zaira
-
Content Count
108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by zaira
-
-
Read an article the other day where they were asked about performance issues, and they pretty much did the stock response... deflect blame to everything other possibility, and list all the reasons/excuses why it isn't their fault, how it's difficult, etc, etc...Basically, tried to minimize and dodge the issue, and then dangled the virtual carrot w/ something along the lines of "of course, it's not perfect, and we can try to improve it" (paraphrasing). That was pretty much as far as they ever go when discussing anything relating to shitty performance.
Typical, soft and evasive response that always starts with how its someone else's problem.
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
-
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).
-
Please calm down. Your hexacore-story have zero significant details. You have to distinguish between the fact that cpupower and ramspeed pushes the minimum fps in arma3 a lot and the fact that overclocking a haswell to 4,8 ghz and buy a 2800er ram Kit isnt a good solution for all. Your logic is: because it isn´t a good solution for everyone it can´t be true. Wrong logic. And please don´t repeat exactly the same statement one after another over months and years....:o Everyone knows that the ressource-management in arma3 isn´t good.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...
-
2 weeks ago i tested an IntelHexacore with my Mach2GT Compressorcooling Unit, i overclocked it to over 5Ghz, had enough GPU Power with 3x780Ti (TriSli) but this system does a shit to the frames, they went down like one every other system. Funny how long a customer need to wait to play Arma in acceptable FPS, not the time should pass, they only should start to optimize this prehistoric engine, not a single statement was taken by the devs to this, that behaviour should explains itselfpoint 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.
-
Ridiculous that some people still trying to tell that more Mhz here and there will boost the frames in Arma... And the only thing Arma would love is the dev which try to fix the engine.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.
-
I'm sure it keeps getting swept under the carpet in this thread, in a lot of cases, you shouldn't be worrying about the CPU as much as the frequency of the RAM, I have 2000Mhz Dominator GT CL8 and after a bios reset, it was running at 1600MHz, I didn't bother to change it back at the time as it makes no conceivable difference for browsing etc. Then I read that the Arma engine has a problem with transferring to and from the RAM ( or something along those lines) I clocked my RAM back up to 2000MHz and got 10-12fps for 400MHz I spend most of my time flying so really hate it every time I fly over a town but the RAM increase has made a massive difference to my minimum FPS, I only wish I could try 3000MHz. I'm really keen to hear some feedback from folks on high frequency DDR4 as that may be a game changer when they eventually start hitting 4000MHz :)I have 100s of hours on the same few flying missions and have easily replicate-able (sp) scenarios to test FPS, not to mention the gains in the benchmark etc.
For reference,
4770K
8GB Dominator GT 2000MHz CL8
R9 290X
Water cooled
All settings on Ultra
Overall visibility 3540
Objects 1900
Disabling 2 cores and overclocking my 4770K to 5.5GHz sees no real gain, maybe 3-4 FPS
All cores clocked at 4.8 sees about 5 FPS
Overclocking my GPU or crossfiring them sees no FPS increase.
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.
-
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
-
Yeah dude.. Your CPU is good compared to mine.I have amd phenom x6 at 2.9 ghz, and I can run the game, but did alotof tweaking on cfgs
Also stuttering sounds like a diff problem. What is your video card?
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
-
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
-
Hello,Below is my current specs for the gaming PC I am wanting to build. I want to make it as cheap as possible but still able to play ARMA 2 and 3. I have no idea about building a PC - would these specs be ok to play Arma 2 and what else do I need? (monitor, keyboard and mouse I already have)
Thanks
"Motherboard
Z77-Pro4-M 103
CPU
i7-3770K 335
Solid State Drive
Intel SSD-330 SATA3 60GB / 120GB 68
VGA
1G GTX 650 Gigabyte 145
1G 7750 Sapphire 99
RAM
Patriot Gamer2 45
= 696 or 650
"
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$).
-
My 2500k @4.8ghz doesn't come close to going that low unless I put like the maximum number of groups possible fighting in a small area. For practical ARMA situations the 2500k allows perfect gameplay for me.Did you mean socket 2011? No such thing as socket r now or in the foreseeable future...
Socket 2011 will probably offer lower A2 performance- A2 can only use four cores, and a six-core is not going to be able to overclock as high as a quad core. Those 2011 CPUs are still going to be the same sandy bridge architecture.
I dunno where you're getting 6ghz from. Unless the extra l3 cache is going to be significant for games... Still nowhere near worth it for the price...
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.
-
Should be fine at reasonable settings up to 5K draw distance.Recommended:
Textures: Very High
Video Memory: Default
View distance: 3500-5000
Anis/Antialiasing: Normal
Terrain Detail, Objects Detail, HDR: Normal
Shadows: High (any lower and causes shadows to be rendered on CPU)
Postprocess Effects: Disabled (I don't like the effects and is a major GPU strain)
Resolution: Native (100%)
Tweak from here, textures don't have a huge effect on FPS if any from my testing. Default VRAM setting detects your GPUs ram, any other option is preset and may not use all of your VRAM.
