WinXP,Vista,Win7 FPS Test Results=

[Fakum]

I will post my results tomorrow I hope, but I set up a triple boot config, all things set equally, Vista with the script running, basically doubled my frame rates over XP. Windows 7 really was bad. it was only slightly more than XP, im pretty bummed out.

 

 

Next day results=

Ok, I had some improved results today. Let me start off by saying that I originally had Win XP Pro 32 and Vista Ultimate 64 compared, and Vista’s FPS with the affinity tool blew XP away. I was anxious to make a comparison between Vista Ultimate 64 and Windows 7 Ultimate Beta 64. So what I have set up is one hard drive / 3 partions, each with their own operating system. I will say that I struggled with the Nvidia drivers in Win 7; some would not even allow me to click on the single player screen (as mentioned here)

This is what I see when I launch and close DCS in Windows 7 Beta Build 7000

Those drivers that did work, I found that while in the menus, I would get some screen flickering. Today, I uninstalled the Nvidia driver I had installed, deleted the c:\Nvidia directory, rebooted, let Win 7 load a standard vga driver. Then I did a Microsoft update, and Microsoft offered an Nvidia driver 179.43. Now I hesitated as I had previously tried 181.71/185.20 & 182.47. I wound up letting windows install this 179.43 driver and it turned out great. No problems loading the game or with menu flickering. With that said, ultimately, Vista still came out the winner. The following are the results of my testing. Others may bear different results, and if anyone has an opinion that may improve Windows 7 performance, I would love to test it.

Conditions were:

-BlackSharkTutorial01.miz map loaded (this can be downloaded as it is not a default map)

-Track IR = Off

-Cougar HOTAS= Disconnected

-Nvidia control settings were set equally on all Operating systems.

-Game options were set equally on all Operating systems

-Game graphic settings were ALL maxed out.

-Game resolution set at 2560 x 1600

-Windows XP Pro Nvidia driver = 178.24

-Windows Vista Nvidia driver = 182.08

-Windows 7 Nvidia driver = 179.43

-Note Forcing Vsync on or off showed no FPS differences in my testing

-FPS read from cockpit view and external (F2) view at time of 300.000

FPS as follows:

Win XP: Cockpit = 16 / External = 25

Windows Vista no affinity tool: Cockpit = 21 / External = 38

Windows Vista with affinity tool: Cockpit = 32 / External = 58

Windows 7 no affinity tool: Cockpit = 21 / External = 35

Windows 7 with affinity tool: Cockpit = 31 / External = 49

System Specs:

Tower = LIAN LI PC-61

Mobo = GIGABYTE GA-X38-DQ6 LGA 775 Intel X38 ATX Ultra Durable 2(BIOS F7)

Power Supply = Thermaltake Purepower TWV 500W

CPU = Intel Core 2 Q6600 GO Stepping (Over Clocked to 3.6)

CPU Heat Sync = Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme CPU Cooler Model U-120E

CPU Heat Sync Fan = Scythe S-FLEX 120mm Case Fan, 1600 RPM Model SFF21F

CPU Heat Sync Thermal Paste = Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound

Memory = Crucial Ballistix 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM 800 (PC2 6400) (4-4-4-12 @ 2.2v)

Hard Drive = Western Digital WD1600YS SATA 2 Triple Boot(Windows XP Pro 32, Vista Ultimate 64, Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Beta build 704

GPU = EVGA GeForce 8800GTS (G92) 512MB 256bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0

DVD/CD Burner = Asus DVD Burner DRW-2014L1T SATA 2

Sound Card = Razer Barracuda AC-1 Gaming Sound Card

Monitor = Gateway XHD3000 30" Widescreen (2560 x 1600 resolution)

Fantom G-Force GF500EU 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache USB 2.0 / eSATA External Hard Drive

Cougar HOTAS & Rudders

TrackIR 4 Pro

[Feuerfalke]

I noticed you use Ultimate, too. If you adjust the installed addons to your needs and set it up right, the gain is even bigger.

 

There are quite a few articles online, which support your point. Though Windows7 has a much better publicity campaign, it is basically Vista with a facelift.

 

Example:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/11/10/46TC-windows-7_1.html

 

This article tests memory usage, processes running and accesses under Win7 and they are 99% identical to Vista. You can also easily use most of the Vista-Drivers for Win7.

 

As it was earlier stated by Microsoft themselves, the major difference between Vista and Win7 is the installation: Vista installed everything available, Win7 installs what the user needs.

[Skypat]

hello

 

you waste your time (no offense) because you won't have any improvement with Windows 7 x64 compared to Vista x64

 

same result for last 7057 vista7 x64 build

 

the major difference is also a OS more user friendly :)

 

best regards

Skypat

[Rikus]

Fakun, only a very few fly in that resolution.

 

I think you should use 1680x1050 the most extended.

 

Also for Windows XP use 181.20 whql

 

Greetings

[Brach]

Great work mate, thanks for your efforts!

 

Maybe you could include some other common resolutions (if you have the time). There are lots of us out there who also use lower resolutions like 1280x1024 and others.

 

Nice tests though, I for sure was curious to see how much of a potential difference there would be between vista and windows 7.

