James111333

Dude, you are a cancer on this forum, nothing you say is helpful and you do nothing but bitch about a game that it seems you must still be playing? You wouldn't be playing if you didn't enjoy it so get over it, we all know how you feel about it and we are all frustrated too but we are all here to enjoy it as best we can. The devs can't fix it but that doesn't mean it's not a product to enjoy still. I paid £20 for the game and would happily pay the full £40 as even in a broken state, it's worth it. Look at all the £60 PS and XBox games that give you 8 hours of mediocre gameplay. Arma is still worth it. As for your constant whining about zero work arounds, I have just spent the evening on teamspeak with people with ancient PCs getting 15FPS they have 5 year old hardware that may still be fine for browsing and excel but not for a relatively young game like Arma 3. It was a server of 40+ people with a whole lot going on and I was getting a reliable 45-65FPS while these folks were getting 15FPS. You need to ask yourself, does it really make sense to ask a PS3 to play PS4 games? My 4770k and R9 290x from 2013 plays my 2013 game really quite well considering it's terrible optimisation. And PLEASE, make sure your RAM is running as fast as it can, there is up to 15% to be had!

You are so right here :) LSD_Timewarp82 has issues, possible going back to his childhood it seems as he has used a different combination of words to make the exact same pointles and unhelpful statement a ton of times lately. It's pathetic! Jesus, if an overclock doesn't work for you then I'm sorry, it made significant improvements for me, increasing my Arma enjoyment dramatically which inspired me to share it with others. Why preach to the world how good you are with computers and yet submit to having accepted that there "is no way to increase FPS" There are ways to make significant improvements that work really effectively. If they don't work with your system on the servers you use, don't preach to the would that with your infinite overclocking and system building knowledge "nothing can be done to improve things" YES the game is broken to a SHOCKING extent, this was established a LONG time ago. The idea of a forum thread is not to keep saying the same thing but to develop and evolve a better understanding of the issue in hand. This thread has helped with a massive boost of enjoyment and performance on how I use ARMA 3, it is measurable and significant and I must thank the helpful people here for making it an even better game. I must also add, if you are stuck in such a hateful mind with this game, just leave, don't keep saying the same useless rubbish and wasting our time. I enjoy getting email alerts when this thread is updated until I see it's just another little bitching from LSD_Timewarp82 lol. Tell me how many people from Shack Tac DON'T get masses of enjoyment from Arma? Yes it's broken but man you can have a lot of fun on such a shitty written game:) Do the things you can, 3 FPS improvements from 3 different tweaks makes what LSD_Timewarp82? 9 FPS? That's right son. An FPS figure that can make a big old difference to minimum FPS and stuttering. ;)

Bit of an odd result with the DDR4 as faster ram gave me 20% increase in FPS across the board where as 5+GHz on my 4770k only gave me 6-10% at best. All in controlled conditions, I guess the server plays a big part of it too, isn't that why they are re writing a lot of DayZ including new 64 bit servers?

I disagree completely (in a non aggressive way I might add (too much bitching has gone on in this thread!)) The benchmarks linked by Zaira show huge gains from upgrading. 965BE to 4790k (or overclocked 4770k) nets double the frame rates 19 FPS vs 38 FPS. There is no doubt that it should be ~90FPS if the game was fixed but an upgrade from the IPC of a 965, 1090T or even 8350 to what could be considered a modestly priced 4690k sends you into totally playable territory. I'm not arguing that the game is not broken but just hoping that people will still be able to enjoy it as much as me. I loved my 965 and my 1090T but I consider my 4770k and huge game changing upgrade for playing Arma.

I'm sure it keeps getting swept under the carpet in this thread, in a lot of cases, you shouldn't be worrying about the CPU as much as the frequency of the RAM, I have 2000Mhz Dominator GT CL8 and after a bios reset, it was running at 1600MHz, I didn't bother to change it back at the time as it makes no conceivable difference for browsing etc. Then I read that the Arma engine has a problem with transferring to and from the RAM ( or something along those lines) I clocked my RAM back up to 2000MHz and got 10-12fps for 400MHz I spend most of my time flying so really hate it every time I fly over a town but the RAM increase has made a massive difference to my minimum FPS, I only wish I could try 3000MHz. I'm really keen to hear some feedback from folks on high frequency DDR4 as that may be a game changer when they eventually start hitting 4000MHz :) I have 100s of hours on the same few flying missions and have easily replicate-able (sp) scenarios to test FPS, not to mention the gains in the benchmark etc. For reference, 4770K 8GB Dominator GT 2000MHz CL8 R9 290X Water cooled All settings on Ultra Overall visibility 3540 Objects 1900 Disabling 2 cores and overclocking my 4770K to 5.5GHz sees no real gain, maybe 3-4 FPS All cores clocked at 4.8 sees about 5 FPS Overclocking my GPU or crossfiring them sees no FPS increase.

