Sneakson

Are you trying to be funny now? Because you are. Your source is a comparison of the two CPUs with STOCK CLOCK in BENCHMARK SOFTWARE and ENCODING with the Haswell being up to twice as good at some things and significantly worse at some other things compared to the Sandy. If you think synthetic benchmarks are comparable to games at all then you clearly have a very bad understanding of how computers work and all I can tell you is to stay in school. Meanwhile I’ll bring you this: http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?page=0&itemid=1123 Now go away. We don’t need a forum fool here. I have disproved every wrongful claim you have made in every thread you have appeared in and if you continue trolling you will be banned, because the mods are quite strict here. You not saying what sort of a computer you have only shows you couldn't even dream up what a good one is. I haven't been able to find a direct 2600K vs 4770K ARMA3 benchmark but you're free to find one. Based on all other evidence my CPU and his are about as close to equal in gaming performance as they come and after looking his graphics card up closer it should be about 16% stronger than mine in ARMA3 specifically. That’s why I questioned him using 150% sampling which means he has to use other very low settings compared to mine.

I think backwards compatibility is causing a lot of the issues in ARMA3.

40% better gaming performance is what I meant, based on benchmarks. Nothing else.

Left alt + shift switches between input languages in Windows... every now and then I'll accidentally change to UK English.

Singleplayer performance isn't falling anyways. HDAO was a great optimization. I've been turning my settings higher and higher which may hint some slow improvements.

Try having an FPS counter on at all times for a while and you'll be surprised. Commonly 2D graphics are drawn as quickly as a graphics card can handle meaning you will have 100% usage, consume more electricity, heat up and so on even when it is absolutely unnecessary. Try measuring fps during the intro or menus of most games. Often it goes into the several thousands and this can actually cause a whining noise from your components called coil whine. Use MSI Afterburner or an equivalent program and limit your fps to 60, 120 or double whatever your monitors Hz if you want to play it safe. Less fps, less usage, less electricity, less heat, less noise… free, freeeee! This is a common “issue†though it rarely causes a problem. Adobe Reader and some other cleverly designed programs automatically scale the framerate so it always is the lowest it has to be to accurately show what’s happening on screen and if there’s nothing happening the framerate will freeze completely. ARMA editor SHOULD be locked to 144 fps or something.

I am an expert. Tested all settings thoroughly except for scaling. My question wasn't as much a question as a rhetorical advice telling him to change his settings unless he can tell me how he benefits from scaling. Given more than a little buyer's/tech advice on this site, benchmarked settings, overclocks, CPU settings, NVidia settings and various other settings/software and what have you done, Mr 13 posts? What's your machine like? How many hours have you even played ARMA? Ten? Thirteen? Okay. I've looked at my CPU. I've looked at his CPU. They're equal. Next he has a 40%~ stronger graphics card than mine. Next I have 60% higher view/object distance and 60% higher framerate... Am I missing something, expert?

On the 20th Win comes out I believe? By then I'm going to play through the entire campaign and then take a break me too, I think. Give it a year... maybe thing will be better, maybe they won't.

Don't say ARMA is the only game to push the limits though... ARMA pushes draw distance, character control, bullet trajectories and modability. Battlefield pushes for an accessible, quick multiplayer experience with very compatible and consistent engine (not sure if 4 lives up to this yet, heard of some bugs)… Call of Duty is basically Quake nowadays… Many games push for enjoyable and eventful singleplayer experiences, or storytelling, or graphics detail. Most shooters nowadays try to do SOMETHING new, such as Day-Z, otherwise they would drown in the sea of shooters since the 90s. ARMA is very impressive but less so because of the bugs and multiplayer issues. I can't believe they still haven't fixed what I believe is ground tesselation that makes the ground "crawl" when you crawl on it... it was an Alpha issue. Many other examples. ---------- Post added at 21:24 ---------- Previous post was at 21:18 ---------- Compared to what? What what? Try another other shooter that runs at 60 fps while ARMA does 20 in multiplayer. Only because you completely deny the existence of other games than ARMA doesn’t make it so and stop asking for examples when they’re obvious. By the way: console ports to PC are often shitty (see Dark Souls, GTA IV, Resident Evil 4) and have terrible performance because of abysmal conversion instead of running better than the console versions. What last famous PC exclusive are you talking about by the way? Crysis? What happened to Crysis?

