HOME 
UPDATE:
So far so good. I installed the Dynamic View Distance, and it seems to have helped. I use DayZ mostly, and the other mods won't work on it. Hopefully I am optimized! Thanks everyone!
UPDATE:
So far so good. I installed the Dynamic View Distance, and it seems to have helped. I use DayZ mostly, and the other mods won't work on it. Hopefully I am optimized! Thanks everyone!
Hello,
I am having a lot of trouble with the Arma 2 CO and Iron Front games. I am running the games on my Samsung RF711 laptop with İntel i7-2630QM quadcore processor that scales from 2.00 to 2.90 GHz with Turbo Boost. I have a GeForce GT 540M GPU with 1gig of memory and 6 gigs of ram. The game is installed on a partition of a 5600rpm HDD... I use gamebooster and have tried to run the game with and without multithreading. I have tried adjusting stuff in Nvidia control panel like rendered frames ahead and prettymuch every setting available. I have tried to set PhysX on and off and fiddled with the cfg files to no avail.
At this point I am getting 14 fps on avarage. Loading screens are consistantly running at 3 - 10 fps and while in the animated menu, I get 40 - 60 FPS if showing sky which drops down to 10 - 20 fps if there is anything else on the screen. Ingame I tend to get 1 - 21 fps which tends to avarage at 13 fps. My settings are ranging from all on Normal - High, with antialiasing , anisotrophic filtering and postprocessing always off and HDR on normal. Nothing I change seems to affect FPS at all except lowering 3d resolution to the lowest which looks horrible and still does not give steady FPS. Native resolution is 1600x900.
Now, I am considering the option of overclocking the CPU which is not such a great thing on a laptop that tends not to keep cool as well as I'd like. I am also considering getting an SSD external HDD and installing the game on that. But I will not get one unless I get concrete evidence that I will improve things. I have read a whole pile of stuff about optimization and am getting really confused... All I want is a playable level of FPS. I would be happy with even steady 20 - 25fps...
I KNOW some people can run the game with an identical rig. There is even a video of a guy playing the game on a laptop with the same specs on youtube. (waiting for a reply from him). So if anyone has any tips for me I would love to hear them!
speed is not the same as performance. and it performs poorly.Originally Posted by Mongrolian
Arma 3 is a twitchshooter
Needs more rainbow six 1-3
You're wrong. It performs better than I expected in every single other application. The processor you cited was the 8 core FX. The processor I have just came out about a month and a half ago and has very little to no information out there for it. The numbers say it all and so does personal experience with all the big name titles out on the market today. It outperforms all of the other models (including the 6 core phenom you also cited) but for some reason ARMA 2 doesnt mesh well with it. Next time do a little bit of research before you try and "help" people. (Which you've been of no help at all aside from cookie-cutter responses from other threads) Now. Anyone have relative experience with a similar rig that could help out with some pointers?
Last edited by Mongrolian; May 26 2012 at 21:42.
I'm having low performance with Arma 2 Free and Arma 2 OA Demo.
My specs are:
AMD Phenom X6 3.2Ghz
AMD Radeon HD 6870 1GB 256bits X2 (Crossfire)
Motherboard Asrock Deluxe5
Power supply GS800 800w
500GB Sata HD
My screen resolution is 1920x1080, No matter how much i lower the settings, it'll keep running in less than 30 fps.
X6 is the 6 core processor right? I'm having the same issue with my FX-6200 6 core. If I find out what's causing it I'll let you know.
your processor is the same as that 8 core, only with 2 cores disabled. they're not really 8 cores but 4 modules with 2 "cores" that share a lot of the hardware, a bit like hyperthreading, but not quite (hyperthreading has very few parts double)
They've increased core count but performance per core per clock has slightly decreased, clockspeed went up a bit so that mitigates it a bit, and overall performance in well multithreaded stuff went up. Most games aren't multithreaded that well, exception being bf3.
arma however only scales well to about 3 cores, maybe you could gain something with -cpucount=3, not sure if it works that way but my guess is that way the workload that scales well to 3 cpu's could be divided over the 3 "full" modules. maybe you could go even further and tell windows arma can only use core 1, 3, and 5 or something, to force it. Of course overclocking might also get you some extra performance.
Otherwise I'd say just play with settings, you have a fast gpu so you dont have to lower resolution or antialiasing, make sure shadows is high or highest too as medium is cpu instead of gpu. Cpu killers are model detail and viewdistance, but I guess you have that figured out by now.
I've actually considered running it off only 3 cores as it seems my friends and people with lower-end rigs are able to run it just fine with no lag at all. I'll give it a try in a few days when I'm back at my desktop and post my results in this thread. It seems the fellow that posted below me is having the same issues with a similar rig but using the Phenom X6 @ 3.2GHZ. I appreciate the help and input.
Yes its a 6 core processor, and thanks.
---------- Post added at 02:05 ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 ----------
I'll try this when i wake up tomorrow.
Hey all,
Whenever I change the settings in game from Low to Very High, my FPS remains in the same 34-40 region, sometimes dips in the 20s but the change in graphic quality is minimal. So, I'm assuming that my FPS issue is processor related. Currently I'm using an AMD Phenom 955BE (3.2Ghz x4) and have no FPS issues with other games. Are there any small fixes or specific options that could be disabled to improve this?
Thanks
Reply With Quote
