i7 performance improvement

[EDcase 87]

[This is more of a revelation than a problem so my need to be moved]

This is for anyone with an i7 (and may apply to i5 as well...)

Try -cpucount=2 on your shortcut (yes 2)

I get at least 5fps improvement from that alone.

This is with HT is ON so holpfully no more messing about in BIOS (I use HT for rendering)

I have to test if it makes any difference to have HT off as I haven't tried that with -cpucount=2 yet.

Post your results...

Edited February 24, 2010 by EDcase

[tawah 13]

With my i5 750 at 3.4GHz, there's strictly no difference between CPUCount on 2 or 4.:icon_sad:

I don't believe it could be HT that makes this increase.

[TimRiceSE 10]

just curious, is that a gain of 5 fps compared with -cpucount=4, or vs no -cpucount?

[EDcase 87]

just curious, is that a gain of 5 fps compared with -cpucount=4, or vs no -cpucount?

For me its 5fps better than both -cpucount=4 or no cpucount

Weird how the game behaves differently for everyone.

[cabelo3d 10]

Well, I got a new rig and can run Crysis at Enthusiast above 60Fps. I'm trying to play this game since my old rig, 6 months ago, but the performance was terrible.

After the new rig I was yet struggling to be able to play, but no matter which settings I try to use, always got 23-24 fps, from min settings to max, nothing change.

I found some shortcuts tweaks usefull to stop with the tremenduos stuttering, but I assure you that the most problems has gone after the patch 1.05.

However I still need to use tweaks on the shortcut, otherwise I got bad performance.

I'll state them here:

PC configuration:

I7 920 @ 3.2

6Gb ram OCZ Gold 1600

EVGA X58 Sli Micro

HD5870 in Crossfire

Raid Western Digital 500Gb 32Mb buffer

Shortcuts I'm using:

-winxp I'm not sure but even after patch 1.05 I have to use this to make both Vga cards to work

-nosplash basically kill the intro

-maxmem=6141 to force recognizing my 6Gb ram

-cpuCount=4 this makes all the difference, if I erase this I got a freaking stuttering in game

So, the shortcut looks like this:

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\Steam.exe" -applaunch 33910 -winxp -nosplash -maxmem=6141 -cpuCount=4

Hope this help someone and if I spoke something wrong, please accept my apologizes and correct me.

I'm using Windows 7 x64 bit and got average of 45 Fps in Campaing, sometimes 60Fps and sometimes drops to 23-25 is some specific areas of the game.

All at very high, except AA to normal and the Post Effects off.

Resolution and fillrate at 1680x1050.

Great game! Hope they keep up with the good work.

Carlos.

Edited February 24, 2010 by cabelo3d

[kklownboy 43]

...

Shortcuts I'm using:

-winxp I'm not sure but even after patch 1.05 I have to use this to make both Vga cards to work

No you dont need that and haven't since the 1.03patch for CFX

...

-maxmem=6141 to force recognizing my 6Gb ram

You wont have any more RAM usage than 2047, and any amount higher than 2047 will just use 2047. So the game will never use your full 6GB(or my 12GB) Make a RAMDisk.

-cpuCount=4 this makes all the difference, if I erase this I got a freaking stuttering in game

Yes, MutiGPU and over FourCores is bad.I still feel turning HT off in Bios is better than the cpu/count. Also add to your arma2.cfg;

HDRPrecision=32;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead="1";

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1;

To smooth the rest out.

So, the shortcut looks like this:

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\Steam.exe" -applaunch 33910 -winxp -nosplash -maxmem=6141 -cpuCount=4

Hope this help someone and if I spoke something wrong, please accept my apologizes and correct me.

I'm using Windows 7 x64 bit and got average of 45 Fps in Campaign, sometimes 60Fps and sometimes drops to 23-25 is some specific areas of the game.

All at very high, except AA to normal and the Post Effects off.

Resolution and fillrate at 1680x1050.

Yeah your set up will have no issues with that rez! Edited February 24, 2010 by kklownboy

[Alex72 1]

-maxmem=6141 to force recognizing my 6Gb ram

What kklownboy said. The forum and other ARMA sites have this explained many times. 2047 is maximum you can set with ARMA2. Might be lifted with OA and then patched to ARMA2. Not sure though but i hope they sort this.

[BLSmith2112 0]

I really need to learn how to overclock my i7.. everyone seems to have it OC'd and are running the game great.

I'm afraid to though! Heh!

[Bulldogs 10]

What's most likely happening is that setting -CPUCount=2 is convincing Arma 2 to use your first 2 physical cores, whereas with -cpucount=4 it'll use the physical cores if enough of them are available. If something else is using a high amount of one of the physical cores then Arma 2 will use 3 physical cores and one virtual core, and when this happens it introduces cache thrashing (which lowers performance, causes FPS spikes).

If HT is disabled in BIOS then it just wouldn't use the virtual cores at all.

