PC Discussion Thread - All PC related in here.

[kremator 1065]

XP 32 is fine here .... getting very good FPS.

[Futur3marin3 10]

XP 32 is fine here .... getting very good FPS.

for some reason xp doesnt want to install on my pc. iv been guessing its because i have a quad core and 8 gigs of ram but only 32-bit xp, and i dont have the monay to buy the 64-bit

[hoak 0]

Right now i can use the Windows 7rc , or Vista. Does anyone have a greater performance in one or the other? I have played in Vista and its pretty good but its been crashing and now Vista has been crashing all together so if its worth it for me to fix it i will but if not ill install in Win 7.

ArmA II is a DirectX 9 game, why you'd want the overhead of Windows 7 or Vista is hard to understand. Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, looks and functions identically to Windows XP (just gives up a lot of useless bloat like Windows Movie Maker) but offers one of the sleekest best behaving and fastest kernels Microsoft has rolled on an Operating System -- it can also be had for a song via OEM copies bundled with any piece of hardware, like a new DVD Burner, or sound card...

There are a few installation hoops you have to go through to get things rolling, but they're very, very easy and well documented with several guides like this one... This is in no way a 'hacked' installation of the OS, these are features all documented by Microsoft and in fact many Microsoft Developers use Server 2003 on their production workstations because it's so much better behaved and they obviously can't afford the performance drag or down time.

What you get for your effort is a fraction of the commit charge of any other Microsoft OS, benchmarks across the board that will be from 8 to 20% higher then XP running an identical service payload, and even higher still then running Vista or Windows 7.

Obviously it'sup to you as you're the one that has to use it, but I don't really look at my OS much, Microsoft's new idea of candy is just plain ugly to me, but I do look a lot at the games and applications I use and like what I see there in the way of higher frame rates, hitch free game-play, and never once seven years since beta a blue screen, crash or lockup -- Friends using S2K3 have had the same positive experience.

:butbut:

[Futur3marin3 10]

ArmA II is a DirectX 9 game, why you'd want the overhead of Windows 7 or Vista is hard to understand. Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, looks and functions identically to Windows XP (just gives up a lot of useless bloat like Windows Movie Maker) but offers one of the sleekest best behaving and fastest kernels Microsoft has rolled on an Operating System -- it can also be had for a song via OEM copies bundled with any piece of hardware, like a new DVD Burner, or sound card...

There are a few installation hoops you have to go through to get things rolling, but they're very, very easy and well documented with several guides like this one... This is in no way a 'hacked' installation of the OS, these are features all documented by Microsoft and in fact many Microsoft Developers use Server 2003 on their production workstations because it's so much better behaved and they obviously can't afford the performance drag or down time.

What you get for your effort is a fraction of the commit charge of any other Microsoft OS, benchmarks across the board that will be from 8 to 20% higher then XP running an identical service payload, and even higher still then running Vista or Windows 7.

Obviously it'sup to you as you're the one that has to use it, but I don't really look at my OS much, Microsoft's new idea of candy is just plain ugly to me, but I do look a lot at the games and applications I use and like what I see there in the way of higher frame rates, hitch free game-play, and never once seven years since beta a blue screen, crash or lockup -- Friends using S2K3 have had the same positive experience.

:butbut:

I think im going to look into that.

[binkster 0]

I have a dual boot of vista and xp and installed ArmA2 on both. I get double performance (FPS) on xp compared to vista. Vista doesnt like arma i guess.

Maybe be driver issues

[Cpt.Goose 10]

Anyone compare fps from Win XP vs. Win 7 RC ? curious to know what one is fast and if the 1gb extra with win 7 64bit (4gb installed) is better then Win XP 32bit using 3 gb (4gb installed)

[hoak 0]

Yes, XP is still faster then Windows 7... Sad isn't it? From an engineering stand point you're getting 300Mb of core OS with 3.7Gb of DRM, eye candy, and fluff -- and for better or worse Microsoft has chosen to run a lot of those new 'features & benefits' as processes and services, which means all that lipstick on the new pig competes with your games for resources...

