More than 2 graphics cards?
Hi I have 2 ati 5970's and can't run maximum settings in multiplayer pvp and have good enough frame rates. And I think that even if I upgraded to 2 ati 6990's I still wouldn't be able have complete max settings in multiplayer pvp with high frame rates.. So, those are the 2 best cards on the market. So would getting 2 more 5970's allow me to do this in arma 2:OA or more than 2 of any card? If not, then I'm assuming that it's impossible for anyone to max out their settings and have high frame rates all the time in online pvp? Is this true? Or can I do it with 4?
Ever thought that the CPU is limiting (yes, i know it's by far runnin below 100%) and not the graphic card?
Make a simple test: changing viewdistance, terraindetail and/or objectdetail has a direct effect on FPS = CPU is limiting.
Don't you get it, Arma is old school, the programmer's have no idea how to utilize modern GPUs, so much happens at CPU level in this game.
Up until recently they didn't even utilize more than 2GB RAM. So yeah, old school. I wish they had better programmers.
Just check GPU utilization while playing, it's barely doing any work.
So you surely have a way to calculate AI on GPU's. And also name which games are actually 64bit applications. There are things that can't be done by GPU and also using more than 2GB memory wouldn't help there.
Originally Posted by eosteric
So until you can come up with something better i think you better STFU & GTFO.
Whatever you want can be done on the GPU.
And last I checked, more than 2gb ram does not equal 64bit application.
So essentially the technology or the know how to take advantage of it just isn't out there is what youre sayin. *edit* actually there probably are some crazy processors out there.. they shoulda offered that with my alienware to begin with . I wonder what kinda specs could handle everthing in arma with ease.
Last edited by Dysentery; Mar 20 2011 at 20:23.
Nice link. What GPU's are supported?
Originally Posted by eosteric
And what's the point of using XXGB of Ram? ArmA 2 uses as much as it needs. What do you think actually is in the memory? Textures? They are in the VRam.
I'm sure BIS could think of a way to fill your Ram if it makes you feel warm and comfortable, fact is, ArmA 2 uses the Ram as it is needed. If more data has to be held, it uses the Ram accordingly. Just filling it up that somebody might think "cool, ArmA 2 is using all of my Ram" is nothing but pointless.
Besides this, a 32bit Windows doesn't allow a single process to use more than 2GB, except the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the header of the Application is activated (which was done in one of the previous patches IIRC) which allows to use up to 4GB Ram.
That said, ArmA 2 could use up to 4GB Ram (if available) and the reason it doesn't might be that it doesn't need it.
Obviously it needs something more, since it could always perform better. Most people would agree that it's a very demanding game. More and better utilizing of GPU/RAM would give it a performance increase.
Not very difficult to understand.
It seems too difficult for you.
GPU can't be used any better, at least not without breaking compatibility with certain Hardware (not all GPU's that are in use support CUDA, it's not a standard yet).
So BIS has to decide where to set it's focus and that is the "GPU does graphic, CPU does the rest" approach.
This ensures everyone can actually play ArmA2, how good and at which settings is another topic.
So far, a better GPU doesn't help if it doesn't have more to do. If settings that affects the GPU are maxed out, max is reached.
About the RAM, as already said, ArmA 2 already uses as much Ram as it needs. There is nothing limiting it to use 2GB or more (after that patch, there i was wrong at first) so why do you think it doesn't use more? Simply because it doesn't need it.
This brings it down to the last component: the CPU.
The only way to squeeze more out of the CPU is to make more use of multiple threads, making more runnin in parallel.
Sadly there is always some difficulty, as often enough one thread has to wait for a calculation result of another parallel running thread. So it's pretty difficult to get a real advantage of Multicore processors when threads heavily rely on each other.
As Suma said once, it would be easy to program a non-productive thread which does nothing but eating up the free resources of the CPU so everyone would see his CPU permanently at 100% workload (actually no real workload) and i guess a lot of people would be like "woah, excellent programming, it uses all cores at 100%!!!"
Maybe they should go that way, then maybe all this "bwaha, crappy programming!!!" BS would stop.
Man, you don't understand anything.
It's weird how all other games manage to utilize the GPU more than Arma 2 right? Run any other game and measure utilization of your GPU and you'll find it can often run at near 90% load whereas Arma 2 it's at 5%.
And there's lots of graphic stuff in Arma 2 not happening at GPU level, proof? Because a lot of the graphic settings you change, don't affect performance one way or the other, and doesn't change GPU load when measured.
And no, using all threads of the CPU is not difficult. That's why so many applications and quite a few games do that.
Again, weird how everyone else manages to do things easily that Arma 2 doesn't do at all.
And the way you check for proper usage is by running any game with just two cores enabled instead of four, and check the performance decrease.
And I haven't seen a single game yet using four cores heavily not drop in performance when you run it with just two cores.
Sounds like this Suma dude is just making excuses.
What he's saying is a bullshit line, he's implying that, oh, the competition, they way they've done it is fake, it's just bullshit, and illusion. Well, it's not. And again, the proof is, run the game in two or single core mode and you'll see the performance drop. And this Suma should stop talking smack about arbitrary competition, and instead do what they've been doing for a long time.
The engine used is just shit, and Bohemia probably wishes they could just scrap the whole thing, and they will too. You have noticed it barely has physics right? And how shit an exploding vehicle looks, they mostly just change texture. Not to mention buildings. There's no graphically dynamic systems at work at all in this game, except for particles, but they suck as well, compared to just about any other game. This game looks great at a stand still, a screenshot, moving, it looks and behaves like all simulators have come to, sub-par. I know it's far fetched to expect say Crysis level shaders, and Bad Company 2 level destruction, but if this game had at least some of the effects of either of those games it would that many times greater.
Just vehicles exploding in a fairly realistic way would be a great addition, and proper vehicle physics so when driven they behave in a realistic way.
Just to mention one thing. And all the countless bugs like flying vehicles, hovering items, explosions throwing cars up in the air about 10 times, things getting stuck in loops, etc. It's falling apart at the seams.
But just wait and see, Arma 3 or Arma 4 engine will be built from scratch. The 3D rendering part at least. And all the other CPU tasks they will distribute properly between all threads.
If you don't believe that, then wait and see.
I don't believe they suck as programmers, I just think they've been living too long in the past. They've probably discussed this, new engine stuff a lot of times, but maybe it has come down to resources, or they've just felt it wasn't necessary. I think they will make a new engine and we'll see that it not only looks better but performs much better as well.
Last edited by eosteric; Mar 21 2011 at 03:52.