I am just wondering Speed of flight, do YOU actually listen to the benchmark folks? Or do you actually buy ALL the hardware there is to get, and try it? Basically all you've done is posted your own pleasant experiences and assumed that your hardware is automatically the best that money can buy, and then you parrot AMD marketing from about 2005. You claimed that an AMD advantage was an integrated memory controller... i7 has had that for two years, and that platform performs MUCH better than Phenom II in this regard. What year do you live in? (FYI, what made the Pentium 4 SLOW was not the lack of an integrated memory controller, but a long and inefficient execution pipeline). In any case, in the benchmarks I've linked it is shown conclusively that the Core i7 is faster than the Phenom II, and it is also shown conclusively that an ATi graphics card will perform better on a Core i7 over a Phenom II. Claiming that ATi is ahead of Nvidia because they used GDDR5 is nonsense, it's like me claiming that Nvidia is ahead of ATi because they use a 512 bit bus interface. FACT, for the majority of the previous 12 months, Nvidia has been ahead of ATi. The only thing that has changed that is the Radeon 5xxx series, but I fully expect when Nvidia's new lineup is released, Nvidia will be leading again. A Core i7 will get far larger stable overclocks than a Phenom II... btw, good luck getting past 3.8 - 3.9ghz on a Phenom II without relaxing external clocks.... i.e. QUIT filling peoples minds with BS, and loose the damn attitude. None of this means AMD is bad, I always recommend them if one does not have the money for a Core i5, or Core i7, furthermore I will pretty much always recommend ATi 5xxx series at this moment in time. That will probably change.

FYI, frame-rate in FSX does not necessarily mean much. Most people lock it at 20 - 30 fps so they can actually, unlike you, fly faster than 250 knots without the memory turning to mush. I can see it in your screenshots btw, the ground scenery does not even look that good as opposed to, here, here, here, here, and here. I'm betting I can get more FPS on a Pentium 4 / X800 than you... doesn't mean it's playable at all though.



Your simulation:

(unknown speed, 17.8fps, very blurred ground, very little autogen)



My simulation:

(459 knots, 26.0fps, autogen maxed out, ground crystal clear.... it's difficult to read becase I'm at 1920x1080, resizing the picture down to 1024 makes the text small..)



ANYONE can unlock the framerate, load up the 2d cockpit, point the noise into a blank sky and say... "WOW, look how good my computer is".... but in reality it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You were getting 17.8fps when the ground turned into a mush - NOT SOMETHING TO BRAG ABOUT.

btw, maybe you should read Nicks fsx optimisation stickies at the top of the FSX forum... because I am thoroughly UNIMPRESSED by your sim at this moment. Mine looks better, runs better, and I'm on slower hardware.



That's 424.5 fps btw and my sim is not even optimized. It was jumping to over 500 but I couldn't be bothered wasting more time trying to grab a screenshot of it. specs: Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.0ghz & 8800GT (stock clocks).


What actually does matter, however, is the actual experience the hardware gives. It is incredibly naive to think that Phenom II will outperform the i7, when in actuality, the i7 outperforms the Phenom II in every single benchmark, and also overclocks further.



BTW, the op needs a new videocard. IT might be good advice to recommend him the Radeon 5850, and Radeon 5870. But it is absolutely treacherous to recommend a Phenom II to him when he already has a MUCH faster Core i7. BTW, ATi can do clouds, only they get a bigger hit from them. Try enabling light bloom, water 2.0x max, max autogen, and 5 layers of cumulus clouds above a city, in PMDG MD-11 virtual cockpit, and you tell me how it runs. And yes, members like Nick Needham have tried both ATi and Nvidia. If you don't like it then ask him.... this is what he said...:

Quote:

http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1254496762/15

This is actually a very good discussion folks...

With the excitement SpeedoFlight shows, we get all kinds of facts and lessons on the table, thanks!


NNNG wrote:

"FYI, frame-rate in FSX does not necessarily mean much. Most people lock it at 20 - 30 fps so they can actually, unlike you, fly faster than 250 knots without the memory turning to mush. I can see it in your screenshots btw, the ground scenery does not even look that good as opposed to, here, here, here, here, and here. I'm betting I can get more FPS on a Pentium 4 / X800 than you... doesn't mean it's playable at all though."

I've said it before: Are people aviators or "scenery/landscape artists"?

Full speed in a F-16 at low altitude in real life: Don't you think everything get's a little blurred?!

Another thing: Pollution, smoke, smog, really bad weather, the windscreen get's blasted with insects, garbage and what not...

My suspicion is that many a "Fine Simmer" is a nerdy perfectionist who is on a meaningless hunt for  the "Perfect Sim Experience", which may have very little to do with how flying in the real world is...

Thai09 has it there. I am looking for the perfect sim experience. However, to NNNG, I didn't just point the thing at a blank sky and hope for the best. I was on Autopilot on a 1800 FPM ascent to 20,000 ft when I snapped those pics, with REX2 runing, etc.

Also, I can agree that an ATI card doesn't care what kind of CPU you have, i.e. a Phenom (2) or i7. However, just telling people that because you got a better benchmark score on something gives you better results is crap. Only geeks care about a number on a score sheet. Lets see the program run faster. A little friendly, RESPECTFUL, non-junky screeny competition with all your settings maxed, just to see if I'm the only one or not.
I don't buy your screenshot: you seem to be the kind of egotistical guy that just doesn't want to lose, that's why the attitude. It's obvious that you pause the game, snap a great screeny after the scenery has rendered, and try to call me on the carpet with it. I did say that when I get to a busy area, I dip down to 25-35. All I wanted was to see a screen with big frames, and you could have left your junk somewhere else, like in your PC case.

