Hi,

I need to upgrade my video card, currently using a 8800GT
with 512 MB. Thinking of getting an ATI card, as they are avail. in Canada, I can't find any Geforce cards 275 or 285.

Like to know what to expect by switching to ATI, driver wise, performance, display quality, etc.

I believe my current video card my be bottle necking me.


My System: I7 920 OC 3.6, 6 gb Ram, 8800GT, 2x500 H/D
Windows 7 64Bit, Samsung 22inch monitor, etc.

Thanks

GO FOR IT!!! I've been running my ATI 4870 on FSX for a long time now, and it ROX! Trying to get ahold of the 5870 (or the 5970 x2). The Nvidia people will tell you that they think theirs runs FSX better, but go ahead and ask one of those guys if they can max out ALL of their settings yet. I have, and I even tweaked the CFG file for higher than 100% detail. I changed the LOD (level of detail) radius to 8.50000 from the default 4.50000, changed the traffic from 100% to 200% for air traffic, using Real Environment Xtreme 2.0, all the way up, photoreal Las Vegas, Reno, all kinds of stuff, and have dang near infinite FPS. Got a screen shot yesterday almost 300FPS! Ask those Nvidia guys if they ever got that! Here you go...

Antec 850W power supply
AMD Phenom 2 965 OC'd @ 3.8 GHz (just upgraded 2 days ago from 9850 phenom)
MSI K9A2 Platinum mobo with newest bios 1.9 for phenom 2 support
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512 MB GDDR5* (that's right Nvidia guys, 5) at full throttle with Catalyst Control Centre
8 GB DDR2 800 MHz RAM OC'd in bios to run 1066 MHz @ 2.05V

Get one. They ROCK, and, It'll make you a better lover.*

*the better lover part isn't necessarily true, but the rest is.

Speedoflight:

ATI cannot do clouds, whatabout them darn clouds?!

Show us pls.

Thanks for all the info, seems to me that there is no clear reason to migrate to an ATI card due to various problems. I thought that with the newer drivers some of the problems were
fixed. I use REX and would hate to loose the effects of those
great clouds. I guess I have two options, buy a nvidia 275 or 285 card, or wait until the 300 series appear whenever.

The Nvidia cards are more expensive as well, can't win.

Take the !? stuff out of the file names, and re-upload, then they will appear  Also be sure to not have any spaces in the file names 

SO I KEEP WERKIN ON IT....
HOPE THAT SELLS IT ENOUGH!!!...

Wow. I'm impressed! Not really, cuz they're my pics: I took em. But, i got a bunch more where that came from. Wheeeee!!! Just got done flyin, and I love it! Can't imagine how much a pain THAT must be for an Nvidia guy. I obviously don't know how photoshop werks, nor would I need to. Just get yourself some *sweeeet* hardware (preferably an AMD cpu w/ AMD chipset) and your ATI card will LOVE you forever! Just take my word for it. I can tell you, after this thread, there will be a few more ATI folks. And all the better for me. Maybe they'll give me a commission!*
*I doubt it, but other than facts, numbers, and proof, I got a perty good arguement. 292.7. Got more where that came from. AND, that's with ALL settings maxxed, and LOD beyond max. All kinds of junk maxxed. FAST, even loaded down. It's like bigfoot, and a dragster.

GET ONE!

One can go as fast on Intel, (one can assume) But who can afford that I-7 965 at $999.99? Not this guy, I say. AMD/ATI is a match made in Intel's nightmares! However, it's not just a $ thing. It's more about AMD being the underdog, AMD/ATI's merger, and the old comparison of Intel/AMD=Mercedes/Porsche. Just as good, just depends on what you want it to do. I have no regrets! Intel=expensive and worth it. AMD/ATI=innovation/realistic performance. VRRROOOOOOOOMMM!!

An ATi graphics card will by no means perform better on an AMD processor.

Also, AMD versus intel.. well..... it depends on your price range and required level of performance. Core i7 is much faster than Phenom II, though more expensive.

Also, plenty of people can afford the lower end Core i7...... like the Core i7 860...

Core i5 750 is also great and cheap.


