Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

Bitch please -.-

I am wasting my time typing this. Just because you are a rich fag and you only care about yourself, doesn't mean you should say the devs should ignore the problem and screw anyone who has a moderate CPU.

It doesn't run well. Why do you think this huge thread is here in the first place?

" all of them have used this game engine & variants of it since 2001, this game engine was developed originally as a mil sim for training in rl warfare." Unrelevant information. I have no idea what you are aiming for.

And who exactly is saying "my 4....ghz only get 30fps"?

You'd say that the devs would make use of your engine since this game is so CPU dependant. But they're doing it wrong.

Or remove the birds and disable pretty much everything that is CPU dependant, so it's not like an ArmA game anymore? Make it CoD lol

Those tweaks you are talking about barely make any difference, if any.

These devs are not ok. Even two of them have been in jail for making photo's of a military base in Greece (how stupid...).

Yeah, brilliant unplayable game!

What?

What?

Basically he's saying, in a crude way, you don't know what you're talking about. And I tend to agree with him on that.

It has nothing to do with your CPU not being good enough.

Double Tap: "Bohemia Interactive, what you need to do, so that things don't get out of hand and you don't suffer massive negative PR and refund requests en masse, is to 1) acknowledge the problem and 2) let us know that the problem will be fixed. Silence on this matter suggests that it will not be fixed. It does not inspire confidence in you."

Don't try to fool us by saying it are the servers. Why would you? To give us faith? ArmA 2 has the same CPU problem. A server with 30 ping can't possibly half my FPS. A server shouldn't even touch my FPS. I also have the same FPS in the SP, so no more lies please. We all know what the problem is here.

OMG it was exactly that! I can't believe it... I turned Post to Normal and no more issues with ATOC when scoping, 4xAA...

np man, at least it wasn't useless for me, spending hours of tweaking :)

This is going to be your downfall if you don't do something about this.

As much as I dislike getting into arguments with kids who in all likelihood never even heard of ArmA until a few weeks ago, there's a point to be made for the larger issue:

Where is the community going to go exactly? CoD? BF? RO? TF? A quick read of the forums will show the fans of this series don't see any real competition for the milsim genre, just general distaste towards mainstream FPS gaming and other franchises (though many can enjoy both ArmA and mainstream, it does seem to be the general feeling). Nothing currently in alpha/beta that I have noted at least compares to OA/ACE2 as a milsim. With OFP2 being such a dud, ArmA's basically alone right now as a standalone title here. Plus, many have built up communities around the game over years, and that's a big reason they will stick with it even if there was competition, which there isn't.

Some will eschew A3 because they can't play it, but these aren't the ones complaining about FPS oddly, since their machines are old as dust and they don't expect them to handle it, not because they're $1000+ new gaming rigs (the primary complainers, and certainly with good cause, though overblown with rhetoric/idiocy by many such as yourself). Some others will eschew it because they realize it isn't COD with bigger maps, and they were never really the target demo anyway (and despite all the complaints from the core community, it really doesn't seem like BIS is pandering to them much at all with it's current design imo).

Personally, I have a decent-ish CPU and a crap GPU, and I'm wholly content with the performance I'm getting, given it's an alpha and all. I do plan to upgrade before launch, so I hope they fix this issue for higher-end PCs, but if not I guess I've saved myself a new GPU purchase, eh?

As much as I dislike getting into arguments with kids who in all likelihood never even heard of ArmA until a few weeks ago, there's a point to be made for the larger issue:

Where is the community going to go exactly? CoD? BF? RO? TF? A quick read of the forums will show the fans of this series don't see any real competition for the milsim genre, just general distaste towards mainstream FPS gaming and other franchises (though many can enjoy both ArmA and mainstream, it does seem to be the general feeling). Nothing currently in alpha/beta that I have noted at least compares to OA/ACE2 as a milsim. With OFP2 being such a dud, ArmA's basically alone right now as a standalone title here. Plus, many have built up communities around the game over years, and that's a big reason they will stick with it even if there was competition, which there isn't.

