Best windows for Arma 2: XP / Vista / Seven ?

[dkd 10]

My system: Q9300@3.01\ASUS X48\4GB\4870 512mb, screen res: 1680x1050, all settings are "very high", distance view=2006, fillrate=100% . I could hardly call it playable on WinXP64-bit with these settings because of there were the huge texture lags, freezes and very LOD issues. The lowering of the video settings gave me neither noticeable increasing of fps nor getting rid of the graphic issues I had. Also I tried it to run on Vista64bit with the same result.

I've just installed Win7(64-bit build 7229) and I am totally amazed by the fact that now the game runs very smoothly(all the settings are as above mentioned), the average fps increases by about 15 - 25%, the most of graphical issues are disappeared or become less visible. I have no idea why this happened on my system but the total performance in Win7 is more better than when I'was running the game in WinXP&Vista!

Sorry for bad English!

Edited June 17, 2009 by dkd

[nzjono 10]

Update: Played again today and everything had reverted back to 30-35ish FPS..I just dont understand. It was rock solid yesterday. Saw another post someone had the same early success with a fresh Vista 64 install then later it dropped back. Im pinning my hopes on some new super Nvidia drivers and a super patch to coincide with the retail Australian release next month.

Seems like my fix is a one shot thing. Maybe its the over zealous copyright protection that detects on the restart that the main arma2.exe has been altered and forces things back to stock or something..meeeeh Ive tried everything else...Ill just play with crap framerate untill a fix appears.

Edited June 17, 2009 by nzjono

[pchaxor 0]

For older systems WinXP would be likely since it uses less resources.

For newer systems I would go with Win 7.

I use Windows 7 RC and the textures and such seem to flow very nicely and performance is not too bad either. My specs listed below.

[BushidoUK 10]

Update: Played again today and everything had reverted back to 30-35ish FPS..I just dont understand. It was rock solid yesterday. Saw another post someone had the same early success with a fresh Vista 64 install then later it dropped back. Im pinning my hopes on some new super Nvidia drivers and a super patch to coincide with the retail Australian release next month.

Seems like my fix is a one shot thing. Maybe its the over zealous copyright protection that detects on the restart that the main arma2.exe has been altered and forces things back to stock or something..meeeeh Ive tried everything else...Ill just play with crap framerate untill a fix appears.

I have the same hardware as you so tried the cmnds to the exe and renamed it. worked a treat 60fps all the way through.

Then the game became quite unstable with crashing out when playing and now the game is back to 30fps...nothing I can change will get it above that line.

Strange...

[W1NDOWL1CKER 10]

I'm running Vista x64, look at my systemspecs below.

With my lowly HD4850, with all settings on HIGH except AA and AF on low, I get an average framerate of 30-34 fps, so the problem can't be Vista.

[Albert 10]

Hi Guys,

My spec. is:

• an ATI 3870 X2 1GB
  
• Intel Quad Q6600 2.4GHz
  
• Crucial Ballistix PC2-6400 4GB RAM
  
• Vista 64-bit
  
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB hard drive
  

I have to set the texture detail and video memory to low. Otherwise turning around with the mouse or when trying to zoom in and aim is incredibly slow. I can't even set these options to Normal as it would still be slow.

All the rest of the options are set to their max. It's just the texture detail and video memory options that need to be set at their lowest to be playable.

I'm playing the game on the same partition that includes my bootable OS installed on it.

My visibility was set at 1600 which was the default when I first started the game. I've tried setting visibility down to the lowest (500) and then texture detail and video memory to Normal, the gameplay still slows to a crawl.

Game resolution is 1152x864.

Just can't understand why the extreme slow down if I up those 2 options.

Might it be:

• Graphics driver even though using latest (official Catalyst 9.6 from AMD site). My card is a HIS brand.
  
• Framerate improves if game installed on a separate partition/HD
  
• The HD cable as it is longer than really needs to be
  
• Bottleneck from the motherboard or SATA slot
  
• Vista x64 is the culprit
  

Maybe I should try it on XP x64?

Thanks for any suggestions

Edited July 14, 2009 by Albert

[echo1 0]

I'm running Vista x64, look at my systemspecs below.

With my lowly HD4850, with all settings on HIGH except AA and AF on low, I get an average framerate of 30-34 fps, so the problem can't be Vista.

Results can vary from machine to machine, but from what comparitive tests have been done, if you replace Windows Vista with 7 or XP, you'd probably get even better frames.

[p75 10]

Tested xp 32 and win 7 64. Windows 7 wins handsdown. I don't know why people state that xp 32 runs better. Here it absolutely doesn't. X2 6400, 2 GB and 8800GTX.

[santafee 10]

fact is xp runs worls better then vista

i allready installed XP as secount OS but i definitly will not install a third OS just cause Arma is absolutly shitty optimized and get 3 fps more then..

give us patch 1.3................

