Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

10 Good

About zaira

  • Rank
  1. Well, i wanted arma in new engine. Big islant, high view distance, and alot of AI. There is a game with brand new engine, from major company with island and ai simillar to arma. Epics Unreal 4 engine, game is Ark survival Evolved. And you know what, it lags more than ARMA 3 !!!! But it is GPU bond, and can adress alot of ram.... All in all, i think we will enjoy ARMA with i7 cannonlake, overclocked to 5+ Ghz, so just 2 more years :D My system i5 4690, GTX 970 16GB
  2. I know, so **** them, they wont get my money. Arma 2 had demo, they probably would not sell even 50% of copies if people knew how their game perform. I will buy game, in 2016, when it will be 20$...and will perform ok with skylake (or cannonlake) on 5+GHz with some crazy DDR4 3200+ Mhz Their games are playable if you wait 3 years and buy highest end CPU and RAM and clock it to extreme. And this is the way since Flashpoint.... I have HASWELL refresh i5...it is just not enough
  3. Interesting video....just watch for thread usage.... Im not implying that DX12 would fix min fps (it will not). Problem is they have one thread that is over used. I dont know how they internaly programed AI, rendering, and other jobs. Good way would be if they have one thread for AI blue, 1 thread for AI op force, one thread for civ/animals, one thread for rendering (on main, and results form other threads on main). Bad FPS is mainly from rendering (VD impact), and AI (AI count). They will not have my money for this game, until they modify their engine to do efficient parallel coding (i hope with expansion).
  4. So you are saying that you have playableperformance with ivy i5 @ 4,8 GHz and 2666 MHz. I plan to buy broadwell i7 (now i have haswelll refresh, non k 4690), and 2400 MHz 2x8GB Gskill, hoping no sub 30 in most situations...
  5. point is that intels hexacore are not more powerful than quads in this game. Becouse they have less performance per core at the sam clock, and are generation behind... yes problem is in engine, they need to revrite it. Im realistic, and i dont expect they will in arma 3 lifetime. So i wait for best cpu i can buy, and overclock it to extreme :( I like the damn series so much, i just have the fealing that BIS doesnt respect me as their customer enough for them to go to adventure of revriting the engine. Probably becouse time and money involved in engine core modifications. They are not stupid, they know excactly what in engine needs to be modified.
  6. This is just how computers work. You allways have bottleneck, in some situations it is GPU in some situations it is CPU, in some it is HDD. ARMAS engine is in mostly CPU bottleneck. HPU bottlenck you can fix easy, u can buy better GPU, or add SLI/CF. GPU hardware advences much more than CPU. In 4 years GPU performance is like 4 times better, CPU, like 40%. Solution to engine problems is to revrite rendering job, and AI job, it is obvious that those to things affect performance most radicaly (test it yourselv, high VD, and high number of AI). Frustration comes becouse you cant buy better CPU, no matter how much mony you are willing to spend. But as time pases, cpu slowly advances and buying fastest cpu, can bring you some minor FPS boost.
  7. u have test with 2400 MHz (DDR) DDR4 on 256 bit BUS (quad channel), that is 4+ times bandwith of DDR3 2000, and no big fps difference. So high speed ram wont fix the min fps... Arma engine loves IPC and high freq.
  8. No real gains from haswell refresh to haswell E (stock, and overclocked) http://www.purepc.pl/procesory/intel_core_i75960x_test_haswelle_czyli_8_rdzeni_x99_i_ddr4?page=0,20 .... and ddr4 :( So, as most of players know ARMAs engine cant benefit from multy core CPUs....this link just confirms it Arma 3 Bottleneck Explanation 101 and Counting.... Arma 3 Bottleneck Threshold So i wait for broadwell 1150 , hopefuly with 5% IPC gains and 5% better clock (5GHz+), and maybe with dx 12 support i will buy the game and the expansion in late 2015 (and i was so close to buy it today, with 50 % discount....but i just wont frustrate myself again like i did with arma 2) BIS start learning DX12 API
  9. Now i have r7 260x (sapphire oc version). But video card never was a problem in the series. If details are 2 high you just lower it. But if you are CPU bound you cant realy do anything (except overclock) to avoid frame dips. Ofcourse i watched youtube videos of people having haswell i5s and i7s overclocked to extreme and gameplay of this game (and good fps), but from videos you cant realy tell about performance in big firefights in towns. And that is the reason im not posting in http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147391-Will-my-PC-run-Arma3-What-CPU-GPU-to-get-What-settings-What-System-Specifications . Im into the series to long, so i know engine limitations (for example extreme situation of cpu limitation can still be seen in benchmark 2 of arma 2, where i get 20fps...but i dont expect scenarios to have such ai number....little less and im satisfyed). I just want confirmation of some expirienced players, playing multy with normal number of ai (scripted mission with clanmembers....) with i5 and i7 overclocked haswels, that game is playable without sub 30 fps. I realy like the series, but i still think cpus are not powerfull enough to run this game without frustration, and hoping that intels next gen, overclocked to extreme can play it without stuttering in normal multy situations. ty
  10. I have i5 4690 blck overclocked 3% (3,6 GHz base, 4GHz turbo), and for me arma 2 is playable (no dips into sub 30 fps, with viewdistance 1600m). Finaly playeble after all this years. I stoped playing it 2 years ago becouse at the time there wasnt cpu good enough for me to enjoy the game without frustration. I have like 2000 game hours playing, and hundrets of hours of testing it and maniacly tuning it to work (without sucsess ofcourse, becouse shitty code....you know it alll...). I have all expancions and DLCs, but never finshid any campaign cos of stuttering. I have z97 motherboard and i was thinking of buying i7k broadwell and hopefuly overclocking it past 5 GHz. Do you think that CPU could play the game without stuttering (sub 30 fps dips). I just dont want to buy the game and then wait for years for cpus to be powerful enough to play it (arma 2 is only playeble with overclocked haswell i5ws and i7s) Ty
  11. What do you need is some realy good aircooling, like noctua NHD-14, and overclock that CPU as much as you can. Only then you can enjoy this game... you will allways be CPU bottlenecked in this game. Im hoping i can play this game at constant 30+ fps in large towns with nextGEN cpu generation (intel haswell at 5+ GHz) and at scenarios with alot of AI (i like to make my own small wars with hundreds of AI in editor). Next thing you can have to eliminate stuttering is 32GB of RAM and place whole game+addons in RAMdrive.... (that is not to expensive 4x8GB sticks can be found for 200$).
  12. Your cpu at 4.8 GHz cant play this game with decent visuals in big cities with alot of ai, and mantain 30+ fps. Just try to play elektrozavodsk scenario or benchmark 2.... Runing server and playing in towns with alot of ai, isnt realy playeble with any cpu on the market. Socket r= LGA 2011 Arma 2 can use more than 4 cores, there isnt much gain, but arma can use more... socket r wont have same arhitecture, there is alot more cache and quad channel, and more pins (new socket). If it willl be faster than 2600k for 10-20%, one still needs to have colock close to 6GHz to satisfy my needs to enjoy this game. Ofcourse, some people enjoy the game with less, but wor me only 50% faster cpu than fastest avalable today is enough. And with more cores, you can play with affinity and set some cores to be used by dedicated server.
  13. It is shame that 2.3 years from armas relese date there still is no system that can run it nice. Im waiting socket r sandy bridge, hopefuly that on 6 GHz can play arma without sub 30 fps drops in towns with alot of AI.
  14. zaira

