Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Everything posted by dnk

  1. Got a new SSD and figured why not do some benchmarking. I created a simple fairly script-less mission on Altis with 120 AI. To specifically test the SDD, I made the first part of the mission have the player setpos across the map to 8 different locations every 7 seconds, while I panned left and right after each move (the first pan right would load everything, the return pan left would look back over what was loaded). Then I had the player flown over Kavala for a couple minutes as I kept my view squarely on the hospital, with a couple quick pans out at specific locations. It should be easy to see on the graphs when the mission switched from the setpos script to the flyover. Rig: Expectations: I expected minimal differences in FPS overall, with far fewer and lower stutters on the SSD (which would be the reason for whatever average FPS differences were seen). I expected the SSD would have far lower max frametimes than the HDD, and the SSD would do far better on the scripted setpos part of the mission with little to no pop-in. Results: Basically what was expected. In each graph, the green is the SSD and the red is the old magnospinner. The first graph is the frametimes, the inverse of FPS - higher is bad. 100 = 10FPS, 500 = 2FPS. The second graph is all the frames in order from fastest to slowest, again high = bad. FIRST TEST SECOND TEST THIRD TEST FINAL TEST Conclusion Well, there's random luck at play. It's doubtful such a long, AI-heavy (for me) scenario would yield perfect results, and with just 1 run-through we're likely to get a noisy result. But it's clear that if there's any overall FPS gain from an SSD, it's miniscule. The real difference is in reducing stutters and stutter amplitude and in quick loading (the latter isn't very important usually, though). Going from having serious stutters 2% of the time to just a quarter as much is going to feel better, and having massive game-stopping stutters all but disappear is pretty huge since those happen all too frequently on the WD. However, I doubt it's worth the pricetag of an SSD just for that since the $100+ could be better spent on faster RAM (see this thread), saving up for a better CPU or GPU, or you know, hookers and blow. Still, if you were considering an SSD for other uses or just general computing, it probably will be worth it to put Arma on the drive.
  2. Maybe read past the third post before responding.
  3. dnk

    Pet Peeves of A3

    Steam means I can't lose a game. It also is a very nice and easy service for keeping games up to date and maintaining data file integrity (which I can f with on occasion, and it helps being able to one-click fix an installation whereas before it was a full uninstall/reininstall hassle). I don't love it, but I use it for most everything now, and just accept the online requirements as they come since it doesn't cause me issues 99% of the time.
  4. Blastcore, while not like 200% better, is clearly better by a good bit. Whatever the case, vanilla's FX really need an improvement.
  5. Do note that the primary thread only uses one core, and that's the thread that's bottlenecking the game so hooorribly. Simulation-AI-render, all on one thread, one core. They certainly have multithreaded it and moved less significant things (eg PhysX) onto other cores, but the big stuff is still single-threaded. It's also why a headless client that takes the AI off the main thread can greatly improve performance. That's a hack that we shouldn't still be having to use to get true multithreaded performance out of this engine, though. They need to make that hack obsolete.
  6. JSRS sounds were much louder across the board. Might be they need some volume leveling. That aside, they sounded better about 90% of the time to me. SOS was also a clear improvement on vanilla.
  7. I did? I don't recall doing that... All I heard was some Scottish guy cursing for 2min. Is there an actual comparison in there somewhere?
  8. I can't see much of a performance difference between none-SSAO-HDAO. They're all +/- 3% FPS.
  9. Check servers subforum or the wiki. I'm sure it's somewhere around here...
  10. dnk

    SSD - HDD Comparison

    I was referencing specifically Arma's boot times as "got more money than you need", didn't realize we'd expanded out into general computing. If you mean Windows and general computing, then yes it's worthwhile. For a long, long time hard drives have been the slowest component and increasing their speed would show the best increase in "responsivity", program loading, etc, assuming RAM and CPU were up to spec already. I'm looking forward to my full reinstall tomorrow quite eagerly. That was the primary reason for the purchase. Adding a lot of perceived smoothness to Arma is the cherry on top (and it does seem to be quite better subjectively, even if it's not so great an improvement objectively).
  11. dnk

    SSD - HDD Comparison

    Frankly, if you're willing to spend $100+ to shave 5sec off your load times, you've got more money than you need, and you should give me some to thank me for my report :P
  12. Oh, you can also play the mission in MP, host it on a dedi server, then play it by yourself. Not sure if this is for SP, but that will load the AI off onto a separate core/thread.
  13. Get a faster/better CPU, otherwise you could reduce object/terrain quality or VD, that would take some of the load off of the CPU. I mean, 5KM VD is massive, especially with the higher object quality settings. Do note that you're not expected to be able to run Ultra settings (and 5km is ultra as it gets) in this game with hundreds of AI. Until the devs rewrite the engine to make AI run in parallel on multiple cores, you're stuck. As you increase the number of AI, you increase the amount of computation required on the main thread running on its single core, and this thread is the limiting factor for FPS for most players (and for you in this scenario, clearly). The longer this thread takes each frame, the slower the frame, because this is the bottleneck for your system. Reducing IQ or VD will help because this same thread also handles draw calls, which are decreased with decreasing scene geometry (lowered object/terrain IQ and VD). I don't know why you need more than 100 active AI, but if that's what you want, well, that's the deal. Drop your settings, drop the number of AI, or drop some money on a high-end overclocked processor.
  14. dnk

