Operation Arrowhead performance optimizations/comparisons

[andy87s 10]

I got at least 35 more fps when I put -cpucount=4 :p

thanks bro :D

Core i7 2600k 4.2 ghz

ati 5850

12gb ram

[sw1 10]

-cpucount=6 only gives me an extra 1 fps :(

Until I replaced my system in December, I had an Intel pentium dual core @ 2.4Ghz, 2GB of slow RAM and a 9800gtx+ on vista.

It sounds terrible, but somehow on the Arma 2 OA benchmark it would average around 30 fps on high-very high settings and never experienced any problems such as stuttering. lol.

I loved the old pentium CPUs, they were cheap and they'd plough through anything... (happy memories)

Edited May 21, 2011 by SW1

[darthmuller_cro 10]

Well i know this is offtopic but i must know this is most impotrant place for all arma players :P... after so much pain and suffer of arma 2 preformance issues i must say that arma 2

from now goes like i allways wished to go. With latest betas with new allocators and my

ati 6970 in graphich aspect i can play it on everything very high and aa too, lool :dancehead: . Ill wait for new bulldozer-s from amd and i belive this is it for me.

After so much time... i found my internal peace.

[Bluterus 10]

My Current Specs:

I7-950 @ 4.0Ghz

EVGA X58 FTW3

GSKILL DDR3 12GB 1600mhz

SSD 60GB Sata 3 6GB/s for O/S

WD 2TB Black for games pagefile and storage

2x EVGA GTX570's 1280MB Overclocked to 800mhz

Running OA using benchmark 1 on the Chernarus map I get average FPS 35 with these settings:

1920x1080

1920x1080 100%

6300 distance

8 AA

Everything on Very high except HDR on Normal (Cant see a difference)

If I turn the view distance down to 3000 and normal AA I get 55 FPS average.

Anyone getting much better than this?

[pendragonuk 0]

My Current Specs:

I7-950 @ 4.0Ghz

EVGA X58 FTW3

GSKILL DDR3 12GB 1600mhz

SSD 60GB Sata 3 6GB/s for O/S

WD 2TB Black for games pagefile and storage

2x EVGA GTX570's 1280MB Overclocked to 800mhz

Running OA using benchmark 1 on the Chernarus map I get average FPS 35 with these settings:

1920x1080

1920x1080 100%

6300 distance

8 AA

Everything on Very high except HDR on Normal (Cant see a difference)

If I turn the view distance down to 3000 and normal AA I get 55 FPS average.

Anyone getting much better than this?

It's the view distance that is the killer. I can get mid 50's on the benchmark but my view distance is set to less than 2K.

I spend most of my time on foot so I see little advantage to having a very high view distance. It would be different if I spent a lot of time flying.

[Bluterus 10]

It's the view distance that is the killer. I can get mid 50's on the benchmark but my view distance is set to less than 2K.

I spend most of my time on foot so I see little advantage to having a very high view distance. It would be different if I spent a lot of time flying.

Wow guess I shouldn't whinge too much then considering I run all very high. I don't fly really either but I like sniping and you need view distance for that or it just looks horrible.

[pendragonuk 0]

Wow guess I shouldn't whinge too much then considering I run all very high. I don't fly really either but I like sniping and you need view distance for that or it just looks horrible.

No great surprise as your computer is several times more powerful than mine LoL Would have cost a fair bit more too :eek:

[gossamersolid 155]

My Current Specs:

I7-950 @ 4.0Ghz

EVGA X58 FTW3

GSKILL DDR3 12GB 1600mhz

SSD 60GB Sata 3 6GB/s for O/S

WD 2TB Black for games pagefile and storage

2x EVGA GTX570's 1280MB Overclocked to 800mhz

Running OA using benchmark 1 on the Chernarus map I get average FPS 35 with these settings:

1920x1080

1920x1080 100%

6300 distance

8 AA

Everything on Very high except HDR on Normal (Cant see a difference)

If I turn the view distance down to 3000 and normal AA I get 55 FPS average.

Anyone getting much better than this?

8 AA and 6300 distance is rediculous dude... they drain performance quite a bit.

Put AA on normal and VD to 4000 instead.

[NeferiusX 10]

Hey guys, not really sure if this is the correct place for this. But I've been tweaking with setting for days in arma2: combined Ops, And found out a stunning bit. So I've been playing around 15-20 fps on the maps Chernarus and Utes, my settings were pretty low, with 800 by 600 res. Then I decided to test just how slow it would run on higher settings, but to my suprise I got an increase of about 20 fps! Just by setting "Shadow Detail" to High, from normal! Then I turned texture detail and memory detail to Very High, and got another 5 fps! I thought I had a low end video card, it's an ATI 6540 or something like that, but it runs better on higher settings... I have a 3.2 dual core, with 4gb of ram. The game would run grand on the :OA maps, with a good 40-70-fps at all times, but on the Utes and Chernarus maps I was always getting 15-20 fps until I upped the detail level. Lol, that's kinda confusing as seeing my card is a lower end card, yet runs better on higher settings. I've turned off/on anti-alasting, and turned off post processing, and vsync, as the game runs much better without them. Right now, the game's running great on very high textures, low ground texture, normal object texture, 1045 view distance and high shadow detail. I put the ground to textures to low so I can see better while laying down, lol. Anyone else see an increase in fps by increasing thier settings?

Edited August 14, 2011 by NeferiusX

[NeferiusX 10]

Now today, for some reason, the performance has gone way down, like to 25fps. Time to buy a better video card.

[gL33k 0]

i upgraded my hardware from Q6600@3.2ghz / 4Go / 5870 / win7 64 to :

i7 2600k@4.5ghz (Hyperthreading off) / 8Go / 5870 / win7 64.

- i more that DOUBLE my performance in arma2 CO. i can play at object very high , fly over big city with VD > 4500m and having more than 35 fps .

- CPU benchmark of arma2 (benchmark 2) give me 21 fps with vd 4000. my Q6600 did 9 fps with vd 2000m...

it IS the ultimate arma hardwware upgrade. the other is to set an ramdisk with 32Go and put arma2 files on it. i iwll maybe do that , later ...

ps: hdd stuttering seem to be gone . i suspect arma2 to use the ram space more efficiently , especially since i have now 8Go . but cpu horsepower has definitly its role too

ps2: ;)

here my results on armamark 1.0 mission

@proper plant low visual

@stock game

http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/260418arma2oasettings.png > 100kb

http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=260418arma2oasettings.png

Edited August 21, 2011 by Foxhound

[MavericK96 0]

the other is to set an ramdisk with 32Go and put arma2 files on it. i iwll maybe do that , later ...

You know, I tried making an 8 GB RAMDisk and loading ArmA onto it, but I actually saw a performance decrease over just using my SSD.

[gL33k 0]

You know, I tried making an 8 GB RAMDisk and loading ArmA onto it, but I actually saw a performance decrease over just using my SSD.

really ? the ramdisk software was maybe not so good ? did you try another one ?

[MavericK96 0]

Yeah, I'm not sure. I used the same software I used back when I had 6 GB and no SSD...only could use a 2.5 GB RAMdisk then but the performance seemed better.

[gL33k 0]

keep 6Go (4GB arma exe, 1GB video texture cache, 1GB system cache ?) for RAM , use 6 for arma add see if it's better ?

[MavericK96 0]

Yeah, I may give it a shot again sometime. Just been too lazy to mess with it. :cool:

[meade95 0]

Within the video options of A2/0A (patched to 1.59). Do most have the new Vsync option set to "enabled" or "disabled" What about the HDR option ?

Thanks

I'm getting some performance issues (white lines around trees) that I never had before since reinstalling and upgrading to a new Alienware system running 3GB GTX 590 card...

[humvee28 10]

Sometimes small things do the Trick...

I had Problems for a while now with Texture popping and slight stuttering while moving around on SP-Missions in Zargabad.

Sys :

Q9650 @ 4 Ghz

HD 5870

8 GB Ram

2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200 u/min in RAID 0

Gamesettings :

FR : 100% @ 1.920x1.080

VD : 2000

Tex : High

VM : Default

AF : Very High

AA : Normal

LD : High

OD : High

PP : Very Low

Vsync : On

Game (CO) has always be patched to the last Version (including Betas, running now on RC2).

I couldn´t really find a Solution for this until i tried an other Defragmeter, PerfectDisk.

After defragmenting my Drives with Performance Settings, issues has gone nearly zero, and the Game feels much smoother now. :bounce3:

Sure, it will not rise your FPS, and it will not be an Replacement for proper Hardware, but if someone expirience the same Problems like me, then this could maybe an Option for you.

[perineum 0]

Can someone help me or maybe tell me if they have this problem too? I have an athlon X4 640 and it runs soooo bad. Anytime AI gets going the game falls completely apart. I usually play Benny Warfare coop with a friend of mine on my dedicated server which runs on an i5 2500k. The game runs super at the start when nothing is going on, but as soon as we activate the first town its all over. I drop down to single digit fps. The last update made it so much worse. I know the game isn't great on quad core processors, but does anyone know a workaround? I gave my old dual core to my friend and his game runs great. Do I have to downgrade to play Arma?

[taro8 806]

Also if you have windows 7 then make OA exe disable desktop compositions and visual themes. Its in compatibility tab when you enter properties. It saves some CPU.

[doveman 7]

Also if you have windows 7 then make OA exe disable desktop compositions and visual themes. Its in compatibility tab when you enter properties. It saves some CPU.