What is the fps difference in-game though? ;) That's the important thing... sorry to stick a spear in the side of your inky god. Why 150% sampling if I may ask? I've never touched the setting because I assume it eats performance massively and I assume it only does the same thing as anti-aliasing basically? A 780 should be a good deal stronger than my 770 and still I have 60% longer object distance and 60% higher framerate... that's sort of sad. Isn't it?

You wrote exactly what I said you wrote and now you are trying to defend yourself by being an obvious high horse troll with the most overblown ego I've ever seen. Besides you're completely avoiding showing any counter-arguments, instead opting to attack me... yeah, very “angst†much wow. Your trivial bullshit doesn’t impress and if weren’t still in high school you would know your trivial tidbits are the sort that only would impress a 12 year old and your attempted scientific babble is jabbering. You are saying that the distance that a console user (yeah, that’s what they’re called!) finds himself from the TV screen affects his ability to see smooth motion on the TV screen. That’s wrong and you can’t claim to have said anything else now. It may affect what he thinks about the field of view however a chopper game will not appear less choppy if you sit at a TV distance from a TV compared to computer distance from a monitor. Now to show what a bad liar you are let’s go back and scrutinize one of you statements where I allegedly did not "understand what was being said†and see it again: I don’t think I should have to clarify your own words here and here’ my answer: You said 30 frames per second works for film because there’s little rapid movement occurring on the screen and in case my answer was not clear enough to you (having comprehension difficulties are we?) was that you are wrong, that 30 frames per second works for film not because there is very little rapid movement occurring on the screen (ever seen a car chase?) and that video games need 60 frames per second instead of 30 not because there is more rapid movement occurring on the screen actually. You are wrong. Both video games and movies have rapid movements occurring on screen which I think anyone that has watched an action movie can testify and as such I have destroyed your argument. Next this. I can only tell you to visit a specialist immediately as you may be experiencing the onset of degeneration of your optic nerves. Go ahead and show me any evidence that it’s impossible to distinguish between a 110 Hz and 120 Hz monitor. Meanwhile I’m going to destroy your argument once again because I can clearly see that you are dazed by this discussion and I can see the mistake you have made, I think. You’re probably thinking that the only difference between a 110 Hz and 120 Hz monitor is their marginal difference in flickering frequencies that both are evened out to a constantly lit image because of persistence of vision. However a 110 Hz monitor can also only display 110 fps while a 120 Hz monitor can display 120 fps! And it is ever so possible to tell the difference between 110 fps and 120 fps… it’s the same difference as between 57 fps and 60 fps actually. It’s a SMALL difference however physiologically I have never heard of anything that would make it a superhuman feat to distinguish between the two. Your original message also says that no one can tell the difference between a 110 Hz and a 120 Hz monitor which also seems to imply that there is an upper limit somewhere around 110-120 fps or even the 60-100 fps area that you mention in your message. In other words it would be impossible to distinguish between a 120 Hz monitor and a 240 Hz monitor, which is wrong. The difference between a 120 Hz monitor and a 240 Hz monitor (and subsequently 120 fps vs 240 fps) is the same as between 80 fps and 120 fps, or 48 vs 60 fps. This is assuming there is no upper limit on how many frames per second a human can see of a moving image on a computer monitor, which there isn’t because eyes are analogue. If there is a neurological or physiological limit I’m still eagerly waiting to hear of it. Again, if the image on the monitor is completely white with no movement you won’t be able to tell a difference but if there’s a moving image on the screen you will. This sentence makes no sense to me unfortunately. Does it make any sense to anyone else? The alpha began last spring… and they did not have the time to fix the performance issues in the alpha before launch last fall. Yes, that exactly it. What’s your point? If fixing the issues was a “simple job†then they would have done it by now is what I said… Well, I am probably the number one computer hardware advisor on here. If you have a problem with any other of my posts ever you are free to point out which ones you don’t like specifically. Going through my posts shows how desperately you are grasping for just anything, by the way. What about it? Stop being such an ARMA elitist that can't accept that other games have better and or more consistent graphics than ARMA does. The relationship between ARMA3 and Rome: Total War II is that they're both CPU intensive games. ---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:28 ---------- Exactly.

There doesn't exist a much stronger CPU than the 2500k.

