Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

Low CPU/GPU Utilization
Assigned, HighPublic


Game never uses more than 50% of the CPU
Also never uses more than 30% of the GPUs

Doesn't matter what graphics settings, always 10-15 Frames per second. {F16920} {F16921} {F16922} {F16923} {F16924} {F16925} {F16926} {F16927} {F16928} {F16929} {F16930} {F16931} {F16932} {F16933}


Legacy ID
Steps To Reproduce

Start playing.

Additional Information

CPU: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T @ 3.8Ghz
GPU: 2 Radeon HD 6950 2GB in crossfire.

Event Timeline

There are a very large number of changes, so older changes are hidden. Show Older Changes
blub added a comment.Sep 24 2014, 6:07 PM

Same issue:
i7 2700k, GTX 680, Win7 x64
Running arma with -cpuCount=8

Just walking and shooting around on empty stratis map.
CPU states:

  • 1 core: about 80%
  • 3 cores: about 40%
  • 4 cores: 0%

GPU usage: about 80%

Regarding to the age of this report, the very high votes on this topic - and the fact nothing have been improved - it seems like we need to wait for 5 more DLC before BI will address this issue. Oh wait they won`t. After 5 more DLC our hardware will be fast enough to get high FPS without optimising. *sigh*

blub added a comment.Sep 29 2014, 5:39 PM

I think this problem is not easy to fix. Seems to be bad engine design or maybe the engine is a bit outdated. Or maybe only the resource management is ****. I saw benchmarks where a GTX 680 has nearly the same performance as a GTX 980. That looks like there is some kind of capability that is not used. So maybe they could use this capability for other computation (I mean something like CUDA).
I am not an expert, just thinking and adding some ideas...

Also they should stop adding more content because there are so many needed improvements for the game, from crash/performance issues to realism issues.
There is no other game like Arma, so keep supporting and developing...

I've gone from a GTX580, to 780s in SLI, to yesterday when I got GTX980s in SLI

Guess how much the performance differed?

It didn't.

I'm tired of it now. Seriously. Why does this piece of shit engine still exist in its current form in 2014? You want to create PC games, yet my PC GPU utilisation stays stuck at 20% on one card, 17% on the other. I have the power, but your shitty engine can't take advantage of it. What's the point?

I'm really sick of supporting you guys. You give us games, but we can barely play them unless we grab some old maps full of empty hills.

How about instead of making the next game with the detailed turned up to 11, you instead either 1.) Make a game we can play with decent frame rates or 2.) Patch the current one properly.

It's beyond a joke now.

i7 2600K @ 4ghz
Samsung 850 Pro SSD
1440p - and playing at 1080p makes no difference

I set it to autodetect, and I still lower every detail setting so that nothing is on ultra. I disable every gimmicky thing like blur, AO, DOF etc and use FXAA X2.

rogerx added a comment.Oct 5 2014, 3:02 AM

This is where Linux or Open Source really shines. The open source allows others to modify, locate, fix and optimize code including optimizing the scaling of the code on multiple platforms.

With closed source, it is usually only possible to provide back traces which mean little to the end user.

Turn your graphics down.

When you upgrade your graphics card you don't get more fps in games like Arma but you get more room to increase GPU heavy settings without losing performance.

If you go from GTX580 to GTX980 in SLI, you can increase settings like resolutions, AAs, AO and other things that eat mostly GPU without losing performance.

If you've already low GPU usage and low fps you should OC your CPU and buy faster RAM (2133MHz CL9 is pretty cheap) to get some minor improvements. Upgrading GPU doesn't give you much at that point.

The issue really has nothing to do with my performance or my settings. The issue is 'Low CPU/GPU Utilization'. With two of the best GPUs available sitting at no more than 20%, I'd say the issue/complaint is a valid one.

Regardless of that; the graphics are turned down. The view distance is at 2,500. So is object distance. The CPU is overclocked. The lowest form of AA is being used and all gimmicks like blur, DOF etc have been turned off as previously mentioned. The RAM is already fast enough. Yet - 25FPS when walking around towns. You have to play an almost empty map like Takistan to get a frame rate even close to what it should be.

It's the best game in the world wrapped in the worst engine in the world. As a PC exclusive, that is abysmal. Even the worst console ports in recent history utilise the hardware better than this.

@BI: Are there any news on this? I have just received a 50% OFF Newsletter, but none of my friends is going to buy it since they fear it won't run properly. Sentences like "Oh, you know? It's still ARMA. You can run through walls and die. You can fall through floors and die. Your screen freezes for seconds every few minutes. And it's so hard to hit someone when they just warp right in front of you. And if you can stand 11 FPS on your GTX 980, buy it." are very common to hear.

This ticket is now almost 1.5 years old. I know this fix is something very essential, but really?

Please care!

Works fine for me and keeps getting better with each developer version!

$ cat /proc/cpuinfo

processor : 7
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 58
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770K CPU @ 3.50GHz
stepping : 9
microcode : 0x19
cpu MHz : 1817.128
cache size : 8192 KB

$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/gpus/0000\:01\:00.0/information
Model: GeForce GTX 670
IRQ: 47
Video BIOS:

$ cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal: 32971292 kB

If you want scalability, you'll likely need to go open source. If you don't go open source, scalability will likely never happen or be hindered by only certain people running the code. Also, some bugs will never be found or never be fixed without going open source. Facts of life.

Cool. There will be less and less sales with each iteration of the game. Facts of life. I'm sure as hell not giving these guys another cent if the next title performs as horribly.

Bohr added a comment.Nov 4 2014, 3:16 AM

Seems like the GPU/CPU utilization is still a problem. Getting ~20 FPS in some areas in the game while CPU is at 50% (one core @ ~75%, rest around 20-30 %) and GPU is at ~30-40%. Maybe at the least we could learn exactly what hardware configuration would be optimal for the game?

My system:

CPU: AMD Phenom II x4 965 @ 4.0 GHz
MB: Asus M4A89TD (890FX chipset)
RAM: 12 GB
OS: Win7 Pro x64 on SSD
PSU: Corsair 650W single rail, bronze certified

This company has no interest to provide them good quality!

Look how long has this issue!

It was definitely time being the last time I bought a game from this company!

My System:
AMD FX8320 @ 4GHz
Poworcolor R9-270X OC PCS+ 2GB

Multiplayer: 22FPS
CPU: 36% - 40%
GPU: 23% - 34%

Singleplayer: 61FPS
CPU: 43% - 56%
GPU: 28% - 48%

This company has no interest to provide them good quality!

Look how long has this issue!

It was definitely time being the last time I bought a game from this company!

My System:
AMD FX8320 @ 4GHz
Poworcolor R9-270X OC PCS+ 2GB

Multiplayer: 22FPS
CPU: 36% - 40%
GPU: 23% - 34%

Singleplayer: 61FPS
CPU: 43% - 56%
GPU: 28% - 48%

nv25 added a subscriber: nv25.May 7 2016, 10:47 AM
nv25 added a comment.Nov 7 2014, 8:06 PM

Same problem
Low GPU utilization

Intel i5 3570
Palit GTX 980 4gb (ref)

In game settings - Ultra
50% GPU load in the menu and avg 50fps
20-30% GPU load in the any singleplayer mission and 20-30fps

MSI Afterburner monitor screenshot added
First half - in the menu
Second half - loading and playing singleplayer mission

@cosmokenney: No. They don't care. They simply don't care. They don't even bother to tell us their opinion on this. So well, go play Battlefield.

only half use GPU and CPU even automatic down texture for what?????

i was fake gtx550ti ddr3 2gram avlible ultra texture
now gtx750 ddr5 1gram not avlible ultra texture wtf...

Interesting notes within the SiteRep #00084; "Programmer Lukáš Bábícek has in recent weeks been working directly with Intel engineers to find and implement optimization opportunities. This has yielded some results you may not directly notice, such as terrain rendering and shadow improvements."

Ah! Low-level programming is so much funner! (The control to make AMD fans weep! ;-)

CPU: AMD A10-5800K Trinity Quad-Core 3.8GHz

    GPU 1: EVGA 02G-P4-3658-KR GeForce GTX 650 Ti BOOST

    GPU 2: EVGA 896-P3-1255-AR GeForce GTX 260

Frames on a good day peek up at 30 fps. This is a problem that should be solved asap.

AstraL added a subscriber: AstraL.May 7 2016, 10:47 AM

Dear developers. I play in ofp from 2004 year, and I really like this game, and I have a question for you. Since the release of arma3 year has passed, the problem is not playable in multiplayer hasn't been solved. Tell honestly, you can't decide or don't want or is it too difficult?

For the beginning I recommend to teach the game to use more than two cores...

tomeek added a subscriber: tomeek.May 7 2016, 10:47 AM

I think BIS don't care about optimizations (64bit, multi-threading) that can take huge resources, sure they will add some small SPLENDID fixes to calm people dawn from update to update but they just really wait for people to have better PC where FPS won't be the issue.

h4mi1 added a subscriber: h4mi1.May 7 2016, 10:47 AM
h4mi1 added a comment.Dec 23 2014, 2:17 AM


My spec

AMD fx 6300 6x4,400 OC
Sapphire R9 270x VAPOR OC
Hyperx 8GB 1866MHz RAM (2x4GB)

Singleplayer ultra setting 55-60 fix fps

Multiplayer (40-60player altis) 25-35 fps ... i play with setting , i use best fps settings... SHIT.. lagg.. fps drop...

NOT MAKE MORE DLC, NEED AMD OPTIMIZATION!!!!! Intel i5-i7 may not be for everyone....

My english really poor.. i know.

h4mi1 added a comment.Dec 23 2014, 2:24 AM


This is my old profile.

MB: Asus P8H67
CPU: Intel i7-2600 3,4 Ghz
Graphic: Nvidia GTX 560 Ti 1GB
RAM: 16 GB G.Skill

I get, with medium graphics, 30 FPS avg in ArmA 3, 35 FPS avg in BF4, Farcry 4, DCS World, 4 FPS avg in Assessins Creed 4 Unity.

I bought a Geforce GTX 970 4GB, and now i get more than 60 FPS in all games with graphics in ULTRA, including Assessins Creed 4,... but ArmA 3 still remain in 30 avg FPS.

Please Bohemia, rework the ArmA enginge, use CUDA, optimize the simulator.

It works better if you deactivate the hardware aceleration in . Launcher , options. But after a time playing the game goes to 6 , 7 fps and stucks and the textures looks horrible . excuse my English jeje.

I have just an i5 but the same video card as yours GeForce GTX 970 4 Gb. Arma 3 goes from 60 to 30 FPS in SP, about 30 in MP without mod. I'm aware of that because i wrote an add-on with multiple displays (7 layers of heavy calculated params & results). So, You can also play with 70+ and more with poor scenery in SP.

All objects aggregate like towns are FPS killers.
One point BI developers should consider : Avoid massive environment objects such as garbage, bees, butterflies, snakes,... You use and abuse with these things. Concentrate on buildings, men, cars. Thanks

MSI 660 TI Tried Oc and without
Intel i7 3770 non-k
Running game on 1 monitor, but I have 1 more connected. Tried disabling the other as well. 1920x1080

Win10, 64 bit helped the game out a bit but still on massive multiplayer servers with AI GPU/CPU % is quite low. Even single player and missions made in the editor with a lot of AI, utilization is minimal.

Spawn in the editor about 100 AI, 50vs50 opfor vs blufor with tanks, jeeps and infantry and you in the middle of it all.
Watch as your FPS drops although GPU and CPU barely react, keeping in the low 30's %. There are no other spikes such as temperature and etc', using After burner by MSI.

On mutliplayer servers, reducing the view distance helps a lot but it isn't fun to know that the game doesn't let me play without seeing a 1km radius around me...

Well This has been dug and beaten enough, just wanted to drop by and add a note :3

rogerx added a comment.Apr 1 2015, 7:24 PM

The high resource demand for AI has likely already been (if not by me) noted here within the past, albeit difficult to read an entire thread like this before posting.

However, I wasn't aware of any bottleneck concerning CPU resource usage involved with AI until just now. But as I think of it, have you manually enabled any performance related command line flags or parameters to try to resolve your performance issues? (ie.

Also, the game seems to be optimized for using NVidia video cards, so you're likely also seeing a small decline in performance here. Some multiplayer game map scenarios are now removing AI when the player (or any player) is not within a certain distance of the AI. Some game map scenarios have had so much success with this scripting tactic, that the airport seems to have been (irritatingly) built within enemy territory and the players are now barely able to fly at low altitudes at all!

Rogerx, I have tried countless of missions and combinations of startup parameters. My system specs are as following:
CPU: AMD FX-8150 (overclocked from 3.6 GHz to 4.4 GHz. Also tried disabling 4 cores, one on every module, as suggested by people online, made no difference)
GPU: MSI R9 280X 3G
RAM: 16 GB 1333 MHz DDR3

The game is also running on an Intel 330 SSD.

I've tried custom memory allocators, the allocators supplied with the game, none seem to work. It's just horrible, even in games without AI, my performance is severe. On empty servers, my FPS doesn't get above 35, while CPU and GPU usage hardly ever goes above 50%, and neither does memory usage. There's just nothing that seems to bottleneck because nothing is used fully.

I guess that I just have to deal with the average of 15 FPS I get, while all other games I play can be maxed out, easily.

rogerx added a comment.Apr 5 2015, 4:09 AM

I have a Intel Core i7-3770K (Quad-Core Processor 3.5 GHz 8 MB Cache LGA 1155 - BX80637I73770K) which has a going selling price of $369.99.

Compared to your CPU, AMD FX-8150 (8-Core Black Edition Processor Socket AM3+ FD8150FRGUBOX) which has a selling (used) price of $145.00.

I usually get around 25-30FPS within multiplayer with a view distance of about 3,000. I get many more FPS (or about double FPS) within single player or using the Editor, or not using multiplayer.

Going further with comparing video cards, I have a NVIDIA EVGA GeForce GTX670 (FTW 2048MB GDDR5 256bit, Dual Dual-Link DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort, 4-Way SLI Ready Graphics Card Graphics Cards 02G-P4-2678-KR) bought for around $400, with a used price of about $150 now.

Your MSI Computer Corp. Video Graphics Cards R9 280X GAMING 3G is now selling for around $300.

Probably not much difference with video cards, except for the fact the game runs better with NVIDIA hardware.

I think your issue might lie with the CPU if your frame rates are not comparable to mine. Also note, I would not condone over clocking, and still expect frame rates to remain stable. I have far too often seen bad things happen (ie. stutter at the least, kernel crashes at the worse) when over clocking. You're usually better off buying a faster CPU, unless you live within the Arctic or Antarctica and only plan on using your computer during the Winter seasons.

rogerx added a comment.Apr 9 2015, 4:15 AM

I don't know about the rest of you, but I downloaded the rc/beta of MarksMen DLC last night and found I could not attain a view distance of 7,000 instead of only 3,000 while flying.

I also like the fact I could upgrade (and download the one to two gigabyte upgrade) early before everybody else, using the RC/Beta code. Today, the RC/Beta code was automatically deactivated and only a small 200MB download was required.

I'm getting gray hairs from this. Kinda sad to invest a lot of cash, a new gaming computer and gfx card. And still you haven't been able to solve the issue with AMD CPUs. I overclocked my FX 8320 black up to 4.7 Ghz stable at 50 degrees with Hyper EVO 212, 8 Gb ballistics (1600) and a simple GTX 660 a year ago. And I'm getting down to 14 FPS in KoTH missions. Playing on servers with more than 60 people and with planes, tanks and choppers, just makes the game totally unplayable. And I have done pretty much all tweaks out there. Seriously. I would rather pay 50$ more for this game if it had been properly optmimized for my AMD system. Still crossing my fingers that some genious at BI will come up with a sollution.

R34P3R added a subscriber: R34P3R.May 7 2016, 10:47 AM

If you get bad FPS in Multiplayer this is not a problem by your system ! Its the Netcode thats make it laggy ! If the Server runs with low FPS you also get LOW FPS on Highend machine. im playing Coop missions with my friends on Stratis i got 90 - 120 FPS on Altis i have 40 FPS (in Citys) and 80 - 120 FPS outside. Running GTX 970 ( FullHD all Ultra)

Im severely depressed at this point. Since 2013 this bug has been open and nothing really has been done about it. In the mean time, Bohemia interactive moves onto other business ventures and different games. I feel like they have left us in the dust to rot. Such a great game i just cant get it around my head as to why this game wasnt optimized for 64 bit processors. Why cant Bohemia just overhaul the whole damn thing for 64 bit processors. Could you imagine that? Since the 3rd month of 2013 they could of overhauled it twice by now. One has to raise the seriously overlooked questions as to why Bohemia would release the game optimized only for 32 bit processors in a 64 bit age. In a sense i feel betrayed, and deceived. At this point looking at the bug tracker for almost 3 years now, assigned with high priority and major severity, i think it would be safe to say that arma 3 and Bohemia interactive has caused me physical damages, including but not limited to pain and suffering. How ever, as a loyal arma fan i dont think i would press forward to see what my legal options are, instead, i would rather just suffer more, and hope that Bohemia would finally fix this awful issue that has been ongoing for what seems to be a lifetime. In 2013 i was in good mental shape and physical shape. Now i am growing frail and loosing hair, with high hopes of one day being able to experience Arma 3 that performs good. As it has the potential to revolutionize large scale, tactical, military simulation gaming. Please fix this issue, so i can experience real gaming while i am still alive. Thank you. And i hope you consider our recommendations.

I think I now know why the artificial intelligence (AI) are so accurate.

Instead of piping AI actions through a random generator, the AI just use raw exact computer reactions in an effort to conserve CPU power.

There were some new options available in the launcher recently, like hyper threading, only I'm not sure if it helped performance a lot

Nothing new...

I hope they will implement DirectX 12. Who knows. Its may fix all these optimizations. Maybe the reason of the performance issue are because of the limitations and etc. of DX11.

freexavier: Your analogy is similar to using Python (or hoping for a newer computer language) thinking the newer language will make your computer go faster. (ie. Performance testing Python here on 32bit platforms, Python is exponentially slower and more resource intensive then previous scripting languages or languages such as C. Not to also mention the instability between releases.)

Almost every piece of software developed within the commercial world, rarely fixes any past bugs and the newer version only adds atop of what is already developed, and usually regardless of any past performance problems unless the squeaky wheel can be fixed with a drop of oil. Easy fix for these closed source problems, demand the user spend more money on newer hardware.

But again I make mention, I'm now able to double visual distance while flying the simulated aircraft. The extended visual distance is still somewhat unstable on multi-player at times.

I thought i just throw this in here, maybe it will help someone, as it solved all my issues i had which was meantionen in this thread, putting my fps at a solid 60-70 on ultra settings in multiplayer with good CPU utilization (I7 quad core / gtx 970).

We all know arma 3 is CPU driven, my problem was my CPU cores was getting deprived of power! Win 8.1 and the manufacturers defaults power management plans (even on high-end desktops) to powersaving, my cores was only getting around 5 watts! I set the manufacturer power management software (asus) to high performance AND changed win 8.1 powermanagements to high performance, giving my CPU cores the 12-20 watts it needed to do the Work (jumped from 20-60 %) and watched my FPS settle between 60-70 fps on a 60 player filled server! Hope this helps someone.

8 Cores! FX 8320 AMD, OC'ed to 4.7Ghz stable! With 8gb ram running at 1700mhz and from SSD hd. Arma 3 utilizing most 30%, and in most cases only uses the first core. Tried every single tweak in the book and it is really pissing me off as a paying costumer. I bought the rig just to play this game when it was released.

If I select it to autodetect settings, it puts everything on max, but that lags the shit out of cities like Kavala etc. I stopped playing Koth regular servers and have to stick to infantry only, just to be able to play. How much do I have to pay Bohemia to get this issue sorted? Like 15-20fps wtf?

s3xmachinegun: Try under-clocking instead. Likely over-clocking is causing an error, somehow maybe reverting the CPU to using only one CPU when over-clocked. (ie. Booting BIOS Post Mode with using only one CPU. Once past Post Mode, all CPU's are usually enabled.) If you have to over-clock, you should be buying a faster CPU instead, otherwise most coders (if not all) are going to ignore your bug reports for obvious reasons.

The AMD FX-8320 only costs $150 today, versus my $400 CPU.

I know it sucks, but you're likely going to have to reduce your visual distance. Complaining while over-clocking is likely going to get you no where. Facts are facts. But like I said previously with the last patch, I can now boost my view distance up from 3,000 to 7,000 while flying the simulated aircraft, while multi-player is still a little finicky with the higher view distance.

VashCZ added a subscriber: VashCZ.May 7 2016, 10:47 AM
VashCZ added a comment.May 1 2015, 5:56 PM

@rogerx please explain me what price of CPU has gotta do with CPU optimization
f.e. look at FX 9590 price and I am 90% sure he would not notice a difference.

It does not use CPU 100%(in my case not even the first core, but yes, after patch it is 80% for all 4 i5Ks cores, that's much better than before), not GPU 100%(25%-75% LOL).
The only thing filed up is VRAM(my 2GB), so OK I decreased texture quality etc. to decrease impact chance for FPS and tried to play multiplayer(mostly happens in singleplayer too) with 4km view distance and... guess what, low FPS.
Up to 2 kms I don't have problem, but I need AT LEAST 3kms to see tanks shooting me from distance. And it's first stage of FPS problems. ... I wonder when I'll be able to see heli/jet before my AI do.

He didn't mention his graphic card but I think he has right to be pissed off just like we others. Problem is not that game is demanding, problem is that it is not able to be demanding nor smooth running at low graphics quality(that are not affecting gameplay noticeably).

rogerx added a comment.May 2 2015, 5:49 AM

VashCZ: "Up to 2 kms I don't have problem, but I need AT LEAST 3kms to see tanks shooting me from distance."

Blame the genius programmer who heard me mention the AI cannot see past 1,500 KM, and realized I was simply flying above their viewing distance avoiding the the AI's detection. Obviously whomever changed this AI view limitation, did not realize (or did not have the insight of) the impact that this change would have with people whom own slower CPU's! Sigh! This AI detection change should be reverted back to each individual user's configuration settings. Else, the people whom spend more money on more recent CPU's will always win a gun fight and would not be fair in my opinion.

I also just realized with this AI visual detection change, you're system is now likely being overly taxed by keeping track of all AI (or other's) fire from outside your game's configured view distance. But this is untested and only a hypothesis at this point as I'm not sure of all of specifics of this part of the game or network engine.

As far as your CPU buying choice, I cannot say much. Everybody has their preference.

3770k@4.5Ghz;8GB DDR1866;SSD;R9 280x
Core1 is utilized up to 60% and the other cores up to 50% while FPS is ~20. And it is definitely CPU lag. That in a SP mission.
I have tried all the startup parameters, they don't make a difference.

(i5-4570)CPU up to 50% utilization
(GTX-760)GPU up to 70% utilization

I've tried many manipulations in the advanced options of the launcher:
-cpuCount=4 -maxMem=2048/4096/8192 -maxvram=2048 -exthreads=7/5 -noLogs -nosplash

Nothing helps

And in multiplayer its another story.

same Problems on

AMD FX 6300 @4,2GHz
Gigabyte GTX 960 2GB - Windforce

Cpu up to 50%
GPU up to 65%

start scripts doesn´t work.
editing arma3.cfg doesn´t work.

Muliplayer FPS: 20-23 FPS
Singleplayer FPS: 45-65 FPS

Why nobody is helping us. :(
I think Arma Need a very big update.
And that really fast !

Lex added a subscriber: Lex.May 7 2016, 10:47 AM
Lex added a comment.May 24 2015, 12:29 AM

My supervision and practice have defined some dependence of FPS. Not important on what settings game, ultra or below. When on the server it is less than 20 players, game go with FPS 40-60. It proceeds some hours and does not fall below. When players more than twenty, FPS in the first two hours from time to time falls from bulltrouts time. After two hours of game FPS lower than 40 with short interval more time holds low FPS. FPS can sometimes reach value 3-4. It is possible to leave and come on the server. It will give not long high FPS 40 but if game goes on the server more than 4-5 hours, the output and input in game will not allow to hold long FPS 40.
My settings of video in game are higher than mean value with high range of plotting. I on start in the editor receive 160-130 FPS, in 1-2 minutes circular omotr the horizon reduces FPS till 80-60.
The processor and its loading of 35% remain for FPS130 and for FPS40. There is assumption of falling of FPS during bad data exchange the server - the client of players in general, or even can entail such effects of one player with bad data exchange.
Built in Windows 8.1\64 braundmauer it is switched off, it is not observed.

All setting up video influences on urovn loadings of CPU, RAM and VRAM. If the level of settings is lower than an average, in network game FPS falls more.Interestingly why RAM never above 4,6-4,7gb? [^]

Start the game Warfare CTI server is always high FPS 50-60. After 2hours 40 FPS, after 3 hours, and you can sometimes get 3-4 FPS. Solve this problem. Put priority on this. It worries and concerns of all. History of the problem persists for a long time, it makes people doubt the long term solution to the problem, attention to Arma 3 does not grow in those who remained in Arma2.

2564 vote(s) 99,03% vote for it. That's not enough?
In four months Arma3 will be executed two years. What is the time still it is necessary when the solution receives a priority No.1?

Intel Core i7-4770K, 4500 MHz (45 x 100)
16 Gb, 2 x G Skill "Sniper" F3-2133C10-8GSR (21,33 х 100)
Corsair Force 3 SSD (120 ГБ)
Lan Optical fiber 30Mbit

still stay 2001 and need money

now we in a 2015

Game use only two cores, why? I have i5 4 x 3,50 Ghz and it uses only two. i was using command line, options in game launcher and nothing helped. Only program "Process Lasso" helped me a lot. I setted (fixed) program and game priority, used cores and now it automaticly detect if game is launchied and switch to my settings, even power seting plan is switching to best performance to use all cores on 100% (you can set it on 80% as i done after program configuration)

I'm seeing the following severe slow downs:

  1. If the server lags with graphics or there's a graphics bottleneck, the AI (automatic intelligence) are still able to shoot you (dead) or your aircraft down. During a recent server slowdown, I witnessed many multiple shots to my helicopter while the game was stalled at the server end.
  1. Players of low flying aircraft will significantly lag (or slow down) the graphics for other players. Likely due to the server trying to rasterize the graphics for more demanding 3D pilot simulations, while players on the simulated ground significantly suffer in comparison to the pilots.

Somehow the AI (automatic intelligence) have complete access and priority with the CPU on the host server, while players have no CPU priority. This is unfair for other human players. AI should have no more access to CPU or CPU priority than other human players. Whether remote or local. It's as if the host or AI are intentionally bottlenecking the graphics cores just to get a kill shot. Do the AI really need anymore exploits besides already having the ability to shoot once for one-shot-one-kill scenarios?

Here is vlad_8011 (BI seems to not like if someone is talking sad true about their games gently - maybe i should use more agressive language to not get blocked?) Problem still persists, only way is program i mentioned before. Game runs little better now, but seems to have terrible sound bugs (after update 1.46 or 1.44 till now).

  • Run game, Set high priority to the game in task manager (not present!)
  • Again in task manager set coligation to use all cores.
  • Disable steam overlay and set steam priority to low (it eat too much sources)
  • Go to My documents\Arma 3 and open Arma 3.cfg via notepad, find and change numbers in THIS options to 1 - example:


Other options like allways using high priority and lower to rest of aplications can be setted in program i mentioned (it is not commercial, it is real working), but still it require some work. In my opinion game should be stopped for month, so nobody can run it, and developers can finish the product and apply optimalisation.

its so sad ...
AMD FX 6300
8 GB Ram 1666MHz
Radeon R9 290 4gb ... and 18 fps ...

I havent more fps as well, but Change this option in arma3.cfg and it will gain 15 + fps. Also consider lovering draw distance to 2.3km and objects also to 2.3 - for me it was enough to play at 30-40 FPS. It will not change anything to worse, you will not notice any change besides FPS

X39 added a subscriber: X39.May 7 2016, 10:47 AM
X39 added a comment.Aug 12 2015, 1:55 AM

random question to the ArmA devs:

shouldnt it increase the performance on multicore systems if you use a threadpool and task system?
most of the simulation should still work fine

  • would increase performance (in theory) on multicore systems


  • would require a callback system for a lot of things
  • will cause a heavy ammount of work on engine (regressions)
  • possibly unstable if a task is not implemented correctly

I can give you next little advice to save few FPS. Its anisotopic filter - disable it in game option (video options) and TURN IT ON in Graphic Control Panel (Catylist Control Center, Nvidia Control Panel), If you have i5 4 cores CPU try to use "tbb4malloc_bi" instead of standard malloc. Switch off explorer.exe, and set game on high priority (in task manager - ctr + shift + esc)
Before runing game try to switch into offline mode in steam, switch off antivirus, disconnect with internet (if you play in Single, if you play in multi, let connection on), Go to My Documents/Arma 3/arma3.cfg, open it via notepad, and search:
and in X place put 1, so it will look like this :
In game launcher set to use all cores.
Then do first steps wile game is launching and you will gain few (10-15) FPS more.
But please, Bohemia, fix it now, i'm happy you finally changed you plans, and fixing basis, but increase the usage of PC components please. Game will run better, more scripts will be played correctly, people will have less problems. Also think about bigger usage for GPU - for bigger capabilities of CPU. As allways fingers crossed!