Like you lol

Did anyone else see an FPS gain in the last update? I play a steam workshop helicopter training mission a lot ( I mean a lot) and have gone from 45FPS to 60FPS in the same area with V sync on so locking it at 60, V sync off and I get 72 FPS everything maxed out with very long draw distances etc ( I forget the number but it doesn't seem to impact FPs that much when I lower the slider anyway)

Haha, OK friend, if you want to take it as a personal bash at your manhood, that's up to you. My post was intended to be constructive yet address your negativity and and downright refusal to accept other people input on RAM speeds. Whether you are a world champion or not, it seems mindless disregard peoples real world findings. Maybe we could swap RAM because I know for certain, 700MHz is a game changer for me and although 2000MHz @ a super tight CL8 is nice, your 180MHz over my RAM would be welcomed :cool: As for bottlenecking, I saw massive limitations on my I7 920 with 2 7950s which are significantly less demanding than 2 770s, hardly any scaling at all until I built my 4770k system unto which it transformed performance. I'm not 'preaching hearsay' I owned the same platform. This thread is here to help the community and to build a benchmark knowledge of what can be expected from what hardware, I would love to hear feedback on my system as how to upgrade it to achieve higher framerates as ARMA is all I play nowadays and visual and audio fidelity is of utmost importance. If someone told me my RAM was holding me back, I would pursue testing methodology and a solution, not tell them how good I am at overclocking ancient hardware :butbut: (on a side note, I have built houses for 20 years, I don't go round telling people I can build skyscrapers though lol) xx

There must be a significant bottleneck elsewhere on your system, most likely the IPC ability of your CPU, your CPU is very weak and dated compared to the rest of your hardware. Gen 1 I7s are certainly no slouch in normal situations but in this case seems to be a possible culprit? I had been messing about with overclocks on my 4770k so had my RAM at 1333MHz for ages (to exclude it as possible causes of instability) As it had been like that for ages and as it's a component that doesn't make much of a conceivable difference other than in benchmarks, I didn't even think about it until reading a few posts back, I was wondering why I wasn't getting the same FPS as I had been. I set it back up to 2000MHZ 8-9-8-24 and saw an immediate 10FPS gain which I consider is huge. I switched between 4.4 and 4.7GHz on my CPU and gained only 1 FPS. My watercooled 290x add no FPS overclocking from around ~1000MHz to 1150MHz! I am considering picking up some much faster RAM to see if I can get it even further as ARMA looks a million times better when it passes 50FPS I see it as a gateway to true immersion with 50+FPS I wish BI could address this as immersion is what ARMA is about :)

Quit the whining fella, put your 24fps world to better use and bring out a video card that only renders an output of 24fps to be displayed on your 24hz TV range. We'll all go back to our 60Hz/FPS gaming and enjoy the fluidity while we contemplate how next to add to this post in a constructive way. Please don't tell me you spent more than £30 on a graphics card as clearly there is just no point in higher frame rates. ---------- Post added at 22:29 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ---------- What he said :)

Please come back when you have actually seen 60FPS on a good quality 60 Hz screen. The fluidity is like night and day compared to 30FPS and certainly even more so than 24FPS... The immersion is truly heightened at 60FPS hence the desire to attain it in Arma 3. 24Hz I think may have been linked to transmitting frequencies for terrestrial TV.

As an AMD fan but 4770k owner I don't think it is the fact that it is AMD that is the problem, it is the per core performance. If this game can only use 30-50% of one core on a cpu, on piledriver, it will be significantly slower than the same 30-50% useage of one core on Haswell. Piledriver will be great for cross-platform AAA games now that the consoles support x86 multi core but BI decided to annoy the world by releasing a £40 title that doesn't even use 100% of one core, let alone 8 :( I wonder if there are any 3rd party developers that could write a 'middleman' program that shares the load across multiple threads... A new take on the magic Arma fix we all crave maybe :P

Why do people STILL defend the argument of higher frame rates? YES it is a great game / sim. That is exactly why the frustration is so prevalent, the people complaining are complaining because they love Arma. Are you that ignorant that you can't see the night and day difference between 30 and 60fps? It is not mythical, it's profound. Overclocking one core on my 4770k made a huge difference and I was blown away by the difference it makes flying over Altis in a jet. Track IR, Saitek x52 pro, 100" 1080p screen and finally 60fps. Now it's a sim. If you are happy with 20FPS, fine but keep your unreasonable labelling to yourself until you realise that until the desired FPS is reached and surpassed, at least one of the main components in our systems should be at 100% Regardless of my counter statement above, this thread is about low utilisation not anyone's opinion as to whether 20FPS is ok on a £40 piece of software.

What he said! I would say that either one of the core components should be being stressed at 100% or the FPS should be hitting a pre defined level (ie 60) and the cpu or gpu usage throttled to reflect the unused hardware horsepower.

Indeed, I still only get 30% utilisation but at least my GPU is working hard now. It's at the expense of pretty unrealistic clocks but with AI suite, it's as simple as loading a profile before you launch Arma and you're away, a work around that needs good cooling I guess!