-bsm--sniper

Hi all, RIG in sign. 1680x1050/1680x1050 View Distance = 1600 Textures = Normal Video Memory = Default Anistronopic Filter = High Anti-Aliasing = OFF Terrain Detail = Low Objects Detail = High Shadows = Very High Post Processing = Disabled Windows 7 64b: Benchmark 1: 32fps Benchmark 2: 16fps Windows XP 32b: Benchmark 1: 59fps Benchmark 2: 20fps

Hi James, this was a strange problem, finally someone answer at my questions (but i will prefer that you can post some arma 2 benchmark between different os) and this can be a "constructive" comment if we want. If i'm the only person who has arma 2 goign slow with arma 2 (and only with arma 2, other games works well) on W7 64 that was surely related to my pc config. At this point, the only thing that can make this big difference from XP to W7 64 maybe the "nvidia sli" which works bad with Arma 2, but i have the same drivers in both OS and the arma 2 sli profile is correctly present. Now, who is guilty? Microsoft, Nvidia or BIS? Firingsquad have seen the same strange behavior, see this (but they used 190.38 drivers): http://www.firingsquad.com/print_article.asp?current_section=Home&fs_article_id=2456

There's no a perfect nvidia driver for Arma 2 in W7 64..... simply dual boot and use XP instead of W7 and Arma 2 will double performance in many circumstances... unbelievable but that's it (this happen in my 8800 GTS SLI configuration).

Arma 2 with Windows 7 64 suck! Windows XP is the perfect OS for ARMA 2 Engine, all others are slow.... See my benchmark for the difference: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=74716&page=8

Hi guys, after bis released 1.05 patch i have decided to do some internal arma 2 benchmarks to demonstrate that Windows XP works very much better than Windows 7 with Arma 2 Engine. These are the results: Windows 7 64b: Benchmark 1: 32fps Benchmark 2: 16fps Windows XP 32b: Benchmark 1: 59fps Benchmark 2: 20fps RIG in sign

i agree with celery, it's the same thing that i try to say (my bad english don't help me :)). The comparison must be done with same hardware, same drivers version (if possible), same arma 2 settings but with different OS (xp, vista and 7) on both 32bit and 64bit. The two benchmarks are incomparable because arma 2 has strange behavior when using both low or high settings with some graphic settings like shadows, video memory, ecc. My experience is that Arma 2 with my rig works very well with xp 32b and very bad with 7 64b (and both with same drivers version)

You are right zeep. Arma 2 has a strange sound behavior.... my x-fi titanium both in xp 32b and 7 64b don't work very well with 5.1 config. 3d sound effects are so bad that i can't clearly understand where the source of sound is. I can hear left and right sounds but not from the center (the sounds in centre channel seems to be almost off) ! arma 2 seems a true stereo game and i hope that BIS can implement true positional audio sound like eax or openal or somewhat they want!

There's no need to set anything.... simply set in game settings "video memory" to "default" and enjoy :)

hmm, i continue to don't understand..... from the benchmark a low end rig with xp 32bit has the same performance than a high end rig with 7 64! so, where are the advantages? I think that the high end rig maybe score more than 40 fps with xp 32 bit do you agree?

yes but i want to see the difference, in both low and high rig, between 32bit os and 64 bit.

my comparison was between windows 7 64b vs windows xp 32b. I have a raid 0 with 64KB of stripe size with a separate drive for the paging file, never had one problem with this configuration, i want more speed for all applications and games. However the problem isn't the hard disk performance but the true graphic power from the two graphics card..... maybe the SLI don't work very well in Windows 7 with Arma 2. This can be the real problem, SLI and Windows 7 with certain games can cause low performance issue, don't understand why but that is it. Effectively, in Windows 7 i don't notice any great performance boost in arma 2 between 1 vga and 2 vga in sli even if the game profile in the nvidia control panel was exactly the same. This is a big mistery... sli works very well in Windows 7 with other games but not in Arma2, who is the guilty? Microsoft with WDM1.1 and the Directx11?? Nvidia Drivers?? Arma 2 Graphic engine?? bohhhhhhh