[connos]

Also can you report how the game feels, is it more smooth does it stutters more less???

[Fakum]

Thanks for the feedback so far gentleman, that is what I was looking for. I plan on doing more research into this as time permits. My hope is that I can get Win 7 to ultimately run as well FPS wise as Vista is. Reason is that although I am not fluent with either OS, I initially find Windows 7 more user friendly and generally over all I have a better feeling for it compared to Vista. I havnt had time to do any extensive flying to make any comparisons between vista and win7 as far as smoothness goes, I plan on it though. Next thing I have slated to work on is the Nvidia Control Panel Settings, another area I am no expert at. There are a lot of settings in there to mess with, and I need to learn their effects. So, for the benefit of others, feel free to continue with suggestions etc, even if you feel Vista is the way to stay, that’s fine, I will settle with the winner, just please offer settings suggestions etc. Thanks all,

[TheMoose]

From what I’ve seen from different URL, as a gamming rig vista 64 does not seem to yield better results then the 32 bit version. Actually seems the 32 bit version yields slightly better results. I can’t confirm since I don’t have the 64bit version of the OS.

 

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/64-bit-vista-gaming,2250.html

[Fakum]

Now thats a different subject entirely,,,,,,,,:smartass:

[Mr_Blastman]

I think it is a pile that ED won't release the patch so us XP users can get the multicore love.

[Sunburst]

Hello all,

 

This is my first post in here but im a long time lurker :D

 

Just want to add a little test to the topic.

 

 

I did a test between Win Xp 32 and Win7 (build 7048 X64).

 

Sorry no Vista x64 test in this one (did not have it installed)

 

Test setup:

 

 

Intel Core I7 920 (OC@3,9GHz)

Gigabyte EX58-UD4P bios F6

6 Gig Corsair Dominator 1600mhz DDR3

XFX Nvidia Geforce GTX280 1Gb OC@700 1500 1205mhz

HDD: Samsung spinpoint F1 1TB

Creative Xi-Fi Xtreme music

Saitek X45 throttle

MS sidewinder precision 2 joystick

Tir 3 Pro

single Samsung 22" Flatscreen

 

Nvidia Drivers for WinXP: 182.08

For Win7 i used the VistaX64 drivers 182.08 as the Win7 beta's wont allow me to use Rivatuner for overclocking, so i have not tested nvidia Win7 beta's

they might even run better but vista drivers run just fine.

only driver problem i have with Win7 is the black line tearing when using the mouse in the menu's en mission editor.

 

 

screen res 1650x1080x32bit

Settings all maxed out except water (normal)

 

Nvidia control panel settings:

AF 8x AA 8x Gamma correction:ON

AA transparacy: OFF

Conf texture clamp: USE HARDWARE

Force Mipmaps: NONE

Texture Filtering neg LOD bias: CLAMP

Texture Filtering: HIGH Quality

Triple buffering:ON

Vsync:Force ON

all other options used global default.

 

Test was taken on the tarmac at Nal' Chik base with engines running and sitting in the cockpit fully zoomed out (eats more frames)

Addon's Used: SIMMOD LoReload textures and Dragons airbase textures

 

DCSmax to set affinity on all 8 threads.

 

WinXP:

 

Min FPS 28 (in cockpit looking back at the city of Nal Chik zoomed out)

Max FPS 53 (in cockpit front view zoomed out)

 

Smooth gameplay overall and any other then big cities a solid FPS of 60 (vsync)

 

No change in FPS when using affinity check, but the sim feeled smoother when only 0 and 1 core were checked then on all 8 threads (more micro stutters when FPS drops)

 

Windows 7: using only one core.

 

Min FPS 21 (in cockpit looking back at the city of Nal Chik zoomed out)

Max FPS 47 (in cockpit front view zoomed out)

 

Alot of stutters when starting up and switching between in and external views even with Vsync OFF FPS drops were terrible and stayed low in cockpit

so no smooth game play here.

 

Windows 7: All 8 thread used.

 

Min FPS: 32

Max FPS: 58

 

A nice boost in FPS over WinXP but not as much as i expected but this could get better when using future Win7 Nvidia and system drivers.

Gameplay was just as smooth as with WinXP, they feel very identical but with a little FPS gain for Win7.

 

 

 

For now im happy with Win7.

 

If someone can get Rivatuner to work with Nvidia (beta) Win7 drivers please let me know.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Sunburst

[S77th-RYKE]

Windows 7: All 8 thread used.

 

Min FPS: 32

Max FPS: 58

 

A nice boost in FPS over WinXP but not as much as i expected but this could get better when using future Win7 Nvidia and system drivers.

Gameplay was just as smooth as with WinXP, they feel very identical but with a little FPS gain for Win7.

 

thanks for sharing , now may I suggest going into your BIOS and turning OFF hyperthreading .

 

hyperthreading off gave me a gain of 40% more fps

 

your results may vary but I thought I'd share .