Some will eschew A3 because they can't play it, but these aren't the ones complaining about FPS oddly, since their machines are old as dust and they don't expect them to handle it, not because they're $1000+ new gaming rigs (the primary complainers, and certainly with good cause, though overblown with rhetoric/idiocy by many such as yourself). Some others will eschew it because they realize it isn't COD with bigger maps, and they were never really the target demo anyway (and despite all the complaints from the core community, it really doesn't seem like BIS is pandering to them much at all with it's current design imo).

Personally, I have a decent-ish CPU and a crap GPU, and I'm wholly content with the performance I'm getting, given it's an alpha and all. I do plan to upgrade before launch, so I hope they fix this issue for higher-end PCs, but if not I guess I've saved myself a new GPU purchase, eh?

Just because there's a lack of competition doesn't mean that we should settle for sub par performance due to under-utilization. GPU is probably the most under-utilized piece of hardware by the RV engine right now, except for RAM.

Just because there's a lack of competition doesn't mean that we should settle for sub par performance due to under-utilization. GPU is probably the most under-utilized piece of hardware by the RV engine right now, except for RAM.

Well, judging by performance so far, CPU is also pretty under-utilized. In fact, for me, GPU is fine. 99% fine. But CPU is hardly used. Thing is, right now, Arma 3 can't run on GPU alone. It definitely is mostly CPU. So, while it's good to want the RV engine to utilize the GPU, it still needs to better utilize the CPU.

You are definitely right, though. BIS should not slight the problems of their game just because they have no competition. And I feel like that is the mentality of a lot of the naysayers (the "get a new CPU/GPU/PC" people) in this thread.

Well all of this complaining erhm..*cough* feedback, is the exact nature of why they released an Alpha in the first place. I highly doubt BI higher ups are just sitting around laughing it up at all us yucksters while chomping cigars, swirling brandy while countin mad bank. The point is its great to give them of this valuable feedback -what I don't get is all of the "push the red button! The franchise is OVER!!!" hysteria. Been said ad nauseum infintum but - its an alpha. The only other Alpha I've ever bought was WOlfire's Overgrowth and that was August of 2011 -and it's still Alpha!!?! And lacks 1000% functionality (and joy imo) of this freshly released one. Yet their forums seem far more patient and for lack of a better word, mature.

Arma 2 ran like shit when I first got it and now I can load up to 1000 AI in missions and run smooth as silk, 64bit be damned. Give them feedback & time and it will be optimized but please, enough with the histrionics.

Arma 2 ran like shit when I first got it and now I can load up to 1000 AI in missions and run smooth as silk, 64bit be damned.

Um...what? ArmA 2 suffers from the same problem and it has NEVER been fixed. Yes, optimization has improved, but there are still many instances where if you get one too many AI you will get low utilization and low FPS. There was/is a huge thread about this exact same problem in the ArmA 2 section.

I will agree with you that people are getting a little crazy with the doom and gloom, but I gotta call BS on the quoted part.

I've read the arguments to instate 64 bit exe. and I fully agree with them -I would be elated if that was announced in the future. My point being that no matter how you slice it, Arma 2 has been greatly optimized in terms of game functionality since its release. It may have not been done in the way we all wish -but the fact remains. At the end of the day, I'll be happy when I'm running Arma3 with 1000 AI + 15 effects/sound/ai mods at high settings in spite of what rivatuner tells me my CPU is doing or not doing.

I've read the arguments to instate 64 bit exe. and I fully agree with them -I would be elated if that was announced in the future. My point being that no matter how you slice it, Arma 2 has been greatly optimized in terms of game functionality since its release. It may have not been done in the way we all wish -but the fact remains. At the end of the day, I'll be happy when I'm running Arma3 with 1000 AI + 15 effects/sound/ai mods at high settings in spite of what rivatuner tells me my CPU is doing or not doing.

if we get 30fps MINIMUM with that + vehicles & explosions, i agree completely.

