ARMA III Alpha Benchmarks CPU

[SomeoneSimple]

Good God Lonbjerb, get off the hate train for at least a few posts around here.

But ... but .. you don't understand, Lonbjerg must comment on each negative post about ARMA or himself, and insult the poster, at least once.

 

[AdamK47]

How about you focus on ARMA3 CPU performance and not me...not looking for a boyfriend FYI.

Yeah, and sure that's exactly what you've been doing here as well.

Classic Lonbjerg, doubt you'll ever change.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Go to pm if you cannot drop the off-topic drivel, thx...you seem obsessed with me on a unhealthy level.

 

[AdamK47]

Or better yet, how about if I just stop posting in this thead. Your fire does not need any more fuel.

 

[Lonbjerg]

And off to ignore with you 🙂

 

[SPBHM]

Look like this thread is another example of Crysis3/AMD GE being promoted...even if they have nothing to do with ARMA3.

Intel CPU's ruled ARMA2...I'd Wager ARMA3 willl be no different.

It's looking better for AMD compared to Arma 2,

 

[BrightCandle]

Arma 2 was single thread performance dominated. Arms 3 is as well. View distance is very CPU dependent and has always been the thing that limits the graphics in arma. I don't imagine we will see an improvement to CPU utilisation anytime soon, the word from the devs is that multithreading isn't a priority. It will likely be post release if it comes at all. They might fix some of the problems with ai count that are new but aren't likely to get more from 4 cores than they do today.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Arma 2 was single thread performance dominated. Arms 3 is as well. View distance is very CPU dependent and has always been the thing that limits the graphics in arma. I don't imagine we will see an improvement to CPU utilisation anytime soon, the word from the devs is that multithreading isn't a priority. It will likely be post release if it comes at all. They might fix some of the problems with ai count that are new but aren't likely to get more from 4 cores than they do today.

Wrong!
Why do people thik that multithreaded = 100% CPU on all core?
Not all proceesing can be spilt up...some procesing actually have to wait for other processing to be done.

 

[moonbogg]

Arma 2 was single thread performance dominated. Arms 3 is as well. View distance is very CPU dependent and has always been the thing that limits the graphics in arma. I don't imagine we will see an improvement to CPU utilisation anytime soon, the word from the devs is that multithreading isn't a priority. It will likely be post release if it comes at all. They might fix some of the problems with ai count that are new but aren't likely to get more from 4 cores than they do today.

Thats too bad really. Maybe the game would be fine on lower settings. This is the reason I don't play Planetside 2. Its so single threaded that the performance just sucks major, and playing on low settings is no fun, at least not for me.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Funny...people keep ignoring facts and post like false arguements are facts...

ARMA...signelhreaded....LOL


Lets hear from a CODER on ARMA 2:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?100519-exThreads&p=1797139#post1797139

ArmA 2 can use up to 31 cores in theory, but experiments have shown that with most scenes the gain above 4 cores is small and above 8 cores unmeasurable.

The explanation is Amdahl's law - only parts of the application is using all cores. See Real Virtuality Going Multicore blog.

---------- Post added at 13:58 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

In build 76122 and newer the default for dualcores will be changed to -exThreads=3 based on user feedback.

We have also changed the cpu core detection, therefore depending on how many logical cpus are present, default -cpuCount values will be as follows:

1 1
...
6 6
7 7
8 4
9 4
10 5
11 5
12 6
13 6
14 7
....

Some day hopefully we will find a time to provide a proper HT detection, but until then I think the above provides quite reasonable default settings.

I can only laugh at "Moonbogg" and "BrightCandle" now...single threaded...only in the world of the uninformed ^^

So poster might want to ignore input from these posters in this thread....as it it proven to be false.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I think what they mean is that a single thread that can't be split is bounding up the rest of the threads, meaning even if it could use 12 cores, the single thread operation would inhibit any benefit of having said cores.

But don't mind me, carry on.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I think what they mean is that a single thread that can't be split is bounding up the rest of the threads, meaning even if it could use 12 cores, the single thread operation would inhibit any benefit of having said cores.

But don't mind me, carry on.

Doubt it...

Arma 2 was single thread performance dominated. Arms 3 is as well. View distance is very CPU dependent and has always been the thing that limits the graphics in arma. I don't imagine we will see an improvement to CPU utilisation anytime soon, the word from the devs is that multithreading isn't a priority. It will likely be post release if it comes at all. They might fix some of the problems with ai count that are new but aren't likely to get more from 4 cores than they do today.

Thats too bad really. Maybe the game would be fine on lower settings. This is the reason I don't play Planetside 2. Its so single threaded that the performance just sucks major, and playing on low settings is no fun, at least not for me.

People should try running ARMA2 on singlecore CPU...that might open some eyes.