70256-70313 - which gives you best performance?

[otrebla_snake_ita 2]

New betapatch: 70313. I can't test it right now 'cause I'm studying

[MavericK96 0]

Well I playedsome Warfare online yesterday . I don't know but I had this major lag coming into Chernagorsk.

I was in an mi-17 flying around, I saw no textures at all, ground textures far out, some I did see but it where like squares that where gone and suddenly my fps began to drop to 1 even 0 just freezed so hard it took me 10 minutes to get into my menu and get my mouse on ABORT, not even mentioning the time it took me to click so I ended the process...

This was with exThreads=3

:j:

That sounds a lot like what used to happen to me with 1.05, where it would eventually lead up to a "v-buffer creation error" crash. What does your ArmA2.RPT file look like?

[Inkompetent 0]

Did a test run series in the Chernogorsk benchmark mission. I did three tests per setting (vanilla 1.05, and 70256 with -exThreads=0, =1 and =3 respectively). Benchmark results are as follows (avarage value in bold):

1.05 vanilla

28    29    29    [b]28.7[/b]
19    21    21    [b]20.3[/b]
36    32    39    [b]35.7[/b]
6     12    13    [b]10.3[/b]

70256, -exThreads=0

28    28    28    [b]28[/b]
21    21    21    [b]21[/b]
32    35    33    [b]33.3[/b]
10    12    14    [b]12[/b]

70256, -exThreads=1

26    26    26    [b]26[/b]
18    18    19    [b]18.3[/b]
32    31    30    [b]31[/b]
6     5     12    [b]7.7[/b]

70256, -exThreads=3

28    28    28    [b]28[/b]
21    20    20    [b]20.3[/b]
33    34    36    [b]34.3[/b]
11    6     12    [b]9.7[/b]

Conclusion:

I'm actually unsure if -exThreads=1 or =3 did the best job for me. exThreads=1 has the worst benchmark performance overall, but I think it felt the smoothest overall. It is however clear that plain 70256 patch runs better than vanilla 1.05, and both exThreads 1 and 3 runs better than plain 70256 even though the benchmark results say otherwise. The texture loading was much quicker and the microstuttering much less frequent and/or noticable. Yet to test the patch with AI and lots of scripts, but this far it definitely feels like a step forward.

System:

Windows XP Professional 32-bit SP3

Intel Core2 Duo E6750 @ 3.60GHz.

2x1GB Corsair Dominator DDR2 PC8500 @ 4-4-4-14

Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3 Bulk 1

ASUS Radeon HD4850 512MB, 10.4a beta drivers

2x Samsung 7200rpm 500GB SATA-II 16MB cache (game + Windows on one HDD, swap file on another)

ArmA2 settings:

Resolution: 1280x994 Windowed

3D resolution: 100%

View distance: 3000m

Texture detail: Normal

Video memory: Very high

Anistropic filtering: Normal

Antialiasing: Disabled

Terrain detail: High

Objects detail: High

Shadow detail: High

Postprocessing: Disabled

Edited May 11, 2010 by Inkompetent

[InFireBaptize 0]

Well I playedsome Warfare online yesterday . I don't know but I had this major lag coming into Chernagorsk.

I was in an mi-17 flying around, I saw no textures at all, ground textures far out, some I did see but it where like squares that where gone and suddenly my fps began to drop to 1 even 0 just freezed so hard it took me 10 minutes to get into my menu and get my mouse on ABORT, not even mentioning the time it took me to click so I ended the process...

This was with exThreads=3

:j:

Have you by chance had TS3 running and not connected to a server? there is a really weird bug in TS3, that if you're not connected to a server your CPU will be fully utilized as you can verify from the task manager.

[vipermaul 246]

Suma,

What is your recommendation for Dedicated Servers?

-exThreads=1 ? or different?

Will there be a default set for Dedicated Servers?

[suma 8]

What is your recommendation for Dedicated Servers?

-exThreads=1 ? or different?

Will there be a default set for Dedicated Servers?

-exThreads=3 and -exThreads-1 should be both the same for DS, as there is no texture loading on it. I think -exThreads=0 will be most likely preferred, once it is working again (it should work in 70313, but it is not tested much yet). Paying threading overhead for file operations on DS does not seem to make any sense. as no background threads will ever use them (file operations are currently always initiated from the main thread with the exception of some rendering tasks).

[Alex72 1]

Thanks for the newly added test parameters Suma. Will start testing a mission right away as i took it you want that rather than bench values.

[langgis08 10]

-exThreads=3 SEEMS TO MAKE THINgs smoother and textures loads a little faster. i also use cpucount = 4 is that needed here?

My experience on my rig (specs below) is that '- cpuCount=4' doesn't change anything noticeable for me and my system: in windows taskmanager I couldn't detect anything different comparing to launch without this parameter. Seems to be logical for me, because of using quad core (why should the game has to be forced to use 4 cores when it uses them by default / by detecting the quad core). But there may be different experiences / knowledge ... so are there any different experiences / is there better knowledge ?

Yes, and thx to BIS for giving such plenty possibilities to test.

Edited May 11, 2010 by langgis08
question added

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

im testing build 313

-exThreads=1 almost the same as option 3 little stutters sometimes.

-exThreads=2 gives me more stutter but game looks brighter? somehow.

-exThreads=3 little faster view when turning around and less stutter.

by the way im testing with the harvest red campaign..

everytime i wait for the sergeant to finnish his last words abouth miles

and take a helo insertion to the same spot on the map everytime.

