There is no CPU in the world that can run Arma 3

[john5220]

Arma 3 with its mods like Breaking Point and Battle Royale and other mods etc. It lags even on my recent core i3 4150 the game becomes unplayable when there are lots of players on screen and server.

With some research it lags even on an i7 and at some times an i7 can dip to 10 FPS. Much like it can in starcraft 2 with 8v8 map since SC2 is single threaded.

From more research I found out Arma 3 despite recommending a quad core it only uses 1 core realistically. Most of the hard processing is done on 1 core. To top it off Arma 3 and DayZ SA has a Gigantic map, like HUGE maybe the biggest you have ever seen.

I am considering swapping in a skylake system this year, depending on how good the single threaded performance is.

The question what kind of single threaded performance can we be looking at with Skylake? Can we expect double the performance of Haswell?

 

[john5220]

BTW single player is fine, I can run it in SP mode flawless.

Multi Player becomes a huge issue in all Arma games especially DayZ SA yet you never have an issue in SP mode.

 

[jpiniero]

I am considering swapping in a skylake system this year, depending on how good the single threaded performance is.

The question what kind of single threaded performance can we be looking at with Skylake? Can we expect double the performance of Haswell?

The locked quads? Maybe breakeven with OCed Devils Canyon. You'd have to wait until well into 2016 for Skylake-K, which (maybe!) offer some meaningful improvement.

 

[john5220]

Gosh to this date we cannot even run 8v8 matches in Starcraft 2 at anything about a terribad 13 FPS even with a devils canyon.

Gone are the days of when 5 year CPU time period of innovation would run 1998's Starcraft 1 at full FPS in any match eh?

Arma 3 and DayZ needs absolute massive single core perf. No choice but to depend on intel here and on them competing with themselves. If only we had some next big x86 company that was as competent as intel.

 

[john5220]

One question though why does multi player run so much worse than single player?

Is it a server thing that causes such bad FPS? or the client pc? I mean for all that is holy no one can make incredible games like Bohemia with amazing modding tools for the community. But my god their Engines is just......

 

[Bradtech519]

It's probably their net code. There is a game called urban terror that's over 10 years old now. It still dips fps on multiplayer with lots of players on a map on new hardware. Some guy optimized code and relased a custom client and now it's solid 125 fps.

 

[ninaholic37]

One question though why does multi player run so much worse than single player?

Is it a server thing that causes such bad FPS? or the client pc? I mean for all that is holy no one can make incredible games like Bohemia with amazing modding tools for the community. But my god their Engines is just......

Have you checked if the CPU is using 100%, or at least 100% on one core? I think you can see in Task Manager.

 

[john5220]

For some reason all 4 cores have large spikes like. hits almost 100 percent but changes etc but its not a case like 1 section of the task manager does this its all 4 sections.

hmm interesting. The DayZ community however swears all Arma games uses 1 core but if this is true why would I get readings like this from task manager where all 4 sections are almost the same?

Guess its net code then?

 

[alcoholbob]

7GHz 4790K on LN2 has a shot of minimums no lower than 20 fps

 

[Maximilian]

Gosh to this date we cannot even run 8v8 matches in Starcraft 2 at anything about a terribad 13 FPS even with a devils canyon.

Gone are the days of when 5 year CPU time period of innovation would run 1998's Starcraft 1 at full FPS in any match eh?

Arma 3 and DayZ needs absolute massive single core perf. No choice but to depend on intel here and on them competing with themselves. If only we had some next big x86 company that was as competent as intel.

SC2 only uses 2 cores, game problem not CPU problem.

 

[wilds]

ARMA will run like crap if the mission has far too many objects; especially when the mission is hosted on a slow machine.

 

[EvilNodZ]

Sounds like it could be caused by the high draw call limitations due to dx.

 

[john5220]

one thing is certain Arma 3 despite the much better and heavier graphics it runs way faster on my system than Arma 2.

At quick glance Arma 2 is DX 9 and Arma 3 is DX 11. hmmmmmm but yes I agree life would be great if games took advantage of 4 and 8 cores, for some reason it works so well in rendering software but never in games. BF3 however uses 4 cores beautifully

 

[soccerballtux]

SC2 only uses 2 cores, game problem not CPU problem.

only uses 1 core for the important game logic, second core is the GPU stuff and music.

because it's based on the WoW engine / was a WoW mod which was a Warcraft III mod. Same with Diablo 3. So lazy of them...

7GHz 4790K on LN2 has a shot of minimums no lower than 20 fps

I'd like to see the blog of a guy that actually blows the $$$ for a full time LN2 rig just so he can hit 20fps in AMRAIII. That would be funny

 

[john5220]

^ and funny how huge Blizzard Activision is. Yet so cheap to design a proper engine

 

[BSim500]

It's the nature of the ARMA games / "Real Virtuality" engine. Even on the original 2001-era Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis (precursor to ARMA1 and mostly single threaded) if you turn view distances up to 5km and max objects & shadows, it'll saturate any core of any modern CPU 14 years after its release.

 

[SlickR12345]

only uses 1 core for the important game logic, second core is the GPU stuff and music.

because it's based on the WoW engine / was a WoW mod which was a Warcraft III mod. Same with Diablo 3. So lazy of them...


I'd like to see the blog of a guy that actually blows the $$$ for a full time LN2 rig just so he can hit 20fps in AMRAIII. That would be funny

WOW is a different engine than WC3.

SC2 and D3 are different engine from WOW, but the same engine between SC2 and D3.