xXxatrush1987

many maps from arma 2/arma1 run epicly fast on the arma 3 engine if you use all in arma for example, for more ai you should use hc, but on a well hosted server the old maps(the old mod maps even more) are a blast for the ones with no nasa equipment at home ;)

running a 7970 just fine in each rig without any problems, all max and 1150/1700mhz no problem, no corruption no nothing. even your mentioned settings. 13.12whql or 14.1beta all just fine using win 8.1 64bit and writing this in a short break bewarfare with dedi and client on one machine(45fps on each) other than taht its not bohemias fault that some amd(and some nvidia) card perform bad/crash/etc, it is the fault of amd. since the change from vliw4 to gcn the drivers of new cards are getting worse.every new version of the tahiti xt(xt,xtd,xt2) had some problems when freshly released, so i would understand if the 290/x cards have some problems now too.

exactly, a fx processor is sadly nothing worth in the armaverse as high pc rate goes over clock here(best is of cause both) the cpu is hardlimiting the gfx cards in every way, even editor. the only fx that can crunch arma 2+3 decently is the centurion with 5ghz turbo, other than that a phenom 2 x6 with 3.6ghz is as double as fast as the mentioned fx processor in arma due to higher ipc rate. for sli/crossfire nothing else than a intel i5/i7 with at least sandy bridge architecture is "decent" my 4.8ghz i7 2700k limits my single hd7970 in bigger scenarios for example( at 30-45fps, what i suggest playable for warfare benny edition^^), an i7 920 limits even a gtx560 ti 448cores.

online or offline? the weakest point in your system seems to be the gtx650, but at least small resolutions should run fine. online bad fps are mostly due to bad servers/hosting/etc, try to play on arma 3 performance servers as they are the best hosted ones usually. @DegmanCRO: arma 3 scales highly with very high ipc, so intel is a must have or you need to overclock your amd fx processor so far to match that ipc rate of at least an i5 2400(~5ghz). example: playing(lan-directplay) benny warfare on i7 2700k(ht off) @ 4ghz and getting smooth 35-40fps@ ultra and 2.5k viewdistance. no amd would be able to do that. to polymath: it looks like you are running os and arma 3 on same hdd? if so you have the solution, if arma streaming/pagefile/os are simultaniusly reading on one hdd your fps will never get playable. another hdd would nearly double fps if pagefile and arma are separated. ssd for os and pagefile would boost a bit more(yes todays ssd can easely handle pagefile without losing much lifetime), ssd for arma and pagefile would boost a lot. another hint: arma uses the pagefile very hard to gain performance, boosting the pagefile with an amd ramdisk(free download at amd for all pc users intel amd no matter) you will see onaother huge performance boost, maybe the fps don´t get better after a certain point(the gtx650 will limit early) but it will get smoother with every step.

just put it in mp folder and play on own game via "new" on the server search screen and then select lan as game type. you can save your progress there as well and no issues with any scipts

i woulkd recommend you try to inform yourself a bit more before posting such embarrassing comment. in short: bf and latest crysis just utilize all cores with stuff like debris and gras, thats simple tasks and ideal to utilize ht or modules full, but with no real worth within the game exept eyecandy. arma and other cpu heavy game simulate/calculate paths and so on in real time(x-rebirth/starcraft), thats time sensetive so multithreading is extremly difficult to do or only with very high overhead. gpus have the problem that(in very simple speech) they just count 1+1 per clock cycle, for every(even slightly) more complex calculation more cycles are needed and with the today used 1ghz you can´t do much there. and gtx760 only used for ai in arma 3 would for example barely beat a atom dual core due to high overhead(multithreading on many shader cores) and way too simple instruction set(many cycles for one simple calculation). i hope it is simple enough to understand(but no way precise... shame on me) the issue and prevent you from asking such questions again^^

nope not for arma, as the small fp unit on fx processors limits anyway. rendering and synthetic benchmarks yes, arma no(unless placebo, which would be great for the ones experiencing it)

its really sad that amd cpus with their interisting way of modules are so hardcaped by themself. but thats the price you have to pay if you are trying to reduce die size by using a slightly enhanced k8 frontend... i´ve used amd cpus for a long time but every game that requires processing power cpu wise is just no fun anymore with amd cpus(exept crysis3 gras but thats menthal) im glad i switched to intel with the release of sandy bridge 3 years ago, arma 2 and arma were running more as double as fast as on my phenom2 x4 b50(unlocked x2 550) and even today my sandy bridge cpu just works like a charm with arma 3.and don´t forget the amd phenom2 series of 2008 has a higher ipc rate than the new fx procs under heavy load due to their k10 frontend... so enough past, future: there is in arma 3 performance server.exe thread a new memory allocator which uses instead of 4kb pages 2048kb pages, try it it boost performance under heavy load quite much :) but 8gb ram is recommended ;)

