An Fiach 10 Posted June 24, 2009 does forcing vsync off really make a difference to the FPS? vsync is horrible in most games as far as affecting performance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Porter_ 10 Posted June 24, 2009 so what can i do with an ati card to force vsync off in vista 64? i searched for it but found nothing helpful. i get same fps whatever setting i use too.thx in advance ASUS P5Q-E Intel 2 Duo @ 3,0GHz 4GB Ram ATI 4850 512MB Creative X-Fi extreme music you have to download ATI tray tools and set up a custom game profile with Vsync forced off. i had to download the latest beta to get the option to force vsync. if you're on Vista 64 you'll need to find a way around the driver signing issue. google it, there are ways to do it. the whole process is a bit of a pain in the ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heatseeker 0 Posted June 24, 2009 (edited) does forcing vsync off really make a difference to the FPS? No, it allows the max frame rate to go above the display's refresh rate (like 60) but if you have low fps it wont make any diference, if you have great fps (above the display refresh rate) it can make the effect knows as screen tearing, its best to have v-sync on. edit: I think XP SP2 compatbility mode helped a bit, just right click the Arma II shortcut > propeties > compatbility tab > XP SP2 > apply. I still have some bad lods, mostly noticeable on trees and houses.. Edited June 24, 2009 by Heatseeker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1longtime 10 Posted September 14, 2009 (edited) This thread is now approximately 3 months old, but I don't think this problem was ever answered. I have almost doubled performance using Windows XP over Windows Vista 32bit. My specs: Quad Core Q6600 2.4 GHz OC'ed to 3GHz XFX Nvidia Motherboard 4GB RAM Hard drives are SATA and well defragged two Nvidia 8800 GTX in SLI on 190.62 drivers (I have tried rolling back to 182.50 and 186.18 with no performance improvement). I have confirmed that SLI is working in Vista (in OS and during gameplay). ArmAII-Mark in Vista: 2,100 In XP: 3,900 The extra 8800 GTX seems to make no difference when I boot into Vista. I have tried all the "tweaks" for Nvidia users in these forums. Something else is holding it back. Maybe CPU. But it isn't a problem in XP. What could possibly make that much difference in performance in Vista and not XP? I've heard "maybe Vista uses too many resources," but really... this machine is not weak, and idle CPU usage is 2% or less. It's hard to believe that Vista is using all the resources of 4GB RAM and 4 cores of CPU. So: Why would ArmA 2 run so poorly with Vista? Anyone with ideas? Edited September 14, 2009 by 1longtime Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bulldogs 10 Posted September 14, 2009 I'm guessing you've tried running with the -winxp command under Vista? I'm not sure what it is otherwise. Windows XP actually only runs a little faster than Vista for me, but that's due to the way that Vista was designed, so I'm not sure why people get a massive frame rate difference in Vista but it just seems that on a lot of setups, Vista doesn't run Arma 2 well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SWAT_BigBear 0 Posted September 14, 2009 Turning off UAC (User Account Control) helped me a lot when I was using Vista64 and ArmA1. 8800GTX SLI (though I kept it disabled in Nvidia ArmA profile for lack of support). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
noobiewarrior 10 Posted September 15, 2009 Having same issues as you mateI run: Vista Ultimate 64 Q6850 3ghz 8 gig DDR3 GTX295 Also i renamed my exe to Crysis64.exe and i must admit i get an extra 10 fps :) I get 20 to 30 fps now, even withmy rig most of the config is set to normal/disabled and a couple on high I should be able to have everything set to MAX :) I've seen this suggestion a bunch of places on the BI forums but do not understand it. is the idea to rename arma2.exe to crysis64.exe (and presumably change the shortcut accordingly)? why would this have any effect? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Greg 0 Posted September 15, 2009 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. Suma, could you please tell us what resolution you run the game at? I have almost the exact same system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