If you want a high-end computer then go for Core i7 / ATi Radeon 5800 / 5900 depending on what you need (or maybe Nvidia when new ones are released).

if that costs too much then downgrade to a slower Core i7 or i5...... same graphics......


if that costs too much go for Phenom II.

I'll even tell you how I got mine:

First, I've found that a slower plane helps FSX load the scenery better, as it can refine details better over time. Bad idea to use a fast jet. I chose Alphasim's C-5B Galaxy for FS2004. Awesome plane. Fly about 250 kts ind. No faster, as the AOA goes negative (the nose pitches down).
I flew GPS direct from KEDW (Edwards AFB) Runway 4 to KLSV (Nellis AFB) straight in landing runway 3L.
Using a popularly-known weather program (version 2.0) for weather and runway textures, lighting, everything really.
Photo-real Las Vegas scenery.
20,000 ft @ 250 kts ind, 30 min flight, or so.
I use the 2D cockpit for autopilot functions, and noticed the FPS spiking over 100 ,
then waited till about 10 mins in, and the FPS started spiking to over 200!
I have no proof of it going past to 300, but 297 or whatever is close enough, I think.
The scenery isn't very busy there in the Mojave Desert, but all the settings are maxed, and the mesh is busy, the traffic is all the way up, weather on live update, scenery LOD at 8.50000, pretty busy. at Edwards, the scenery there is kinda busy, and on the approach to Vegas, it drops down to 25-35 (30 or so avg.) but that's pretty good, I think.
Somebody else verify this for me if they can. I can't be the only one that sees this. Then, we can all get a screeny with big ol frames.

Come on guys, no need for an argument.
Of course no-one knows exactly how something might run on your computer set up, but we can make predictions on the stats of the hardware and how FS works.

That is the best so far, and I keep tryin. It's hard to catch it at the max, I just keep snappin pix, and post the one with the highest #, it may go higher, I dunno.
I hope to get the Intel and Nvidia folks to tweak their hardware to get these results, so we can all be champs, in our own right. Over 300 baby! Whoooo!!! I lucked out, and I can't be the only one here that can do this! Come on!

Wow.

Quote:

Not sure what this has to do with AMD. Memory is outsourced to companies like Qimonda, Samsung. Nvidia generally uses a different approach, putting larger memory controllers on the card. e.g. GTX 285 with 512 bit bus / GDDR3 has 159.0 gigabytes of memory bandwidth, while ATI 4890 with 256bit / GDDR5 has 124.8 gb/s.

Quote:

So has Intel, Nvidia and Via... they've only been doing this for what? The past decade?

Quote:

What are you talking about?

The fastest AMD is barely faster than a two year old Intel QX6850. Both are utterly destroyed against any kind of i7.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts/Performance-Index,140...

As far as overclocking.... Phenom II usually tops out at 3.8ghz (I'm talking 24/7 overclocks... not what a couple of nerds with liquid nitrogen did). Core i7 920 at 2.66ghz is not only faster than ANY Phenom II, it will overclock to 3.8ghz usually without any problems. Going from 2.66ghz to 3.8ghz is bigger than 3.2ghz to 3.8ghz...

You get what you pay for.

AMD & NVIDIA........ AMD have the upperhand right now because they released 40nm Direct X 11 cards before Nvdia. Before them cards came out, Nvidia was much faster (and expensive).

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-cards-charts-2009-high-qualit...

Quote:

Where have you been? Core i7 has been doing that since the end of 2008. In terms of memory bandwidth, Core i7 absolutely kills Phenom II. TRI-CHANNEL > DUAL-CHANNEL.

Quote:

Pentium 4 got to almost 9ghz.... but that doesn't mean it's fast.

Quote:

What your saying is NOT demonstratable by a single benchmark.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/4

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling_5.html#...

Core i7 is killing Phenom II even with ATi graphics card.

Do you work for AMD or ATi?

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.

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.

Thai09 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 12:14am:



Blind loyalty, Parrot mentality, You two are so ignorant it gives me a headache. If you actually kept up with the hardware then you would know what is the best, PROFESSIONALS review these chips and they tell you what is best based on benchmarks that mimic what a computer would do under normal situations.  If you read these reviews you may not know as much about the hardware than the reviewer but you learn a lot.
The best part about a benchmark is that it gives you a NUMBER that you can compare to all of the other chips, and based on these numbers that NNNG has already shown you the core i7 is FAR superior than phenom II if you are looking at just the performance side.