    SSD - HDD Comparison

    The FPS are definitely smoother IF you're using high quality textures/models. If not, it doesn't do much. It depends heavily on your IQ settings and actual system if it's a must-have or not. Someone with a GTS 250 like I had before... not a must-have. I'm still not convinced it was worth $100 (only talking about Arma and not general computing) compared to how much the rest of my system cost - the $130 I spent on the 650 Ti-B yielded vastly superior improvements than the SSD, and I'd imagine a new i7 4xxx would likewise yield better than 3x the improvements of the SSD (at 3x the price). Even more RAM probably would, though that's a bit more of a gray area.
  15. dnk

    SSD - HDD Comparison

    @Sniperwolf572 RE: Scenario and Processing NEW TESTS Rig: (this has changed!) FIFTH TEST SIXTH TEST
  16. I'd prefer environmental effects on sound (reverb, muffling, etc for different environments) over occlusion, given how short most sounds play already. Oh, and adjustments for pitch/etc based on position (front/side/rear).
  17. I've seen very few blatant cheats, and I'm not one to go around yelling "hacker!" every time someone kills me, so I disagree. This is over like 300 hours of play so far, mostly KOTH and Breaking Point. I mean, really, extremely few cheats in competitive PvP MP (but I avoid Russian servers).
  18. dnk

    SSD - HDD Comparison

    4GB is all I need for this game, and before people jump up and say, "no, it can utilize blahblahGB of RAM!" recognize that I watch my RAM usage after finishing, and I've yet to see total physical usage go past 3GB out of 3.95 available. The RAM is low bandwidth, but I'm fairly sure the VRAM streams direct from disk, so that shouldn't matter. The CPU is middle-of-the-road (but limited for Arma, yes) - for any other FPS it'd be more than adequate for 60FPS. The GPU has now been replaced by a 650 Ti Boost (yay!). I wouldn't expect many players to build a system just around this game, when so many other games prioritize the GPU over the CPU and more RAM over a faster hard drive. Now, I'm totally undoubtedly CPU limited with just a mediocre 650 Ti Boost, like 60-70% core usage. Given the lack of graphical polish, there's just nothing for the GPU to do but dawdle and wait for a better graphical game to get played. This isn't really news, though, and I wholly expected it. Anyway, I've started testing with the new GPU and much higher settings. Report coming soon. First thing I've noticed is that the GPU doesn't use more than like 1.2GB of RAM (it's 2GB total), meaning I have almost a full GB there too that's not being utilized, so instead the VRAM keeps going up and down as memory management does minor purges and loads. Ancient engine is ancient. I'll also do another test once I've moved the Windows and pagefile over to the SSD to see if that does anything.
  19. dnk

    SSD - HDD Comparison

    ^ exactly. This is why I never fully trust FPS numbers from Arma benchmarks, especially when done just once. There's always like a +/-10%. It might actually be like 4% in the SSD's favor, hopefully further testing will get it more accurate. I have noticed that with all the reduced stuttering, I can increase my texture quality from low to high without a significant performance impact (due to said stutters), which is a huge IQ improvement since I would get huge hangs and long frames before on the WD with anything other than low (very high still hangs too much, but with another 1GB in the GPU it probably wouldn't, but right now there's too much memory management going on with just the 1GB). MP seems a lot smoother now, but that might just be my brain playing tricks, trying to justify the thing. Unfortunately with MP, there are so many more variables to control that it's damn-near impossible to do a benchmark.
  20. You've got a 4.9GHz here, which the vast majority of players don't have. It also doesn't look like there's much of a difference between 1600 and 2133. I mean, the difference in latency between the fastest and slowest is a 38% reduction, which goes with a 17% reduction in avg frame times and 20% for minimum frames (meaning roughly a 50% ratio between RAM speed increases and FPS increases, which is still significant enough to justify a new purchase for players with old slow RAM). However, it seems like once you reached a certain threshold for your system (1600/C10) your minimum frame times didn't improve with anything faster, while your averages continued on improving. Now, if you have a much slower processor (most players), that plateau point for min FPS might be considerably lower, and the avg FPS increases might be less than here (50% of RAM speed increase) as well. So would a 3.9GHz or 2.9GHz require even 1600MHz RAM for best performance, or would 1333 or even 1066 work just fine for each, respectively?
  21. dnk

    Smoke Grenades in the default loadouts

    I always carry 6 smokes. Especially when there's a revive script, they're life savers.
  22. dnk

    Development Blog & Reveals

    This looks awesomer than expected, and it fulfills a long-held community wish for a real-time 3D editor. I suppose that's worth the hype.
  23. dnk

    AI Discussion (dev branch)

    Why can't we holster handguns again?
  24. dnk

    A storm is coming (Arma 3 Zeus DLC)

    Mosquito storm. They're going to implement mosquito models in the game to add to the insect life. Get yer bugspray.