This must be some kind of record. My computer was off during a power outage and still did this with settings almost all the way down. Clouds were up cuz I hate cheap ol' ugly clouds. Of course, I'm an ATi guy. What would I know about clouds?

KEDW > KLSV and a record for this guy...


And on a clear day, we got this. "We" being anyone who really believes AMD cares about us...


That last one is hard to read, but it's 931.1. Probably can get it to it over 1000, but it's ugly.

Dunno what to say about that. Poor Intel, and their li'l i7's. How cute! Intel makes potato chips, too.

Quote:

It does not really matter if you were on Autopilot on a 1800FPM ascent to 20,000 ft with a weather engine running. If you use a 2d cockpit, point the nose into the sky the framerate will go up to many hundred frames per second.

Quote:

Good, because you denied it previously.

Quote:

You have seemed to disregard all benchmarks that I had posted (despite telling me I needed to "listen to the benchmark folks"), and now you're telling me that benchmarks are useless? Which one is it? FYI, benchmarks, including synthetic benchmarks, are an excellent way to compare the relative speeds of various computer components.

Quote:

Well that's pretty much what a benchmark is, only benchmarks are done under completely identical conditions. FYI, let's see FSX run slower on a Core i7 as you seem to be suggesting - which is against all non-fsx benchmarks by all respected sources as well as respected sources such as Nick N who test both processors in FSX. If you want to do a FSX benchmark, then the two systems need to be on COMPLETELY identical conditions, with the same modifications installed, with attention placed on stutters, microstutters, blurries, FPS, and so on. You have not done that, all you have done is mislead people into thinking Phenom II is faster than Core i7 by taking some pictures only of FPS under conditions that you picked then you merely proclaimed it to be the best. Now you're preaching to me about loyalty, being objective and bias? 

You claim that you are on maximum settings with a LOD of 8.5... well again, in your screenshots it is apparent your terrain engine can not keep up leading to blurries. This may be noticable only in some conditions, but it very much depends on what your definition of playable is, and whether or not you do lots of city flying. You may get better graphics by dropping some settings, thus allowing the terrain engine to catch up. If we were to do a benchmark this would have to be factored in.

As I have said, Core i7 will beat Phenom II in practically all benchmarks. It is also more expensive. I have said that many, many times, and I very often encourage users to go Phenom II. I can get a 3.0ghz Quad Core Phenom II for $180 AUD. That's a bargain. But again, don't expect it to compete with a Core i7 860, they are in completely different market segments (what I would call, enthusiast vs mainstream). Also it's misleading to suggest that i7 does not have an integrated memory controller, when it has for years. AMD has nothing that even comes close to the $1000 i7 975, and when it had an ultra-high end product years ago (e.g. FX-62), it was not exactly cheap. Intel also has the Core i5 750 which is excellent value for money and a very close competitor to the Phenom II.

Quote:

This is not about my screenshots, this is about your screenshots. You were claiming that AMD/ATi match was the best possible match for FSX, and then you posted some (unimpressive) screenshots to "prove" it. I am on older Intel / Nvidia hardware that is admittedly not even close to yours, yet I made better screenshots. My point is not that my hardware is faster than yours, it is not, it's that your evidence it simply not true. FYI, my screenshots are completely real. It has all to do with how the software is set up. People can change settings or take photos of specific situations to show anything they wish.

And no it was not paused. It's that I am not choking the terrain engine by giving it a LOD_RADIUS of 8.5 or running an unlimited framerate. Again, if you want a fair comparison this would need to be recognized and accounted for. (I don't own i7 so I cannot provide you with that). However, I can guarantee with absolute certainty the i7 will give a better result than Phenom II, simply because it is a faster processor in 99.99% of benchmarks.

This fair way of comparing computers under identical conditions to provide truthful results is known as benchmarking. The results are benchmarks. If you want to deny them, then that's your own prerogative but don't expect most people with more than half a mind to dismiss them like you might. 

I am not stating your computer is bad or you get an unacceptable experience. I have a slower computer and I think my experience is pretty good. But is your computer as good as an i7 920 and GTX 285? Absolutely not.

Quote:

Ouch, I am really hurt. I stated the truth and you come back with Reply #21. And now you're upset that I've replied? I think you should take a long, hard look at what you have posted.

T1MT1M wrote on Jan 13^th, 2010 at 4:00am:


Arrogance, only arrogance!

Speed of Flight has shown that it's possible to have a great  FSX Sim Experience with an AMD Phenom CPU and an older ATI card.

I thank him for that, because it's obvious that most people here are brainwashed to believe that if you don't have an i7 with a GTX 285 card, then you are lost, nothing, the laughing stock!

Most people have FSX on mediocre / low spec systems - what about them - are they not allowed to post they had an exceptional increase in performance by shifting OS, without being ridiculed by all the "Master Guru Parrots" here, who obviously can't think by themselves anymore!

Wrong information?

Look around you, here f.ex.

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=271946

- or Google W7 in FSX...

Just because a prominent tweak guy here and another place say "no, no" to W7, does this mean that all other peoples various positive experiences are wrong?

YOU need to get out of your cozy and comfortable box thinking NNNG!