Speed of light, why would he follow your ridiculous method of comparing FSX experiences with you when he already has his set up so that he gets the best experience possible with help setting everything up from Nick N (just like most other people on this forum), who knows a hell of a lot more about hardware and FSX than all of us. If you're interested he also advises to use i7.


I also strongly advise NNNG to not continue to reply to your posts because you obviously don't know when to quit and realise that you are wrong and he can never win because of this.

I said I wasn't going to jump into a flamewar, and I will try not to, BUT...

I think the Phenom guys are totally ignoring the issue of the superiority of the DDR3.  So, if I understand correctly, because the Phenom's memory bandwidth is so much lower, FSX is handing the processors lower res textures, which of course leads to higher (although completely artificial) framerates.  Most simmers actually care about blurries, but some don't obviously.  My understanding of how the FSX scenery engine works might be wrong, but perhaps somebody can correct me if it is.

I wouldn't want to run my th2go+gobs of heavy addons on the Phenom.  My RAM was originally 9-9-9, as shipped and one of the best investments I made was upgrading to something a lot faster. [EDIT#2:  which I think the Core I7 does a better job being able to utilize] I think the Phenom sounds like a great processor if you have a smaller setup with less discriminating tastes, but if you want to go larger and make a veritable flight simulator, I'm not sure I would go that route.

The 30 frames per second on world in conflict doesn't sound all that high to me.  I haven't played it on a core i7, but I have a gut feeling that my particular system would blow that out of the water if I used a single 1280x1024 display.  Maybe that is only because of the SLI, I don't know.  I'm trying to be careful when comparing systems in vastly different price ranges with very different components.

EDIT#1:  Just for technical correctness, when I say the "Phenom's memory bandwidth" is a lot lower, I meant to say that the motherboard he is using (AM2??? socket..?) doesn't accomodate DDR3, or if he has the AM3, he isn't taking advantage of it.  Let us just say, whatever the Phenom capabilities, his DDR2 is a definite choke point.  So if he were using DDR3, I think his fast frame rates would quickly go a lot lower and turn into a mess of unbearable stutters in the 3D, lots-of-addons arena.  Perhaps someone can set me straight on the nuances of the computer architecture if I am saying something incorrect here.

Quote:

No.

If you posted them pictures on an i7 I would say that it does not necessarily show what you will get on a properly set up simulation. If you want pictures of what a clocked i7 system can do, go look at screenshots by Fly2e or Nick N.

And once again you are deliberately being dishonest, and are twisting what I have said to suit your own agenda.

Quote:

Your logic is retarded as is your reading comprehension skills. I could probably write responses to your posts with what I've already written, but I digress...

I posted pictures of my sim not only looking better than yours but performing better than yours. You called me an " egotistical guy that just doesn't want to lose" and called the pictures "photoshopped".

You then posted pictures in mostly slower aircraft like a helicopter despite them STILL showing blurries. These screenshots are NOT impressive AT ALL. The framerate is also similar or lower than mine.


I really would love to have a conversation with you. It would be like clubbing seals. Really.

You cannot prove that an AMD and ATi combination is faster than a Core i7 and Nvidia combination. You cannot.

A good experience with Phenom II does not mean it's better than anything else.

Thinking the Phenom II is faster than Core i7 is about as logical as calling the Pentium 4 faster than a Core i7 in FSX ONLY because of the LACK of ANY FAIR comparison. Furthermore, what you are saying is not shown in any benchmarks.

I can take very good pictures with a Pentium 4 / X800 (or 9600GT) if I wanted to. It is EXACTLY like what you're doing actually.






Your argument in summary:

"Oh look, nobody has posted a screenshot showing an i7 or Phenom II getting this performance or better. Therefore Core 2 Quad Q6600 is the best processor there is. Have you gotten over 1300 frames per second? BET NOT. All benchmarks that say the i7 975 is over twice as fast as the Q6600 are wrong because I said so with no evidence. All benchmarks are useless. They are what geeks use, people living in the real world make claims out of thin air. Why spend $250 on a Phenom II 965 or $1000 on a Core i7 975 when a Q6600 is faster and cheaper than both, and at an acceptable price of ONLY $100 on ebay. BUY IT NOW. Besides, why do you talk about the Q6600 being garbage when you do not even own one? You cannot prove otherwise no matter because fair benchmarks by respectable sources are fake and you do not even own one. If the Core i7 and Phenom II is really faster than a Q6600 then why am I getting acceptable performance? Anyone that claims otherwise is blind parroting, sheep going with what pop-culture tells them to while bending over from big expensive evil companies like Intel and AMD. It all has to do with the non-integrated memory controller the Q6600 has, and the way the northbridge communicates to the 8800GT enabling better performance with an intel and nvidia graphics card. BUY IT NOW. How dare you tell me otherwise, DO NOT TELL ME WHAT DOES AND DOES NOT WORK".



Quote:

Your the one that was preaching to me about which was the better overclocker. Getting to 6 seconds in superPI does indeed make it better at overclocking.


You really just cannot admit you were wrong. It's simply impossible for you.

speed of light, kind of an off topic question but are you religious?

Thai09 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 5:31am:


And why exactly are you still here?

Now that is what I was talking about! ALL I WANTED WAS A DANG OL' SCREENY WITH BIG FRAMES. So you've done it. Hit WAY over 1000, but settings are low, I'm sure, just like on my 900 something. GOOD, and THANK YOU ALREADY! So, I'm not on my own little island. So, even though I get great performance, it can't possibly keep up with an i7. Good. Thank you.
Was that so hard? You could have done that a while ago, rather than flame me and this thread about some Intel dogma garbage, and proven it.
Also, I have checked prices online at my favorite shopper "heaven" if you will, frys.com, and seen that even if the i7 is so much more awesome than my Phenom II, Intel must like their chips too much. They want $500+ minimum for one. I got my Phenom II for $195.99. I say that even though you can beat me with minimal settings by 300+ FPS, the difference is still 900-1200 Intel for the win. I would never notice that, and I would also not notice the difference between 45 for AMD to 48 for Intel in a busy area to justify the $300+ difference. If you want the FASTEST PROCESSOR on EARTH, go with intel then. I concede. However, is 3-5 frames gonna make $300-$800 worth of difference to even the most difficult consumer? I dunno. I've never done it, and won't. This is why I don't care about benchmarks, theory, junk like that. To me, seeing what I want to do run great is the bottom line.
What it really boils down to, how much are you willing to spend, when you can get ALMOST IDENTICAL performance for WAAAAYY cheaper? Hmmm...
DDR2 is not my choke point. SOmebody said this. I can't say this is true. I'm sure that latencies are far more important than MHz. 3-channel makes a difference, but your 1600 MHz RAM operates at MAX right now 7-7-6-18. Most are doing 1600 MHz @ 8-8-8-24. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will try) if you're waiting for 8 clock-cycles to do what ddr2 can hit in 4 (strobe, write, read, charge, etc) then how is this better? 1600MHz at 8-8-8-24 roughly = 800 MHz @ 4-4-4-12. This is the "loosening internal clock cycles" arguement you tried to make back there somewhere, yes? No? I left the timings alone, OC it to 1066 @ 2.05V, and OC the CPU multi to get 3.8GHz. Stable 24-7, and I didn't spend $999.99 for just the CPU.
I built this entire machine 1.5 years ago for 1/2 as much as the i7 975 alone. VC, MoBo, phenom 9850 BE, 8GB RAM, and 850W PSU, $500. Win 7 64 for $100. Just 3 or so weeks ago, Phenom II for $195 just to keep up with the times, and bam. 750$ (for the ENTIRE system running), and PHENOMenal performance. I'd get an average Intel and HD for that. Can't play without the ol' MoBo. And what about that VC? Crap! I need 12 GB DDR3 ram for that 3-channel, too. Over doubling (near triple) my cost for 5% better performance. That has been my point all along. When you start yackin about benchmarks, I already tuned you out. Your scores are more than 2X mine, but FSX doesn't run 2x as good. MAX, you got a couple, maybe 8 tops more frames than me. After 40 or so, it really doesn't matter much. AMD's 60 to Intel 68 doesn't seem 2x as good to me, and definitely not 3x, like the difference in price suggests. My screen has a 60 hz refresh rate. If we're gonna start yackin about bottlenecks, that's it! After 24, it's better than TV and movies.
It's about time, Sir Yack-a-lot. All I asked you to do was post a friggin screeny on YOUR OWN system, and you finally figured it out. Was it at KEDW? Where did you see these frames? How can I do that? Wait, I'm already doing almost all of it...
The question I want REAL performance people to ask themselves is, "Is intel REALLY better? Or is it just a little better with a HORRIBLE price?" "Your benchmarks are GREAT, but FSX still only runs a || thin margin better. Was that $300-$800 really worth it?"
Moral of the Story: You be the judge; Get out of the "box". Think for yourself.

