the game world. The only problem with this is that now my FPS are at 22 in cities and towns rather than 28-30. So I begin to get the unsmoothness related to low fps you get in any game with that high of a VD :(. The lowest VD you can set on Domination is 900, which is still stuttery. If I could set it lower it might fix it. I know from the Chernarus Intro scene issue that less than 800VD "fixes" the problem there.

This issue does sounds similar to my "Chernarus Intro FPS drop" thread doesn't it? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1507990#post1507990

This is insane and drive me crazy. Please can anyone help me?

Max frames ahead does nothing

change any other gfx setting than VD does nothing

Disabling SLI does nothing

maxmem does nothing

maxcpu count does nothing

beta patch..nothing

drivers...nothing

etc

etc

I am out of ideas...

Should I create a new issue at Dev Heaven? Its so similar to other problems that users may have this issue and think its some thing else.

I mean we have 4 types of "stuttering" now!

1. Harddisk causing stutter

2. hyper threading causing stutter

3. Max frames ahead/input lag stutter

4. And now, View distance induced input stutter, possibly caused be server CPU load that can only be cured by increasing your view distance!

[-=seany=- 5]

Yes, I'm back with thread that wont die!

I have found that it is nothing to do with being online or servers. If I make a mission with enough AI I can replicate the effect off line.

It is not solely related to the GTX295, I tested it on a second PC and the same thing happens. I don't why I noticed it so much when I switched to the 295, maybe because my fps where high enough that I knew that the stuttering was some thing else than my PC's poor performance.

What's the problem?

When the CPU is under heavy load/ their are lots of AI, I get constant Micro stuttering, even though my FPS high enough to allow smooth play. From what I can tell, increasing the view distance seems to increase the frequency(speed) of the stuttering which is why increasing view distance seemed to help.

Here is a zip with 3 test missions for you to put in your Arma2/Missions folder:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/5awzumegjgm/Micro

The missions consists of increasing numbers of AI units on the map, with the Player as a civilian far away from the AI. To test, run Fraps and load Mission1, then pan your view around and compare your smoothness and FPS between missions 2 and 3. Make sure you give the game a few seconds to load all the textures and stabilize your frame rate.

this is what I get:

Test 1 = 46 FPS - no micro stutter

-------

108 soldiers

10 vehicles

Test 2 = 29 FPS -Constant Micro stutter starts

-------

216 soldiers

16 vehicles

Test 3 = 27 FPS - Constant Heavy Micro stuttering - The same play experience as large coop mission.

--------

324 soldiers

22 vehicles

Now that I have a consistent way to reproduce this problem I am going to submit it to Dev Heaven as a bug. I will post the link later so you can vote.

Any one bothered by the performance in Arma2 with good hardware please test this.

Thanks

Edited December 13, 2009 by -=seany=-

[Gumzster 10]

I have a feeling we have the same problem (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=91677)

Try to do this: Crank the settings up, run Chernarus empty from the editor and strafe around a bush (maybe with some trees in the background)

You get microstutter from that?

I will try running your missions.

EDIT:

Tested your missions. I was running in 1920x1080, most set to high, AA off (hardware in sig)

Mission 1: 60-70 fps. Smooth, except when panning past trees (maybe i have become a little more sensitive to the stutter?)

Mission 2: 34-38 fps. Stutter. More then I would accept. I would probably spend my entire evening trying to tweak and bang my head with the keyboard if this was a real online scenario ^^

Mission 3: 27-29 fps. Unplayable imo. The combination of screen tearing and extreme stutter would give me a headache within a few minutes.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Gumzster

[-=seany=- 5]

Thanks for testing. I saw your other thread about your stutter. For me in that scenario, the games runs flawlessly. I only appear to get the microstutter when there are lots of AI/heavy CPU load.

I would say you have a combination of stuttering from foliage (which I have heard others report also, I don't get this however) and the micro stutter from lots of AI. Like me, you get 27-29 fps on mission 3 yet this should be perfectly smooth at these FPS.