Again, don't worry about anything above 1GB of VRAM unless you are running Nvidia Surround/Eyefinity.
Benchmark 1 is CPU/GPU, Benchmark 2 is just for CPU. I like using Benchmark 3 or the OA benchmark. Aim for 30FPS+, it's impossible to get a consistent 60 FPS with Arma's CPU bottleneck.
ASUS boards have really nice automatic overclocking features.
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.
-
It's called a drive cache and Windows already provides a very sophisticated one, caching something twice is a total waste. A RAM drive should prevent small stutters the first time a file is loaded but after that really shouldn't have any effect postive or negative.Current versions of ArmA will use as much RAM as needed, if it isn't using it, it doesn't need it, more RAM isn't a magic cure-all for anything. See the last few posts of THIS thread for a recent experiment that did cause ArmA to use upwards of 4GB.
---------- Post added at 07:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------
Might be worth trialling for an ArmA PC: Increase the FileSystem Memory Cache Size (Win7/Vista)
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!
-
Its been said many times before.Arma only used ~2GB of RAM and for Arma3 this will not change so no reason to goto 64bit OS. Also it would need a complete rewrite (from the bottom up) of the engine, aint going to happen this side of the end of the world;)
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).
-
The BIS devs have made posts suggesting that a move to 64 bit operation won't make any significant improvements to performance.They could use alot more RAM (now it is cheap), and in a year it will be even cheaper. Now people are using RAMdrive to eliminite hdd stuttering (everything goes soupper smooth and your fps drops becouse some of the textures/other data are loaded from HDD to RAM).
-
It would be realy nice that they run in game server as a another process, thus you can set affinity on other cores.
I realy realy WANT that, that way i can run my own little war with much more AI...
Shure i can set up dedicated, but im to tyred to set it up (and lazzy)
-
zaira, what are your system specs now?These are my settings from another thread:
q6600 @ 3,4 GHz 4GB RAM, ati 4850, and i7 920 @4,2 with ati 5970 6GB RAM.
Why are you even asking me and showing me pictures of benchmark 8, like it represents something...?????
Try benchmark 2, or try warfare server, or just try campagin, or playing in elektrozavodsk scenario.
cmon
Game is using only small amount of avalable ram. Streams textures all the time (it is just the way they implemented streamning, becouse limitations in the engine, i guess this amount of ram was considered high when the engine was written), implying hdd stuttering.
How long are you in this forum? Didnt seen RAMDISK title?
Did you ever played with editor and alot of AI?
How many AI is on E8? Is E8 in big city (lot of textures)?
Are you trying to tell me E8 represents ingame performance?
There are tons of arma 2 performance analysis out there on web, on much better systems than ours.
No trolling, just representing my opinion.
Have a nice day, and please dont consider this post as any kind of attack.
-
I have every arma game and expansion.
And with every game you make (since flashpoint), i need to wait 3 years to play it with decent visuals/fps on high end hardware at that time.
Im tyred of this, i didnt finish campaign in arma2, AO, BAF, PMC, becouse i just dont stand the stuttering. And i wait IVY BRIDGE 22nm on soceket R to have enough cpu power to run the game with decent amount of AI and visuals.
I would buy top system today (im engineer anyway and i use CAD/ FEM so i need good system) but even with highest performance system with 50% overclock i cant get good fps. OK, so i need to wait 1 more year like with your other games....
What i want!
1) 64 bit native, and use RAM, design game to utilize 24+ GB of RAM (as it will be normal 4 years ago when the game will be playable), i hate stuttering, and the only way to eliminate this is to use ramdisk.
RAM is cheap and in the future it will be even cheaper, load everything in RAM.
2) Better multicore ( design the game to utilize minimum 4 cores, and run on 16 wich will be normal 4 years ahead).
3) DX 11 native, the whole part of rendering in your engine isnt using modern GPUs to its full potential
Im not trolling, i realy like your games, but you just aint fair to us. Dont realise unfinished/unpolished games.
Im shure that ARMA 3 wont mach my expectations, becouse there realy isnt time for team as small as yours to make new engine or optmize old one an 1 year.
-
The one thing I hope for with ArmA III is more CPU threads. In playing ArmA II, I was watching while playing and I notice that 3 threads are used fairly well, with possibly a fourth thread in use.Why do you ask that I ask for more threads? Simple. ArmA II has shown that it is not a GPU limited game, but a CPU limited game. A kick ass GPU will not get you much in the way of extra FPS. It is all the objects in game that bog this game down, + physics, + AI, so if you have a slow CPU even though you may have a bad ass GPU, this game will likely still suck for you.
This brings me to new arch types that are coming out this year. AMD's Bulldozer (first new architecture out of AMD since 2003) is about to be released with 8 cores. 3.8 GHz with 4.2 GHz turbo. All cores can turbo. In addition, you will have 8MB of shared L2 cache - unheard of on x86 architecture since shared L2 is typically found on architectures like SPARC. Intel only has 256K of L2 on there $1000 i7 980x as a comparison.
