Huge performance gap between WinXP and Windows 7

[colej_uk 10]

Hi,

I dual boot Windows 7 64bit and Windows XP 32bit, and have noticed quite a huge performance difference between the two.

My specs are as follows:

Q6600 OCed to 2.7Ghz (I am one of the few unlucky ones who can't OC very far :( )

XFX GTX260 XXX Edition

8Gb DDr2 800mhz

Game installed on Raid0 drive for both OSs.

V1.02

On Windows 7, I am getting about 30-35fps max while running around with no ai or action, 15-25fps when there is ai and action happening. This is on normal settings @ 1680x1050, fill rate 100%, no post-processing or AA, draw distance 2500ish. Also in windows 7 I do not get the option to increase texture settings past normal, or video memory.

On Windows XP 32-bit however, I have the option to turn up the textures and video memory to high/very high. I also get frame rates of 35-50fps while running around and 20-35fps in combat on high/very high settings.

I also get minor video glitches in Windows 7, like sometimes the terrain will turn a much darker green for a while- this doesn't happen too often, usually when I'm flying around at medium hight. I've tried using the '-winxp' parameter in Win7, but it doesn't seem to make a difference. There is also a lot more stuttering in Window 7.

ArmA mark scores below, settings @ normal apart from disabled post processing:

Windows 7 64bit:

Test 1: 22.8249

Test 2: 32.1004

Test 3: 22.8876

Test 4: 32.7511

Test 5: 10.6998

Score: 2425.27

Windows XP 32bit:

Test 1: 44.7231

Test 2: 37.5595

Test 3: 28.3349

Test 4: 41.7537

Test 5: 10.6078

Score: 3259.58

This is certainly a significant performance difference, and I hope there is a fix or one in the near future. Is anybody else having similar problems? I would really like to get this working properly on Win7, because I use that the most.

[electron-libre 10]

I've noticed the opposite.

Upgrading to Win7 64 gave me an extra fps boost.

By the way it may be related to your version of video driver, or your directX9 version or disk fragmentation. Probably your motherboard chipset driver too.

[technologickill 10]

Seeing your specs (8GB + NVIDIA GTX + WIN7 64) i think you have the 256MB VRAM bug under WIN7. Are u using a driver newer than 182.50? Check your ArmA.cfg for the localVRAM value in your XP and Seven profile ... any difference?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1318106&postcount=64

Edited June 22, 2009 by technologickill

[derskusmacher 10]

i think you have the 256MB VRAM bug under WIN7.

Is there any way to fix this bug? I just checked and dxdiag is saying that my video card is only 256 mb, when I know it is 512.

Edit: trying out the driver versions in that post you linked.

Edited June 22, 2009 by derskusmacher

[ahmedjbh 0]

im surprised this question has not been resolved.

Can other people let us know how it performs on 7 and xp64?

[Easun 10]

oops. Didn't see this thread. Yeah windows xp does make the game smoother(for me at least). No more hang ups and/or lag for me, except for the occasional stutter here and there.

I installed windows xp x64.

[bangtail 0]

im surprised this question has not been resolved.

Can other people let us know how it performs on 7 and xp64?

XP 64 is vastly superior to Vista/Win 7 in my experience.

First off, as an i7 user, I have an annoying stutter in W7/Vista that can only be alleviated by disabling HT. Further to that the game is not stable under W7/Vista even using 182.50 which gets rid of the 256MB problem and allows you to select all options under "texture memory" and "texture quality", I still get random "Cannot commit" problems and stutters (these can take hours to manifest) that I don't get under XP 64 with HT enabled and using the latest drivers (186.18).

I also had some weird spiking problem before where the processor was going from 40% use to 80% use and causing a lot of unnecessary lag. My guess is that this game was only really tested under XP because it runs pretty flawlessly tbh compared to the mess that is A2 under W7/Vista.

NB : Some of these problems seem to be specific to i7 and/or SLI.

Eth

Edited June 22, 2009 by BangTail

[shadowze 1]

Using my PC as in sig

Not much of a difference between xp32 and win 7 32

using arma2 mark I got

xp sp3 186.18drivers arma ver 1.02 = 5425.71

win7 186.18drivers arma ver 1.02 = 5198

[ahmedjbh 0]

Thanks for the info guys, i think i will go for xp64.

i have gone for the phenom 955 route, anyone have any info of that processor and xp64 and win7 - 64?

[colej_uk 10]

Thanks for responces guys.

The installs are running from the same defragmented drive, so that shouldn't be the problem. I was using the 168.18 drivers, but my dxdiag is also reporting that my card has only 366mb of vram when it has 896mb. This could be whats making the performance worse than it should be.

I will try 182.5 drivers and see if it makes a difference.

Shadowze: Thats the difference I would of been expecting from xp and 7, with 7 being only a little behind due to it being a new OS and it having debugging code in the RC release.

[Placebo 29]

Running beta builds of both ArmA 2 and Win7 I noticed almost identical FPS, and this was at a time when Win7 was installed on a spare IDE HDD which runs at 40mb/s whereas my main SATA ones run at 80mb/s.

[jumpinghubert 49]

xp-32bit sp3: 5300 Armamarks

win7 RC : 4900 Armamarks

with win7 i have lower cpu-usage (xp average 70%, win7 average 60% in the same scenario).

[Porter_ 10]

somewhat related - how does Win 7 64 compare to Vista 64? i'm desperate to increase performance without having to upgrade to an i7. has anyone gone from Vista 64 to Win 7 64 and noticed an increase in performance?

[bangtail 0]

Yep, I'd agree that the "ArmA2 - Marks" are close, but the XP experience is much smoother (again, my experience) and considerably more stable. That "cannot commit" error doesn't happen that often but it's still a pain and I'd rather not run the 182.50 drivers for one game. I'll be happy to play A2 under Win 7 when they sort the drivers out and when said drivers detect memory properly and fix the broken menus (where some of the options are missing)

Eth

Edited June 22, 2009 by BangTail

[shadowze 1]

Like placebo

Iam running win 7 on an olde drive

xp on 300G sataII drive

win7 32bit on olde sataI drive

The olde drive benchmarks about 30% slower than xp one

Games are on another sataII drive

[Placebo 29]

Like placebo

Iam running win 7 on an olde drive

I should add that Win7 is now my main OS and I finally got it cloned to my primary HDD, just haven't had chance to try ArmA2 of late.

[colej_uk 10]

Does anybody have a download link to 182.5 drivers for windows 7 64bit?

Tbh, I would rather have the latest drivers installed anyway for the sake of other games. I might just wait until BI/Nvidia fix these problems. The VRAM detection problem is definitely an issue that needs to be sorted.

[technologickill 10]

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x64_182.50_whql.html ... only VISTA drivers available but they work with 7 too

[dkd 10]

In my case everything is vice versa - the game runs much more smoothly under Win7 64bit than WinXP64bit with the same video/option settings.

My rig: Q9300@3.3\4870 512mb\4Gb .

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Does anybody have a download link to 182.5 drivers for windows 7 64bit?

Tbh, I would rather have the latest drivers installed anyway for the sake of other games. I might just wait until BI/Nvidia fix these problems. The VRAM detection problem is definitely an issue that needs to be sorted.

186.18 whql 64bit

186.18 whql 32bit

They are for both Vista and W7, you should try those before going backwards.