Game CPU-Optimization - no troubleshooting !

[Masterfragg]

If you look under Processes (not processors) you should find thread count.

Average thread count for most games is usually around 38-44 from what I've noticed.

---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 PM ----------

I should add that it's also not a case of how many threads are going through the CPU at once, it's a case of how many threads per operation, kinda.

I'm actually going to do some tests myself, I'm going to see if there is truth behind the Arma2 engine being nothing more than OFP's engine modded.
If this is true it would explain the CPU thread bottleneck.

I have claimed that BIS have reused the same engine as per their original plan but now I'm going to get some evidence :P be back in 10 minutes.

Operation Flashpoint: Resistence Tested on CO2: Battlefields (SPMISSION) CPU Thread = 7 Average
Armed Assault (1) Tested on Sanitizing Operation (SPMISSION) CPU Thread = 15 Average
Arma 2 Tested on Trial by Fire (SPMISSION) CPU Thread = 22 Average

Now I'll test another game, Just for shits and giggles lets go with the recently released Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising (Only other large scale game I can think of)

Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising Tested in Campaign Mission CPU Thread = Average 40

Now I know it's a comparison that no one likes but this is purely from a technical view so don't panic.

To me it seems as if Dual Core support was added to the OFP engine with some Shader upgrades and that was it, in Arma2 I don't know if they have attempted to add Quad Core support or what. But currently the CPU Thread count is really low if they double the threads they may improve performance on machines like mine.
Which honestly is the ONLY thing keeping me from playing the game, I'd love BIS again if they fixed it but for some reason I have this horrible doubt in my gut that tells me they won't

[Sniperdoc]

I have a bit of a theory (minor one but anyways).

I noticed that if I turn C1E support off it crashes Arma 2. C1E is enhanced halt state, it basically tells the CPU to lower the clock when it's not needed. It's possible that it's trying to lower the CPU clock and failing which is causing the crash. Now if C1E was left on then it would lower the clock meaning that the usage on an overclocked CPU would show only a percentage of it's full overclocked state.

Of course, without an overclock c1e wouldn't go into effect and the CPU usage would be around 90%, but depending on the amount overclocked then when C1E go's into effect the registers could start reading it as only utilising a small amount of it's maximum.

Ummm I don't think that's the case. I keep my C1E state off whenever I build a box and A2 hasn't crashed on me a single time...?

[Masterfragg]

Also Herbal I'd like to explain about CPU Threads.

I don't know if you already know this but I get the impression you don't sorry if you do though.

CPU Threads are basically channels as you know opened from Program X to CPU.
These are not CORE dependant at all.
You can have a program with 500 Threads on 1 core it wouldn't do anything but bottleneck inside your system but it's possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_...ter_science%29 Explains it much better than I can if your into computer sciences.

Basically CPU Hyperthreading and Process Multithreading are not "Exactly" the same thing and shouldn't be confused.

So, basically 14 Threads for a game is extremely low considering it apparently calculates A.I, Physical Object Collision, Triggers and such Variables BIS have basically cocked up the logic behind the core program.

Now this could be fixed with some reconstruction but I'm sure BIS are not too worried about it at the second (Sadly).

Hope that cleared some stuff up mate.

[Herbal Influence]

Ok - I thank you very much for your learned comments on this and your test data.

Lemme try, if I got it correctly and for this continue with the most "explosive" example , like you did it:

As DR threads the work to be done in 40 different channels - does this mean it doubles (at least the) possibility to get the work much faster done than when its threaded into 20 channels?

(Not sure whether it's correct to speak of channels here - pls gimme better word?)

I found two possible reasons why this might not be straight right:

I may be very wrong, but my perception is that having more threads than
CPU only enhances performance when non-CPU-intensive tasks are
involved, e.g. user-interaction or blocking-I/O. In those cases, the
CPU can context-switch to a thread doing processing, while the other
thread is waiting for user input or I/O.
In the case of a CPU-intensive task, CPU utilisation should already be
high (> 80%?), and introducing more threads would probably only degrade
performance due to context switching overhead, and the possibility of
thread-starvation.
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forum...sive-task.html

and what I could imagine as an "overhead" or "backoffice" problem:

As a general rule, you don't want to use more threads than you have processors. (Using more threads will work, but there will be extra overhead with no benefit.)
http://www.fftw.org/fftw2_doc/fftw_4.html

So why can we be sure Arma2 would run faster with 40 threads?

Another question:
As Masterfragg has shown the amount of threads did continously increase over OFP, Armed Assault and Arma2: Isn't this a true hint for that the engine was overhauled or optimized?

[ModeZt]

Having different threads in a game is always good. While some threads are waiting for memory of even HDD or input devices, other threads are doing their job. But if you are into the computer science you probably heard about the Amdahl's law. We can't get get a boost if we only add more threads.
I agree with Herbal Influence. There is nothing to indicate that having 40 threads is better then having 20 threads.

[SylverFyre]

There is nothing to indicate that having 40 threads is better then having 20 threads.

+1 threading is only adding granularity as is not an automatic benefit or performance boost

[Masterfragg]

Ok - I thank you very much for your learned comments on this and your test data.

Lemme try, if I got it correctly and for this continue with the most "explosive" example , like you did it:

As DR threads the work to be done in 40 different channels - does this mean it doubles (at least the) possibility to get the work much faster done than when its threaded into 20 channels?

(Not sure whether it's correct to speak of channels here - pls gimme better word?)

I found two possible reasons why this might not be straight right:



and what I could imagine as an "overhead" or "backoffice" problem:



So why can we be sure Arma2 would run faster with 40 threads?

Another question:
As Masterfragg has shown the amount of threads did continously increase over OFP, Armed Assault and Arma2: Isn't this a true hint for that the engine was overhauled or optimized?

Basically, with such as small amount of open CPU threads (They aren't channels they are threads ) your bottlenecking your own system.
Thats why so many people saw a benifit from overclocking, with overclocking those threads are clearing data at a faster rate.

It's a double edged blade with having more threads it can be good or bad dependant on the skill of programming. I mean firstly you need to program what data goes through which thread so you never bottleneck yourself (The problem with Arma 2) secondly you need to have as many threads as logical.

I mean you wouldn't have a thread for every single instruction but you would for couples. Physical collision would be possibly spread over a few threads to prevent slow down during action scenes with heavy collision data being processed. Or multiple threads for A.I in a game such as Arma would be fantastic.

The way to think of it is like this.

A thread is an instruction line to the CPU that gets queued but if you have too many instructions on a single thread you'll suffer with program stablity and slow down due to bottlenecks (ala framerates and crashes)
However, if you open up a few extra threads to allow that data to streamline a bit more you create less queing and thus better CPU optimized software.

Think of a square and a thin line going through it, only so much can travel through that line. But if you make the line thicker it'll allow more to travel through. It's like narrowband to broadband.

Don't get me wrong I'm no expert but I'm getting more into programming everyday and thats my current understanding of the situation. After all there are many multithread optimized programs out there that run perfect on a single core.

The programs we take for granted every day!
Like Firefox! at the moment firefox has 17 threads open, I've seen firefox with 38 threads open. With firefox doing nothing more than web browsing shouldn't a game that is 1000 times more complex be using a few more open cpu cycles? I mean I've never played Arma2 and had my CPU with more than 40% being used ever yet my framerate is stuck at 27 no matter what.

My CPU ain't great but a AMD Phenom II x4 940 Black Edition clocked at 3.52ghz is pretty effing mean ain't it? (I downclocked since my sig was written thanks to a teeny weeny overheat :P)

And for your last question.

Yes it does show that Arma and Arma 2 was overhauled and/or (apparently) optimized.

But ask yourself this, how can you "overhaul" and engine that's from 2001 and keep it working with todays hardware? Unless it's the quake 3 engine it won't happen. The truth is OFP wasn't a fantastically made game, but back then we didn't care about framerates, we accepted it as the gameplay rocked.

I was on a Geforce 440 MX 128mb AGP graphics card with an AMD Athlon 1800+ playing that game and I was happy with my high framerate, but soon as I upgraded to a Geforce 6200 I was pretty much unable to play the game (NO matter how you look at it GF6200>>>>GF440MX) and that was with a CPU upgrade.

My worry is that the engine has retained it's problems with scaling with new hardware even though it's a new game it does seem to have this problem this could be due to a number of reasons, it could be the CPU thread count or it could be the lack of optimized use of RAM or lack of pagefile use or simply the game just hates gamers!

But it would be interesting if the developers would drop us a message with details on how these threads are used, just so the community can take a look at how they are used and we could give them some tips on how to optimize. Don't get me wrong I'm no games developer and BIS have done a reletivly good job over the years, maybe not on game releases (Arma 1 was...just...oh dear) but in general they do make the best Milisims out there however they are going to have to fix this otherwise lets face it.

The genre will die lol because I can't afford an i7 chip and sadly I'd have to refuse to upgrade even if I could which from various forum posts I'd say the i7 can have a tough time with this game as well.

Well I've typed so much that me coffee's wearing off but heres a hint guys!
Don't drink coffee at 23:30hr's....I'm WIRED!!!!!

[HandBanana]

Ughhh my head hurts. I want to play Arma2 without problems but i;ve been fiddle-fudging with the video options for over 2 hours and it is getting on my frikkin' nerves. Toshiba x300 9700gts, duo p7350 2ghz.. Is there ANY help to make the game more responsive or is it my computers fault for being crap?

[plundera]

Hi Guys,
For what it's worth, I run ATItool to keep an eye on CPU utilisation, process memory and GPU utilisation. I have noted low FPS while all three indicators have significant capacity! So I don't understand where the bottleneck is? When CPU's are 80% (verified in task man), mem only ever to a max of 600mb and GPU's barely over 50% but frames = max 30-35 on some missions it suggests the game is poorly optimised for modern computers with some limitation in the engine kernel or something. My basic stats are:

Win XP
Core 2 Duo 3.2ghz (OC)
ATI 4870x2
2gb ram

[Herbal Influence]

Ughhh my head hurts. I want to play Arma2 without problems but i;ve been fiddle-fudging with the video options for over 2 hours and it is getting on my frikkin' nerves. Toshiba x300 9700gts, duo p7350 2ghz.. Is there ANY help to make the game more responsive or is it my computers fault for being crap?

Sorry - for you having problems.
Hope we can welcome you soon on some multiplayer servers.
But, sorry - been said several times AND in the threadtitle AND in the opening post here: NO troubleshooting here. There are plenty of threads open for that.

---------- Post added at 06:05 ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 ----------

Hi Guys,
For what it's worth, I run ATItool to keep an eye on CPU utilisation, process memory and GPU utilisation. I have noted low FPS while all three indicators have significant capacity! So I don't understand where the bottleneck is? When CPU's are 80% (verified in task man), mem only ever to a max of 600mb and GPU's barely over 50% but frames = max 30-35 on some missions it suggests the game is poorly optimised for modern computers with some limitation in the engine kernel or something. My basic stats are:

Win XP
Core 2 Duo 3.2ghz (OC)
ATI 4870x2
2gb ram

That's what this thread is about:

The thesis is that the CPU is under stress already and this not for no reason but for controlling the overwhelming complex scenery.

Again, my reasoning: It lies in the nature of the game (complexity) and it would take pages if not a book to describe the complexity of the scenery.
It cannot be compared to simple shooters like DR or BF2.


(This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to optimize your system, look for bottlenecks etc. straight the opposite! - but NO TROUBLESHOOTING here!)

---------- Post added at 06:19 ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 ----------

Having different threads in a game is always good. While some threads are waiting for memory of even HDD or input devices, other threads are doing their job. But if you are into the computer science you probably heard about the Amdahl's law. We can't get get a boost if we only add more threads.
I agree with Herbal Influence. There is nothing to indicate that having 40 threads is better then having 20 threads.

Thanx for your post. Especially the hint to Amdahl, which is found - little more - precisely here.

---------- Post added at 06:21 ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 ----------

+1 threading is only adding granularity as is not an automatic benefit or performance boost

Nice formula! Thanx!

---------- Post added at 06:27 ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 ----------

(...)
Like Firefox! at the moment firefox has 17 threads open, I've seen firefox with 38 threads open. With firefox doing nothing more than web browsing shouldn't a game that is 1000 times more complex be using a few more open cpu cycles?

I mean I've never played Arma2 and had my CPU with more than 40% being used ever yet my framerate is stuck at 27 no matter what.

Yes it does show that Arma and Arma 2 was overhauled and/or (apparently) optimized.

But ask yourself this, how can you "overhaul" and engine that's from 2001 and keep it working with todays hardware? Unless it's the quake 3 engine it won't happen. The truth is OFP wasn't a fantastically made game, but back then we didn't care about framerates, we accepted it as the gameplay rocked.
(....)
The genre will die lol because I can't afford an i7 chip and sadly I'd have to refuse to upgrade even if I could which from various forum posts I'd say the i7 can have a tough time with this game as well.

Well I've typed so much that me coffee's wearing off but heres a hint guys!
Don't drink coffee at 23:30hr's....I'm WIRED!!!!!

Well - concerning the overhaul - I don't know.
Let's wait for comments on this.
You don't need no i7 just take a look at my signature - it costs around 60 Euros.
But sure you don't want to downgrade ...
As for the coffee ... that's a real threa(t)d to performance ...