Vista Ultimate X64 with loads of Ram

[echo1 0]

I do indeed. Bare in mind that it doesn't support DirectX (well, not yet) so you can't run games that require 3D graphics. Other than that, it can handle alot of things.

I noticed you mentioned Linux - if your 64bit requirements are more professional than gaming, have you considered using a 64bit Linux?

[McBoeInact 0]

arma won't even launch with 4GB on x64 for me let alone 8GB.

im guessing its an ATI driver problem or that the bigger the size of your graphics card memory then it causes problems (my ati has 1GB ram on it).

[Capt Caveman 0]

Since doing an update install of Vista 64, from XP 32, everytime I run ArmA now I get some strange and jittery grfx effects, sometimes fps is almost 1!!

My system is :-

     Computer Type                                    ACPI x64-based PC

     Operating System                                Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate

     OS Service Pack                                   Service Pack 1

     Internet Explorer                                  7.0.6001.18000

     DirectX                                                DirectX 10.0

   Motherboard:

     CPU Type                                             DualCore AMD Athlon 64 X2, 4200+

     Motherboard Name                                Gigabyte GA-K8N Pro-SLI

     Motherboard Chipset                              nVIDIA nForce4 SLI, AMD Hammer

     System Memory                                    3072 MB  (PC3200 DDR SDRAM)

     BIOS Type                                           Award Modular (02/10/06)

   

   Display:

     Video Adapter                                      NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT  (512 MB)  PCi-E x16

     Monitor                                               Xerox XM3-19w  [19" LCD]

[Yoma 0]

I don't have it yet but i recall there is some kind of directx patch too (post sp1 i think)?

Also i thought hearing the latest nvidia drivers are required?

[Yoma 0]

Well i installed it now, and i'm quite happy to see that it actually performs a bit BETTER then my xpsp3.

(in armamark on second run i get 4600 instead of 4300)

Also it seems just a bit smoother. I totally did not expect this at all.

I tested with 2GB for now. Now i'm gonna add 4GB and give it a try. So far it's looking quite good!

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

I still use 5 versions of Windows, but by far, Vista will always be my choice.

Glad to hear you like it so far.

Still curious about the 8 gig memory though.

If yours loads ArmA, the other guys here with large memory + a 1gig video card, will know where their issue may be.

[Yoma 0]

Still curious about the 8 gig memory though.

Well i've now put in the extra memory (total=6GB)

No changes in performance (as was to be expected), but in general Vista seems to like the extra ram a lot.

I think those that have problems with over 4 GB will indeed have Atidrivers that aren't fully compatible. All i can say is that on my Nvidia 8800GTX all is looking good for now.

The only problem i have with VISTA at the moment is that i can't connect to a SQL server named instance via VPN.

Other then that i had several UAC problems, but found workarounds for mostly all of them without having to disable UAC. I think the SQL problem is another UAC problem somehow. Anyone have experience with this?

edit: Solved the above problem too: somehow it will only work if you use "servername,portnumber" instead of "servername\instancename"

[DocSnyder 0]

I run Vista Ultimate 64bit, 2x ATI3870 and 8GB Corsair RAM.

ARMA still does NOT run in FUllscreen with 8gb installed.

It runs fine windowed. That really sucks.

I never - really never - had major problems running ARMA, until I installed 8GB RAM. I was hoping BIS will fix that with their 1.14 patch, but they didn't.

So I have to keep running it in Window mode :-(

[echo1 0]

Isnt there meant to be some ATi driver issue related to large amounts of RAM?

[suma 8]

I run Vista Ultimate 64bit, 2x ATI3870 and 8GB Corsair RAM.

ARMA still does NOT run in FUllscreen with 8gb installed.

It runs fine windowed. That really sucks.

I confirm this issue - it is a bug in ArmA VRAM amount computation and it happens with ATI cards running in full screen, in Vista x64 with 4 GB and more. We apologize for the inconvenience.

We hope to be able to implement some resolution - until we do, as a temporary workaround you may:

- limit RAM used and recognized by your OS to 3GB or less

- run ArmA windowed

[McBoeInact 0]

^ finally! good to hear, hopefully some sort of fix soon.

even on my system it still black screens at 3GB, it will only run fullscreen using 2GB. Im guessing because the ati card has 1GB on board too.

this is all it detects in my arma.cfg:

localVRAM=1068068864;

nonlocalVRAM=1877475328;

[suma 8]

Quote[/b] ]localVRAM=1068068864;

nonlocalVRAM=1877475328;

FYI: The 32b overflow happens once those two numbers are added together, which is something we do only for full-screen ATI because of some specifics of how ATI drivers handle video memory in full-screen mode.

[el_muerko 0]

Quote[/b] ]localVRAM=1068068864;

nonlocalVRAM=1877475328;

FYI: The 32b overflow happens once those two numbers are added together, which is something we do only for full-screen ATI because of some specifics of how ATI drivers handle video memory in full-screen mode.