You're a dumb fanboy obviously... how is Crysis 1 born for consoles? How are any of the benchmark, most heavy computer games in existence made for consoles? Have you even played Crysis, Far Cry 3, Battlefield 3/4, Call of Duty, Metro, Hitman: Abs or BioShock: Infinite? Total War aren't strategy games? And Total War runs bad only because it is still using parts of the R1TW engine? ARMA3 runs bad only because it is still using parts of the ARMA1 engine I bet! Way to try to counter everything I say negatively even when that means abandoing all sense. You seem to have a difficult time accepting that there are games with better graphics and stability than ARMA has... Battlefield 3/4 has amazing graphics...

Why not just compare it to anything? Battlefield 4, Call of Duty: Ghosts, Crysis series, Far Cry series, Metro series, Hitman: Absolution, BioShock: Infinite... ARMA3 has the biggest maps in a shooter and allegedly it has some quite complex bullet trajectory calculations but the calculations don't translate into much for the end user. Strategy games are often very CPU-intensive, see Total War series.

Well I think it's more probable than it being big to deter downloading... even legal users will have to download.

ARMA3 isn't as detailed as you think. Other than the view distance there's nothing much to brag about, technically speaking. The AI, characters and vehicle design is really nothing more than any other game and a lot of other games also have more complex bullet trajectories nowadays. I don't believe there is anything happening on or off screen in ARMA that would make it much more difficult to optimize than any other heavy-ended shooter.

I agree the big size is probably to make kids think it's better than it is. I mean how else could a no singleplayer, 6v6 team battles ONLY game be 50 gig?

I don't think the 780 will make a big difference. It's 40% stronger than the 770.

Good choices. Your computer will probably use about 300W however you should always buy a bit more than that, 400 minimum and 600 maximum. Of course you can’t have too much so you can buy as much as you want but I only have 520W with a 4770/770. Supply units are noisy so remember to look at wattage, then make sure it’s at least 80+ Bronze, and then check out reviews to see how noisy it is. Having a completely fanless unit is the best of course since they are nearly dead silent and then the only thing making noise will be the case fans basically. No idea if that mobo is good for overclocking... in theory it's supposed to be worse than some others but I don't know what difference it really makes. I bet it overclocks as well as any other board. You can't plug in anything better than 2.1 speakers to it though which is something you should remember in case you have a bigger sound system. Also remember that overclocking isn't always cost-efficient if you have to spend extra on a cooler.

Oh so you're saying it's our computers and not the engine causing multiplayer issues? Die please. Also your argument about BIS developing videogames for the future is bullshit because the game has been released, we have paid for it and expect it to work today. And video games requiring quicker framerates than movies has nothing to do with movements in movies being slow. Anyone can tell the difference between 100 and 120 fps. And fixing multiplayer performance isn't a "simple job"... if it was then they would have fixed it in the last year since Alpha started. Good job of stomping into a thread with ten pages of discussion, not reading one bit of it and trying to set everyone straight with your obvious ignorance. ---------- Post added at 18:37 ---------- Previous post was at 18:19 ---------- In my experience aiming is a lot easier on higher framerates and twitch shooting sure is. I doubt I could have made all of my shooting drill high scores in 30 fps.

A multiplayer-only game that only has 6v6 battles and it's 50 gigs?

35 fps in multiplayer is far from the 60 fps standard though... really makes a difference in close quarters combat.

Does the built-in Headhunters mission run well? I've never noticed any performance issues playing that by myself using the LAN setting. There shouldn't be any performance issues when you're alone I would think anyways. I hear there are some utopian servers that have high framerates even with many players. Not sure what their secret is but you may want to look around and see if one of them works any better.

Is that a stock 2600k? It's one of the better CPUs for overclocking so you may want to try that out, because upgrading to another CPU isn’t going to do anything much. Upgrading your graphics card would also be an expensive affair I believe. Upgrading to 2400 MHz memories could give you a 10-20% boost… however I can’t guarantee exactly what sort of a boost because we haven’t seen a lot of benchmarking about it yet. I’m considering trying a 1600 to 2400 upgrade. Other than that there’s not much to do hardware-wise. In software you can basically make sure everything is clean and updated then tweak your in-game settings and that’s about everything you can do. I believe Windows 8 is slightly quicker than Windows 7 too but I’ve never seen this in a benchmark. I’m assuming you have 20 fps in multiplayer. Try a different server, try a different mission… that’s about all you can do currently.

Well congratulations, you can run a game that's 5 years old with a brand new $500 graphics card... such wow.