Edited May 11, 2010 by =KCT=BlackMamba

[NoRailgunner 0]

same sys + ingame settings like yesterday

pure beta build

"FPS-STAT FPS: 24.6274; FPSmm 17.5439 FPSm: 3.64964 - Chernogorsk (1360 frames in 55.223 s) "

with -exThreads=1

"FPS-STAT FPS: 23.4842; FPSmm 17.8571 FPSm: 3.67647 - Chernogorsk (1296 frames in 55.186 s) "

with -exThreads=3

"FPS-STAT FPS: 24.6609; FPSmm 18.5185 FPSm: 3.80228 - Chernogorsk (1360 frames in 55.148 s) "

Default loading screen "Utes" appears with white textures - loading them fully takes 2-3 seconds.

arma2.rpt error line: Item str_disp_server_control listed twice

(please moderator close/delete this thread http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=98971 Once in a time everybody can be a bit fast... :cool:)

[InFireBaptize 0]

I have a question;

Is it possible for arma2 to detects how many logical cores are available and create threads as required? what about i7 users whom CPU supports simultaneous multithreading?

Thanks,

[MavericK96 0]

im testing build 313

-exThreads=2 gives me more stutter but game looks brighter? somehow.

-exThreads=3 little faster view when turning around and less stutter.

testing option 1 right now

I didn't see an option for -exThreads=2, only 1 and 3, so I wonder what 2 actually does, if anything?

[Jelliz 10]

-exThreads=3 on the 70313 build works perfect for me. Best performance ive ever had with this game so far. Dont have any good benchmarking tools except for the 2 missions in game.

But on -exThreads=1 i get tons of white texture and very slow textureloading in Chernogorsk and Elektrozavodsk. -exThreads=0 seems to be shifting inbetween 1 and 3 for some reason.

Specs:

Acer Aspire 8920

Intel Core 2 duo 2,5ghz

4gb RAM

Nvidia 9650M GS 512mb RAM

Vista 32bit

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

I didn't see an option for -exThreads=2, only 1 and 3, so I wonder what 2 actually does, if anything?

just figured out myself pfff.... but tested it anyway :)

no.. when i found out by reading the change log i tought...

lets test this without the ''-exThreads='' line in my shortcut

think i can say it doesnt work:float:

[Alex72 1]

-exThreads=3 (70313) quad core cpu.

This seems to give best performance for me as well. Not very noticeable on the ground, but when i flew it was very smooth. Not very high altitude i might add so it makes it even better.

[EricM 0]

Not very noticeable on the ground, but when i flew it was very smooth.

That's not related to the threads I think. When flying, grass is not rendered in the betas since a couple of versions ago, which gives a real boost.

[MavericK96 0]

That's not related to the threads I think. When flying, grass is not rendered in the betas since a couple of versions ago, which gives a real boost.

There still has been stutter/lower FPS when flying low over buildings, though, so it is related if the new beta improves that.

[Muahaha 10]

option -exThreads=3 (Quad Core) seems to be the best for me with very very minimal shutter, however I am getting back some graphic glitches (artifacts) on benchmarks 1 that was gone in 1.05.

Anyway, my specs as below.

Core 2 Quad Q6600

ATI HD4850 512MB RAM

4GB RAM

XP Pro 32bits

160G HDD 7200rpm

LENOVO ThinkCenter M57p

ps: What does the latest patch 70313 do?

[zyklone 1]

That's not related to the threads I think. When flying, grass is not rendered in the betas since a couple of versions ago, which gives a real boost.

No.

All this is about texture loading which is causing the stuttering for many.

Grass is just a matter of GPU performance.

Which is also why FPS benchmarks are pretty useless as they don't say much about actual gameplay experience.

Flying low is a very good test of texture loading since the game needs the textures for alot of different models in a large area.

[metalcraze 290]

Benchmark 1

62017 - 38 FPS

70313 - 34-35 FPS

My own test mission

62017 - 36-37 FPS

70313 - 32-34 FPS

Doesn't matter if 0 or 3 extra threads, it's a stable 3-4 FPS loss compared to 1.05

I had the best performance with 69782, ~3-4 FPS better than 1.05

The only upside though is that HDD thrashing is finally gone

Edited May 12, 2010 by metalcraze

[interox 10]

.....

Edited May 12, 2010 by interox

[KeyCat 131]

Done some more testing and even if I can eliminate most of that horrible stuttering by using -exThreads=0 I must say that 1.05 still have the upper hand and feels much more smooth running on my machine so thats what I voted...

Both -exThreads=1 and 3 gives terrible stuttering and is a no go for me. Haven't performed any actually benchmarks regarding framerates so it's all quite subjective but on my rig 1.05 currently performs the best.

Windows XP Pro

Intel C2D E6850 @ 3.41 GHz

2 GB RAM @ 1066 MHz

2 x Seagate ST3250620AS SATA-II 250 GB HDD

GeForce GTX 260 896 MB with drivers 191.07 WHQL

Command line: "D:\Games\ArmA II\Beta\arma2.exe" -nosplash -mod=beta -profiles=d:\games\ARMAII~1\ -bepath=client1 -name=KeyCat -exThreads=0

Edit: You guys work fast :)... Just to clarify, above comments are for build 70256... I just noticed the new 70313 build and will test it out later tonight and see if anything changes...

/KC

Edited May 12, 2010 by KeyCat

[gulag 10]

70313 build with -exThreads=3 is best for me, less stutter.

I have not used any benchmark, I just played the game for a while.

Q 9550 - 3.2 Gh

4 Gb RAM

HD 5850 - 1Gb

Win7 64 bit

[maddogx 13]

70313 + exThreads=3 is best for me.

No benchmark, just my subjective assessment.

[jpinard 10]

I think a slightly important thing to ask is if people are setting their maxframesahead to the exact same values as this single value can change the laggy feeling of movement.