Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

windies

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    706

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by windies

  4. Posted

    Haswells are worse overclockers than IB and SB If that's the route you wanna go. I'm running i5 3570K @ 4.5ghz now and it still runs pretty rough in multiplayer and large SP missions with lots of AI. I suppose I should upgrade to Haswell as well right since obviously my CPU is bottlenecking? :rolleyes:

  6. Posted · Edited by Windies

    Just went from a Phenom II x4 965 BE @ 3.8ghz to an i5 3570K @ 4.2ghz and DDR2-800 to DDR3-1600 and there's a marked improvement however the issue's with frames dipping below 20-25 fps is still there under heavy load. One thing that's even more apparent now is that changing settings aside from Object detail and distance does absolutely nothing. I needed to upgrade anyways but if you're looking to upgrade just for ArmA and you have something that works good now, I wouldn't spend the money.

  8. Posted

    @ windies

    Sorry,... that doesn't work with me! I "bolded the elements" so you could see what you wrote and when you realized the mistake you made you try to excuse yourself by attacking the way i exposed your line of thinking! And even more you got so unsure what you wrote that you bury yourself even more. And i quote (not bolding this time):

    And then you state:

    The complete oposite in every way! ;)

    I'm accepting that some people "see" a performance increase and I'm not disputing it, simply stating from my personal experience I haven't noticed any increase. Like I said, YMMV. Quit looking for some excuse to keep trying to argue and accept that it's not some "god fix" for everything and everyone should just stop bitching or complaining about their issue's. :rolleyes:

  9. Posted

    Yeap,... it nothing related to GPU/CPU! I's more into HDD/SDD to RAM transfer, it caches files faster so you gain more FPS, little improvment but it's an improvment!

    ---------- Post added at 11:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 AM ----------

    Don't take this as a personal atack (it isn't) but is it me or are you contradicting yourself? If it improves performance then it's a TWEAK! ;)

    The maxMem parameter it's not a placebo! If used with Fred41 memory allocator it further improves it! maxMem tell's arma to use 2047Mb of ram, if the parameter it's no inserted it will only vaues between 512-1536 MB. In terms of real world performance the gain is low, but there is a gain.

    The other parameter that may help is the exThread, whith this you make sure arma is using all threads available by the OS, probably it ALLEADY does the same without the parameter, and then you don't have any gain in performance.

    The problem is that the majority of the info lauched on the web about this parameter is a complete mess and missleading, and has you have seen before, guys saying to put ridiculous values on maxmem and another i saw on youtube it was about the exThreads = to extra cpu's, lol. Players were complaining because the game crashed at start,... lol. This makes player not belive in the real use and gains of this parameters.

    If you wanna cherry pick statements and literally have to bold out elements of a sentence to make your point while discarding the real point behind them, you've pretty much failed really. I guess it's a case of reading what you want to see instead of what's actually there.

    I have also tried Fred's memory allocator before and got almost no performance increase and actually saw a decrease in performance under certain scenario's with lots of changing objects coupled with AI in combat ironically. YMMV I guess.

  10. Posted

    Utter garbage. We all accept that changes to, say, graphics settings might mean a couple of FPS gained here, a couple gained there. They add up. What makes this less worthy of using? No one is saying you will get extraordinary gains with it. And somehow 9% is nothing just because in frame terms that is a small number? Frankly you should be embarrassed posting tosh like this in response to Fred who has actually contributed something.

    Did I say somewhere that what he is doing is fruitless or unimportant? I praised him for caring enough to even be doing it in the first place and basically said that is what we need to begin with both from BI as well as 3rd parties. Read what I said about people touting the one fix magic like it somehow completely fixes the game.

    My main issue is with people touting one fix as a catch all for the plethora of problems plaguing the engine, like as Th4d pointed out silly things like setting -maxmem=16000 or other various placebo and voodoo tricks that do absolutely nothing, and then instigating against those who point out that it's either negligible at best by itself as a solution or it's complete BS and doesn't work period. A lot of the problems only BI can fix through architectural changes to the engine itself. Doesn't mean that I think a small fix here or there isn't important or do I think it means that small changes and performance improvements don't add up, but it doesn't mean that it saves BI from the work they need or should be doing to their engine to fix issue's or that people should enabling the behavior by stating such ridiculous and silly claims about "tweaks" when in reality they offer little to no advantage. In the case of Fred's memory allocator it offers a slight performance increase but by itself it's not a magical fix all by itself either.

  11. Posted

    25% more memory access speed can have very different effects to armas overall performance.

    A arma client, for example, will have (dependend of used settings) probably other bottlenecks in the foreground, so that you just see maybe 6% more FPS.

    With other settings (better adapted to your hardware) you can see 9% more FPS.

    On arma server, the usage of large pages means most likely more increase, but it is very difficult to express the difference in numbers.