I'll tell you that I have tried MANY different hardware combinations. Not EVERY one, but MANY. I started out 4 years ago with an ATi X-700 pro with an Athlon 3500+. Still got 2 old MoBo's and my old phenom 9850, an Nvidia 7600 somethin, had  an ATi 2600 HD that I gave to my friend, many different combinations. This is the best I've had so far. No crossfire, not even 1 GB video RAM. I just noticed a PHENOMenon, and wanted to see if it was just me- (completely why I told everyone how I did it.)

"I'm betting I can get more FPS on a Pentium 4 / X800 than you... doesn't mean it's playable at all though."

^ That's just stupid, and my point is proven. If you could, why did you spend all that money to get the stuff you got now? Did you really read over your post before you put it up there? 5 year old processor vs brand new? What's that, there buddy? Look! Down there. I think your ignorance is showing... I think you'd cheat to win, or whatever, just to say you did it. It's clear to me that you just don't get it. "I could get better results on a graphing calculator than you, but that doesn't mean bubblegum should cost more than 35 cents." There. Now we both just made two, utterly stupid, meaningless, short-bus kind of comments.

"Full speed in a F-16 at low altitude in real life: Don't you think everything get's a little blurred?!"

^Thank you, Thai, for that. In fact, I'm sure it does. 250 kts is as fast as the ol' C-5 can go before it's AOA (angle of attack, for those who don't know) goes too far into the negative for my liking, even though it doesn't seem to mind. If I go faster in a different jet, FSX doesn't seem to care, I just wanted to take a fair pic, with the sim RUNNING, scenery gets to load, etc., so people can see what it does.

I was hoping we could get a real OBJECTIVE brand for brand test, using a program we all use as a benchmark. I gave everyone a recipe for doing what I did, and hoped for an UNBIASED conclusion. Either way it goes, I admit that i7 is better than Phenom 2 at certain things, but the NEED for an i7 is more apparent in the word choices of its users and its "pop culture poppy-ness" (similar to Jessica Simpson) than on real-world testing. Unfortunaltely, I made the informed choice, not the same one all the "sheep" make. I got AMD's FLAGSHIP processor, and results as good as Intel's best, for $700 cheaper.

Hmmm...
That is all the point in the world I need to make, I'm sure.

So what if it will only OC to 3.9GHz, or so on air. If I took apart my water cooler (the one for cooling water, got a 5 gal. bottle on it) and put the refrigeration unit on my proc, I could OC to 5.7 GHz or so, and smoke your "beating me by .1 or .2 GHz" (which is not enough to boast like you do) overclock. I'm asking a SIMPLE question. Is it REALLY WAY BETTER, or is it just blind loyalty? Do you just check a score on some retarded 3d benchmarking utility crap, or do you take a chance and really see how it performs on your software?

I had me an ol P3 machine that would SMOKE your i7. 800 MHz! Hell, for that matter, I have an old Apple IIe with 64 KB ram and green monochrome CRT monitor that would crush your i7. Doesn't all that just sound stupid?

Quote:


Sorry, friends. This is the kind of stuff that some fellow simmers really thinks "helps".

Thai09 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 11:43am:


Heck yes! Im a DANG happy Phenom II user. I'd be upset, though if I were an Intel guy bought the best i7 (the 965, I think, er whatever) for $999.99, and some $195.99 AMD guy got very nearly same performance out of it. Can you imagine? that's $800.00 (*^%#$&   $800.00!!!!) in difference, like 500%, and only a 5% difference in performance, or so. By thie way, Phenom 2 now holds WORLD RECORD for overclock @ 7+ GHz. Not to rub it in, but it's not just a money issue (AMD cheaper, junk like that). I just want folks to know that they're not stuck with only the one, and that AMD is a SERIOUS contender for the BEST performance processor there is. For those of us who aren't getting what they want with FSX, even if you like intel, there are alternatives, for crying out loud .

NNNG wrote:

"FYI, frame-rate in FSX does not necessarily mean much. Most people lock it at 20 - 30 fps so they can actually, unlike you, fly faster than 250 knots without the memory turning to mush."

I wonder what really does matter then. If smooth, lifelike virtual motion doesn't matter, what does? A high 3D benchmark score? Because with that, it really means something. It means that really doing anything doesn't matter, but a virtual, mentally-masturbatory high score is the all important basis for performance. What I think I'm gonna do, is turn all the settings all the way down, hit over 1000 FPS, post a pic, and see if THAT really matters...

Phenom II recognized as "as good for the money" as intel i7. That's what's next. Ultimate in reality.

Quote:



You're such a weenis. "Schoolchildren could understand" "Unlike me, a constant 26 fps" garbage. You sound more like you need to try to belittle someone, or get them all angry or something when you can't possibly keep up. Don't try to accomodate a lack in hardware or knowledge with a comment to put someone below you. Your lack in character and true experience shows when you say things like that.
It's ok, though. I can understand the lack in intellect that often follows someone who wants to win so badly. Justify your entire existence with a 5-digit benchmark score. Play the game, and knock it off. You aren't any better than anyone else.

By the way, your 400+screenshot doesn't even look genuine. Looks photoshopped. Just figure I'd help you out the same way you did to the poor guy wanting to upgrade on a budget.