hyperthreading i7 860 are you going to do something please??

[Leon86 13]

I don't think it'd be possible for BIS to fix it.

The Hyperthreading problem (freezing, lag spikes, etc) is caused by cache thrashing. The problem is with Hyperthreading itself, not a specific program, and technically any program that utilizes more than 4 cores and utilizes a lot of CPU power will suffer from cache thrashing with Hyperthreading enabled (well, it's a little more complex than that, has to do with CPU switching and threads and such)

One thing you could try is start up Arma 2 then goto task manager (ctrl+alt+del-> Task Manager), then right-click on Arma2.exe and choose "set affinity...", then unmark the cores you don't want to use (just keep cores 0-3 marked)

+1

Some things get done a lot faster but less consistent. If arma2's rendering thread gets interrupted because of another thread on the core performance will suffer. There aren't a lot of games that actually benefit from hyperthreading, and none where you will notice an improvement as nearly everything out there (except for arma 2) is gpu limited unless you run it at 1024x768 on an 5870

[ast65 10]

Gnat;1564559']Thanks guys !!

Well' date=' after some playing around;

-cpuCount=4

and

HDRPrecision=32;

worked best for me.

- Stopped 95% the REALLY annoying lag spikes

- Dramatically stopped almost all the LOD morphing issues

- No lag while spinning on the spot

The "set affinity" & -winXP & cpucount other than 4 all didnt work, just made things worse (especially affinity).

I tried

HDRPrecision=64;

Seem to be better still, but after you shut down the game, it writes the config back to 8

Didnt try switching off hyperthreading ...... cuz I'm not sure how to! lol

Win7 64

i7 860 @ 2.8

Asus P7P55D Deluxe

4GB Ram

ATI HD 5700 1GB[/quote']

You can set your config to "write protect" so it doesn´t write your settings back.

HT must be switched off in BIOS.

I´m writing from work, so i can´t post a picture, but with HDR=8 the picture looks very blurry, with HDR=32 it´s a lot crisper and more "differentiated".

[[kh]jman 49]

with HDR=8 the picture looks very blurry, with HDR=32 it´s a lot crisper and more "differentiated".

Thanks I'll give it a go.

[Jon Hye-Knudsen 10]

Hi

I don't get any difference with HDRPrecision=32 as opposed to 8

I don't get any differende with -cpuCount=4

Only thing that removes the stuttering and really makes the game playable is turning Hyperthreading off in the BIOS.

The benchmark 1 mission gives me about 45-48 fps with HT=ON and around 51 with HT=OFF. The main experience though, is the micro stuttering that dissapears with HT=OFF.

I have a Core i7 860 running Win 7 Home Premium x64

8 GB 1333 Mhz RAM

Nvidia GTX 275 running 196.34 drivers

The game is patched to 1.05 (no beta patches)

I would really like for BIS to get the game working better with HT.

Cheers

[Mysteryman5150 10]

I have a question. If you set your amra.cfg and your profile to read only will you still be able to make adjustments to your video settings in game? Thanks if anyone can answer that.

Edit- Also in the Arma.cfg- what are the following parameters:

3D_Performance=100000 -What does thhis do and will adjusting it have any affect?

FSAA=2 -What is this?

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000 -What will adjusting this do?

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=3 -What will adjusting this do? I have my video card set to max frames rendered = 8

nonlocalVRAM+1341386752 -Can this be adjusted and will it make any difference

Thanks again for any help

Edited February 8, 2010 by Mysteryman5150

[bensdale 0]

My Game stutter if i diasble HT in the bios options and i start arma II without cpucount 4.

if i set cpucount to 4, the ganme works better. only disabel HT in the bios options didn't help.

Is this normal ????

[kklownboy 43]

...

My final findings is that I had no real difference when trying all the ideas I have found online about hyperthreading, cpucount=, phys X and vsync.....

The only reason your turn off HyperT is to stop crashes(nvidia; 295s, Sli~) or stutters(nvida,ATI; Sli,CF). Some Drivers just dont use multigpu and muti(more than 4)core CPUs very well at all, Nvida is suspect with a few driver versions, and some Cats from ATI will gag on it too. You shouldnt get any more performance from HT off, tho stutters will show a real low "average" fps. And its the first thing you should turn off if your get crashes.

---------- Post added at 02:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:48 PM ----------

Hi ericd,

glad i could help you a little, just with HT on I would try setting cpucount=8

No cpu count is only good to 4.

---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------

hi

i already put the cpu count ,it doesn t do anything better :mad:

...

it should work, if you have the proper path..

"\ArmA 2\arma2.exe" -cpuCount=4

there is a space between the quote and the dash.

---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

...

Edit- Also in the Arma.cfg- what are the following parameters:

3D_Performance=100000 -What does thhis do and will adjusting it have any affect?

that is the "object detail in the Ingame settings

FSAA=2 -What is this?

AA settings Ingame

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000 -What will adjusting this do?

