Game not utilizing cpu/gpu properly, is there a fix?

[Muffin Man]

My cpu runs around 25-30% mid game and my gpu is at about 27-36%. Yes 60-90fps Ultra is great for Arma from what i've been told.

However if that's all i'm getting from the fps with a workstation/gaming pc. I would expect like most other games out there to see that all of my system resources are being used at 99-100%. Instead of something so low.

Even though I've messed with the advanced launcher parameters in an attempt to fix this it has not made a difference. My total ram usage still caps out at just under 14gb and my percentages remain the same, despite this game being 64bit. I've also told it not to go above 48gb.

Is there a fix for this, or have the devs been lazy with optimization?? If I utilized more of my system resources theoretically I could get higher fps.

Some say to turn the view distance down but that frees up maybe 1-3 extra fps, and still I see the percentage used stay the same.

System specs:

8 core 5.2ghz processor
64gb of 3,600mhz low number timed ram
11gb vram 2100mhz gpu

[El Berl]

The game has poor optimization and the engine is one legacy son of a gun. Are you running this in singleplayer or multiplayer? The server and the gamemode in play have a huge role to play in client performance in a multiplayer environment. Your computer is sweet, but if the server is a Core 2 Duo with a hundred scripts and Banzai Buddy running in the background, then there's not much you can do.

[Shenji]

Don't run the game from USB hard drive.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/0/1736633196176048633/

[Muffin Man]

Originally posted by V. Berlioz:

The game has poor optimization and the engine is one legacy son of a gun. Are you running this in singleplayer or multiplayer? The server and the gamemode in play have a huge role to play in client performance in a multiplayer environment. Your computer is sweet, but if the server is a Core 2 Duo with a hundred scripts and Banzai Buddy running in the background, then there's not much you can do.

Yeah in singleplayer I get higher fps depending on AI count, however still never go past 40% of my parts. But if optimization is the issue than that explains a lot. Potatoes and high end specs tend to suffer the most from poor optimization. Very sad day. This games been out what, 7 years now? And they still one optimize it...? Sad.

[Muffin Man]

Originally posted by Shenji:

Don't run the game from USB hard drive.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/0/1736633196176048633/

I'm running it on a Samsung 970 evo. I never run anything from a usb except for that one time I had to anti virus a friends laptop.

[Khan Boyzitbig of Mercia]

Probably a case of one thread needs more than 100% of a single core, no matter how many cores you have your cpu will be idle until that thread proceeds.

As I recall Arma 3 has poor multithreading, it simply cannot use all your system resources. It probably is using all the GPU it needs though.

[Alaskan Glitch]

Originally posted by Khan Boyzitbig of Mercia:

Probably a case of one thread needs more than 100% of a single core, no matter how many cores you have your cpu will be idle until that thread proceeds.

As I recall Arma 3 has poor multithreading, it simply cannot use all your system resources. It probably is using all the GPU it needs though.

You are correct. Arma III only uses four cores, it doesn't matter if you have more. It appears to have been developed specifically for the i5. It uses multiple threads, but everything is front-loaded primarily onto one or two threads.

GPU isn't really an issue with Arma III. Arma isn't a graphic intense game, it is a very poorly optimized memory hog.

While it really doesn't make any difference once you get an i7 or an i9, as far as Arma III is concerned, it does use all of the available memory. So running with 32GB RAM or more will definitely help improve performance. The biggest bottle-neck is the poor usage of the CPU with more than 4 cores, and badly optimized multi-threading.

[El Berl]

Another factor is the size of your CPU's cache. As we all know, Arma is a memory hog and it loves having faster and greater amounts of memory available to it. The one advantage an i9 will have over an i7 for A3 is that it'll have a considerably larger L3 cache. This isn't a gigantic factor but it's large enough to keep older CPUs like the 5775C (which has a noteworthy L4 cache) and the 5960X in the running despite disadvantages in IPC and raw single core performance compared to newer models.

[HARDGORE]

disable battle eye

[Muffin Man]

I recently just did a test and found that Arma is utilizing only ONE of my cores to the maximum according to task manager and the rest just form that tiny heartbeat pattern. It's really disappointing to see that. I've looked up optimization mods and there are none, as well as those guides to give more fps give a small little +5 absolute maximum boost. which require so many option tweaks that it's not even worth the effort to do them.

it's sad that a game as large and as actively updated as this one, hasn't gotten an optimization patch to go inline with new tech. I'm not asking for a game that utilizes all 8 cores (most games don't even newer ones,) just one that utilizes the 4 better. Seeing this game hog up 14gb of ram barely any gpu, and then max out one core is frustrating. Considering as though I should theoretically be getting over 100fps easy if it was optimized.

[clay]

from what ive heard, this has been an issue not only with ARMA 3, but all the ARMA games in the past.

I think years ago, the devs even said it can never be fixed until they build ARMA on a new engine, which I think is planned for the next game.

[Zeanate]

I have a ryzen 7 5800h in a koth I get 30fps and it doesn't use more than 10% of the cpu. Biggest thing I've seen it take a chunk out of was my rtx3050 with a little over 50%.
All on standard because on ultra it get similar performance but drops severely on multiplayer for some unusual reason.

[опытный стрелок]

Just an outdated game. Wait for Arma 4 in 2026. It will never be fixed and you cant force it to use more cores if the outdated game engine can not use them to the max.

[Alaskan Glitch]

Originally posted by Zeanate:

I have a ryzen 7 5800h in a koth I get 30fps and it doesn't use more than 10% of the cpu. Biggest thing I've seen it take a chunk out of was my rtx3050 with a little over 50%.
All on standard because on ultra it get similar performance but drops severely on multiplayer for some unusual reason.

Was there a reason why you felt the need to revive a four year old thread? Or do you just enjoy demonstrating how stupid you can be?

[Dawickedclownzgongetyou]

Originally posted by Alaskan Glitch:

Originally posted by Zeanate:

I have a ryzen 7 5800h in a koth I get 30fps and it doesn't use more than 10% of the cpu. Biggest thing I've seen it take a chunk out of was my rtx3050 with a little over 50%.
All on standard because on ultra it get similar performance but drops severely on multiplayer for some unusual reason.

Was there a reason why you felt the need to revive a four year old thread? Or do you just enjoy demonstrating how stupid you can be?

Adding hate to a four year old thread? Doesn’t get any more stupid than that bud.