Jump to content

I give up

Member
  • Content Count

    761
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Everything posted by I give up

  1. I am also waiting for next intel socket to assemble my new pc exactly because DDR4. With the socket 1150 we are stuck at max memory frequencies of 2133 (with luck), also its funny to see some people with 2400 (and above) when the cpu memory controller does not have support for it, if anything it will brings instability and performance degradation (and money wasted). With the upcoming socket 1151 socket is expected to have support for DDR4 operating at frequencies above 3000 mhz (close to 4000) and with these we can have, in fact, noticeable improvements in matters of performance with Arma 3. Anxiously waiting.
  2. Arma 2 and Arma 3 have different architectures in matters of file caching, swap file and memory management The impact of SSD vs HDD in both games is not (and cant be) the same. Any particular reason for you to put both games in the same "bag"? Copy and past of images showing whatever have a value close to zero. Do yourself the benchmark, or not.
  3. @ rundll.exe According to your readings and benchmark we can safely say that getting a SSD for Arma 3 is a pure waste of money. Every HDD (even the lousy ones) can have read/write speeds of 40 MB/s which according to your readings is more than enough for Arma 3....
  4. You look a nice guy and because of that I will give you a few tips and you can do the benchmark (for free). But first try to run Arma 3 and load Altis with pagefile disabled. If you can do it without errors then you dont even need a SSD, because the data will be loaded in to HDD only one time when you open/load the game/island for the first time, after that is all about RAM. Doing this successfully will place you in the same level of the guy that have discovered the powder. If you cant, then is because Arma 3 in fact needs and use system pagefile for file swap. In this case the myth, that the game do not stream (textures/lod/terrain/objects) from Hard Disk swapping files between system pagefile and physical memory, is dead. If you are not the guy that have discovered the powder, then you can do the following and benchmark (for free). To perform this I will assume that you have at least 12GB of Ram installed (the minimum required to run the game decently on very high/ultra with having a 4GB Vram gpu). Grab this free tool (the freeware). http://www.radeonramdisk.com/software_downloads.php Will allow you to set a 4GB ramdisk (for free). Set a ramdisk with 4GB. Then set the size of your system page file let's say to 3.9 GB and move it in to the ramdisk that you just created. Now that your system pagefle is located in your ramdisk, the swap file (between physical memory and pagefile) will be significantly faster since the ramdisk is about 100x faster when comparing with a SSD Last step, load Altis and perform the benchmark. Come back later with results. In my case I have a noticiable performance increase and without spending a cent. Let's see your case.
  5. If you know RAID 0 and Arma 3, you should know that the game streams data directly into Hard Disk (not in to RAM as some believe), streams in a continuous and peristent way things like terrain or new objects. It means that when we have a fast read/write the game becomes incredibly smooth and fast, also the LOD transition/load becomes incredibly fast and smooth allowing to have a stable fps permanently and under every situation, even when we fly at high speed and low altitude and we are approaching high density scenarios like huge towns in Altis, tons of vehicles or even AI. When we have the necessary read/write speed in our Hard Disk, our CPU and GPU starts to dictate the parameters in matters on performance because is when our CPU and GPU does not have to wait for Hard Disk to perform the operations. Is 500MB/s of read/write speed enough to achieve this? NO. We need more. How we get it? By the methods described above. Now some may say, but this does not increase fps, if anything it will make the game more smooth with stable fps. WRONG. In fact it also helps with fps and with performance in general. Why? Because a fast Hard Disk read/write speed allow to extract more "juice" from CPU and GPU, these 2 pieces of hardware will work close of its real capabilities in a consistent and persistent way. Under these circumstances the often described as "CPU bottleneck" (that causes the often described as "GPU bottleneck") is barely non existent. Our cpu (and cores) will have more and constant usage since it does not need to wait an eternity for Hard Disk to perform the operations Our GPU will have more and constant usage since it does not need to wait an eternity for CPU to perform the operations because CPU is waiting for Hard Disk. So, in fact faster Hard Disk read/write not only makes the game faster and smooth but also will give more fps, obviously if we have CPU/GPU to achieve that. At bottom, greatly reduces the called cpu bottleneck (and gpu). These are the facts and what really happens, all the rest are fairy tales.
  6. It has become clear that You do not understand the operation concept of Arma 3, or even what is RAID0 and you are not interested in knowing it. @JumpingHubert Get the faster RAM, whatever may be, dont think twice. Peace.
