Arma 2 OA Bad FPS on Good PC. Anyone help me?

[Strike]

Hi there, I recently got my new PC
Specs
CPU: AMD FX 8350 Black Edition
CPU Cooler: Zalman CNPS10X Optima
Operating System: Windows 8.1 (64-bit)
Motherboard: Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
RAM: 8GB Corsair 1600mhz Vengeance (2x4GB)
Hard Drive: Kingston 120GB SSD
Optical Drive: 22x DVD±RW DL S-ATA
Graphics card: AMD Radeon R9 280X 3GB
Internet: Wireless 802.11N 300Mbps MIMO PCI-E card
PSU: 650W Corsair VS

I had Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead on my old pc which was not very good at all managing 20-25 fps. Now with this new PC, I am still only getting 20-25 fps on very high or very low settings and I do not know why. Is there anyone that could help me with this? Much appreciated!

[Liam2349]

You need an Intel i5 or better to get a good frame rate in Arma 2.

I know the 8350 can go close to an i5 on most games, but in Arma 2, you will literally double your frame rate with an i5.

It's not about graphics, it's about the CPU, unfortunately.

[Strike]

Dammit, ok man thanks anyway!

[GetzThePuddin]

I have the 8350 and i run at 60FPS so the CPU is not the issue. 25 to 40 FPS is normal for in the citys but out in the woods 60 is pegged.

[GetzThePuddin]

Your system is almost identical to mine...you may want to just chalk this up to Armas engine not being the best

[GetzThePuddin]

One more thing, Run most of your settnigs at normal. Thre is not a big enough diff between Max and Normal on Arma for it to matter and that will improve your FPS right there. To put it short..I cna run Farcry4 on ultra and not Arma 2 and thats just becasue of the way the game is

[Mielivaltainen Nelikulmio]

I have 8350, and run arma 2 at 40-80 fps. I would guess your problem is the server you are playing on and/or the fact that you are playing a mission that has too much stuff for arma-engine to handle. also, look up some performance guides on internet.

[Strike]

I am playing Epoch and i've tried tputting my settings on Very Low and nothing changes

[Liam2349]

Originally posted by StrikeZ:

I am playing Epoch and i've tried tputting my settings on Very Low and nothing changes

Epoch and Overpoch servers tend to have a lot of vehicles and bases in them, and more objects like these work your CPU harder. I'll say that the people posting above are playing single player or some pretty empty multiplayer servers.

I play an Epoch server with a lot of bases and my friend with his FX-8320 gets about 22FPS - I get about 44FPS with my overclocked 4670k. We run the same graphics setting with almost identical GPUs - I have a HD7870 (OC) and he has an R9 270X.

[teduken]

Considering my computer sucks it runs pretty good for me

[Bookshelf]

Similar issue, unplayable fps on very low settings on a good gaming computer
Amd fx 6300
r9 270x 2gb OC
16gb ram

[Liam2349]

Originally posted by Bookshelf:

Similar issue, unplayable fps on very low settings on a good gaming computer
Amd fx 6300
r9 270x 2gb OC
16gb ram

Your issue is that your CPU is very weak.

[Bookshelf]

Originally posted by Liam2349:

Originally posted by Bookshelf:

Similar issue, unplayable fps on very low settings on a good gaming computer
Amd fx 6300
r9 270x 2gb OC
16gb ram

Your issue is that your CPU is very weak.

Not exactly http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-6300
And for the op
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8300
Not that much of a diffrence compared to yours

[Liam2349]

Originally posted by Bookshelf:

Originally posted by Liam2349:

Your issue is that your CPU is very weak.

Not exactly http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-6300
And for the op
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8300
Not that much of a diffrence compared to yours

That website is comparing 'on-paper' specs, and I know the FX-6300 to be quite weak for gaming. It's not comparing any 'real world' tests, but even in the benchmarks the i5 significantly outperforms the AMD offering.

Compare to anyone running Arma 2 with an i5 and you will see large performance advantages to Intel's CPUs.

Arma 2 is a very demanding game and it requires a lot of CPU power to run properly. Personally, even after playing with my i5, knowing what I do now I would absolutely opt for an i7.

[Bookshelf]

Originally posted by Liam2349:

Originally posted by Bookshelf:

Not exactly http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-6300
And for the op
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8300
Not that much of a diffrence compared to yours

That website is comparing 'on-paper' specs, and I know the FX-6300 to be quite weak for gaming. It's not comparing any 'real world' tests, but even in the benchmarks the i5 significantly outperforms the AMD offering.

Compare to anyone running Arma 2 with an i5 and you will see large performance advantages to Intel's CPUs.

Arma 2 is a very demanding game and it requires a lot of CPU power to run properly. Personally, even after playing with my i5, knowing what I do now I would absolutely opt for an i7.

Ok lets look at some real world benchamarks here is arma 3 http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html
Even with a high i7 vs the amd fx 8350 and fx 6300 are only around 4-8 frames diffrent

[Liam2349]

Originally posted by Bookshelf:

Originally posted by Liam2349:

That website is comparing 'on-paper' specs, and I know the FX-6300 to be quite weak for gaming. It's not comparing any 'real world' tests, but even in the benchmarks the i5 significantly outperforms the AMD offering.

Compare to anyone running Arma 2 with an i5 and you will see large performance advantages to Intel's CPUs.

Arma 2 is a very demanding game and it requires a lot of CPU power to run properly. Personally, even after playing with my i5, knowing what I do now I would absolutely opt for an i7.

Ok lets look at some real world benchamarks here is arma 3 http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html
Even with a high i7 vs the amd fx 8350 and fx 6300 are only around 4-8 frames diffrent

I've seen those comparisons with Arma 3, but like Arma 2, you can expect significant differences playing on large multiplayer servers, and the gaps will widen if you really stress the CPUs on those types of servers.

I don't see anything about minimum frame rates on this test, which is the most important statistic. If you have an average of 60FPS and a minimum of 12, that's a pretty unstable experience, whereas an average of 60 with a minimum of 50 is a lot better and much more playable. I'd say there's no way the minimum frame rate on the 6300 is anywhere near as good as the i5s.

I personally experienced a major increase to my minimum frame rates in games when going from my old 8320 to my i5 - it made big differences on BF4, where the skyscaper collapsing would cause major stuttering, and massively increased my frame rate overall.

Remember also that this is Arma 2, using a different engine, and the gap between AMD and Intel is quite large in this game. Like I said, my friend with this 8320 gets half my frame rate.