Radeon Pro's quite handy if you've got an ATI card as you can set it to disable Aero when launching OA and it will re-enable it when you exit.

I was looking for a "render frames ahead" setting in RP, but it doesn't seem to have that unfortunately.

[doveman 7]

I've run the OA Benchmark with my Phenom II X4 955, 8GB RAM and HD6950 (shader unlocked) 2GB and was wondering if anyone could suggest what else might make a dramatic improvement. I haven't got anything overclocked at the moment, but can get my CPU up from 3.2Ghz to about 3.8-3.9 Ghz stable, and my 6950 from 800/1250 Mhz to 930/1375 Mhz if it will help.

I started with these settings:

Very High, 1280x720

Visibility 4039

All on Very High except:

Video Memory - Default

Aliasing - Normal

Shadows - Normal

HDR - Normal

Post Processing - Low

and in the config (defaults, not manually tweaked):

3D_Performance=93750;

refresh=59;

FSAA=2;

postFX=2;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=3;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=2129182720;

nonlocalVRAM=2147483647;

vsync=1;

AToC=7;

PPAA=0;

PPAA_Level=0;

Windowed=0;

FXAA=0;

Using ArmaII Launcher I set Max Mem 2047, CPU count 4, Beta, No splash screen, Default World - empty and enabled the mod okt_noblurbeta.

1) First Benchmark - 38FPS. MAX VRAM: 1046MB. MAX RAM: 5171MB (after 3481MB)

2) V-sync Disabled (and Enabled), Radeon Pro closed: 38 FPS, Max RAM: 5352MB (3403MB after)

3) V-sync Enabled, Triple Buffering set in Radeon Pro: 35 FPS, Max RAM: 4717MB (3411MB after)

4) V-Sync Enabled, nothing enabled in Radeon Pro: 36 FPS, Max RAM: 4839MB (3421MB after)

5) Reduced Visibility from 4039 to 2010: 43 FPS

6) Reduced AA to Disabled and Post Processing to Very Low (FSAA=0, postFX=1): 48FPS, Max VRAM: 1222MB

7) AA back to Normal (FSAA=2, postFX=1): 42FPS

Having Radeon Pro running does seem to cause a hit of 2-3 FPS, which offsets the gain I may have seen from using it to disable Aero. I guess I could do that manually without using RP, but it's a bit of a pain really.

EDIT: Done some more tests

8) All on high except Vid Mem Default, AF V. High, AA Normal, Postprocess V. Low, Vsync diabled: 45 FPS

9) AA Disabled, Shadow Disabled, HDR Normal: 55 FPS

10) AA Normal: 51 FPS

11) Shadow Normal: 50 FPS

12) Added PPAA=3, PPAA_Level=2: 49 FPS

13) Increase Visibility to 4084: 39FPS

14) Visibility 2010, Terrain Detail Very High, Shadows High, Post Process Disabled: 44FPS

So I get quite a boost (10 FPS) at 9) with AA and Shadows disabled and HDR on Normal and lose about half this with AA and Shadows back at Normal and another 10 FPS increasing the visibility from 2010 to 4084. I don't like the way shadows pop-up on Normal anyway, which they don't do on High (I understand they get processed by the CPU at Normal and the GPU at High or above) but I'll have to see if it's the Terrain Detail at V.High or the Shadows at High that's costing me 5 FPS, as I could probably live without shadows whereas I believe the Terrain Detail's quite important. I'm not sure whether Visibility at around 2000 is high enough for flying though, so perhaps someone could advise on that, as if I need to increase it I'll have to reduce something else.

EDIT 2: Yep, seems it's Shadows (and AA) that are mostly responsible.

15) AA Disabled: 50 FPS

16) AA and Shadows Disabled: 55 FPS

17) Shadows High: 51 FPS

18) Shadows Disabled, AA Normal: 49 FPS

19) AA and Shadows Disabled, Visibility 4048: 42 FPS.

So I still lose 13 FPS with Shadows and AA Disabled if I increase Visibility from 2010 to 4048.

Edited February 28, 2012 by doveman

[domokun 515]

@ Doveman: thanks for the feedback. I found it very interesting as I'm due to upgrade my R4890 to R6950 this week!

In the meantime, have a look at these tips.

[r20 10]

I almost optimized my game after reinstall.

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000; NOT talking about GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=3;

What should I set "GPU_MaxFramesAhead" to: 0, 3, 8, 100, 300, 500, 1000??

What setting for best FPS?

Please answer

[NoRailgunner 0]

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000; setting not available in UI, supported values 1 to 1000 (0==driver), May lower 'Mouse lag' by GPU render-ahead buffer GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=3; written by engine each start, changing it manually has no effect!