[knurre77 10]

specs core 2 duo e8500 3,16 8 gig ram , gtx 285

ditched windows 7 for xp 64 bit can run the game now with view distance 3000 almost all high settings , with much higer resolution the i had in windows 7 frames between 30-40 & 60++++ when in air

So for me xp 64 bit gave a major improvment

[Pteradon 0]

I went from Vista x64 to 7,

gave me about 5 frames more,

and the game overall seems to be running smoother.

[Albert 10]

Hi Guys,

My spec. is:

• an ATI X3870 X2 1GB
  
• Intel Quad Q6600 2.4GHz
  
• Crucial Ballistix PC2-6400 4GB RAM
  
• Vista 64-bit
  
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB hard drive
  

I have to set the texture detail and video memory to low. Otherwise turning around with the mouse or when trying to zoom in and aim is incredibly slow. I can't even set these options to Normal as it would still be slow.

All the rest of the options are set to their max. It's just the texture detail and video memory options that need to be set at their lowest to be playable.

I'm playing the game on the same partition that includes my bootable OS installed on it.

My visibility was set at 1600 which was the default when I first started the game. I've tried setting visibility down to the lowest (500) and then texture detail and video memory to Normal, the gameplay still slows to a crawl.

Game resolution is 1152x864.

Just can't understand why the extreme slow down if I up those 2 options.

Might it be:

• Graphics driver even though using latest (official Catalyst 9.6 from AMD site). My card is a HIS brand.
  
• Framerate improves if game installed on a separate partition/HD
  
• The HD cable as it is longer than really needs to be
  
• Bottleneck from the motherboard or SATA slot
  
• Vista x64 is the culprit
  

Maybe I should try it on XP x64?

Thanks for any suggestions

Well guys, I've installed the game onto my other XP x64 hard drive and with my system, hardly any difference in performance.

I can set the texture detail and video memory options to normal and the gameplay is a bit faster than in Vista but still not at a playable rate. I found the graphics look much better in vista, even with low texture detail. Maybe because of DX 10?

So is it my hardware which I think is unlikely or the game has not been optimised? Though my HD and graphics card fan does sound to be working quite hard when playing.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Albert

[danowen 0]

Update: Played again today and everything had reverted back to 30-35ish FPS..I just dont understand. It was rock solid yesterday. Saw another post someone had the same early success with a fresh Vista 64 install then later it dropped back. Im pinning my hopes on some new super Nvidia drivers and a super patch to coincide with the retail Australian release next month.

Seems like my fix is a one shot thing. Maybe its the over zealous copyright protection that detects on the restart that the main arma2.exe has been altered and forces things back to stock or something..meeeeh Ive tried everything else...Ill just play with crap framerate untill a fix appears.

vista takes about 2 days to settle into a system hog with a fresh install.

[pj[cz] 2]

Hi,

just a few hours ago i decided to give win7 a shot and I must say after few hours with them its love on first sight. I went from vista x64 to win 7 x64 by the way.

Although first disappointment was that i had to ease on my overclock (from 3.6 to 3.4 Ghz) because win7 for some reason gave me bluscreens in 3dmark (although it withstand a brutal 12hr burn in stability test in vista)

First thing i tried was 3dMark2006 and although my cpu is now clocked a little less i had around 500 3dMarks more than in vista (12760 against 12230)

Than i installed Arma2, patched to 1.02 latest and copied my user settings to assure i feel at home. After that i immedeatly fired ArmaMark and what a surprise it was. At the same graphical settings as in vista (where my armamark score was 3190.XX) I scored 4299.9 points :O. Thats almost 30% right there lol. And the gameplay feels so smooth now even tho I took the chance to set some settings even higher.

So for me its definitaly bye bye vista, welcome seven

PS> The version of win7 is 7100RC, all drivers are the vista 64 drivers same as before (including nvidias 182.50s). Rig is in sig although its now only Phenom II x2 550 @3.4Ghz

[firestormxs 0]

I went form Seven to XP, and there was a noticeable increase in performance.

[private plowjoy 0]

I went form Seven to XP, and there was a noticeable increase in performance.

Yeah but for how long?

When I fire the Arma2 client up, after a fresh reboot it runs beautifully with almost all in-game settings set to Very High.

After about 30 mins of MP gaming, it's slowed down so that its about half the performance and then it will CTD.

I think there's a lot more to statements of performance in Arma2 than just "Its faster". What we should do is start to collate all this information with a standard set of criteria such as...

PC Spec

OS

Resolution

In-game settings

Out-game settings

Performance in MP - First 30 mins

Performance in MP - Subsequent 30 mins

Performance in SP - One Mission - First 30 mins

Performance in SP - One Mission - Subsequent 30 mins

Or something along those lines. That way we can start to analyse the results and start to put a picture together of where the common break points are. Otherwise all we'll continue to see are statements like this one, that without any context are meaningless.