Thai09 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2010 at 6:19am:


It is perfectly fine to post positive experiences with Windows 7. I use Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit myself and find it much better than both Windows XP and Windows Vista. However, the debate on whether any massive performance boost is actually due to the operating system, or simply mistakes the user had made, is not mine. I will say, however, that upgrading to Windows 7 will most often give you not much more of a performance boost over reformatting and installing the old operating system again. Put it this way, what if we tell people to get Windows 7 for a massive boost performance.... what happens when it doesn't? Are we then responsible for wasting there money? Hell, if I ran a computer store and I stated to customers that upgrading to Windows 7 would significantly improve performance, I'd probably be taken to court for bad business practices.

http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1165332791

You know something, I don't really care about numbers and benchmarks, and I never said my hardware is better than anyone elses, I tried to say that even the Intel guys have problems doing what mine can do.
I NEVER said I have the BEST hardware. I never said that I'm the best, ALL I SAID was that you don't have to be stuck (like you are) thinking that benchmarks are the only way of proving how good hardware is.



YOU CAN'T PLAY A BENCHMARK. Those tools are a whole different, stupid, unimportant pissing contest. Run the game faster, then talk.

All I tried to tell a guy, who probably isn't even checking this thread anymore, is that you can save a bunch of money on hardware, and do JUST AS GOOD (maybe even better) that Intel. WHere's your 900+ FPS screeny? Can't make one? Bet not. Al that seems to matter to you is an INSIGNIFICANT benchmark. Now you can tell me that you score higher with some tool that tells you are faster, but WHAT DOES THAT MATTER?!? Really? My memory doesn't turn to mush, I never posted THE BEST of pics, not trying to make a resume, don't work for AMD, don't care about theory.

Where the rubber meets the road is in REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE. I couldn't care less about your stupid benchmark number, and NOBODY ELSE should, either. Using ONLY a benchmark score is STUPID. It's indoctrination, same as the Spanish Inquisition. "Quit that thinkin', and get on the bandwagon". Getting a high benchmark score is like putting a 78 datsun pickup truck on Jackstands, flooring the gas, and saying "LOOK! The tires are going so fast!" But load that truck down with 900lbs. of firewood, and try to run it uphill. Then, you can REALLY SEE how it will perform. Benchmarks are mental masturbation for geeks like you. They mean NOTHING.

I was trying to post A REAL PICTURE that I got with MY SIM, and obviously, my hardware works FINE. Maybe better than yours, and that's why you're all angry. LISTEN!!! My machine is VERY GOOD, I think. ALTHOUGH, there are FAR BETTER ONES OUT THERE. Where's the pics? That's what people asking advice in here really want to know. "How does it run for you?" and "How did you do it?" and "What kind of stuff should I get?" are the questions people are asking. I answered these, and many more, and stirred the pot about what KINDS of questions one should REALLY be asking. I told the guy what I got, and how it works for me. You showed that your benchmarks are high, but obviously, you can't run FSX as well as I, and you're all angry about it. I'm trying to tell folks here to think about WHAT KIND OF CRAP A BENCHMARK SAYS, AND WHY SHOULD YOU CARE IF FSX STILL RUNS LIKE CRAP ON MID SETTINGS?

FSX is 3 years old now, and people are still asking how to make it ROCK. I can't help but think that, maybe, it's because so many people recommend Intel processors. JUST A FRIENDLY JAB, don't get your panties in a wad.

I was hoping to get a real contest going with another machine out there with SETTINGS MAXED (again I say this) and what I got instead was a bunch of "parroting" jibber jabber, "Intel is way better" hooplah. You are an Intel guy stuck in the numbers more like a geek, not someone who wants to really do things well. Theory vs. Reality. Show me.

Quit bending over for intel. If what you say is true, then I shouldn't be able to do what I do with FSX, and I know that this just isn't true, and now you know, as well. Say whatever you want, doesn't make you correct. Nobody really cares who's right or wrong, anyway. They want proof, and I'm sure a friggin benchmark just isn't gonna cut it.

For objectivity, I gave a recipe to reproduce the conditions I had, so someone else could get what I did, and all you can do is say (drooling) iNTeL iS BEtTeR *snort* (licking the window on the short bus).

Move out of your parent's basement, rub your eyes, then step out into the REAL world, and actually TRY something. Re-posting others results is pure junk. Get real. Benchmarks to REAL PERFORMANCE = Cartoons to documentaries. YAY! I GOT A 12,000 ON 3D COCKAMAMIE! Yeah? Well that's cool. I've been running FSX at 80 avg FPS for 1.5 years now. How's that for a comparison? Here, I'll put it in a format you can understand:

AVG FPS on FSX

YOUR Intel chip   : ++++++++++++++++++++++
MY AMD chip       : ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++

Does that draw a good enough picture for ya?

I understand your measuring device, and how it works, but is that a truly valid test? I think not. I'm not trying to play a banchmark tool, I'm trying to rock FSX.

There's the difference. Okay, I think I've got it!

If you want some really impressive benchmark scores, go with Intel.
If you want to enjoy your games, go with AMD.

That ought to really piss someone off, I bet! 

Results from World In Conflict, stock, version on DVD, 1.00.000000.000.00, whatever. I own the game, max settings, 16x AA, whatever. Everyting up.
Resolution: 1280*1024
Detail Level: Very High
Average fps: 29
Min fps: 21
Max fps: 41
TotalFrames: 1480
then a buncha array data, presumeably the time to render each frame. Probably not the best, I dunno. Hopefully, this is speaking your language (NNNG).
Currently downloading the 1.010 patch, and try again.

Results from WIC version 1.010:
Resolution: 1280*1024
Detail Level: Very High
Average fps: 33
Min fps: 13
Max fps: 74
TotalFrames: 1646

Even better than the first! I don't know how they compile their data table, I got nothing like this. All I got was a document saved that tells me this. I wonder how that scores on a table like theirs? Probably right in the middle. But, FSX runs GRR-R-R-R-R-REAT! That's what matters to me.