Simviation Forum - Core 2 vs. i7 with FSX at Hardocp.com

May 19^th, 2009 at 9:05pm

djt Offline
Colonel
Hello!
New York

Gender:
Posts: 29

Although far from being an “extensive” test of Core 2 vs. i7 performance, at least FSX was used in the comparison. I expected more from the i7 when it was overclocked though –

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTY0NCw3LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - May 19^th, 2009 at 9:40pm

NickN Offline
Colonel
FSX runs fine... the problem
is you or your system

Posts: 6317

'

look at the freakin video card they used ATI ?

hogwash!

its choked on i7 clocked in FSX!

and all DX10 mode too

and I see a LOT more wrong too with that test and how the settings were run... if a benchmarker does not understand FSX their results will be tainted.. and on top of that we all know those frame numbers mean SQUAT

seems to me we are playin for controversy when I read al lthe results. I also know that site wants AMD back on top too and they do cater to AMD/ATi there

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - May 19^th, 2009 at 10:30pm

djt Offline
Colonel
Hello!
New York

Gender:
Posts: 29

NickN wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 9:40pm:

if a benchmarker does not understand FSX their results will be tainted

LOL, good luck on getting any hardware site to take any time to “understand FSX”.

From what I’ve seen on these sites the usual response to FSX is that it is an un-optimized POS game that is better off being forgotten. Unfortunately for those of us who enjoy flight sims when you compare FSX to other recently released games/sims it’s not hard to see why FSX has received this reputation.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - May 19^th, 2009 at 10:39pm

NickN Offline
Colonel
FSX runs fine... the problem
is you or your system

Posts: 6317

Yes it is a shame

Most people do not run FSX in DX10 mode and they were also running things completely out of whack.. there was a huge thread gap between the scenery and the shader passes.

Putting a ATI card into that test and saying.. THIS IS WHAT IT IS FOR ALL GAMES .. is a freakin JOKE

Now, even if they had not tuned the test sim correctly I would like to see the difference beween their high and mightly ATi x2 and a GTX 285 in DX9 running AA and AF off of NHANCER

OWNED!

freakin AMD slugs would have been sent back to their mommies.. and thats what I mean.. those tests are ALL not looking too bad for AMD not matter what they said

I dont like it.. it looks like a setup being made to look fair

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - May 19^th, 2009 at 11:21pm

raptorx Offline
Colonel
There's too much confusion...
San Diego, CA

Gender:
Posts: 434

NickN wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 10:39pm:

Yes it is a shame

Most people do not run FSX in DX10 mode and they were also running things completely out of whack.. there was a huge thread gap between the scenery and the shader passes.

Putting a ATI card into that test and saying.. THIS IS WHAT IT IS FOR ALL GAMES .. is a freakin JOKE

Now, even if they had not tuned the test sim correctly I would like to see the difference beween their high and mightly ATi x2 and a GTX 285 in DX9 running AA and AF off of NHANCER

OWNED!

freakin AMD slugs would have been sent back to their mommies.. and thats what I mean.. those tests are ALL not looking too bad for AMD not matter what they said

I dont like it.. it looks like a setup being made to look fair

"Don't mince words, Bones. What do you really think?"

Grin

Rampage II Gene, i7 965 4GHz
Mushkin Redline DDR3 1600
XP x64 SP2
ASUS Matrix GTX285

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - May 19^th, 2009 at 11:34pm

NickN Offline
Colonel
FSX runs fine... the problem
is you or your system

Posts: 6317

raptorx wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 11:21pm:

"Don't mince words, Bones. What do you really think?"

Grin

William Shattner Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X692xD2TBU

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - May 19^th, 2009 at 11:39pm

djt Offline
Colonel
Hello!
New York

Gender:
Posts: 29

NickN wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 10:39pm:

Yes it is a shame

Most people do not run FSX in DX10 mode and they were also running things completely out of whack.. there was a huge thread gap between the scenery and the shader passes.