[Zakk]

I think it's still PREMATURE to speculate on anything with Win7 as it has not/won't be released for a LONG time. Anyone still using XP, might as well be using Win95--it is soooo old. Bottom line here: MS are a bunch of f*%k ups and I don't like ANY of their Operating Systems. The day that Google decides to build an OS, will be a day of good news and the death MS and their overly confusing buggy bloat ware.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Zakk

[Sunburst]

I think it's still PREMATURE to speculate on anything with Win7 as it has not/won't be released for a LONG time.

 

I disagree, infact i think Win7 is close to release as there is allready a pre RC

besides some minor changes i think the final Win7 will be very close to the latest beta build.

And its pretty much just Vista on steroids.

 

 

thanks for sharing , now may I suggest going into your BIOS and turning OFF hyperthreading .

 

hyperthreading off gave me a gain of 40% more fps

 

your results may vary but I thought I'd share .

 

I turned off Multi-threading in the BIOS and got no gain in FPS but seems to run just as good, though makes no sense to turn it off imo.

[S77th-RYKE]

I turned off Multi-threading in the BIOS and got no gain in FPS but seems to run just as good, though makes no sense to turn it off imo.

 

Thanks for testing , might be particular to my system .

[Maximus_G]

Let me add another bunch of tests here.

 

They were made under XP and W7 (7022) 32 bit.

2 tracks were played for 300 seconds each.

Graphics settings "medium", screen res 1920x1080.

 

No matter what affinity is set in XP - fps is the same. We'll treat it as a baseline.

DCS in Win7 running on 1 core is slightly slower than XP ( - 6-13%). But running on 2 cores, it gets faster than XP ( + 7-16%).

So, changing affinity from 1 to 2 cores gives us the increase of about 23% in Win7.

 

2- and 4-core fps show no difference.

 

And one more test comparing Core 2 Duo E8400 and i7 920 in DCS (Win7), both running @3.6GHz, 2 cores. i7 demonstrates 13-26% fps increase.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Maximus_G

[Fakum]

Keep in mind my testing was between Vista and Win 7 (primarily(, not XP and Win 7. We are all aware of the gains of Vista over XP with the afinity tool. Id like to see more results between Win7 & Vista myself.

[AlphaInfinity]

Thanks for testing , might be particular to my system .

 

I have done the same thing on my system and noticed 0 performance increase on my system when disabling hyperthreading. I wonder if it is something specific to your mobo? As for Windows 7, I have read that Microsoft will be offering an upgrade program for curent Windows Vista users. I hope that the upgrade is fairly cheap since Microsoft has admitted that they would prefer to EOL vista after thw Win7 release.

Edited April 6, 2009 by AlphaInfinity

[S77th-RYKE]

I have done the same thing on my system and noticed 0 performance increase on my system when disabling hyperthreading. I wonder if it is something specific to your mobo? As for Windows 7, I have read that Microsoft will be offering an upgrade program for curent Windows Vista users. I hope that the upgrade is fairly cheap since Microsoft has admitted that they would prefer to EOL vista after thw Win7 release.

 

Thanks for testing

[Maximus_G]

Added a series of tests in Vista 32.

 

While the difference in average FPS between 2 and 4 cores is negligible, there appears to be some difference in details. Most scenes demonstrate just the same FPS. But one scene showed a lower FPS in the 4-core affinity mode, followed by the scene with the opposite result. 4-core affinity seems to have a bit less of frame drops (lags), but we need more tests to make a well-grounded conclusion.

[Distiler]

Wich cores are you using? If you use Hyperthreading, I think you need to pick couples of processors that share the caché or something like that. There is people saying cores 0-3 are physical while 4-7 logical. Then there is others that say 0,2,4,6 are phisical and 1,3,5,7 logical.

 

Try combinations like 2 cores = 0+1 or 0+2 / 4 cores = 0+1+2+3 or 0+2+4+6 and see if there are differences.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Distiler

[Maximus_G]

I'm not using HT here.

[Feuerfalke]

And its pretty much just Vista on steroids.

 

Actually it's rather like Vista with a good marketing campaign.

 

 

As a marketing guy said during my studies: Just like the washing powder-advertisements. After you watched one for the new product, you ask yourself how you could ever get something clean with the old mixture. But honestly it's identical, just that the package has a new design and the mixture has a different smell - oh, and of course it costs 20% more for 10% less.

[PoleCat]

Actually it's rather like Vista with a good marketing campaign.

 

The greatest single difference between Vista and Win7 is that Win7 will actually have hardware drivers that work on release. Thanks in great part goes to Vista driver development and the similarity of hardware drivers between these two OS's. The drivers for Vista have been developed to a point where they actually yield good performance by now and Win7 gets to benefit from that and now the Emperor has new clothes. IMHO this is the main reason why everyone says/said Vista sux. Win7 is so close to Vista it is more correct to call it a Vista service pack.

 

I am surprised at how many who hated Vista are acting like Win7 is so much more when it is clearly almost the same exact OS in just about every single way.

 

Out

Edited May 24, 2009 by PoleCat

[speed-of-heat]

I think Microsoft is on record as saying a Major release every 4 years a minor release every 2 years... this would be a "minor" (not unimportant, or non useful) release then... UI is not marketing (its fraking hard work to get right)