Offload more work to GPU?

[pauliesss 2]

Suma: I would like to ask if you will concentrate more on game/engine optimization in the next beta patches ?

Edit: to be fair, I did not start this topic, my post(and some other posts) were separated from Beta Patch discussion.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Pauliesss

[sethos 2]

Is it possible to do anything to offload more operations over to the GPU instead of overloading the CPU? As I've said before, I fixed all my problems in OA by overclocking my i7 940 from stock 2.93 to 3.8GHz, which goes to show the game is very, very CPU intensive, perhaps a bit too much.

Whilst on the other hand, my GPU is sitting at 30-40% load across both cores, sometimes the second core will dip below 25% - Is it possible to offload operations over to the GPU or does that need to be done in the engine development stage?

I also think that's the problem many people are having without them knowing, an overloaded CPU.

[MJK-Ranger 0]

The GPU are already overloaded, my GPU of 2 GB of RAM are almost 100% used when i'm playing.

[kklownboy 43]

Is it possible to do anything to offload more operations over to the GPU instead of overloading the CPU? As I've said before, I fixed all my problems in OA by overclocking my i7 940 from stock 2.93 to 3.8GHz, which goes to show the game is very, very CPU intensive, perhaps a bit too much.

Whilst on the other hand, my GPU is sitting at 30-40% load across both cores, sometimes the second core will dip below 25% - Is it possible to offload operations over to the GPU or does that need to be done in the engine development stage?

I also think that's the problem many people are having without them knowing, an overloaded CPU.

and sometimes a core can go -1. It is a moving target, CPU and GPU cores. I can get 99% on a single GPU core, but when i run four i can get 80%+,60%+,40%+,75%+ and thats only at one 5second snapshot, the next can be all below 50%, or some higher some lower. I have recorded hours(days even) (since the 1.01DE) of ARMA1/2, with Everest with Different OSes, cards, CPUs, RAM amount ect... Your measurement is not accurate, and your assumption on workload and what that workload metric means , like needing 100% usage is wrong, relative to performance. Load balancing for your GPUs is done by the driver not the Game. And will very greatly over driver generations. What you will find is when you have good frames/smooth game play, your % will be/seem low, but when your frames are tanking your % are veryhigh....

As for CPU power, this is a DX9ish game, and with multigpus doing basic AFR, you want 3.8(better at 4.2-4.6!) to have really nice filtering at highrez and the game to be smooth. That ofcourse means a good HDD/SSD/RAMDrive also.

[sethos 2]

and sometimes a core can go -1. It is a moving target, CPU and GPU cores. I can get 99% on a single GPU core, but when i run four i can get 80%+,60%+,40%+,75%+ and thats only at one 5second snapshot, the next can be all below 50%, or some higher some lower. I have recorded hours(days even) (since the 1.01DE) of ARMA1/2, with Everest with Different OSes, cards, CPUs, RAM amount ect... Your measurement is not accurate, and your assumption on workload and what that workload metric means , like needing 100% usage is wrong, relative to performance. Load balancing for your GPUs is done by the driver not the Game. And will very greatly over driver generations. What you will find is when you have good frames/smooth game play, your % will be/seem low, but when your frames are tanking your % are veryhigh....

As for CPU power, this is a DX9ish game, and with multigpus doing basic AFR, you want 3.8(better at 4.2-4.6!) to have really nice filtering at highrez and the game to be smooth. That ofcourse means a good HDD/SSD/RAMDrive also.

So what I gathered from that somewhat messy post is, the load on the component is dynamic? ... Well damn sherlock.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Suma
No longer relevant after move

[Fox '09 14]

AI is tied to FPS too much , there should be a +5/-5 FPS allowance between "AI" FPS and "GPU" FPS.

[bono_lv 10]

To be honest - I don't get the whole idea about AI or server limiting FPS. Great example - on some servers on high settings I get more fps than on others with low settings. It's just my guess, but I think clients fps is limited by servers fps somehow. Weird... Why is it so?

I remember when Arma 2 was released, I did some tests. I found out that at the moments when my fps was very very low gpu usage was barely 50% each (dual gpu single card). Cpu at that moment also was about 50-75%, but that is different story. I think it would be more logical if gpu also would be used near to it's full potential.

And question.

Is actual graphics rendering on seperate, free "thread" or whatever it's called? Or is it really as Fox'09 said - tied to some kind of AI's fps?

[b101_uk 10]

Well with my stock speed I7 920 with HT off my 4 CPU cores are seldom above 50% average use for hours on end for all 4 cores combined playing ArmA II, individual cores will be as high as <75% and as low as >25% with the middle cores at ~50% each giving a 50% average CPU usage.

don’t know what load my single GTX275 (@ stock speed) is at but I play at the following detail levels in and attain 50fps in both benchmark 01 in ArmA II and the OA benchmark

ArmA II/OA settings:

Visibility: 3000m

Screen Resolution: 1280x720

3d resolution: 100%

Texture detail: Very High

Video Memory: Default

Anisotropic Filtering: low

Anti-aliasing: low

Terrain Detail: Normal

Object Detail: Very High

Shadow Detail: high

Post Process Effects: Disable

[suma 8]

Is it possible to do anything to offload more operations over to the GPU instead of overloading the CPU?

I would say it is most likely possible, but it would be probably quite hard and it is unclear what the benefits would be. Even now the game is GPU limited in some situations for some users. We concentrate more on using multiple CPU cores better, as we are convinced that while this is a challange as well, in the end this will bring more effect to more users with less effort on our side.