[dynamic.zman 10]

Yeah but for how long?

When I fire the Arma2 client up, after a fresh reboot it runs beautifully with almost all in-game settings set to Very High.

After about 30 mins of MP gaming, it's slowed down so that its about half the performance and then it will CTD.

I think there's a lot more to statements of performance in Arma2 than just "Its faster". What we should do is start to collate all this information with a standard set of criteria such as...

PC Spec

OS

Resolution

In-game settings

Out-game settings

Performance in MP - First 30 mins

Performance in MP - Subsequent 30 mins

Performance in SP - One Mission - First 30 mins

Performance in SP - One Mission - Subsequent 30 mins

Or something along those lines. That way we can start to analyse the results and start to put a picture together of where the common break points are. Otherwise all we'll continue to see are statements like this one, that without any context are meaningless.

I'm sure this has been said before but, the game probably has a serious memory leak that's why performance drops over time.

[private plowjoy 0]

I'm sure this has been said before but, the game probably has a serious memory leak that's why performance drops over time.

Yeah, it's a sure-fire thing.

[wills 10]

just updated from dual core, to quad core and also new motherboard and 1333 mz ram??? same gpu (nvidia 295 GTX) and machine 40% slower

---------- Post added at 03:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 AM ----------

i`m using windows xp

---------- Post added at 03:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 AM ----------

gutted

[Bulldogs 10]

Yup, there's a memory leak that people are experiencing.

Lower the video memory setting in video options which will slow it from occuring so often, then when it starts slowing down, hold shift then hit the keypad minus key (-) then blind type "flush" without the quotes (pretty sure it wad flush, someone correct me if I'm wrong)

that should clear the memory cache an improve performance for a while. It's a temporary solution but something til a patch is released.

[Albert 10]

Yup, there's a memory leak that people are experiencing.

Lower the video memory setting in video options which will slow it from occuring so often, then when it starts slowing down, hold shift then hit the keypad minus key (-) then blind type "flush" without the quotes (pretty sure it wad flush, someone correct me if I'm wrong)

that should clear the memory cache an improve performance for a while. It's a temporary solution but something til a patch is released.

Does that explain why I need to set texture details and video memory to their lowest settings otherwise I experience incredibly slow performance? Sorry, I'm not very technical.

HIS 3870 X2 1GB

Intel Quad Q6600 2.4GHz

Crucial Ballistix PC2-6400 4GB RAM

Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB hard drive

Vista 64-bit

[firestormxs 0]

Yeah, it's a sure-fire thing.

There is. Over time the game's performance will drop, and eventually CTD. Hell, I've even had errors pop up saying that my system has run out of memory (I'm running 2GB) and the game crashes--though, that was only in SP.

My performance in MP is always much higher than in SP.

Yup, there's a memory leak that people are experiencing.

Lower the video memory setting in video options which will slow it from occuring so often, then when it starts slowing down, hold shift then hit the keypad minus key (-) then blind type "flush" without the quotes (pretty sure it wad flush, someone correct me if I'm wrong)

that should clear the memory cache an improve performance for a while. It's a temporary solution but something til a patch is released.

I did not know that about the 'flush' command. Thanks! I was wondering if there was something like that. Very helpful.

[Jackdaniels 10]

I do not think Vista is to blame. I am using Vista x64 on my primary development computer and it is running great for me. You should definitely get better performance with the setup you have, as it is even superior to what I have. For comparison, my current setup is:

Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz

nVidia 8800 GT

8 GB RAM

Vista x64

It might be some incompatibility between some of your drivers or system components - this is really hard to tell.

I have Vista and better specs then Suma, yet I only get 16-25 Fps? looks like he Suma sees no problem with vista and even states his the game is "running great." So what exactly is going on here?

I would also like to mention that I have never had any problems with any other game.

[flake 10]

tried Win7-64 instead of Vista-32. pretty much same fps, then it crashed :D

[Bulldogs 10]

In a lot of cases, switching to Windows XP (or starting Arma 2 with -winxp) has fixed it, but switching from Vista to 7 may not help since it's the same directx 10 core behind each build. (I say "may not" because it depends if it's direct x or something else that's causing the problem)

On a side note to that, the game runs a lot better under Windows XP, but then again, what doesn't (being that windows xp runs DX 9, so it looks worse)

I'd like to know the settings everyone is running on (most important being the resolution)

If you're running a 2.4GHz CPU and an 8800GT then you should expect about 20-26 fps average at 1280x1024, if you're running a higher resolution then expect lower (18-22 maybe) This being because the CPU and 8800gt are older and have trouble keeping up now days (mainly the speed of the CPU)

Here's a good link of some results while running under 1280x1024 that may help

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/

I should mention that I've had some complaints saying that an 8800gt and q6600 (it's a common setup) should be able to run the game fine, but keep in mind that they are both older examples of hardware and I'd be very surprised if they didn't struggle with Arma 2.