runnig benni edition warfare even without dedicated server(which is mental because every heavy mission should run on one) on a much weaker rig(2700k@4.4ghz) with avg35 fps after 3 hours. rightly coded and it works, so i dont think all coop missions fail, the escape stratis/altis missions running well either. evolution runs with medium bot count(~120 per town +vehicles/non dedi this time too) at around 30fps. try running arma 2 maps in arma 3 you(or at least i) get avg 30-50% more fps with the same hardware on chernarus or zargabad. warfare on sahrani even never goes lower than 100fps^^(server stuck at 50fps) @ all: yes the eye can detect 120fps+(only movements and only black and white), its just about how trained the brain is. a fact either is that all arma 3 gamers with an i5 2500k@4ghz+ can host better nd faster(when on same internet connection) than 80% of the multiplayerserver out there. just the community server(not all) and some exeptions have enough crunching power to run 32+ players and 100bots+@over 15 server fps

you mean lag in case of input lag? or lag in sense of milliseconds delay of the internet? or do you mean stutter? if it is related to you pc(inputlag/stutter) you may tune down everything to lowest possible and then turn every setting back to max, one by one, and see which causes the "lag" and which not. i7 2700k+7970 just runs arma 3 kavala @ ultra with no lag at all, even 200% downsampling still not introduces lag or stutter, just the fps going down the drain.

remember on complex simulations the fx6300 hexacore gets a fx triplecore due to the medule design. so no just go for the more beefy i5, the i5 consumes less power stays cooler ,etc,etc. no need to buy amd cpu unless you render movies or have no money.

most of the people in this thread just missjudge bad multiplayer mission code with poor game performance. so they just complain hard to release stress i guess^^. to everyone with poor singleplayer performance: i would help to disguise the bottlenecks or whatever breaks the game down(script bugs by bis in some of their missions, etc). but if you read all that bullshit here, people complaining about performance with hardware barely able to respond to the bios(but console port XY runs on ultra!!11!!*rage*) or playing usermissions by guys with great fantasy and ideas, but no single clue of scripting will make 80% of the posts. lately i feared i would be on the complaining side, as i gave away my hd7970/hd7970ghz/r9 280x(depends on what bios i use)to a friend which gfx card struggles with X-Rebirth, and using my old gtx 560 again. but guess what: antialiasing and ssao tuned down/off and it just runs the same, even on my server with warfare and 47 other nerds, the gtx gives a constant 45-60fps. now i really think most guys with performance probs are just as smart as my morning toast.

very true, the rod cells in the eye can observe 200fps+, it is just a matter of what your brain makes of it. simple test is to look 1m left or right of a crt, normally you can see heavy flickering. on tft the backlight is constantly on so no flickering can be observed, but more displayed fps/hz(120fps on 60hz is still 60hz) smooth the view expierience. another fact: at 30fps/hz the brain has to work much more and you get tired and lose concentration much faster than on 60fps/hz. modern lcd tvs use this fact by putting "guessed" pictures between the 50hz standard tv picture(example philips pmr) to "archive" 100hz+, to create a comfortable feeling for the customer. all in all the 24/27/28fps/hz mythos is just a commercial lie, as the bandwith wasn´t fast enough for a long time to provide more than 25/30real fps(50/60fps interlaced).

to make it short: 2 hidden bottlenecks: first the q6600 is a dual dualcore connected to a quadcore, the interconnect between this two is so slow(fsb speed) so multithreading like arma 3 supports it just dont work. in multilayer the bandwith probs get even worse as the sync between server and client is quite heavy, so the slow cpu bandwith just drops fps even more. all in all is your system just handycaped by numerous bottlenecks arma wise and cant perform as ist should: 1. single core performance 2. fsb 3. pci-e 1.1 3. ddr2 on a small bandwith gtx650 4. ddr2 RAM my tipp: if you are common with overclocking with your q6600, try to oc the fsb only. an fsb over ~400 should give you a shitload of more performance in multiplayer(for all core 2duo/quad) try object detail setting low too as it is quite cpu/bandwith heavy too edit: mike said it all im just too kind explaning everything... ^^

mostly in such configurations ram is the limiting part: even it says it has 2400mibs(or pseudo mhz), with high tRFC latency(over 200) it cant even match ddr3 1600(as tRFC is there mostly around 100) in this case the ramdrive just slows you down. also the gtx680 is at high desinty enviroments hard capped by its 256bit interface and its 2gb of ram, but even with 4gb of ram the small(for a high end videocard) memory interface don´t allow any further scaling. a single titan/gtx780/7970+ good ram(2133mibs) could get higher fps with an 2500k@4.5ghz than your system, unless you play only short viewranges, where the high arythmetic power of the gtx680 can perform as it should and streaming is less of a problem. @sephis: could be good possible that the double pcie 8x interface of sli configurations on z87 board is capping the second gtx. in the end i would at least wait for an official sli profile from nvida.