Putting a ATI card into that test and saying.. THIS IS WHAT IT IS FOR ALL GAMES .. is a freakin JOKE

Now, even if they had not tuned the test sim correctly I would like to see the difference beween their high and mightly ATi x2 and a GTX 285 in DX9 running AA and AF off of NHANCER

OWNED!

freakin AMD slugs would have been sent back to their mommies.. and thats what I mean.. those tests are ALL not looking too bad for AMD not matter what they said

I dont like it.. it looks like a setup being made to look fair

I agree but I think it had to do more with ignorance in thinking that FSX can be treated like any other “game” out there more than “a setup being made to look fair” . When it all comes down to it I guess you could also ask why we have to treat FSX any differently. I mean why didn’t the developers of FSX give us a decent up to date graphics engine with the good optimization that the rest of the gaming world enjoys?

The one thing that stands out for me from the review and something that has been repeated over and over again from i7 users –

“The Core i7 is faster than Core 2 Quad in most real world gaming scenarios. Though the framerates were higher, we were not able to increase graphics or in-game settings, and the performance was smooth enough already on the QX9650 that the extra frames supplied by the Core i7 did not give us a better gaming experience.”

I have a nagging suspicion as I wait to add a i7 950 or 975 to my $400 EVGA Classified motherboard that I’ll be coming to the same conclusion when comparing this new build to my current overclocked Core 2 Q9650 setup.

For me high end hardware is a hobby so it really doesn’t matter but for those who seek “bang for the buck value” I’m not so sure.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - May 19^th, 2009 at 11:55pm

NickN Offline
Colonel
FSX runs fine... the problem
is you or your system

Posts: 6317

Its like anything else.. when you sit at the top of the food chain what comes down the road will usually be a snack instead of a meal

at the same time I would not go back to IntelQ

i7 and FSX need a bit of TLC to get in sync but the main gig is the VC.. right now the only card that can really keep up is the 285. What we need is another card that is horsepower based and kicks the 285.. not a new CPU

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - May 20^th, 2009 at 12:44am

djt Offline
Colonel
Hello!
New York

Gender:
Posts: 29

NickN wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 11:55pm:

What we need is another card that is horsepower based and kicks the 285.. not a new CPU

I’m not really sure what a new more powerful card than the GTX 285 is really going to bring to the table when for the most part that card isn’t even properly/fully taken advantage of with FSX.

I ordered one of the new 2GB GTX 285’s to see what messing around with the bufferpool settings would do but now with that being screwed up with the new 185 series drivers I’m not sure what help that’s going to be.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - May 20^th, 2009 at 8:50am

NickN Offline
Colonel
FSX runs fine... the problem
is you or your system

Posts: 6317

The part of the card that is used, caters to what FSX needs.

ATi is going to continue to be a shader rendering engine geared card... My concern is as Nvidia finally shifts gears in that direction 100% it will mean a complete halt to anything good for FSX and a great deal of time between releases that work... its already started.. The best card for FSX past the original 768MB 8800GTX or Ultra is the 280/285.. thats 2006 to 2008 .. 2 years and without the same leap in ability the 8800 provided.

hopefully the 285 wont be the last however i7 needs more raw horsepower and focus of that aspect of the video adapter for FSX and even the 285 is challenged by that.

2GB? other than massive resolution or MM with large resolution, nothing.. and even those circumstances are limited. The 1GB card is fine

Success with pref increases and large bufferpool amounts (above 100MB) are not typical. Its a combination of motherboard and card that drives the use and its result. But if you are thinking you can set a 500GB+ BP and see anything.. no. As a matter of fact, the only advantage with those running 450-490 is for sound latency issues which are motherboard specific.

I would not have wasted my money if the card was for FSX use only

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - May 20^th, 2009 at 11:17am

djt Offline
Colonel
Hello!
New York

Gender:
Posts: 29

NickN wrote on May 20^th, 2009 at 8:50am:

2GB? other than massive resolution or MM with large resolution, nothing.. and even those circumstances are limited. The 1GB card is fine

I would not have wasted my money if the card was for FSX use only

With the rumors flying about Nvidia’s GT300 being delayed possibly until early next year I decided to grab the 2GB card to experiment with but no it’s not just for FSX.

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: