• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ARMA III Alpha Benchmarks CPU

C

csbin

Senior member
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-alpha-test-gpu.html


ARMA III Alpha has a very significant impact on the performance of modern processors. With the increase in the level of graphics as uvilichivaetsya view distance and the number of displayed objects. At the highest quality settings optimized performance in some places can not provide any modern processor

USKkvXQ.jpg


R9KuQPR.jpg
 
Funny read.
They could not "see" PhysX...because it's CPU(collisions, vehicles, ragdolls, projectiles)...nothing too enable.

One thing people should remember.
The A.I. in ARMA is major hog on the CPU.

Most people that play the ARMA series don't do it for the singleplayer part.
We play for the multiplayer part.

2 human teams pitted against each other, no A.I.

And performance tends to reflect this (being less CPU intensive)
 
Am I right in thinking that the jump in performance between the i7 2600k and the i7 3930k suggests the possability that the engine is optimised for more than 4 cores?
 
Kippa said:
Am I right in thinking that the jump in performance between the i7 2600k and the i7 3930k suggests the possability that the engine is optimised for more than 4 cores?
Click to expand...

don't forget about more l3 cache and twice the memory bandwidth, if you compare the PII x2 to X4 it seems the game have very little use for 6 cores...
 
Centauri said:
Surprised at the jump from BD to PD. Nice.
Click to expand...


http://www.behardware.com/articles/880-6/amd-fx-8350-review-is-amd-back.html


uZklhhV.png


In applications there was an average gain of 7.7% at equal clocks, with an improvement of up to 16.7% in V-Ray but only 1.3% in Fritz Chess Benchmark 4.3. The gain is most significant in games, with an average of no less than 13.5%! In the worst case Vishera has an 8.1% advantage (Skyrim, F1 2012) with a maximum gain of 20.8% in Crysis 2.

Coming on releases just a year apart, these gains are impressive, comparable to what Intel offers with a ‘Tock’ (as was the case between Lynnfield and Sandy Bridge) and more than we had with the Ivy Bridge ‘Tick’ (3-4%).
 
This is the trend modern games will follow. Just like FC3 and Crysis3,Arma 3 runs good on i5/i7 and FX8x/6x models. The rest are left in the dust,unfortunately.
 
inf64 said:
This is the trend modern games will follow. Just like FC3 and Crysis3,Arma 3 runs good on i5/i7 and FX8x/6x models. The rest are left in the dust,unfortunately.
Click to expand...

How is the i3 "left in the dust"? It ties the 8350 in one benchmark and is only 5% behind in the other.
Even the minimums are not that much different.
 
Kippa said:
Am I right in thinking that the jump in performance between the i7 2600k and the i7 3930k suggests the possability that the engine is optimised for more than 4 cores?
Click to expand...

I dont think so, see second comment, kind of hard to argue.
 
Some pretty inconsistent numbers, but it is an Alpha after all.

Seems like IPC/clock speed is more important than cores.

FX 4100 @ 3.6GHz out pacing an FX 6100 @ 3.3GHz. Granted it's just 1 fps but there are a couple other examples in there following that same pattern.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
How is the i3 "left in the dust"? It ties the 8350 in one benchmark and is only 5% behind in the other.
Even the minimums are not that much different.
Click to expand...
Min. fps : 28 vs 26 and 17 vs 15 fps. That is 7.6 and 13.3% fps difference in 19x10 with ultra/high quality. If you would to lower the resolution,the thing you guys so much love doing (which makes no sense,unless you just cannot play the game like in the case above with so low fps on all CPUs), the performance delta would probably be wider.
 
The Real Virtuality engine has been consistently updated since the original Operation Flashpoint from when Multi-core CPU's were a distant dream in the future. Consequently it doesn't use multiple cores very efficiently, I get less than 50% cpu usage and less than 50% GPU usage when my frame rate is dropping to 20fps. Multiplayer is very server/network speed dependent but without a radical game engine overhaul (which BIS can't afford to do) it's always going to struggle. BF3 makes my GPU's work at 100% because the workload on the CPU is more parallel taking advantage of modern multicore CPU's and feeding the GPU's sufficiently. An analogy I read earlier is engines like Cryengine 3 are like working with a piece of clay that can be moulded to whatever shape you want whereas Real Virtuality is like working with a a hammer, a rock and a chisel.
I still love the games I just wish they made more use of my once expensive hardware.
 
Jacky60 said:
The Real Virtuality engine has been consistently updated since the original Operation Flashpoint from when Multi-core CPU's were a distant dream in the future. Consequently it doesn't use multiple cores very efficiently, I get less than 50% cpu usage and less than 50% GPU usage when my frame rate is dropping to 20fps. Multiplayer is very server/network speed dependent but without a radical game engine overhaul (which BIS can't afford to do) it's always going to struggle. BF3 makes my GPU's work at 100% because the workload on the CPU is more parallel taking advantage of modern multicore CPU's and feeding the GPU's sufficiently. An analogy I read earlier is engines like Cryengine 3 are like working with a piece of clay that can be moulded to whatever shape you want whereas Real Virtuality is like working with a a hammer, a rock and a chisel.
I still love the games I just wish they made more use of my once expensive hardware.
Click to expand...

So you can MAX out ARMA2?

I bet not...and to compared ARMA's MEGA-sandbox to either Crysis 3 or BF3 is a bad idea...like comapring kittens to jackhammers...
 
inf64 said:
Min. fps : 28 vs 26 and 17 vs 15 fps. That is 7.6 and 13.3% fps difference in 19x10 with ultra/high quality. If you would to lower the resolution,the thing you guys so much love doing (which makes no sense,unless you just cannot play the game like in the case above with so low fps on all CPUs), the performance delta would probably be wider.
Click to expand...

Weren't you one of the posters in another thread arguing vociferously that you should test at high resolution? Now that the results show Intel with decent numbers you bring up low resolutions.

In any case, I would hardly call the differences you are seeing being left in the dust. A max difference of 2 fps in minimum frame rates. That sure will be easy to see. Of course you will define your terms however you see fit in order to bash Intel and favor amd.
 
Funny how today's most popular i7,2600K, is in the same boat as 8350 🙂. No mention of that of course 😉.
In any case, good showing fro FX8/6 series,even old Bulldozer one. Spells awesome news for Kaveri though,as it will be piledriver on steroids,improved in every conceivable way. Q3 and Q4 of this year is going to be very exciting for gamers on a budget 😉.
 
Gikaseixas said:
Same applies to the 2500k vs i3(small dif), why turn the discussion an AMD vs Intel again
Click to expand...

Because amd fans have been arguing endlessly that the i3 is a terrible gaming chip, and one poster said this game showed the same trend as crysis 3 that you need at least a quad core. Obviously the numbers do not bear this out. I guess it is somehow OK to point out where amd is competitive, but not to do the same for Intel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top