Back to threads - Bulldozer will support 16 threads simultaneously and act like 16 CPU in you system. If we can put this to use, the CPU slowdowns we have seen with ArmA II might be a thing of the past. Maybe I am dreaming for ArmA III, but for games and apps, CMT is the future. Plain and simple. Lets use it.
Just my two cents.
-X
Arma 2 uses up to 16 threads (as i seen in proces explorer), i think i even seen 17.
It is no problem to thread some process, problem is to gain something from it.
Actualy BIS with ARMA 2 has one best multicore performance gains in gaming history. And still it is most demanding CPU game i played.
My friend i dont think you understand what are you writing.
-
Hello again.I just installed a new Cpu.
thought maybe someone might like the info on the difference it made to my graphics cards during E08 benchmark.
I went from an Athlon x4 630 2.8mhz to a Phenom II x6 1090t Oced @ 4.0mhz.
still using 2 ati 5770s clock speeds 875 - 1250 on both cards.
the e08 benchmark results are 75-80fps an increase of 25 - 30 fps
but the main thing is my GPUs are working alot better ingame and during the Benchmark.
90+% all the time in bench mark.
see link for graph of GPUS during benchmark.
http://www.2shared.com/photo/kUobKp94/arma2graph6core.html
.......
Im Happy :)
hope this helps someone somehow :)
BL1P
Try 2 check benchmark 2 gpu usage, and see 90% :j:
-
-Ziggy-;1912981']A huge waste of time' date=' if you ask me! when they start using a benchmark that others can compare to I will reconsider my opinion.[/quote']Totaly agree, but atleast you can see differentiation of video cards performance in arma, and if u check both links, you can clearly see huge performance boost from nehalem @3.2 and sandy at 4.8 (590), thus implying cpu bottleneck.
Still i dont understand why dont they use built benchmarks...
-
http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/arma2.cfg
Everyone has sub 30 fps in towns with alot of AI and firefights, even at much better systems than yours. I played elektrozavodsk singleplayer scenario (cant remember the name, you are russian guy and atack elektrozavodsk) on i7 @ 4.2, tri channel 6GB ddr3 at 1600 MHz, and with overclocked HD 5970. 1080p 3d @100%
Cpu bottleneck (as stupid as it sounds, it is even on 4+ GHz ), and high on videocard...
I have all arma2 expansions, and i never finished any campagin cos i cant stand low fps with current system. Maybe i will upgreade to sucket r sandy ol bulldozer if they are atleast 20% faster than 2600k (@ 5 GHz).
-
Some realy nice test of video cards on patched OA (1.59)
Test system
Intel Core i7-965 processor (3.2GHz: 133MHz x 24)
Asus Sabertooth X58 motherboard (Intel X58 Express with three PCI-E 2.0 x16 slots)
3x 2GB Corsair TR3X6G1333C9 memory modules (operating in dual-channel mode at 1,600MHz 9-9-9-24-1T)
Corsair X128 120GB SSD running v1 firmware
Corsair HX1000W PSU
Windows 7 Home Premium x64
Antec Twelve Hundred Chassis
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/04/14/kfa-gtx-560-ti-1gb-ltd-oc-review/5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bit older but realy nice system
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/pcs/2011/03/24/scan-3xs-scorpion-x-pc-review/3
I wait for 2 years to have system that can play this game maxed... and still i dont think i will see such systems avalable in 2011., maybe next year with ivy bridge socket r with 50% overclock and next gen hi end video card (clocked).
-
I would agree with Leon here as the current builds of Arma are vastly improved with their streaming, I have went from 10K raptors to a 6GB/s SSD and there really is little discernable difference.I even fitted 25GB of RAM into my new system to run a RAMdisk specifically for Arma but I don't feel compelled to use it as streaming performance has improved so much over the patches.
Decent 10k RPM or higher drives are fine for A2 and if you keep them well maintained (frequently defragged) they still perform well in game alongside SSDs.
NO, BS.
Very high preset 1050 p, huge difference in any Arma 2 (i have co + baf + pmc), while playing on seagate 1 platter 500g (20% space, defragmented), or WD caviar black 1TB (70% space defragmented), VS old 80 GB intel G2.
Almost no stuttering, maybe few fps drops, but no more 1 second pauses.
Higher the settings, the more stuttering (logicaly, becouse textures are bigger). Maybe the difference isnt huge in normal setings, but at very high (all very high, except pp effects) there is BIG difference.
Arma2 mem menagement is so poor, shame on bis.
Tested at q6600@ 3.5 4GB ddr2@ 450Mhz, ATI 4850 @700/1100
patch 1.59+ ACE (latest at the time)
You can try yourself, just copy arma2 folder to other disk, and try.
Shame on you bis, for using less than 1GB of ram... (im no hater or trol, and i almost only play arma2, and have all expansions, and i am huge fun of arma series).
Low CPU utilization & Low FPS
in ARMA 3 - TROUBLESHOOTING
Posted
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