Another thing you can do which should increase performance over the -cpucount=2 with HT on is to load Arma 2 then hit (ctrl+alt+del) then select task manager. Then goto the Arma2.exe process, right click on it and chose "set affinity...", from there, make sure only cores 0,1,2 and 3 are selected, deselect the others.

[Fox '09 14]

With my i5 750 at 3.4GHz, there's strictly no difference between CPUCount on 2 or 4.:icon_sad:

I don't believe it could be HT that makes this increase.

precisely why this thread was for i7s.. not i5s.. :rolleyes:

THANKS OP. I am kicking more than 40 FPS in heavy vegetation in Chernarus & Pogadorsk. I am using CPU count 2.. maybe I should try 4..

[tawah 13]

precisely why this thread was for i7s.. not i5s.. :rolleyes:

I answered EDcase who supposed it may appear with i5...:raisebrow:

[EDcase 87]

Thanks Tawah, its good to get feeback from different systems.

On a side note:

Anyone else get 3 or 4 fps better when switching to 3rd person view? (without moving the mouse)

I spent a couple of hours just playing with settings:

My monitor is 1920x1200 but my system struggles at that res with AA and post effects so I turn off AA to get decent fps.

I found that using 1280x1024 with AA on HIGH looks better than 1920x1200 with no AA plus I get better fps.

System:

Win7 64

i7 920 @ 3.2 (will OC soon)

6Gb ram

GTX 285 1Gb

Edited February 25, 2010 by EDcase

[Bulldogs 10]

Make sure you update your directx. I was getting bad fps with AA on and updating directx increased performance with aa.

[cabelo3d 10]

So the game will never use your full 6GB(or my 12GB) Make a RAMDisk.

How can I do that RAMDisk, this has something to do with the pagefile? If yes, mine is controled automatically.

Also add to your arma2.cfg;

HDRPrecision=32;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead="1";

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1;

HDRPrecision to 32 is more accurated than 8 or what?

Edit: I just take a look now at the cfg file and those lines wasn't there before, but is actually set to:

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=4;

I think 1000 is too much...

I did a thing yesterday after posting here, entering in the profile file, I've noticed that my "sceneComplexity" was set to 1000000...

I put there 700000.. 300000 less than was before, and although decrease few FPS, the game turned faster than ever, I'm experiencing a smoothness never seen before. I think 1 million there, was too much, don't you think?

Last question, in the cfg file I got "3D_Performance=93750" with this value, what this suppose to do? I read posts from people that has this value increased a lot compared to mine, I'm curious, please somebody could explain, I'll appreciate that.

Edited February 25, 2010 by cabelo3d

[EDcase 87]

Make sure you update your directx. I was getting bad fps with AA on and updating directx increased performance with aa.

Thanks Bulldogs. I did update a few days ago. Says I have version 11

Edited February 25, 2010 by EDcase

[Bulldogs 10]

Don't worry about the GPU_MaxFramesAhead. It's reading 4 as the detected frames meaning that's set at your driver level and it won't go over that. If you are having mouse lag you can change the GPU_MaxFramesAhead setting to 1 or 2 to see if that helps.

[EDcase 87]

What's most likely happening is that setting -CPUCount=2 is convincing Arma 2 to use your first 2 physical cores, whereas with -cpucount=4 it'll use the physical cores if enough of them are available. If something else is using a high amount of one of the physical cores then Arma 2 will use 3 physical cores and one virtual core, and when this happens it introduces cache thrashing (which lowers performance, causes FPS spikes).

If HT is disabled in BIOS then it just wouldn't use the virtual cores at all.

Another thing you can do which should increase performance over the -cpucount=2 with HT on is to load Arma 2 then hit (ctrl+alt+del) then select task manager. Then goto the Arma2.exe process, right click on it and chose "set affinity...", from there, make sure only cores 0,1,2 and 3 are selected, deselect the others.

Thats what I suspected.

But... If I set affinity to cores 0-3 it runs REALLY badly (19fps instead of 36fps on my test view)

I think ARMA2 runs best with a 2 core system

---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------

.. maybe I should try 4..

Yes, try 4 and see if you get lower fps like me

Edited February 25, 2010 by EDcase

[Bulldogs 10]

I forgot to add that Scenecomplexity is the same as changing the object detail setting under video settings.

[kklownboy 43]

Thats what I suspected.

But... If I set affinity to cores 0-3 it runs REALLY badly (19fps instead of 36fps on my test view)

0 core is for the OS...

I think ARMA2 runs best with a 2 core

Depends, it does not for me. It also can be dependent on Drivers. some haven muticore performance some not. Its good to tune your kit to find what works best. Two cores for you and Four cores for me.

[Bulldogs 10]

With 1.04 I had better performance with 4 cores, then not specified performance is second, then 2 cores is last.

With 1.05 I have better performance with 2 cores, then slightly less with 4 cores (40 instead of 41 fps) and less again with not specified.