Figure out for yourself what a benchmark score REALLY is, and remember that YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO PLAY A DANG BENCHMARK. At most, I only use them to test stability after an OC tweak. That is a VERY practical use for a benchmark tool. However, as we have seen here, just because a score says one is better than the other, how does it stack up against what you really want it to do?
Use advice very carefully, as everyone will have something very different to say. Do you want to spend a bunch of money, or do you want to give the herd a good run for their money?
Hmmmm...

snippyfsxer wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 1:23am:



So now we have AMD textures/framerates and Intel textures/framerates too, LOL!

Weird logic I must say...

Speedoflight's textures looks flawless to me, but they are AMD TEXTURES, LOL!

U guys are really something

Actually speed of light a few months ago i built a system for my friend with the cheapest parts that I could find for an i7 gaming system (the 920) and it came out to around $950, and I am sorry to report but you are WAAY over exaggerating the price difference.

i7 920 $288
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202

Phenom II 965 $200
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103692&cm_re=phenom_II-...

Also I asked if you were religious simply because you seem to blindly follow your brand completely ignoring all scientific facts brought before you.

Brett, I believe NNNG just wanted to show him which was better because it isn't a good idea to give false information that would lead to someone not getting what they wanted.

Quote:


Yup 


And your pricing makes my point. That extra $88, will be the best $88 spent on a new computer.. especially considering the price of the overall build, and the years you'll use it.

Brett_Henderson wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 12:40pm:


Every time someone comes out with the next "best thing", it is always ridiculously overpriced. For example, ATi's 5970 (the x2 of today) +-$649. Damn! But for this week, it's the best. The super-mega zip-chip of 3:00 is obsolete before you even stick it in your case, it seems. Moore's law.
As far as FALSE information goes, I don't get your ignorance. There is NO FALSIFICATION of OPINION. I think MY machine is FASTER than A LOT of them, and I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. Your opinion is just as succeptable to scrutiny as is mine. I just happen to use my head, and not just accept anything someone else tells me is "true". No way around, not possible, can't be done, all blanket statements made by people who can accept things the way there are as "just the way it is" or something. All statements made about going faster than light, which were all the same arguements made to Chuck Yeager during his "faster than sound" tests at Edwards in the 40's, all sound the same to me. Physics prevents it, and that's just the way it is. Hmmm... It's a good thing they kept trying.
So, I'm gonna get into this, and find a way to CRUSH an Intel with this inferior AM3 running on a somewhat compatible AM2+ MoBo, and I'm gonna do it with my 8 GB DDR2 1066 MHz, ATi 4870 li'l 512 MB VC, and have y'all saying, "Well, It is possible, I guess." Wish me luck... 

Quote:


I've posted two, small statements, here.. from where do you infer ignorance ?

And to both of you (Thai09).. that's not the tone we use here.. keep it polite, please..

T1MT1M, Speed of Flight & Thai 09...
we have all been watching this thread and all it's posts about who's bigger, badder, faster, ect... and to be honest, it is really going down hill.

We try to promote a friendly and helpful forum here at SimV and what we are reading really does not do anything constructive for anybody here. We see that a few of the people in question, seem to be somewhat new here and just wanted to remind you that this forum is an international forum, with different beliefs, opinions and ages.

This is your 1st "reminder' that if it continues the way it is going, we will simply lock it.

If it starts up again in another thread, we will lock it.

And if by then you do not get the point that this web site is here to help, promote and talk about the hobby we all like then you will be asked to leave.

Thank you for your understanding and if anybody feels they need to say anything, you can PM a mod.

Now have a nice day