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=3 -What will adjusting this do? I have my video card set to max frames rendered = 8

nonlocalVRAM+1341386752 -Can this be adjusted and will it make any difference

Thanks again for any help

8 is to much and doesnt even work for A2, it is at 3, nvida is good at that setting , Ati is good a 1. No the local is what it is.

[Mysteryman5150 10]

@Kklown- Thank you. I have noticed that my biggest problems with FPS come on the Chernarus map, everywhere else seems pretty good. I have read on other posts that this map does give some performance issues in certain areas, maybe that is what I am having.

[Snots 0]

Theres a lot of discussion in some oc/pc threads about HT and from what ive read theres not many games that use it so i have it disabled in bios since CS. If you need it on i did do a test with this on and off and it only dropped my frames slightly by having it on.

Also I dont specify multi cores, max-memory, etc and have even disabled virtual mem on a seperate 36g VR for a ArmA BM test and my scores didnt improve in BM 1.

Arma 2 setup

3005m view distance

Video mem on high

everything on high (not highest) except terrain which is on norm

two filters are norm

post process effects...off

aiming deadzone..off

head bob...off

BM 1 avg 56 fps (VD@8000m 31fps)

[Leopoldo 10]

I have just tried running the game with HT enabled and with HT disabled in the Bios. I also tried the -cpucount=4 both with and without HT enabled in the Bios. I then tried using Phys X enabled and disabled with all above scenarios. The last thing I tried was running with force vsync off, once again in all of the above scenarios. This was a fairly exaustive test, BTW:eek:.

My final result after all this testing was what I would consider to be equal results. My FPS at the same testing point varied by 1-2 FPS (Average of 35). The only real difference I was able to see was the tearing effect when I used force vsync off.

I also ran the Arma mark scenario to get a fair comparison. Once again my scores were very, very close to each other in all the varied scenarios I tested.

I don't have any major problems running the game but was looking for a possible boost so I could up my detail settings (most on normal with screen settings at 1440 x 900, monitor max).

My final findings is that I had no real difference when trying all the ideas I have found online about hyperthreading, cpucount=, phys X and vsync. I don't know what the answer is but it may have more to do with any backround programs running than anything else, since Arma 2 seems to be more processor heavy than other games I have played. I am not a CPU specialist in any way but have tried most everything I have seen on these forums and have had no significant difference when trying them all.

I don't say this to bash anybody. I am just trying to post my results here, therefore maybe it can help others:).

My system specs- i7 920, Gigabytye GA-EX58-UD3R, Nvidia GTX260- all running at factory specs.

I dont think it has that much do to with the CPU to be honest, running at 3.30Ghz for me gives the same FPS and smoothness as 3.70GHz.

The main issue is that changing settings instead of increasing FPS what it actually does is lower the GPU utilization, its although ARMA 2 has some sort of cap in place that the performance cant go over.

I have tried all these changes and when i have the game paused, making changes with the graphics options i do see the FPS change but as soon as i go back to playing the game it always drops to the same FPS.

This game actually runs better on my secondary rig so for those who say you need a good harddrive is pretty much a load of rubbish as the game plays fine on my ancient Maxtor drive, a Diamondmax10, it has very poor performance and i run not only the game from that hard drive but the OS and the pagefile is also on that drive, aslong as you exlucde the game from being scanned/monitored by your Anti-Virus software it will play fine without lag/slowdown or textures not laoding. I have my Q9450 set to stock 2.66GHz, i have 2x2GB DDR3 1066 8-8-8-24 memory and a single GTX 280. The game actually plays better on that rig than it does on the one in my sig. I am going to try turning Hyper-Threading off to see if that makes a difference as it may be the reason for the crahsing on my main rig that doesnt seem to happen on my secondary rig and i have the in game settings set pretty high on my "spare parts" secondary rig (it also runs windows 7 64).

ARMA 2 is the only game that gives me problems on my main rig, its all very well blaming everything on the hardware but the simple fact is every other game plays nice with thiss hardware, ARMA 2 is the only game that has issues and if you read reviews all will tell you the game is buggy as hell, infact from the reviews i read i was not even going to buy it until i saw it for the bargin price of £8.00, reduced from its full price, if it wasnt for that i would never have picked up the game.

I have reinstalled me OS a couple of times because of this game and i have reinstalled the game because people were telling me "oh it might be your OS" or "oh its probably some of the game files are corrupt" yet everytime the same thing happens. If the game runs fine on your rig be thankful as thats not the case for every configuration ad it seems the higher end your rig is the more crappy ARMA 2 plays, this may be a Quad SLI issue i dont know.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Leopoldo

[Bulldogs 10]

I've never tested quad SLI on Arma 2 myself so can't say if it's an issue but it's a likely culprit if you've ruled everything else out. You could always remove one graphics card for a couple of hours to test it out.

Personally every upgrade I've made has boosted my FPS in Arma 2 (made 3 upgrades since I bought Arma 2), but I'm not running SLI/Crossfire, let alone quad.