Jump to content

XP = W7 = same performance?


Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

for testing it out, i just installed FC 2.0 on my XP installation and notice, that FC 2.0 is like on W7, using both cores. I got very simillar or even the same fps on the very same graphic settings.

 

I will keep comparing XP and W7.

 

Someone maybe with same experience in testing FC 2.0 on XP?


Edited by Sawamura
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange. You should double your framerate running FC2 from Win7. As far i remember only Win7/Vista could utilise both CPU cores.

[sIGPIC]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6720/avatarpolishairforce.png[/sIGPIC]

system specs:

mobo: Gigabyte GA-P35DS4 rev 2.1, CPU: Intel C2D E8400@4GHz, GPU: Nvidia 8800GTS 512, RAM: Kingston HyperX 4x 1GB 1066MHz Dual Channel, HDD: Samsung Spinpoint F1 640 GB x2, sound: Realtek Azalia ALC889A + SB Audigy + Dolby Digital/DTS external encoder/tuner, display: Asus VW222U 22', case: Raidmax Smilodon, headphones: Sennheiser HD650, stick: Saitek Cyborg Evo, Track IR4 Pro + TrackClip Pro, O/S: Windows 7/Vista x64

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After testing it some time, i came to the conclusion, that i got on W7 in average 3 fps more. So for the people, who dont want to be seperated with their XP, for FC 2.0, is not realy an need to switch. :thumbup:

 

Thanks for posting.

 

I'm still on XP Pro SP2 and don't really want to switch to Windows 7 for couple of reasons. Main reason is that since Vista, MS decided to drop support for the gameport (?) so if I switch I would loose my trusty old TM FLCS + TQS HOTAS (SWF22 upgraded) and flying without HOTAS is not an option!

 

I'm sure I will move to Windows 7 someday when DirectX 11/12/whatever becomes mandatory but since all simulators I currently play still is DirectX 9 only (+ above mentioned issue) I'm in no real hurry.

 

Strange. You should double your framerate running FC2 from Win7. As far i remember only Win7/Vista could utilise both CPU cores.

 

I've noticed FC2 utilise both cores on my C2D E6850 (more than DCS:BS does) on XP, most likely due to the new sound engine.

 

/KC


Edited by KeyCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funkee, erroneous. I have never seen anyone "double" their performance - the usual gain in DCS:BS is between 10% and 50%, depending a lot on the hardware.

 

But do note that FC2 has two major advantages:

1) Separate thread for the sound engine. It will run in two threads on it's own, meaning that it'll spread onto both cores on XP too. The heaviest work (graphics and simulation) still happen in the main thread though.

2) Lighter-weight simulation - less simulation workload and lesser systems (cockpit etc) workload.

 

This means some machines might simply end up bottlenecked on memory or graphics instead of CPU. But this should not be seen as a general rule for all machines - remember that this is only one data point.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very doubt it, except in a case in your W7 is not as tweaked as XP, or perhaps you compared average fps with v-sync in W7 (sometimes it doesen't switch off).

Directx11 multithreading feature is the cause why Vista (+SP2) and W7 run this sim so fast compared to XP, even in a DX9 engine. Obviously the new sound engine loaded a bit other cores, but not that much.

 

Would like to see low fps comparison. I bet XP are way lower than W7. High fps can be similar tho.


Edited by Distiler

AMD Ryzen 1400 // 16 GB DDR4 2933Mhz // Nvidia 1060 6GB // W10 64bit // Microsoft Sidewinder Precision 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DirectX11 multithreading? FC2 & BS make DirectX9 calls, dunno whether that path will be multi-threaded. Even if it were it was the experience of Sun's OpenGL programmers that it was *slower* to render graphics in a multi-threaded manner because the locking for thread-safety dominated any speed-up of the rendering path. Where you might get a win is not in rendering, but in loading textures and moving them between main memory and GPU memory, but then there can still be some contention. I'm sure specialised benchmarks might show a speed up but real-world applications don't get much faster rendering from a multi-threaded rendering pipeline. They do get a benefit if the rendering thread isn't used to do other stuff (physics, AI, texture/IO loading).

 

Distiler, the original poster stated that XP was only marginally slower than Windows 7, so your statement that W7 "run this sim so fast compared to XP" is not correct. A difference of 3 fps is not statistically significant compared to normal frame rate variability (don't worry, it's an easy mistake to make and you're not alone, it's a sad fact that most game reviewers are completely clueless about statistics). Since this doesn't warrant the cost of upgrading for most people I would suggest that people don't upgrade their operating system specifically for this game (neither Windows 7 nor 64-bit will speed the game up significantly) - upgrading hardware would make much more of a difference.

 

I hope that is a bit more informative for people considering whether to upgrade their hardware or software.


Edited by Moa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

XP does allow using multiple cores. thats not anything new. If you can get the same or better performance with Win7, I can't imagine not switching. The OP sounds like re-assurance that upgrading to Win7 is a decent idea. Unless you have something HW-wise which isn't compatible of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...