the age old question of arma 3

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
P

parallax240

Reputable
Jun 8, 2014
7
0
4,510
Sorry i asking g a worn out question but i have done everything i know to do... Why is my arma 3 running shitty? Asus m5a99fx r2.0 , fx 6300, 16gb 1866 ripjaws, gtx 660. Average about 24 frames. My buddy has a four old pc with a Lil more than half my power and gets 60 fps on a good day all while running 2 Bots on final fantasy
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
P

parallax240

Reputable
Jun 8, 2014
7
0
4,510
Ah yes. I meant that as part of the everything tried. He runs on the standard preset. Tried them all and a custom setting does best for me as far as looks to performance go. Almost everything is low or disabled except terrain. No v sync, i have anti ailiasing at 4x but its a negligible frame difference in any setting aside from the higher choice. Im down to the point i think its hardware but from what i have seen i should have plenty of power
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
P

parallax240

Reputable
Jun 8, 2014
7
0
4,510
Well I've been trying to get the info for a while be doesn't remember and has looked to see. I know he's amd on with cpu and gpu. his processor is a quad core oc'd to 4 g. I done remember what is now but i checked various benchmarks pre build to gauge his processor vs mine and i had him on all fronts. I more than certain the gtx 660 is a better card than his do to its ability in comparison with other, more gpu intensive games. His got the same amount of ram at 1600 but i don't imagine that really matters with the amount difference we have. Before arma starts im only running a single core with a 14% load of background crap going on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
P

parallax240

Reputable
Jun 8, 2014
7
0
4,510
I know arma has the random anomaly where it just has Beef with an individual hardware(s) for some seemingly unknown reason. Im just tryin to pick brain before i accept my fate and just get an 8350
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

bigpinkdragon286

Splendid
Oct 3, 2012
4,648
35
28,590
I suspect your friend's 4-core at 4 GHz, unless it's also an FX branded model, is actually going to be more consistent in getting work done than your FX-6300. While your FX-6300 can turbo up to 4.1, which would at least match in a reasonable fashion the work output from a Phenom-II at 4 GHz, your chip is not designed to run at that speed under full load, so is likely never going to match your friend's clock speed consistently, unless you do some manual tuning / overclocking. If the two chips have similar IPC at the same frequency, you need to match the speed of his chip to be on par. You can't expect the turbo speeds to make up the difference reliably.

Your graphics card may be better on paper, but sometimes that doesn't matter. Try playing Rage with an AMD card, or using TressFX on an NVIDIA card and you may see my point. If your friend is very nice, he might lend you his graphics card to test in your system and see if that is what is causing the performance difference.

In the long run, would performance of a single game make you change one or more pieces of hardware?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
P

parallax240

Reputable
Jun 8, 2014
7
0
4,510
well the turbo is over rated on the fx chips any way. from what i understand, when the turbo kicks in, it only affects a single core. i do have an oc on but its only to 4.02. i havent played with overclocking much and dont really speak oc fluently, though i have intentions of learning more. as much as i play arma, it kind of is a determining factor. ive been waiting for something better really but the tdp of the fx 9 whatevers is a bit deterring to me. i built this pc with intentions of upgrading so there is no real problem with doing so.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

bigpinkdragon286

Splendid
Oct 3, 2012
4,648
35
28,590
The turbo works on multiple cores, but the number of cores being used at the time will affect the total boost applied. Essentially, the CPU has a target TDP, and can boost up to that. Generally, you will only see the maximum boost with one or two cores active. With three or more active, expect somewhere between your highest non-boost speed of 3.5 and your maximum boost speed of 4.1.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
C

chrisevs

Reputable
Jun 27, 2014
7
0
4,510
I think this is just an Arma 3 anomaly that I have tried and failed to diagnose for months now.

I have an i5 4670 k oc'ed to 4.5ghz, two MSI gtx 770s in SLI, 16 gb of 1866mhz RAM, windows 8.1, a good cooler that keeps temps at about 70 degrees when playing.

I get max 30 fps on multi-player whether on standard or Ultra settings. I get drops to 6 fps at times, even if there is minimal action on screen.

I think it's actually a problem with the server optimisation as I can get up to 80 fps on ultra settings in the campaign and scenario modes.

If anyone can chime in to suggest a solution then I'd be keen to hear.

Evs
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
P

parallax240

Reputable
Jun 8, 2014
7
0
4,510
The last two responses are definitely viable lol. The servers to kinda suck. Breaking point runs better for me than straight arma but it kind of amplifies the bad code job becoming twice a glitchy... Beware of stairs. Aside from that i find the graphics settings are kind stupid too. Some change nothing and some work better in higher settings than lower. Some just need to be disabled. If you wanna gain like five frames fullscreen runs better than window.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom