Leopardi

What about -enableHT command? Does it make any difference?

Anyone else here with an AMD CPU and GPU suffering from ridiculous performance? I can't get 30+ FPS performance even on low. If I go to a 40-player Wasteland server, it's only playable while looking directly at your feet.

And multiplayer FPS is dependant on server FPS. This is really sad, BF3 utilizes over 90% of my 6-core CPU and BF4 will even more.

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-on-windows-8-will-have-better-cpu-optimization/ Is ArmA III going to have DX11.2? The biggest performance problem is the CPU optimization so ArmA III especially would benefit from this.

The DICE dev was actually talking about 11.1 having the CPU improvements. So even W8 users will benefit from it... in a couple of years majority will be using 8 and 8.1, and AFAIK there will be no ArmA IV out by then, so investing in 11.1+ support makes sense for me.

Is there a way to limit FPS other than some unreliable 3rd party softwares? If the FPS keeps jumping from 30 to 60 all the time it's just unplayable, limiting to a solid 30 would give a much more consistent feel.

What are you trying to say? Doesn't change the fact that A3 only utilizes a third of what BF3 can utilize.

"CPU heavy" is a wrong term, the issue is the utilization. ArmA III uses only 30% of a hexacore when BF3 uses 91%. Basically in BF3 a normal 3000MHz CPU is a 9000MHz CPU because of better optimization. If the A3 engine was that good utilizing the CPU, it'd be just as smooth as BF3.

I posted in the wrong section so I'll just link it here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?150857-Text-editor-invisible-with-dark-forum-theme

http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/85-breaking-the-32-bit-barrier What happened to this plan? Obviously ArmA III could potentially gain hugely if it was able to use the CPU better and utilize more RAM than 2GB. Even GPU's have more memory in them today than the whole 32-bit application can handle. Even Battlefield creators are moving to 64-bit code, and they don't have the problem of having huge amounts of streaming from HDD: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2012/05/23/frostbite-engine-64-bit/1

Yeah there really is no excuse, BIS just needs to get their shit together and make it work - it's possible.

Firefox 19.0.2 Very slow to hover your mouse on each selection to find the option you want.

Yeah don't expect 100% with a quadcore or hexacore, but expect 91.1%. http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18459152 If ArmA III won't be able to even utilize 75% something is reaally wrong with the code.

ArmA 3 FPS would skyrocket if utilization was this good. Too bad we can't even get 50% of this utilization level, gotta admit EA can do at least some things right.

Zoomed FOV should not be configurable past the default limit, then it's good.

Negativity is understandable, since this problem has been out there for years unfixed.

Surely this comes before any other bugs since people can't actually even play the game with this performance. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=220 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1264 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=465 The tracker is literally full of these low fps/low utilization reports. I'm much above the recommended and I can't even get the minimum required 30 FPS performance on Standard or Low settings.

There is no excuse, look at Frostbite 2 engine, I can get 100% GPU utilization easily in it, with 100% utilization for CPU main thread and like 75% for the rest. ArmA 3 just gives 85% for main / 30% or less for others. GPU is bottlenecked down to 20-30%. There clearly is a problem with the engine and it needs fixing or you'll only have people with 4.5GHz OC'd newest Intels playing this game.

Flaw like that coupled with the horrible client side performance issues even without it has potential to kill the game. ArmA is more and more gaining sales from the multiplayer side.

No, it's not utilizing it:

If it needs, why doesn't it use the power? Put it on the other cores merely running at 20%, instead of lagging the game to hell and back with FPS on the minus.

How are BIS even monitoring the frametimes while developing since its not available as a command? Would be so much simpler to analyze performance if we had a GPU/CPU frametime graph and FPS counter via commands, like Frostbite 2.

No you didn't, lowering it lowers performance... that feature was invented to improve performance. There goes the hope of playing ArmA III anytime soon. Maybe in 2 years when I'll finally have the chance to ditch my AMD CPU.

FX-8350 absolutely destroys the 3570k. The video description has the download links, anyone here with a FX cpu able to try it out and post results?

This is one of the effects of not having a 64-bit executable. It doesn't matter if we have 16GB RAM, 32-bit application even with with LAA has a 4GB limit.