GTX 690 25 FPS in Cities..

[Jimmy McNulty 98]

ugh..I dont get it. I even had better performance with my good old gtx 260!..Its surely not because of CPU. I own i3770k. I can play bf3 on ultra no problem..same skyrim. I just dont get it.

[TheAndrewTaco1337 2]

It's probably because the game really isn't optimized at this point, or it could be your GTX 690. I have a 640, runs around 40 fps in cities.

[MattTheMont 46]

arma 2 is a strange....strange beast. i just bought a brand new setup for my computer and luckily dayz runs great on it.

specs for you:

AMD quad core A6-3650

8G DDR3 RAM

AMD Radeon 6530D integrated graphics

1.5 TB hard drive

also i added a dedicated graphics card from tigerdirect... amazing deal 24.99 for a 1G DDR3 card and i can also run most games on high settings no probb

[daze23 549]

well what do you mean "25 fps in cities"? is that your average or just the low point?

try doing things like looking straight down at the ground or straight up into the sky. if the issue is purely gpu, your fps should go way up when you do that. if it doesn't, the drop might be server and/or AI related

[Kipale 78]

I got gtx 560 and i7 2600k 3.8Ghz and i think im running 30-40 fps in citys

Everything on high / ultra settings.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Kipale

[nik21 287]

What matters in Cities is your CPU and HDD, not your GPU.

[h3retic 224]

optimize ur game bro

im getting 50 fps in cities on 560ti and i7 2600 3.4ghz

here is link for u (how to optimize)

http://pastebin.com/F7Q8Ne2i

having everything on highest settings is retarded for arma2 and in my opinion for bf3 too

and also it might be just server lag and not ur pc

Edited September 11, 2012 by h3retic

[sergeantmoore 2]

What matters in Cities is your CPU and HDD, not your GPU.

^ This is spot on correct

If you spent any time reading up on arma 3 development and dabble in some of the devs posts about arma 2 you will come to find out that they dont use super computers to run these games. It just so happens that they use the correct and most optimal hardware configuration "said it like that because most people tend to have poorly optimized setups :(". I love people who brag about there setups having all this nice hardware but the exclude the harddrive like its not important and they wind having a 5400 rpm platter of poo or a generic 7200 rpm. Ive been playing Arma since the old flashpoint games "not the new imitation one's" but that aside my SSD Raid 0 array has been my best friend. So the point being if Arma 3 is in your headlights as a game you'll want to dive into aswell as the DayZ standalone title i would invest in a nice SSD and increase your data feed to your CPU which might be the problem in your case despite the GPU. :) If it just so happens that thats not the problem in your case, as it very well might not be due to so many other possibilities, the SSD advice still stands valuble and is a worthy upgrade.

PS. For those who have DAYZ on Ultra/High/what ever you thing sounds macho... Its not the same as having the actual arma 2 game on ultra/high, the base game has ALOT more going on, which in terms boggs down your CPU which therefore limits the data your GPU is rendering, which then in turn results in low GPU usage.... Just one of the many things that casue's that problem.

Edited September 11, 2012 by sergeantmoore

[daze23 549]

yeah, playing the Arma 2 campaign really kills my fps. I think most of that is related to the AI

[Itchy (DayZ) 59]

GTX 690 :facepalm: its just a GTX 680 SLI single card ! Arma 2 is not optimised for SLI so GTX 680 you have according to arma !!!

Why on earth anyone would spend that much money on -20% to +20% performance gain is beyond me!!! :unsure:

[h3retic 224]

GTX 690 :facepalm: its just a GTX 680 SLI single card ! Arma 2 is not optimised for SLI so GTX 680 you have according to arma !!!

Why on earth anyone would spend that much money on -20% to +20% performance gain is beyond me!!! :unsure:

might wanna run arma 2 (dayz) with -winxp as one of the launch options which seems to improve performance for multi gpu

[daze23 549]

GTX 690 :facepalm: its just a GTX 680 SLI single card ! Arma 2 is not optimised for SLI so GTX 680 you have according to arma !!!

Why on earth anyone would spend that much money on -20% to +20% performance gain is beyond me!!! :unsure:

the 690 is essentially 2 680 gpu's, but it's not the same as SLI 680's

that being said, I'm not sure how Arma deals with the dual gpu's

[sergeantmoore 2]

the 690 is essentially 2 680 gpu's, but it's not the same as SLI 680's

that being said, I'm not sure how Arma deals with the dual gpu's

All this aside even a 680 can get MUCH better performance then what is mentioned from the thread poster, and yes Arma 2's sli profile is pretty unoptimised, aswell as it's multi-core support.

Im going to go with bottleneck of data in between hardware, even though the 690 is pretty much two 680's on a single pcb, i believe in reacts better to that then two seperate cards, just my opinion.

[Itchy (DayZ) 59]

GTX 690 is slower than SLI 680 and from experiance with crossfire & SLI its not worth the hassel or the money !!! <_<

Just get the best single GPU card you can and live with it!!! ;)

2 GPUS on a single board is just marketing hype/shite they always cause problems and never perform as they should!!! :huh:

Dont blame AMD or nvidia its the games are not optimised for them ! :(

Edited September 11, 2012 by Itchy

[daze23 549]

All this aside even a 680 can get MUCH better performance then what is mentioned from the thread poster

I agree. it's probably something else bottlenecking it

[Eazy-Makaveli 33]

ugh..I dont get it. I even had better performance with my good old gtx 260!..Its surely not because of CPU. I own i3770k. I can play bf3 on ultra no problem..same skyrim. I just dont get it.

try setting obect quality to very low in the graphic settings it helps ALOT