  7. Theoretically, higher frequency means more bandwidth, but does not automatically means better performance, like I said we need to consider also the timings. For benchmark purposes generally higher frequency gives better results, for real world apps is a different subject. While some apps perform better with higher frequencies, some other perform better with lower timings. Let's give an example with 2 cases. (Just as note. We need to have in mind that above CL7 for 1600 is garbage, above CL9 for 2133 is garbage and above CL10 for 2400 is also garbage) First case. With most of (decent) 1600 CL7 modules we can easily overclock it to around 2000 CL9. So, if I can reach basically the same with my current modules why I would drop it? For 0.0001 % performance gain? This makes sense? If this make sense to you, go for it. If I have (decent) 16 GB 1600 CL7, worth to drop these to go for 16 GB 2133 CL9? In my opinion, No. Second case. If I have some 1600 CL9 (or above CL9), I would drop it already, it is garbage. In these circumstances (or if was building a new system) probably I would go for 2133 CL9. Currently is the best choice considering performance vs stability, imo. And yes, in these circumstances you will have a performance gain. For Arma 3, around 5% increase in FPS and it wil become a bit more smooth/stable. You can get some decent 16 GB 2133 CL9 for around 130/150 bucks. First case again. If I have already a decent 1600 CL7, at this point and having Arma 3 in mind, definitely I would use the money in a second SSD. It really makes a difference, at least to me does. Also with RAID0 we do not lose anything, if we set 2 SSD of 240GB in RAID0 we will have 480GB of space available in our Hard Disk. (For DDR4, we need to wait for the next CPU generation and see how it goes. With current and because DDR4 operates with really high timings/latency, there is no performance gain when comparing with DDR3)
  8. Exactly, the main reason for bottleneck in Arma 3 is the Hard Disk. Arma 3 due to its architecture "needs" Hard Disk. Arma 3 is not like some other games where we only use the Hard Disk when we load the map/mission for the first time and after that is only a matter of CPU/GPU/RAM. Arma 3, after loaded, requires a continuous Hard Disk usage and this happens practically every time we move the mouse or press a key. And the thing is, the current technology for Hard Disk in matters of performance/speed is light years back, when compared with CPU/GPU/RAM. This with most applications in general is not a issue, but for Arma 3 it is. About RAM speed, with current technology higher frequency means higher latency, the CAS for 2133/2400 are way high when compared with 1600 or even 1866. This means that the gains that we may have in frequency are lost in latency. In a game like Arma 3 RAM is used continuously, several GBs are continuously loaded into RAM and continuously flushed, this is a continuous process. In this architecture if RAM speed is important, RAM latency is also important. Higher frequencis can help with minimum Frames per Second but do not improve the performance in general because it will increase response time of the CPU and even GPU (in a game like Arma 3). Due to these facts, in my book I call it a placebo and do not worth the investment, imo. In my tests, the setup with I achieved better performance in matters of FPS was with 8 GB of RAM, 1866Mhz, CAS 7 using a pair of Corsair Dominator. Now if you really want to improve the performance for Arma 3 do not waste money in CPU, GPU and RAM. For Arma 3 any mid range CPU, any mid range GPU (ATI/Nvidia) and any mid range RAM (1600/1866) are perfectly fine. Like I have said several times, if you really want to get better performance you have 3 options. 1. Get a PCI Express SSD. 2 Get a RAMDISK. 3. Get a couple of SSD in RAID0. (ordered by performance) Want to reach the heaven? Get a couple of PCI Express SSD in RAID0. /nuff said.
  9. Not the only thing. Is the thing. Arma 3 needs system page file, no matter the amount of RAM that we may have. Try to load Altis (very high/ultra) with system page file disabled and you will have your facts cleared. Also if we have more than 6GB of graphics memory the load in system page file goes easily to around 10/12GB, having 24GB of RAM installed. And the data loaded in to Hard Drive (through system page file) is continuously being swapped with RAM, while is being flushed These operations require a continuous read/write, so yes, 1.4MB per hour is hilarious.
  10. No, you are completly wrong. "1-4 MB per hour" is even more hilarious than OP concerns. Get your facts straight. All the rest you are correct. Edit. I saw it wrong, thought you said 750 TB. You are also wrong with these values. Way off.
  11. Hilarious. If you are so worried with your SSD you should not play Arma 3. In one (1) hour of gameplay your SSD will have more usage (read/write) than with a simple defrag.
  12. There will be benefits in matters of performance with RAM working at higher speeds (with modules with low (CAS) latency) IF you are using a RAMDISK, otherwise will be more like a placebo.
  13. I give up

