Surely some will say that this performance was to be expected with our CPU, however the game’s auto-detection tool was setting even higher settings than the aforementioned ones. ArmA 3 ran with only 20-35fps at almost max settings (1080p with overall visibility set at 2000, object visibility set at 770 and shadow visibility set at 200). Unfortunately, though, the game suffers from major optimization issues. The ArmA series has always relied on the CPU rather than the GPU, and ArmA 3 is no exception to that. This clearly proves that Nvidia has done a great job with the game’s profile, so there is no need to mess around with other third-party tools in order to find other SLI compatibility bits. At a really high resolution (3200×1800) our GPU was pushed to its limits, with 98% usage in both of our GPU cores. As we discovered in our Alpha Performance Analysis, SLI scaling is great in ArmA 3 – provided you are not CPU limited. Moreover, and despite the fact that ArmA 3 relies heavily on the CPU, it does not take full advantage of quad-cores as there are no performance differences between tri-cores and quad-cores.Īs always, we used an overclocked Q9650 (4Ghz) with 4GB RAM, an Nvidia GTX690, the latest version of the GeForce ForceWare drivers and Windows 7-64Bit. Well, even though the final build of ArmA 3 scales better on multi-cores, it still runs as bad as most of Bohemia’s titles.
We were really looking forward to the final build of the game to see whether the Czech studio would be able to optimize it or not. As we said back then, Bohemia’s military FPS sim was plagued with lots of CPU performance issues. Back in March, we informed you about the performance of ArmA 3’s alpha version.
0 kommentar(er)
