Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

What is causing bottleneck on my ARMA 3?

williamcll
 Share

I'm stuck at 40-45 fps in game but task manager shows that my GPU isn't fully utilized, game settings are on high or ultra.
image.thumb.png.60b04f4c457900ba866e3a9d3f8a034a.png

Model: gigabyte P34W v3
CPU: i7-4720HQ
GPU:GTX 970M
RAM: 16GB DDR3

SSD: crucial MX 500

Specs: Motherboard: Asus X470-PLUS TUF gaming (Yes I know it's poor but I wasn't informed) RAM: Corsair VENGEANCE® LPX DDR4 3200Mhz CL16-18-18-36 2x8GB

            CPU: Ryzen 9 5900X          Case: Antec P8     PSU: Corsair RM850x                        Cooler: Antec K240 with two Noctura Industrial PPC 3000 PWM

            Drives: Samsung 970 EVO plus 250GB, Micron 1100 2TB, Seagate ST4000DM000/1F2168 GPU: EVGA RTX 2080 ti Black edition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Task Manager is not the best place to capture your usage.
In which game you experience that ?

Motherboard: MSI BM250-PRO-VD           <-- Build 1    Build 2 -->        Motherboard: ASRock Z370M Pro4                     
CPU: Intel Core i7-7700                                                   CPU: Intel Core i7-8700K
GPU: Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 1080                                          GPU: Gigabyte Windforce OC GTX660 (Saving money for RTX 2080)
RAM: 16GB HyperX Fury DDR4 2400Mhz                                        RAM: HyperX Predator 16gb DDR4 3000mhz
PSU: Seasonic M12II EVO 620w Bronze+                                      PSU: Seasonic Focus Gold Plus 650W
CPU Cooler: Gammax 400                                                    CPU Cooler: Gammax 400
SSD: Kingston A400 250GB                                                  HDD/SSD: 3 * 1TB WD blue Kingston A400 250GB 
Headphones: HYPERX CLOUD ALPHA                                                                                               Case: Thermaltake V200 RGB
Monitor: LG 24GM77                                                                                                               Mouse: SteelSeries Rival 600
CaseFans: 3 140mm                                                                                                                Phone: Samsung Galaxy S8+
HDD: 1TB 7200RPM
Mouse: SteelSeries Rival 500
Phone: Nokia 7 plus



hehe yeaaah boy
https://linustechtips.com/main/uploads/monthly_2018_09/111.PNG.5713b4f39cae3a5badac216b30d99e65.PNG

 

You want to code but don't know how ? (Personal list)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

try lowering textures

this might be your issue:

image.png.1d015cf7fa558a50e9b9e0d723484296.png

the 970 famously had 3.5GB of high speed VRAM and then 0.5GB very slow VRAM , marketed together as 4GB of VRAM

Ryzen 5 3600 stock | 2x16GB C13 3200MHz (AFR) | GTX 760 (Sold the VII)| ASUS Prime X570-P | 6TB WD Gold (128MB Cache, 2017)

Samsung 850 EVO 240 GB 

138 is a good number.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, themctipers said:

try lowering textures

this might be your issue:

image.png.1d015cf7fa558a50e9b9e0d723484296.png

the 970 famously had 3.5GB of high speed VRAM and then 0.5GB very slow VRAM , marketed together as 4GB of VRAM

OP has a GTX 970M. Its core configuration also suggest that it's basically a GTX 960 with double the RAM. So it shouldn't have any issues with partitioning, and even then it would only cap off the last 0.5GB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Providing an answer to the question proper, it's likely that ARMA 3's design makes it reliant on single core performance. Looking at https://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html and seeing that it continues to positively respond to core speed improvements suggests so. Also looking at https://www.techspot.com/review/875-intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e/page8.html  with the FX-8350, 6350, and 4350, all three operate around roughly the same clock speed and they all have the same performance.

 

So basically, the software wasn't designed for multi-core CPUs (or it was, just not very well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, voiha said:

Task Manager is not the best place to capture your usage.
In which game you experience that ?

ARMA 3 (64 bit)

16 hours ago, themctipers said:

try lowering textures

this might be your issue:

image.png.1d015cf7fa558a50e9b9e0d723484296.png

the 970 famously had 3.5GB of high speed VRAM and then 0.5GB very slow VRAM , marketed together as 4GB of VRAM

didn't work

10 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Providing an answer to the question proper, it's likely that ARMA 3's design makes it reliant on single core performance. Looking at https://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html and seeing that it continues to positively respond to core speed improvements suggests so. Also looking at https://www.techspot.com/review/875-intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e/page8.html  with the FX-8350, 6350, and 4350, all three operate around roughly the same clock speed and they all have the same performance.

 

So basically, the software wasn't designed for multi-core CPUs (or it was, just not very well).

I have multi threading enabled

Specs: Motherboard: Asus X470-PLUS TUF gaming (Yes I know it's poor but I wasn't informed) RAM: Corsair VENGEANCE® LPX DDR4 3200Mhz CL16-18-18-36 2x8GB

            CPU: Ryzen 9 5900X          Case: Antec P8     PSU: Corsair RM850x                        Cooler: Antec K240 with two Noctura Industrial PPC 3000 PWM

            Drives: Samsung 970 EVO plus 250GB, Micron 1100 2TB, Seagate ST4000DM000/1F2168 GPU: EVGA RTX 2080 ti Black edition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×