Single player = High FPS
Multiplayer on regular dedicated server = Low FPS
Multiplayer on regular dedicated server with more NPC = even lower FPS
Mutliplayer on dedicated server with Headless client = High FPS.

Conclusion : low FPS is linked with the server not being able to process the AI fast enough...

That should obviously not slow down your graphical refresh rate since network update and graphic update should be 2 separate things...

But it does.

And I'm guessing that this is coded so far deep inside then engine of the game that they won't even bother fixing it...


Any chance the inadequacy of the CPU not to process AI requests being linked to server administrators (or map makers) setting AI skill levels to >50% levels, or levels that are above reasonable human skill levels?

I have seen several servers (or several maps) using unreasonable AI skill levels. For example, AI point and aim with absolutely no disability. Or the time it takes for an AI to point, acquire target and shoot with a zero miss rate only took less than a fraction of a second! Multiply this amongst hundreds of AI units, and I could easily see the unnecessary taxing of CPU resources. And administrators or map makers seem to do this only to plan for hosting cooperative map servers of >30 players, but the servers to begin with can really only adequately handle 10-20 players!

Yeah, i was writing everywhere AI is too accurate and it eat too much CPU, but i wasnt listened - more - i was hated. :)

I performed a test recently with multiple AI units, and found setting the AI Skill for each unit to just 50%, proved the AI units still had no disability with aiming, acquiring their target, and shooting. Reaction was still less than one second for all three tasks with 100% accuracy.

See? I hope some Bohemia Developer read this. Reduce AI skills please, give them longer time to aim, and bigger dispersion at least.
even after i built a completely new system same fuckin thing!!
really shitty fps wat the fuck is going on ? eve on single play at most i get
is 30 if am lucky otherwise shite multiplayer is even worse am sick and tired
of waiting for all these months for you to fix it up ? i have tried all the
shit people suggested i do even overclocked my cpu to 4.8 ghz nothing fuckin

Greetings gentlemen , i have a rather pressing issue which truelly is a thorn
on my ballz , here it goes this is my system , and the problem is the fact that my fps
is terrible for a system of this kind first . it doesnt matter if i use
crossfire on or off arma 3 till not fps improvement it doesnt even use the
second gpu and second . if am running with one card the gpu usage flauates all
the time its not stable at all mostly hovering aroung 45% usage and to top that
off the cpu is barely getting used at all at most 45% this is terrible its the
only game am having problems with
this is in multiplayer this single player using the
mission benchmark from steam workshop and now this is single player mission

Same here on i7 2600k and GTX 960 4GB.

drwbns added a subscriber: drwbns.Nov 14 2016, 8:54 PM

I find this thread just as interesting as Arma 3 itself. Is it likely that Bohemia devs find it impossible or not worth their time to gain higher framerates with their outdated engine?

Lex removed a subscriber: Lex.Mar 17 2017, 1:27 PM
StJimmy removed a subscriber: StJimmy.Apr 3 2017, 3:25 PM
Lex added a comment.Apr 8 2017, 3:07 PM

Change of video of settings in a game, doesn't influence use and productivity of CPU.
That it:

  • Weak optimization of Arma3 for CPU productivity?
  • Leakage of productivity of CPU?

Any changes in video settings of the game "low \high" make load of CPU of 36-46%.

  • What plans of BIS in this problem?
  • This work is how important?
  • When change can be expected in this direction?
Ilias added subscribers: Lex, Ilias.EditedAug 18 2017, 8:07 PM

Currently on IdeaPad Y500 Arma 3 using always <22% of CPU's max, when increasing calculation load by for example executing:

for'_n'from 0 to 1000 do{addMissionEventHandler['EachFrame',{for'_n'from 0 to 10 do{9999*9999/9999*9999/9999}}]}

(what makes 1000 tasks without: actions needed to synchronise with other processes and usage of arma's scheduler);,
result is: FPS going down, CPU load-no changes at all,

This comment was removed by Ilias.
Ilias added a comment.EditedAug 19 2017, 1:35 AM


Ilias added a comment.Aug 19 2017, 3:27 AM

{edited, sorry for 4 posts}

TOMMEH removed a subscriber: TOMMEH.Aug 23 2017, 9:37 PM
Chubbs added a subscriber: Chubbs.Dec 15 2017, 12:35 AM