    I think this is not negligible, considering it is free (not counting the hours i spend on it :) )

    The reason, why i replied to your post in this thread, is that i basically hold dear the technically correctness of your posts,

    and i got the impression, that the post i replied to, was an exception in respect thereof ;)

    Greets,

    Fred41

    And that 6% increase is what I'm talking about. 6% of 30 fps is 1.8 fps which is a very very small increase, well within margin of error territory. Even 9% is 2.6 fps which again is still pretty minor. You're right in the sense it is free so it's not negligible, however my main issue with someone saying "Here use this memory allocator, you will go from 2 fps to 60 fps like magic!" still holds true.

  12. Posted

    This is where I struggle with your posts. You've pounced on this guy when he has already explained in his post why he is doing this to his RAM - to use the large pages dll.

    I'm not pouncing on him but seriously amused that he would be so adamant about something with a largely placebo effect, both from using large pages which again are a minute difference at best and defragging RAM, which depending on what program you use to do it and how it determines what's "useful" or "in use" versus "not useful" or "in use", that can cause issue's with deleting in use data and system dll's stored in memory that might not be in use right now but the OS expects them to be which can cause anything from minor issue's to BSOD's.

    @Fred: I'm not saying what you are doing is useless or not appreciated, in fact far from that as I think anyone trying to fix issue's within a program that they enjoy and are passionate about is exactly what is needed here, be it 3rd party or 1st party. You're right that large pages can provide a performance increase, but it's very minute in the grand scheme of things concerning ArmA. What's really needed is larger physical addressing space either through 64 bit binaries or by exhausting 32 bit addressing space as well as better multi-threading and parallelization of core engine systems. You also say it's a 25% increase or acceleration of system memory access times, but how big of a factor do those play in the core issue's people have with ArmA? How big of global factor is memory access times in terms of ArmA's use of system memory and what sort of real world performance figures are you looking at?

    What I dislike is someone coming in (not directed at you Fred) and trying to tout something with very small benefits as panache for large overarching issue's within the core of a program and then blasting about how they get, more than likely, these great performance figures with no data or anything to back up those claims and then instigating against others with actual true issue's because the suggestion or "fix" doesn't work or is very minute and can't even be discerned in a real world scenario.

  13. Posted

    ... maybe this link is a good start for your research:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366720%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

    Greets,

    Fred41

    For large page support, yes you need large sections of RAM free. Why do you need large page support in ArmA though? Why is one contiguously allocated block more important than many smaller blocks on a non physical extremely low latency storage medium across a high speed bus? Access times are in the nanoseconds. Overall it's really not that big of a deal or performance increase, it's simply another way of doing things no less no more.

    It's great what you are doing and all, but really what we need is for the memory access limit of the program to be increased within 32 bit limitations or for 64 bit binaries. 3rd party memory allocators are pretty moot for the most part since Windows 7.

  14. Posted

    I've never gotten above 40. My average is 20-25, and I've been playing ArmA for the last 7 years. You have no idea what a "hardcore gamer" is, sonny. There is no single definition. Somebody who plays for an hour here and there but does so with friends and intense missions could be "hardcore". Or do you think it means veterans of FPS and Milsim, tournament players and the like? I used to play 12 hour days every Saturday in one of the best tournaments out there. Does that make me "hardcore"? Pull your head out of your posterior orifice, get some fresh air, and toggle the little handle on the side of your head because right now you're so full of shit your eyes are turning brown.

    I would say being a "hardcore":rolleyes: gamer means accepting and being tolerant that there are many personal standards to what is and isn't acceptable as far as game performance, quality and concepts are concerned and being able to accept that as well as being courteous even to those they don't agree with without the need to get self righteous about their own personal opinions. I would say neither of you really have an understanding of what a "hardcore gamer" is. Hardcore, in the sense it's being used here, is a laughable term because it's a definition predefined on personal viewpoints and suppositions generally, the very same things most despise and can't even accept to begin with.

    If you're happy with 20 fps, why does getting 60 fps or more fps threaten you so much? Do you feel there's no room for improvement? Do you stop and say, "ArmA is perfect the way it is, it can't get better!"? For that matter, why exactly is 60 fps an impossible number within the RV engine to strive for? I don't think anyone has ever given a real concrete answer on this. It generally revolves around people with little understanding arguing back and forth about why either it should or it shouldn't with nothing ever being done.

  16. Posted

    lol, defragment RAM, lol. That's like defragging an SSD, there's marginal performance improvements but yeah it's still rather pointless and moot.

    Should you do it? Probably not because the cons usually outweigh the pro's, like deleting system DLL's to free up memory that are still in use etc... Contiguous blocks of memory mean very little unless you need to reserve large sections, and even then it still means very little.

    I think most of teh complainers have pretty much tried everything at this point because while we may bitch, we bitch because we love the damned game. We want to enjoy it, we simply cannot though because of performance issue's.

