pr0ph3tswe

except it does, if you play on a server that doesn't lock view distance. or if you have a cpu that can handle arma properly

bad computer, bad server, bad scripting? lower view distance, lower object and terrain quality, etc

games run a bit smoother now, no problems like with 320.18 so far

i play on sa-matras wasteland version, runs very well, 40-60+ fps usually not sure what else to say to op though, try to find a good server, and turn up all the gpu heavy settings, i can run shadows, particles and clouds maxed out, pip brings me to 30 fps even on low so i turn it off, other settings looks fine. i never ever drop to singel digits playing wasteland, on good servers i usually don't drop under 30 fps either unless mission has been up for ages i agree to an extent, while it's not up to us to fix game related fps problems it's definitely up to us to do research to see what hardware runs better in what game :)

yeah, though if you're not familiar with overclocking then read some guides and take baby steps :)

ingame settings etc: http://imgur.com/a/kiuDr#0 avg fps: 61 i5 2500k @ 4.8ghz asus p8p67 16gb ram zotac gtx670amp! factory oc with gpu boost 1228/1652 crucial m4 64gb win 8 pro corsair force 3 120gb games

next step to take is making sure all drivers are up to date, if not already done. amd chipset, gpu etc also you can increase all non cpu taxing settings to medium at least i'd say, textures, shadows, hdr, anisotropic filtering to 16x

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-alpha-test-gpu/testovaya-chast.html there you can see some cpu, and gpu benchmarks, cpu ones are at the bottom, review is in russian but you can see the graphs anyway :p not sure how accurate the tests are but you can see a general fps difference, i think the cpu benchmark was done in helicopter showcase so 20-25 singelplayer would make sense i think look for the phenom 2 x4 940be, your cpu is slightly slower than that one multiplayer will be heavier on the pc depending on mission, if the server is using locked view distance or not, so i'm not sure if there is anything "wrong" with your pc, just a badly optimized cpu heavy game. 16-17 does sound a bit low even for that setup though

any specific multiplayer missions? most wasteland missions for example runs horrible, some servers lock view distance server side and so on, which will affect fps a lot

you should see what 120hz does :D

you should give sa-matras wasteland version a try if you haven't, i get a lot more fps there compared to other versions (with a intel setup but still)

becasue planetside is most likely exaggerating? if you buy a system for 400 whatever it was money you'd expect more than 5-10 fps more in multiplayer? he never gave any specific numbers which makes this whole thread useless i'm not missleading anyone, i'm just saying cpu x is faster than cpu y becasue of IPS, per core/mhz performance, whatever you want to call it. increase cpu load by 20-30% in a more optimized engine and that will still lead to the same simplified conclusion, 30% of something lower is still lower than 30% of something higher. you tell me to stop lecturing people about things i don't know when i've actually tried amd fx 8350 at stock and oc'd to 4.6ghz vs i5 2500k 4.8ghz and 2600k 4.6ghz and seen the difference? which is quite big in the arma engine, this won't change even if they optimize it and i'm sorry mr mod for using amd vs intel, but i am to make a point about IPS, it's the same in every game that is heavily cpu bound and wormeaten, a benchmark mission would be great, an official one :)

lower overall view distance to 1-1.5k and object distance to something a bit lower, like 800m or so, depending on if you need longrange sniping or not

I know perfectly well what people are writing, I also know what a 4670k is, I also don't play on shitty servers with badly optimized mission files and then whine about low fps. Fact is i have no problems at all with fps on the wasteland servers i play on. I'm not arguing anything, i'm just stating facts about cpu power. I don't know anything about game engines tbh, but ask yourself this, when you have a big open world game like arma, it's bound to be heavy on the cpu, how much will you have to sacrifice to get it to run good on slower cpu's like phenom 2s and fx's? From what i've read and heard from devs in the past there are only so many things that can be multithreaded.. and while some other games run good on all cpu's none of them are even close to be the same size as arma. That said i'm sure they can and will optimize the game a bit more for launch, mission creators will script their missions better etc etc

tbh i don't know how multithreading works with games, and i'm guessing that if it was easy to code a game to take advantage of all threads and use all available cpu power it would have been done already. until the day this happens the only two things we can do are cry like a baby and buy a system that has supperior "singel" threaded performance and you're right about the i7, though it will help streamers a bit unless they have a dedicated stream card.

There is a huge difference in performance between intel and amd cpus in game, i've tried i7 2600k, fx-8350 and i5 2500k and both intel cpus are a lot faster than the amd in both multiplayer and singelplayer, average fps is around 10 higher on the same server with intel cpu with rest of the system being the same. even bigger difference if you compare to a phenom 2 Samsung just started massproducing a ssd with PCIE 2.0 interface that has read speed up to 1400mb/s, though faster hdd will only result in faster load times, not increased fps

what gpu? give us more system specs also what fps are you getting?

yeah i agree, it's very annoying to play long periods of time watching that blur all the time :( hopefully they tweak it or remove if from the center of the screen

yeah ofc it can hang in there, specially in games that are heavier on the gpu when you have something powerful to help it out, the 6670 is not it though sadly also arma 3, like everyone should know by now, is quite heavy on cpu as well, heck an oc'd fx-8350 can barely keep 35 fps average in multiplayer wasteland unless you want to demolish view distance

this, but because of the integrated gpu being terrible. that said the 6670 isn't great either, and the cpu isn't awesome for cpu heavy games either sadly

what render distance are you using? i got mine at 2k and 800 with my 8350 @ 4.6ghz, gtx670, and i get acceptable fps in multiplayer wasteland (30fps average) that said i do get good fps in the editor so there might be something else, like old drivers holding you back?

arma doesn't really like phenom 2's, from what i've seen from past experience what you can try it lowering render distance and object and terrain quality to low

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-alpha-test-gpu/testovaya-chast.html if you scroll down you have cpu benchmark for arma 3, should give you an idea how the different cpu's perform sadly not many people seem to post in here with amd fx benchmarks :(

v0.7 results Test One - 50.7048 Test Two - 46.5541 Test Three - 34.1543 Test Four - 46.9484 Test Five - 96.2795 OFPMark is 5492.82 visibility overall 2440 object 1150 shadow 100 specs: i7 2600k @ 4.4ghz asus p8z68-v/gen3 16gb ram 1600mhz radeon 7970 @ 1040/1500 crucial m4 64gb with windows 8 pro corsair force 3 128gb with arma 3 benq xl2420t

done :)