Ok, so I've previously said, I'm using GPU-Z and Intel's Extreme Tuning Utility to monitor the game. What I've consistently noticed is that my performance is directly tied to the percent GPU load on my system. When GPU load is 99% (seen on the GPU-Z application) and CPU Utilization is between 13% and 30%, I see no major drop in performance (of course, looking at vegetation and turning on shadows and all that other stuff still causes FPS to drop drastically). But after 10 minutes of running the game (and this is just running a map with only the player), the CPU Utilization will increase to 40% or 50% and the percent GPU load will drop from 99% to anywhere between 89% and 40%. I've noticed that even a slight drop in percent GPU load (99% to 95%) causes the FPS to drop drastically.

I've also noticed that when playing certain multiplayer missions (like Wasteland, or TDM), my percent GPU load automatically drops below 85%, with CPU Utilization increasing to around 50%, and I notice immediate FPS decreases.

Now, I'm not sure what this percent GPU load means for this application, whether it's GPU Utilization or something else. But from what I can tell, the game is utilizing my GPU, but not using my CPU, and seems like I need both to run the game well. Either the game or Windows is picking and choosing to use either my CPU or my GPU, but not both. When GPU load is 99%, CPU utilization is around 20%. When CPU utilization is over 30%, GPU load automatically drops sub-99%. Not sure if these are accurate readings though.

And, too bad there's no performance boosts with this latest patch. ~200MB and I don't notice the difference...

Just because there's a lack of competition doesn't mean that we should settle for sub par performance due to under-utilization. GPU is probably the most under-utilized piece of hardware by the RV engine right now, except for RAM.

Agree, I certainly have been critical and pushed for changes. I wouldn't ever suggest doing otherwise. But the fact remains that BIS can basically release the A2 engine v1.5 with minimal improvements to performance (though I think the gameplay, physics, graphics, and so on have all been well improved) and a lot of people are going to end up buying it because, really, what else are they going to play like A3? I'm going to preorder it as soon as my PayPal funds come through despite knowing full in advance that there are these issues (though I assume they will be at least partially fixed) because, really, what else am I going to play?

Yet their forums seem far more patient and for lack of a better word, mature.

FYI, this has been getting a TON of press on "PC Gamer", and that plus all the DayZ hype means we're getting a lot more... for the lack of a better word... "dumb 13-yo kids" coming in here now, posting their idiocy 10-20 times, and leaving to go read their webcomics and do their homework, never to return.

People dont even try to follow some Tweaks mentioned in this Thread, they just want to complain.

It`s just ridiculous, that people with High-End CPUs complain about Low-FPS on ultra or something. Or maybe on low but with a View Distance of 5000 km etc.

They dont get that must of the GFX-Setting are GPU related but the CPU is the bottleneck.

As mentioned a hundred times here, you should put down visibility and Shadows at least at High or disabled, as well as lowering the Terrain Detail.

What may also help at least on i7s, is to disable HT, but i haven seen one person that tried this so far, in this Thread.

Most just prefer to cry and blame the Developers.

It can be, that my old machine (Q6600@ 3Ghz + HD 5770). Runs very fine with permanentyl 35 fps+. Except the Helicopter Showcase, where it is 28 fps at the beginning, but than rises to over 35 again.

The aim of Developers usually is to make the game playable, no matter how. MT Utilizations is a way to achieve this goal and nothing but, its not a must have.

And so far Bohemia did a very good job, because 35 fps+ is completely playable. And its still Alpha i guess we can expect at least 10-20% more performance like in Arma 2.

Comparing Bohemia to Dice, which got EA as a backer and so millions of dollars, also is very ridiculous.

So please stop crying and just try to improve your settings.