Yes, my hard disk was defragmented by perfectdisk 10 and my paging file was on a separate drive. Actually my raid 0 has 2 partitons with XP and 7 on each partition. I repeat, same hardware and same drivers but arma 2 on xp 32b was extremely fast with higher details than Windows 7 64b. Other games like COH and Crysis were perfect on both OS

i have a dual boot and i really love Windows 7, ten steps ahead of Vista and XP... the strange thing was that any game run very well on Windows 7 except Arma2! I don't think that the problem are the process/services that run in background because on my rig Windows 7 is more faster than Windows XP on all conditions. I don't understand this strange behavior...

Hi all, after several test i can confirm that Windows XP 32b is absolutely more fast than Windows 7 64b with Arma2 (and seems to be only with arma 2!!). Same hardware, same driver version but opposite performance. I can't believe that i can set many video settings on high with windows xp while with windows 7 many of them must be set on normal or low (or deactivated). In particular, i have the same in game perfomance experience with this settings: Windows 7 64b, Arma 2 1.04 with latest beta, forceware 195.62 Texture Detail: Normal Video Memory: Default Anisotropic Filtering: High Antialiasing: None (unplayble with low) Terrain detail: Low Object detail: Normal Shadow detail: Very High Postprocess Effects: Disabled 3D resolution 1680X1050 Windows XP, Arma 2 1.04 with latest beta, forceware 195.62: Texture Detail: Normal Video Memory: Default Anisotropic Filtering: Very High Antialiasing: Low (incredibly i can set antialias!) Terrain detail: Normal Object detail: High Shadow detail: Very High Postprocess Effects: Disabled 3D resolution 1680X1050 So, my advice is to use Windows XP over any other OS without any doubt. For information, this is my rig: XFX 790I P09 Intel E8500 E0 @4,35Ghz 458x9,5 1,26v RS 2X2 GB OCZ Platinum EB PC12800 1833 mhz 8-8-8-24 1,90v LC Power METATRON 700W ATX 2.2 2xSPARKLE 8800GTS 512MB 770/1900/2250@SLI (nvidia 195.63) 2xWD640GB BLACK EDITION RAID0 SAMSUNG 226BW

Hi all, after several test i can confirm that Windows XP 32b is absolutely more fast than Windows 7 64b with Arma2 (and seems to be only with arma 2!!). Same hardware, same driver version but opposite performance. I can't believe that i can set many video settings on high with windows xp while with windows 7 many of them must be set on normal or low (or deactivated). In particular, i have the same in game perfomance experience with this settings: Windows 7 64b, Arma 2 1.04 with latest beta, forceware 195.62 Texture Detail: Normal Video Memory: Default Anisotropic Filtering: High Antialiasing: None (unplayble with low) Terrain detail: Low Object detail: Normal Shadow detail: Very High Postprocess Effects: Disabled 3D resolution 1680X1050 Windows XP, Arma 2 1.04 with latest beta, forceware 195.62: Texture Detail: Normal Video Memory: Default Anisotropic Filtering: Very High Antialiasing: Low (incredibly i can set antialias!) Terrain detail: Normal Object detail: High Shadow detail: Very High Postprocess Effects: Disabled 3D resolution 1680X1050 So, my advice is to use Windows XP over any other OS without any doubt. For information, this is my rig: XFX 790I P09 E8500 E0 @4,35Ghz 458x9,5 1,26v RS 2X2 GB OCZ Platinum EB PC12800 1833 mhz 8-8-8-24 1,90v LC Power METATRON 700W ATX 2.2 2xSPARKLE 8800GTS 512MB 770/1900/2250@SLI (nvidia 195.63) 2xWD640GB BLACK EDITION RAID0 SAMSUNG 226BW