  18. Posted · Edited by Windies

    nice twisting of words, I reacted on claim that 'some driver change' by some IVH affects performance of arma 3 in negative way

    where the poster then continues with like it's our fault or responsibility for whatever IHV done or does ...

    unless that IHV cooperates with us before hand, we can't react until such driver is released

    now considering this driver is more like first of 'many' experiments to decrease driver overhead it's even more possible that it's not good enough for this or that title

    so stop dragging together two different problems (our engine issues vs driver issues)

    Again, the problem is that you choose to respond to someone giving their opinion, I'm not saying it's the right opinion either, and "fight" with them rather than responding to the valid criticism and alleviating those concerns. The real question is, why would Nvidia's effort to optimize draw calls or "DirectX" within their drivers have zero affect on ArmA 3 when it has such a global effect on everything else?

  19. Posted

    Object quality, the actual setting in game, has about the biggest factor on performance if you're CPU bound which pretty much anyone outside of a GTX 260 more than likely is unless they're trying to run with settings outside their GPU's capabilities. Other than that you're talking insignificant and downright minuscule optimizations and tweaks that pretty much do nothing. Things like core parking, which I have tried and do use, seem to make the game run smoother, but as far as a tangible performance benefit I have yet to be able to benchmark or record one. Same goes for things like the start up commands like -exthreads and such. In most cases those are all set correctly to what you would most likely set them to in the first place, like -exthreads=7 in the case of a quadcore for example. It's up to BI to fix these issue's in the end, no amount of tweaking is magically going to make MP run better or AI utilize more core's or become less resource intensive etc...

  20. Posted

    Bottom line with ArmA and BI seems to be that content trumps engine support and performance as a large scale objective. We know the problems exist, we know they won't ever be fixed because they haven't ever been fixed, what better way to read the future than through history after all and if you can't accept it you might as well just stop supporting it. I know I'm not anymore.

  21. Posted

    the problem is you can´t distinguish between two complete different things:

    a) to excuse arma3

    b) to give a workaround for an existing problem.

    your position: oh no this workaround supresses the truth of a bad programmed arma3!

    The "debate" is only in your brain. LOL

    Overclocking is NOT a workaround and you're extremely naive to think that. That is the point whether you can grasp it or not.

  22. Posted · Edited by Windies

    and what exactly do you want to say? overclocking have limits? Or: to use arma3-benches is for arma3 better than synthetic benchmarks? Hell.....YES! :rolleyes:

    I'm saying overclocking is not the answer to performance issue's with ArmA or really any piece of software. If you have to overclock just to get good performance and there's no proper scaling within the program for modern hardware, something is wrong with the program not the hardware. It's become some sort of answer to every problem. Poor performance? Overclock everything in you system!

    And yes, overclocking has limits. Continue on with your "debate" though. :rolleyes:

  23. Posted

    St.Jimmy, Ezcoo and greenfist refutes the threadstarter with facts.

    @Windies

    I think the question was: how much overclocking the gpu/cpu helps in arma3? There are risks if there is no proper cooling and with lack of knowledge (lifetime/throttling etc). The sense of tips like overclocking is not to excuse something but to HELP to raise performance. Thats very simple to understand i think.

    For example I top out at 48c under prime95 load @ 3.8ghz with a Phenom II 965 with a Rifle cooler and a Delta 3400rpm 120mm fan inside of a CM Storm Sniper case with 3x200mm, 1x140mm and 1x120mm fans. That's Tjunction temp which is well under the 62c maximum temp for Phenom II's. It's the simple fact that Phenom II's in general love to run cool, the cooler they run the faster they run and you eventually reach a point where you can safely overclock, but you're actually hurting your performance to a degree. It's not just about safety but tolerances of the CPU's and hardware themselves and how even operating within a safe measure while overclocking can still have poor results. Even with Intel's, there's a point where even though you're within safety margins, overclocking more does nothing. Overclocking is not some magical panache for poor performance in ArmA and running things "out of spec" should never become the norm for poor optimization and coding.

    As far as synthetic benchmarks are concerned, they're shit for measuring real world performance. They're great if you wanna throw a number around to try and boast about your system, but as far as measuring how something will work in ArmA or Battlefield or CoD or whatever, they're shit.

  24. Posted

    It would be nice to see arguments and facts that support your statement. Opinion alone means (well, should mean) nothing, as human being is an irrational creature and thus opinions without arguments tell nothing about the truth value of given statement.

    While it's not fact, depending on heat levels and heat tolerance of the actual CPU, you may achieve a high overclock but get worse performance due to erring. This is why overclocking isn't some blanket fix for poor performance. I know with the 2 Phenom II processors I had, a 940 BE and a 965 BE now, going over 3.6 ghz actually caused a large drop in performance, especially in ArmA. Granted I technically get "better" performance by not overclocking as much, I still suffer from the fact the ArmA is programmed in a very single threaded and monolithic nature. Even i7's at 4.5 ghz suffer from the fact that ArmA is single threaded and monolithic in nature.

    Also some people don't like overclocking as it does wear your hardware down faster running something out of spec. You can't just say "Hey run everything out of spec!" as explication for inherent problems to the game.

×