People dont even try to follow some Tweaks mentioned in this Thread, they just want to complain.

It`s just ridiculous, that people with High-End CPUs complain about Low-FPS on ultra or something. Or maybe on low but with a View Distance of 5000 km etc.

They dont get that must of the GFX-Setting are GPU related but the CPU is the bottleneck.

As mentioned a hundred times here, you should put down visibility and Shadows at least at High or disabled, as well as lowering the Terrain Detail.

What may also help at least on i7s, is to disable HT, but i haven seen one person that tried this so far, in this Thread.

Most just prefer to cry and blame the Developers.

It can be, that my old machine (Q6600@ 3Ghz + HD 5770). Runs very fine with permanentyl 35 fps+. Except the Helicopter Showcase, where it is 28 fps at the beginning, but than rises to over 35 again.

The aim of Developers usually is to make the game playable, no matter how. MT Utilizations is a way to achieve this goal and nothing but, its not a must have.

And so far Bohemia did a very good job, because 35 fps+ is completely playable. And its still Alpha i guess we can expect at least 10-20% more performance like in Arma 2.

Comparing Bohemia to Dice, which got EA as a backer and so millions of dollars, also is very ridiculous.

So please stop crying and just try to improve your settings.

Yeah sure... we are all just a little slow in our brains.

Its not like you can set your viewdistance to LOW in Wastelands and still get 25FPS while having 30% GPU and 50% CPU load (maximum on the Core #0)...

People dont even try to follow some Tweaks mentioned in this Thread, they just want to complain.

It`s just ridiculous, that people with High-End CPUs complain about Low-FPS on ultra or something. Or maybe on low but with a View Distance of 5000 km etc.

They dont get that must of the GFX-Setting are GPU related but the CPU is the bottleneck.

As mentioned a hundred times here, you should put down visibility and Shadows at least at High or disabled, as well as lowering the Terrain Detail.

What may also help at least on i7s, is to disable HT, but i haven seen one person that tried this so far, in this Thread.

Most just prefer to cry and blame the Developers.

It can be, that my old machine (Q6600@ 3Ghz + HD 5770). Runs very fine with permanentyl 35 fps+. Except the Helicopter Showcase, where it is 28 fps at the beginning, but than rises to over 35 again.

The aim of Developers usually is to make the game playable, no matter how. MT Utilizations is a way to achieve this goal and nothing but, its not a must have.

And so far Bohemia did a very good job, because 35 fps+ is completely playable. And its still Alpha i guess we can expect at least 10-20% more performance like in Arma 2.

Comparing Bohemia to Dice, which got EA as a backer and so millions of dollars, also is very ridiculous.

So please stop crying and just try to improve your settings.

People with i7s shouldn't have any problem running games on any video settings. People with i7s and good videocards never have problems running games which are CPU intensive. This 12-year old engine destroys the game.

I like the part where I upgrade from an i7 920 d0 OC @ 3.6GHz, 6gb 1600MHz DDR3, and HD6950 2gb Crossfire, to an i5 3570K @ 3.8GHz, 8gb 1600MHz DDR3, and HD7950 3gb Crossfire... and see essentially zero performance difference in ARMA 3 alpha.

Hopefully BIS can sort out their optimization greatly leading up to release.

On my old PC, hosting that co-op Escape From Stratis mission I had 12fps by the end of it while my friends on similarly specced PCs were rocking ~25-30fps still.

The CPU usage and bottleneck is nuts in its current state.

Edited March 22, 2013 by h.IV+[I.esus]

You are right with Wastelands, but i am sure that the Multiplayer will run fine a view versions later. Blitzkrieg is already running at 40+ fps.

Edit:

That post over me, is one of the posts i meant.

He switched his old CPU vs a new One. The new one got 5% more clock and something like a 10%-higher Per Core Performance, because of the better architecture.

