Arma II - Operating System Peformance Comparison

[desertjedi 3]

Here's a treat. Someone actually used Arma II to compare performance between XP, Vista and 7 with the inclusion of SLI/Crossfire results too.

Windows XP is the clear winner. SLI helps a little and Crossfire seems to hurt a little. Article quote:

Considering this is a pretty new title, neither ATI or NVIDIA have had much time to optimize their driver for it. NVIDIA just get SLI support added to ARMA 2 with ForceWare 190.38, while the latest Catalyst drivers (including 9.8) lack CrossFire support for ARMA 2.

Link to Arma II page of article.

[KeyCat 131]

Nice find!

Personally I'm sticking with Windows XP Pro 32-bit until at least SP1 is out for Windows 7 64-bit (maybe longer), if it's not broken don't fix it!

I've been running Windows 7 Beta and now RC in a Virtual Machine but haven't seen any major improvements or "must have's" that will make me switch early on (and I did the same with Vista)...

Sure DirectX 11 looks nice on paper but unless I have a game/sim that fully support it it's dead weight, and it's still up in the air how good DirectX 11 actually will be. There was lots of buzz from MS about DirectX 10 when Vista was the hype but it turned out to be not as good as they said!

/KC

Edited August 26, 2009 by KeyCat

[kklownboy 43]

Here's a treat. Someone actually used Arma II to compare performance between XP, Vista and 7 with the inclusion of SLI/Crossfire results too.

Windows XP is the clear winner. SLI helps a little and Crossfire seems to hurt a little. Article quote:

Link to Arma II page of article.

hmm yeah right CFX doesnt work... and what build was it?what mission? and he is absolutely wrong about CF not in the drivers....epic fail.

[PogMoThoin 10]

Crossfire does work, I can see it (and prove if needed) using both of my cores. Its just not working very well and needs more optimising.

Pretty biassed towards the green side if You ask me, they're showing a single GTX275 performing better than a HD4890 in Windows XP at 1680x1050, I doubt it, all other tests elsewhere have shown the 4890 to have quite a gain on the 275

Edited August 26, 2009 by PogMoThoin

[-=seany=- 5]

Here's a treat. Someone actually used Arma II to compare performance between XP, Vista and 7 with the inclusion of SLI/Crossfire results too.

Windows XP is the clear winner. SLI helps a little and Crossfire seems to hurt a little. Article quote:

Link to Arma II page of article.

Yep done similar tests myself, forget upgrading hardware (unless your loaded :)) the best upgrade you can get for Arma2 is a Dual boot with WinXP (64).

"Arma2: The game so hardcore it needs its own operating system." :eek::D

[desertjedi 3]

the best upgrade you can get for Arma2 is a Dual boot with WinXP (64).

An interesting thought. I may actually keep WinXP 32-bit in a dual-boot setup with Windows 7 64-bit just to play Arma...which, tbh, is really all I play and a little Grand Ages Rome.

Currently, in Win 7, I can't get any audio when recording Arma movies in Fraps. I narrowed the problem down to the Creative audio driver. But by the time I'm really interested in Win 7, so many things may have been improved.

Edited August 27, 2009 by DesertJedi

[nukey 10]

loads of people have tryed this already,xp in most parts has no real difference in fps,over vista or w7,i think i gained about 2 fps more using xp,over vista.if you want arma to run better,best bet is,get your dosh out,your gonna need it........