ArmA II (DayZ) underperforming with GT 650M/i7-3610QM? (and native resolution question)

Laptop: Dell Inspiron 17RSE (7720)
GPU: GT 650M GDDR5 2GB
CPU: i7-3610QM
RAM: 6GB
+ Samsung 830 SSD

I know that ArmA 2 is very poorly optimized, and that it runs crap and a lot of computers. However, I got the feeling that my laptop is underperforming a bit. The native resolution of my laptop is 1080p, and I'm using a 21.5" external monitor which also has a native resolution of 1920x1080. Now, with DayZ I never expected to get a great framerate, but if I keep the resolution on 1080p, I get only 20FPS and it frequently drops to 15FPS or even lower, which is unplayable for me. I'm not one of those persons who won't settle for anything less than 60FPS. As long as it doesn't get lower than 20FPS and stays above 25 most of the time I'm happy. Most of the time I'm just quietly sneaking anyway.

So here are the in-game settings I'm using:
Visibility: 2000, but it doesn't matter because the server I'm playing on decides. I've changed it multiple times and nothing happened
Interface resolution: 1920x1080
3D resolution: 1920x1080 (100%) - setting this lower does increase the framerate quite a bit, but I've been told the best thing to do is to keep it at 100%. And it looks better if I decrease both of the resolutions instead of just the 3D

Texture detail: high - I've found that it doesn't do a lot unless you set it on really low
Video memory: default (you're supposed to do this if you have a lot of VRAM)
Anisotropic filtering: normal. I might as well set it on off but I don't see a real performance increase
Antialiasing: off, of course. First thing I did
Terrain detail: high. Doesn't matter too much
Object detail: normal
Shadow quality: high. setting it on off does help the performance quite a bit but the world without shadows kind of kills the gameplay for me. setting it lower doesn't really do that much
HDR quality: high. high, normal or off, doesn't matter
Postprocess: off, of course. the blur looks ugly anyway
Aspect ratio: custom. Still 16:9 but I increased the FOV a bit.
Vsync: disabled. but enabling doesn't do anything. I suppose it only matters if your framerate actually manages to get above 60 FPS

Setting everything on the lowest setting possible does help, but that also automatically sets the 3D resolution to something lower than the interface resolution. So if I set everything on the lowest possible, but keep both the interface and the 3D resolution on 1080p, the performance still isn't great. It increases enough to make it playable, but if I keep the settings on what they are now (see above) and lower both resolutions to 1366x768 it actually looks better and the framerate is the same (which means it is 30, drops to 25 and very rarely lower).

Now I've heard that using a lower than native resolution is going to make things look very ugly. At first I thought: of course. Why wouldn't it? Less pixels on the same screen size. But apparently a 21.5" monitor that has a NATIVE 1366x768 resolution looks better than a 21.5" monitor that has a native resolution of 1080p but lowered to 1366x768, even though the screen size and ratio are exactly the same. This doesn't make sense to me at all. (4)

Anyway, I've tried all the tips and tricks that are supposed to make ArmA II and DayZ run better (also in the Nvidia control panel). None of them helped. I already have a SSD which is supposed to help a lot. My question is, is this normal? How could I check if it's not? And what do you recommend? At the moment I'm playing with the settings I've shown above, but with 1366x768 resolution and 3D resolution. To be honest I'm getting used to it, and I much prefer it over playing with 1080p but lowering the texture, object and shadow detail and such. I've tried 1600x900 but the performance increase wasn't enough for me. It would still get below 18 FPS occasionally, which was something I was trying to prevent in the first place.

Basically I have four questions:
1. What would you do? Lower settings but high resolution (which makes the world look... barren, I guess), or the settings that I have now (already with AA and such disabled) but with lower resolution?
2. Is there anything else I could do? Some secret setting only known to the elect?
3. Is this normal anyway? I've heard guys that had no problem (which means a framerate of around 30) running DayZ at 1080p with medium to high settings like I have now, but I've never actually seen proof
4. The thing about the native resolution, is that true? (The text with the red 4 behind it)

Thank in advance. I love this game to death. In the end, it's not about the graphics. The interaction with other players is what makes this game so great for me. But I would hate it if I could've played it at higher settings with a better framerate but I just didn't know about it.

 

Same problem as this guy, have the same specs except OC'ed to GTX660M levels. Anyone have any ideas?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

No secret for Dayz, at least 8GB ram and a huge processor since it doesn't seem to be quad core optimised. SSd is good too since it divides loading time by two. A better cpu improves loading time too on this game/mod. I've experienced it by forcing cpu turbo.

I have a 650M GT myself and a core i7 2720qm and 16 gb ram.

Ram definitely improves game experience since there is less micro-stuttering. Overclocking the 650M GT to hell doesn't improve the framerate at all since i'm cpu limited but if i force the turbo on my 2720qm from 2,2 ghz base to 2,6ghz with throttlestop, i get like 10 fps more. So it's all about cpu. And i think a high clocked dual core would be better or a quad core which can maintain turbo clocks all the time.

Does ur 3610qm maintain its highest turbo clocks while gaming ????

If it does, then ur problem is probably a lack of ram cause this game is ram hungry.

 

The good news is that the standalone will run as well as arma2

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

The game is RAM and CPU hungry, period.