    Roadside Bombings and how to survive.

    Relax mate. For the next vídeos and references about Arma 3 use first person , otherwise new people arriving to games may be fooled with the first person that you are showing. All will be fine.
  14. I give up

    Roadside Bombings and how to survive.

    Yeah, its funny to see some people stating that's how it is in real life (defending the poor implemented fatigue feature, for instance), claiming that they have "reality feeling" with almost everything and still they "realistically" play using third person. Hilarious.
  15. I give up

    New update - 1.48 - Experience? FPS loss

    ALiVE needs to be updated for this version, CBA the same. About SpookWarCom, I dont know the Mod. It's you and everyone and it have been since beginning, not patch related.
  16. I give up

    Challenges of Jungle/Marine Warfare in Tanoa

    This is true. I played this mission http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?181109-BMR-Insurgency for for quite a few time and this mission has also as option the submarine, (usefull for objectives placed in small Stratis islands) and the enemy helicopter (and jet) was detecting, targeting and firing at the sub no matter deep it was, the same when we get out of the sub, they detect and shoot at us. Unless this a situation related with the mission itself, yes, AI in the air detect under water activity.
  17. I give up

    New update - 1.48 - Experience? FPS loss

    I my opinion most of the complaints about fps drop after every update are because people is using mods and playing user made missions. After most of the updates (in particular this one) these mods and missions also need to be updated, or else some issues may arise. The better way is to disable all mods and load the Campaign, then compare with previous version. In my case I dont see any difference with this update in matters of performance. With this I am not saying that the game performs better or worse, is just what I think it is the main cause for such complaints.
  18. I give up

    Challenges of Jungle/Marine Warfare in Tanoa

    Well, not saying that you are wrong, I am saying the chances for success of such gameplay are very low. At this point if I was going to bet for Tanoa gameplay, I would bet in Tanoa Life. Something like a resort with civilian boats, civilian airplanes, civilian jet ski, etc, people running around in land, water and sky like in holidays with cops patroling in police boats and helicopters.
  19. I give up

    Challenges of Jungle/Marine Warfare in Tanoa

    Doubt it will have followers, things on the water become very slow, and if by any reason we have to repeat the process it will become a pain.
  20. I give up

    Challenges of Jungle/Marine Warfare in Tanoa

    We cannot compare BF4 with Arma. BF4 is fast paced game with a repeated process of rush/die/respawn in much smaller environment. That's why it works. Arma 3 is meant (when we speak about military gameplay) to be played in a tactical way, which is by itself already a slow gameplay, this in the sea it becomes even more slow and will lead to a endless boredom. Is like, let's get a boat and patrol the ocean (which in Arma 3 it seems to have no end), maybe we find a intruder. Meanwhile what we gonna do? Fishing? Play cards? Will not work. Eventually, ships (carrier type) can be used as base of one faction being relatively close to shore, but that's it. Also and looking at first presentation of Tanoa I am pretty sure that most of the assets coming with it are Civilian assets. Why? Because is there where the "gold" is.
  21. I give up

    Challenges of Jungle/Marine Warfare in Tanoa

    I cant even imagine the boredom that would be playing missions based on underwater, with divers. Is like, we spend 30 minutes (or more) swimming to get a headshot, and then? Try again or close the game? Naval warfare is not something for Arma, imo. There are several games available out there with cool naval battles. Eventually boat patrols can be used, but mainly for AI.
  22. I give up

    New update - 1.48 - Experience? FPS loss

    If I was you, I would disable all mods and I would try again. Several parameters are changed/added and probably most of the mods will need a update.
  23. I give up

    Why Bohemia Why?

    How many games you know with a native 64 bit engine? Sure there are a few that require x64 OS, but they are not 64 bit games, they require x64 OS just for memory to use large address aware and that BIS already did. Yes I have if I stick to missions properly made, with a limited numbers of players and AI. If I jump in to lag fests like KotH, Life or even AI based like some Domination/Insurgency (or similar) with tons of AI, scripts and "features", obviously I cant. There is no way for Arma 3 to support all those players and AI. Heck, some servers even run more than 100 slots, insane.
  24. I give up

    Why Bohemia Why?

    It is also about access and is about write/read speeds, without a decent write/read speed, access will be always a issue, mainly because Arma 3 places a good amount of data in system pagefile (Hard Drive) and requires a continuous stream from HDD (read/write) before these data can be accessed by the CPU or GPU. In my opinion Hard Drive is the main cause for bottleneck in Arma 3, but is only my opinion based on how Arma 3 operates. Maybe I am wrong. Not sure if 64 bit is solution, as far I know there are several cons, hardware related. From the 64 bit games available, we cant say good things. Also about the relation GPU memory and Ram usage, take a look at the difference in RAM loaded between 2 or 3 GPUs http://i.imgur.com/dfDzU2q.jpg Still the cpu (with 4 cores) usage remains scalled, the same for GPU's
  25. I give up

    Why Bohemia Why?

    May be hard to believe, but RAM load (and usage) and the amount of data cached in pagefile is also linked to GPU memory. More GPU memory we have, more RAM we get in use and more data we have cached in system pagefile. At least that's what happens when I have mine triple CrossfireX enabled. And btw, with 3 GPUs I have all my CPU cores working in a balanced way (between 50/70%), this for 4 cores. Even with 8 cores (with fps capped at 60 by Vsync) all cores work more or less balanced, obviously with less usage. But if we let fps go free, all cores usage will increase and also gpu usage (AND HEAT). http://i.imgur.com/C11j5V6.jpg
×