Now that you have an idea of what the problem is can you give us an idea of whats going to happen next.

Being an issue with ATI cards will ATI be fixing it in their next catalyst release?

If it'll have to be a fix BIS's end will it be in the next patch and thus likely a long way off or will it be something you can resolve in the near future with maybe a hot fix?

[sickboy 13]

Awesome news Suma! So there actually was another problem, related to ATI

@Yoma; Vista's performance will indeed increase with more ram, even past 2GB, because of the super prefetcher / system cache architecture.

However, it's mostly the user experience; starting program, operating between the programs etc,  that increase.

I have yet to see real arma benefit, even with large system cache.

With slower harddrives, loading ArmA in a ramdrive might help.

But the question really is; why would someone buy 8 or even more GB ram, but not get a fast harddrive.. hmm

[suma 8]

It is not an ATI issue, it is our issue (the overflow is in our code). I am sorry, but at this moment I am unable to tell when and in what form we will release the fix.

[stefostef 0]

It is not an ATI issue, it is our issue (the overflow is in our code). I am sorry, but at this moment I am unable to tell when and in what form we will release the fix.

any news for a fix ?

[echo1 0]

Read the post from Suma that is right above yours

[el_muerko 0]

Read the post from Suma that is right above yours

that post was a while back, i cant play at the moment

[code-red 0]

Have you people thought of xp64 ?

For me that runs great on my 8800gt 4gig ram.

I personaly dont like vista for my graphics and audio work so i went for xp64.

It runs much more smooth on most apps than xp32 and i am guessing much smoother than vista to.

For me xp64 rocks.

[nephilim 0]

xp64 is worse than vista...

i have vista ultimate and 12 gig ram..

just get the latest 1.14 drivers.

arma works just fine with 64bitters then

[echo1 0]

Have you people thought of xp64 ?

For me that runs great on my 8800gt 4gig ram.

I personaly dont like vista for my graphics and audio work so i went for xp64.

It runs much more smooth on most apps than xp32 and i am guessing much smoother than vista to.

For me xp64 rocks.

XP64 isn't really XP, its like a rebranded version of Server 2003, so it can potentially have more problems than Vista, especially considering that newer games are going to be increasingly optimized for Vista.

[sickboy 13]

Read the post from Suma that is right above yours

that post was a while back, i cant play at the moment

Then why not apply some of the workarounds:

[*] Run windowed mode

[*] Add a secondary boot entry that leaves only 2 or 3GB RAM available. All you have to do is reboot into that mode when you play ArmA

Quote[/b] ]XP64 isn't really XP, its like a rebranded version of Server 2003, so it can potentially have more problems than Vista, especially considering that newer games are going to be increasingly optimized for Vista.

As 2003 is basicly a continuation of XP, it could be more stable and less problematic. But I guess you mostly mean that applications might be tuned for XP (and nowadays Vista), and 2003 isnt exactly the same as XP.

In any case, im a fan of Vista, I actually welcome and like all the differences / eye candy. But I can understand why some situations would lead to XPx64 usage, esp in video/audio editing scene. However, there's a lot more drivers available by now, and together with Vista SP1 + all hotfixes, it runs as a dream, at least for me

[echo1 0]

Quote[/b] ]XP64 isn't really XP, its like a rebranded version of Server 2003, so it can potentially have more problems than Vista, especially considering that newer games are going to be increasingly optimized for Vista.

As 2003 is basicly a continuation of XP, it could be more stable and less problematic. But I guess you mostly mean that applications might be tuned for XP (and nowadays Vista), and 2003 isnt exactly the same as XP.

That's what I was getting at, XP64 was more of a Professional's operating system from what I gathered. I'm sure some people run their games fine on XP64, I was just saying that as a general operating system, Vista 64 is probably a better choice for those with huge quantities of RAM.

[benreeper 0]

I was an avid Vista hater until I got it on my new notebook. It took me about 2 hours to get it to work like XP but when it did it won me over.

Admittedly I have yet to play games on it bit the Vista experience makes it fun just using the OS.

--Ben

[code-red 0]

Have you people thought of xp64 ?

For me that runs great on my 8800gt 4gig ram.

I personaly dont like vista for my graphics and audio work so i went for xp64.

It runs much more smooth on most apps than xp32 and i am guessing much smoother than vista to.

For me xp64 rocks.

XP64 isn't really XP, its like a rebranded version of Server 2003, so it can potentially have more problems than Vista, especially considering that newer games are going to be increasingly optimized for Vista.

Well i can tell you that xp64 (server2003) is great for me so far.

I am a game freak myself and test a lot of new pc game titles on this sytem and so far they all work for me.

For dx9* games i can realy recommend 64 bit xp

Works nice with 4gig ram to.

So none of the potential problems seen that you discribe.

I did have those problems with vista do.