Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

-bsm--sniper

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    15

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by -bsm--sniper

  1. Posted

    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

  2. Posted · Edited by [bsm]-sniper

    Thanks for that "constructive" comment.

    I've had, with the same hardware, a ~10 FPS average increase with Windows 7 64-bit over XP (both fresh installs), so I'm quite happy to stick with it. Another guy in my squad has, equally, had several FPS increase with W7 64-bit. It really does depend on your hardware configuration.

    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

  6. Posted

    The test is worthless because it doesn't have both 32 bit and 64 bit operating systems on the same hardware. It's like comparing a slow car on asphalt and a fast one in cross country, the comparison is simply useless because you don't know how they perform on the same surface, let alone how the surface affects them.

    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)

  7. Posted

    Thanks for confirming.

    Apart from not having 3D sound, the worst thing is in-game sounds are louder to the sides than in the center. Still, i believe BIS can fix it all by simply programming the audio engine to be more compatible. Maybe add more drivers to it or something.

    ARMA2, since i've aquired it, has made me purchase another CPU and at the moment i'm saving up for a new GPU and PSU to go with that. I'm not going to switch OS too.. that's just too much of a man to ask ;)

    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!

  11. Posted · Edited by [bsm]-sniper

    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

  12. Posted · Edited by [bsm]-sniper

    i have tried both xp/7 64bit, not much difference in arma2 at least not significant! in fact i like arma2 on 7 more than xp, i thought the picture is crispier in 7 than xp, there could be something that you need to update to make compatible with 7? have you defraged your drive! have you moved your pagefile to separate drive away from arma2 and set pagefile min=max!

    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

  13. Posted · Edited by [bsm]-sniper

    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...

  14. Posted

    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

  15. Posted

    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

×