luemmel 20 Posted October 9, 2006 Several game magazines tested some actual game titels with direct x 9 support (e.g. BF2, Fear) under Windows Vista RC1. They found out that the general performance is reduced by approx. 15% (frame rate) against XP. Armed Assault uses direct x 9. What do you think? Should we avoid Windows Vista to have maximum game performance for Armed Assault? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Goeth 0 Posted October 9, 2006 Or should we wait for the final vista and see if there is still a fps drop on dx9 games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr_Tea 0 Posted October 10, 2006 A few hours ago i installed Vista RC2, it runs fine. What holds back game performance are the beta drivers for video and audiohardware. With final drivers the games will run better than under XP, because of the new driver structure that is less performance hungry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
luemmel 20 Posted October 10, 2006 but the performance reduction is caused by the new 3d desktop architecture. the drivers shouldn't be the problem. future games with direct x 10 will run much more better but not with direct x9 - so far the statements from some developers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted October 10, 2006 @ Oct. 10 2006,01:03)]Or should we wait for the final vista and see if there is still a fps drop on dx9 games. Sounds like smart advice to me. ArmA isn't out yet, Vista isn't out yet, seems to me there is nothing to discuss until the point where they're both out Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