    I think we can all agree... optimization

    If iz used as much ram as needed you would not seen HD LE diode blink while playing the game, and cousing your perfectly playable fps go down to 0 for short amount of time, and that is only happening when objects are not in RAM, thus implying that they should have been and that ram menagement in arma 2 is not working as it should. Cmon, go monitor hdd usage in arma2 process, and see yourself reads. And i read the topic, and didnt found anything worth mentioning. Islands and objects are hughe in arma, and while you travell it is normal to stream it for disk, it would be better if they put it in ram at loading, as much as they can fit. But that is not the case!
  15. zaira

    I think we can all agree... optimization

    You can say that million times, but it is wrong, and it is a lie! Arma 2 on my machine never used more than 1GB. And i played it and monitored ot thousand of hours, arma 2 co, mods, dlcs, and never it used more ram! Firefox now uses more than 1GB of ram (many tabs), crome has dedicated proceses... cmon we are talking about 2012. They should rewrite RAM menagement totaly, and RAMDrive is good, but you cant fit all game files in ram, and it is basucaly wsting ram space, becouse not all the files are neaded all the time ( internal allocation code should do that). My arma folder is 24+ GB ... I guess they just want more money... i wouldnt realy care if they waited for 2 more years and make it properly this time. I dont realy want better graphics, or anything as much i want to play the game without hdd stuttering (totaly ruins expirience).