Why does the performance suck so hard on recommended hardware?

[alleycat 135]

 

System Requirements

• Minimum: 
  • OS: Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 SP1 
  • Processor: Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz 
  • Memory: 2 GB RAM 
  • Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT or AMD Radeon HD 3830 or Intel HD Graphics 4000 with 512 MB VRAM
  • DirectX: Version 9.0c 
  • Hard Drive: 10 GB available space 
  • Sound Card: DirectX®-compatible

• Recommended: 
  • OS: Windows 7 SP1 
  • Processor: Intel Core i5-2300 or AMD Phenom II X4 940 or better 
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM 
  • Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 or AMD Radeon HD 7750 with 1 GB VRAM or better 
  • DirectX: Version 9.0c 
  • Hard Drive: 14 GB available space 
  • Sound Card: DirectX®-compatible

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does performance suck so hard?

 

My old PC matched the minimum requirements almost to the letter (excepf for GF550Ti) and it was around 40fps in the forest, alone. 17fps in small towns. 8 fps in the largest towns.

 

So I upgraded the PC

4x AMD 3600

GFti550

6GB RAM

 

Now the fps sort of doubled to barely playable:

 

60fps in forests, 25 in small towns, 12-15 in largest towns.

 

Knowing how bad performance sucks in this game in large towns, why do the developers even bother designing places like the new highrises when they clearly run shitty on hardware that is far above minimum and match recommended?

 

It is alpha, but I highly doubt that part will improve, because in what arma game did the fps ever get better in a town.

 

 

For comparison I get a straight 40fps on medium high settings in kavala alone in arma3.

 

 

one weird thing: When I press escape and the menu appears, my fps jump +10.

[luke.kta@gmail.com 17]

In a word - alpha. The game has not yet been fully optimized.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Panic!

[Demonize 15]

I found that in many cases the servers bottleneck your performance.