:(

Edited June 27, 2009 by Hoak

[binkster 0]

I had 2gig ram and played with vista and it had bad performance. I updated with 4gigs of ram and still bad performance in vista. So I assume that even though vista/win7 may hog ram it still didnt help having extra ram. Win xp serioulsy doubled in FPS/performance. I really think its driver issues from nvidia/ATI. Or maybe the whole dx10 vs dx9 since ArmA2 is dx9 anyways.

[subtee 0]

I have a dual boot of vista and xp and installed ArmA2 on both. I get double performance (FPS) on xp compared to vista. Vista doesnt like arma i guess.

Maybe be driver issues

Same here

So i decided to test windows XP vs Vista. Previously i had only Vista installed.

Formatted my whole drive and started clean.

Created partitions for both operating systems and arma 2.

Installed latest updates and drivers.

Installed arma 2 and updated straight to 1.02.

Tested ArmaMark2

Texture Detail - High

Video Memory - Very High

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - High

PostProcess Effects- Disabled

Resolution - 1920 x 1080 (100%)

Cpu - Q9650 (oc 3.3ghz)

Ram - 4 gb

GPU - GTX285

Windows XP (32)

OFP Mark is

First run: 3718.97

Second run: 4306.27

With -maxmem2047= command

First Run: 3707.75

Second Run: 4486.07

Windows Vista (64)

OFP Mark Is

First Run: 2828.05

Second Run: 3243.66

With -maxmem2047= command

OFP Mark Is

First Run: 2966

Second Run: 3642.79

Also tested the first singleplayer mission,

XP seems to do better with Arma 2, more fps and the feel is more responsive because of that.

[Rista 0]

Yes, XP is still faster then Windows 7

Not in my experience, at least not in ARMA 2. I run a dual boot of Windows XP and Windows 7 and the game runs better in Win 7 for me both in benchmarks and real-life gaming. I haven't tried it on Vista but I do remember ARMA 1 running significantly better in XP in comparison to Vista.

[AliMag 0]

Hi,

I'm still waiting for my copy of the game but I tried the demo on Vista Ultimate SP1 and XP Pro SP3 and contrary on what I'm reading here Vista gave me a better framerate average than XP. The test was made using the benchmark mission.

It's the same machine with 2 disks and I have more stuff on the Vista disk that I use more often.

E6600

4870

2 Gigs RAM

Cheers

[binkster 0]

Hi,

I'm still waiting for my copy of the game but I tried the demo on Vista Ultimate SP1 and XP Pro SP3 and contrary on what I'm reading here Vista gave me a better framerate average than XP. The test was made using the benchmark mission.

It's the same machine with 2 disks and I have more stuff on the Vista disk that I use more often.

E6600

4870

2 Gigs RAM

Cheers

May be a nvidia driver issue then since you have 4870... Wish we could confirm this with other ati folks.

[hoak 0]

Not in my experience, at least not in ARMA 2. I run a dual boot of Windows XP and Windows 7 and the game runs better in Win 7 for me both in benchmarks and real-life gaming. I haven't tried it on Vista but I do remember ARMA 1 running significantly better in XP in comparison to Vista.

Then you're 'special', because ever test site that has benchmarked Windows 7 against Vista and XP has found that it runs most game benchmarks faster then Vista, but all benchmarks slower then Windows XP.

I suspect you had a mucked up Windows XP installation if Windows 7 is running ArmA II faster for you, as most people see their frame rates go up dramatically with XP or Windows 7...

:bored:

[Rista 0]

Then you're 'special', because ever test site that has benchmarked Windows 7 against Vista and XP has found that it runs most game benchmarks faster then Vista, but all benchmarks slower then Windows XP.

I suspect you had a mucked up Windows XP installation if Windows 7 is running ArmA II faster for you, as most people see their frame rates go up dramatically with XP or Windows 7...

:bored:

Actually, my XP installation is more "fresh" than the Win 7 one where I have a lot of junk installed :) If anything I was expecting the game to run better on XP for that very reason. Judging by the Arma mark thread I'm not the only one with better performance in Win 7. It's strange because the OS itself doesn't feel faster than XP but the game runs noticeably better.

[dunedain 48]

Damn Vista !! Tomorow it's format c: day, let get Seven 64bits somewhere. :)

[Binkowski 26]

YES! I'm running windows 7 64bit, it is well worth it. I greatly enjoy it. Improved my gaming performance quite a bit over Windows XP pro.

[mrcash2009 0]

I have a dual boot PC with vista 32/XP 32 .... Both installs point to the same game folder on the same drive in each O/S.

I copy the same profile folder over for both and then tested scenarios on both with same settings (using 182.50 Nvidia drivers) and I notice vista gives me the most stammers and jitters with overall less fps in general.

I cant speak for windows 7, all I know is Vista with both Arma & Grand Theft Auto IV (another known system hog) both performed better under my XP install.

Yet, arma1 ran better after the performance enhancements patch (1.08 onward) under my vista install than XP .. (I know, mental eh).

Edited June 27, 2009 by mrcash2009

[echo1 0]

Windows 7 is the best.

ArmA II is a DirectX 9 game, why you'd want the overhead of Windows 7 or Vista is hard to understand. Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, looks and functions identically to Windows XP (just gives up a lot of useless bloat like Windows Movie Maker) but offers one of the sleekest best behaving and fastest kernels Microsoft has rolled on an Operating System -- it can also be had for a song via OEM copies bundled with any piece of hardware, like a new DVD Burner, or sound card...

Problem is that Windows Server 03 (and XP64 which is based on Server 03) have some hardware and software compatibility issues, particularily with the 64 bit version. I hear, for example, that there are problems with ATIs drivers for 64bit XP/S03. The overhead on Windows 7 isnt that big, especially if you have 2GB+ of RAM, as Ive read around here that the game doesnt use that much RAM to begin with, and you customize it just like you can customize earlier Windows versions (actually, even better, it allows you to remove things like Internet Explorer xD )Either way, Windows 7 is probably the best Windows that MS has come out with in a long time, and I usually have little to no time for MS software.

[Futur3marin3 10]

ok so im pretty much going to try to do a triple boot with xp win7 and vista and see what i get.

[mrcash2009 0]

LOL ... if in doubt you cant really go wrong with that test :)

[cen4pgb 10]

If you have the ram to overcome the overhead then 7 is faster in my experience than XP, and 7s overhead is alot smaller than even the much improved vista stats with the service packs.

[Dangerdog 0]

for some reason xp doesnt want to install on my pc. iv been guessing its because i have a quad core and 8 gigs of ram but only 32-bit xp, and i dont have the monay to buy the 64-bit

Is your copy of XP slipstreamed to include Service Pack 2 at least?

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_slipstream.asp

[Futur3marin3 10]

Is your copy of XP slipstreamed to include Service Pack 2 at least?

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_slipstream.asp

i dont know.its version 2002 if you can tell me

[echo1 0]

ok so im pretty much going to try to do a triple boot with xp win7 and vista and see what i get.

I wouldnt bother with Vista if I were you, it's consistently reported to be the worst of the three. I think Windows 7 is going to do the best of them and you're probably wasting your time with XP, but if you want to try XP, fair enough.

And it should say on the disk whether it has SP2 or not.

[Futur3marin3 10]

I wouldnt bother with Vista if I were you, it's consistently reported to be the worst of the three. I think Windows 7 is going to do the best of them and you're probably wasting your time with XP, but if you want to try XP, fair enough.

And it should say on the disk whether it has SP2 or not.

ya im getting tired of trying to install xp and i think im going to try win 7

---------- Post added at 04:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------

oh and yes in it includes sp2