[MavericK96 0]

We concentrate more on using multiple CPU cores better, as we are convinced that while this is a challange as well, in the end this will bring more effect to more users with less effort on our side.

I think this is a better idea. I've definitely seen where my cores are not fully utilized by the game (i.e. ~50% utilization on all 4 physical cores).

[sethos 2]

I would say it is most likely possible, but it would be probably quite hard and it is unclear what the benefits would be. Even now the game is GPU limited in some situations for some users. We concentrate more on using multiple CPU cores better, as we are convinced that while this is a challange as well, in the end this will bring more effect to more users with less effort on our side.

Oh yeah, I'd definitely take that instead because it seems the i7 users are having a lot of problems and it sounds like it can be traced back to bad utilization of the available cores.

[Fox '09 14]

utilization is one thing, but using it efficiently is another.. no?

[sethos 2]

utilization is one thing' date=' but using it efficiently is another.. no?[/quote']

Well, it does neither right now so I'll take any of them.

[b101_uk 10]

Oh yeah, I'd definitely take that instead because it seems the i7 users are having a lot of problems and it sounds like it can be traced back to bad utilization of the available cores.

my game plays ok even if not using all the cores 100%

so not all I7 users have problems even if there is room for improvement to better utilise more % of the CPU cycles more efficiently.

most of the problems you see are mainly on peoples PC's which are running with there CPU/RAM/GPU at higher speeds than they should &/or beta vid card drivers or combinations there of.

[Punisher5555 0]

my game plays ok even if not using all the cores 100%

so not all I7 users have problems even if there is room for improvement to better utilise more % of the CPU cycles more efficiently.

most of the problems you see are mainly on peoples PC's which are running with there CPU/RAM/GPU at higher speeds than they should &/or beta vid card drivers or combinations there of.

I agree with that. I think most of the issues come to that. Heck I think the first thing people do when they get a i7 is to overclock something.

My stock system has never had any issues with the OFP/ArmA/ArmA2 series other than the stated ones by the devs.

[sethos 2]

my game plays ok even if not using all the cores 100%

so not all I7 users have problems even if there is room for improvement to better utilise more % of the CPU cycles more efficiently.

most of the problems you see are mainly on peoples PC's which are running with there CPU/RAM/GPU at higher speeds than they should &/or beta vid card drivers or combinations there of.

No, stock speeds were unplayable for me - Almost every user can report huge benefits from overclocking, so that's just fud right there. I HAVE to have my CPU overclocked to even play the game, this game refuses to take proper advantage of the i7.

My stock system has never had any issues with the OFP/ArmA/ArmA2 series other than the stated ones by the devs.

Neither have I, OA is the game causing a massive headache.

[Pyronick 21]

I would say it is most likely possible, but it would be probably quite hard and it is unclear what the benefits would be. Even now the game is GPU limited in some situations for some users. We concentrate more on using multiple CPU cores better, as we are convinced that while this is a challange as well, in the end this will bring more effect to more users with less effort on our side.

Can the GPU offload the vector graphics used in the map and the drawing HUD?

[Vympel999 10]

I agree with that. I think most of the issues come to that. Heck I think the first thing people do when they get a i7 is to overclock something.

My stock system has never had any issues with the OFP/ArmA/ArmA2 series other than the stated ones by the devs.

My rig:

HP xw8200

Dual 3.4GHz Xeon 64bit

8Gb DDR2 ECC RAM

EVGA 285 GTX 1Gb - 197.45 drivers

1 Tb SATA hard drive

Samsung SyncMaster P2350 monitor

Zboard Merc keyboard

TrackIR 4

Saitek X-52 stick/throttle/pedals

Logitech MOMO racing wheel

Microsoft wireless mouse 5000 blue LED

Windows 7 PRO 64bit

Those drivers run better then the latest from nvidea?

[bono_lv 10]

Can the GPU offload the vector graphics used in the map and the drawing HUD?

This is really good idea!

Also I doubt it's possible, but buildings should be rendered by gpu only too. Arma 2 and OA runs soooo smooth, until there are buildings in view. Moar buildings = much less fps. While it's ok in some small town, it's impossible to play in big cities.

[Punisher5555 0]

My rig:

HP xw8200

Dual 3.4GHz Xeon 64bit

8Gb DDR2 ECC RAM

EVGA 285 GTX 1Gb - 197.45 drivers

1 Tb SATA hard drive

Samsung SyncMaster P2350 monitor

Zboard Merc keyboard

TrackIR 4

Saitek X-52 stick/throttle/pedals

Logitech MOMO racing wheel

Microsoft wireless mouse 5000 blue LED

Windows 7 PRO 64bit

Those drivers run better then the latest from nvidea?

Yes. There are problems with the 2xx.xx series of drivers. Like your custom settings for games never save. ArmA2 performance drop, and reports of stuttering (like we see) in many other games.

2xx.xx series was made for the 400 series of cards. Until I see good things reported I will stick with these for my 285gtx. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[MJK-Ranger 0]

Best GPU card ever is GTX 285 + nVIDIA drivers 197.45 ;)

[Vympel999 10]

Best GPU card ever is GTX 285 + nVIDIA drivers 197.45 ;)

Ok i am getting those drivers I have a 285gtx , maybe i can even play the game with those :)

[MavericK96 0]

Yeah, I might have to roll back to 197.45 and see if I keep getting the weird driver crashes.

[sethos 2]

Best GPU card ever is GTX 285 + nVIDIA drivers 197.45 ;)

You wish :P