So overall its 15% faster. That means if he got 30 fps before, hes getting 34,5 now. He will not recognize it, but he could have seen it, if he had at least measured it.

In reality the improvement may be even lower, so that its maybe just 1-2 fps.

And now hes complaining that his new System brought no Performance increase, and thats not totally ridiculous?

Edited March 22, 2013 by MaverickFerran

People dont even try to follow some Tweaks mentioned in this Thread, they just want to complain.

It`s just ridiculous, that people with High-End CPUs complain about Low-FPS on ultra or something. Or maybe on low but with a View Distance of 5000 km etc.

They dont get that must of the GFX-Setting are GPU related but the CPU is the bottleneck.

As mentioned a hundred times here, you should put down visibility and Shadows at least at High or disabled, as well as lowering the Terrain Detail.

What may also help at least on i7s, is to disable HT, but i haven seen one person that tried this so far, in this Thread.

Most just prefer to cry and blame the Developers.

It can be, that my old machine (Q6600@ 3Ghz + HD 5770). Runs very fine with permanentyl 35 fps+. Except the Helicopter Showcase, where it is 28 fps at the beginning, but than rises to over 35 again.

The aim of Developers usually is to make the game playable, no matter how. MT Utilizations is a way to achieve this goal and nothing but, its not a must have.

And so far Bohemia did a very good job, because 35 fps+ is completely playable. And its still Alpha i guess we can expect at least 10-20% more performance like in Arma 2.

Comparing Bohemia to Dice, which got EA as a backer and so millions of dollars, also is very ridiculous.

So please stop crying and just try to improve your settings.

I got the helicopter showcase running well with my tweaks. Minimum FPS was 38 and average was about 50 and the game looked gorgeous.

Screenshots with FPS visible:

http://imageshack.us/a/img600/4596/ultragruffix.png

http://imageshack.us/a/img23/3048/sohighfps.png

http://imageshack.us/a/img152/1271/miracleofoptimization.png

My specs:

Core i5 2500k (stock)

GTX 570

8GB ram

Windows 7 64 bit

Yea right heres some tweaks for you.

please devs put the AI to one fixed core. Then the two (or sometimes three) cores supplying gpu can´t be decelerate from ai calculations. Thats my "theory".....as a fully programmer noob....:-P

Hello. I wanted to post a new thread but it seems I do not have permission to do so yet.

My frame rate seems to be locked despite what my video settings are. In the infantry showcase and the editor with a few ai I get around 30-44 frames maximum. In multiplayer I get 19 frames maximum. It does not seem to matter if my settings are on high or if they are all low and disabled. I cannot go above 44 in sp and 19 in mp. I even put my resolution to 800x600 (not image resolution under rendering) and it made no difference. I have tried all of the tweaks I can find, and even over clocked my cpu and gpu to no avail. Yet others are able to get 30-40 frames on the same server.

Here are my current settings.

Res: 1080p

V-Sync: disabled

AA: Disabled

FXAA Standard

Post Process: Disabled

PIP: low

Dynamic Lights: low

Draw: 2000 (anything above and frame rates drop in sp)

Object draw: 500

Render res: 100%

Aniso: high

HDR: Standard

Quality: Everything is set to standard except for textures and that is set to high.

Start up: -noSplash -cpuCount=4 -exThreads=4 -skipintro -nobenchmark -winxp

I have set "max frames ahead" to 0

Specs:

AMD Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6ghz

Ram: 6.00 GB

Ati 5850 1gb

win 7 ult

Is there something I am missing? Or is this just related to the above issue with cpu usage?

I better stop reading this thread.

We all know what the issue is, the only people arguing it are the fanboys who wouldn't admit anything is wrong or the simpletons who think 24 FPS is just fine and smooth.

tet5uo

+1

who is saying it is all fine? Also the devs said, they found some of the engine problems, causing bad performance, and they are working on it. Whats the prob then?

^^ patience, lack there of.