ATI 5850 for FSX or not

[Thai09]

Thank You, thank You so much, I bow down, I'M CONVINCED!

Save some dough and go AMD/ATI.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Hf6d404QY

7Gz+ on a Phenom!

[Speed of flight]

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!!

[macca22au]

Speed of Flight is really enthusiastic.  But if what he says is true, and who could doubt a fellow simmer, then it means that the Intel/Nvidia combination can't handle the game as well as the AMD/ATI combo.

If it is so obvious, then why are the majority of us, me included, reluctant to make the change?  We seem to have been brainwashed into a loyalty for the most expensive on the market.

Later this year I will treat this information seriously in my choice of hardware.

[Slotback]

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.

[Speed of flight]

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

Although I am very enthusiastic, yes, I must disagree with you on whether or not the AMD/ATI combo can run better vs ATI/Intel. AMD/ATI's merger a few years ago DEFINITELY gave them the advantage over intel.
Evidence? Sure:
ATI has been using GDDR5 for 2 years now.
AMD has been making their own chipsets to put on motherboards.
AMD/ATI is the faster, better thought-out, co-ownership of overclockers fantasies: A "team" if you will, that of which was destined to dominate. They have done it.
Granted, an Intel processor can overclock on air to higher levels than an AMD (most of the time). However, AMD's architecture puts the RAM controller ON THE PROCESSOR. It doesn't have to scource the socket on the MB. Each has their advantages and disadvantages.

I didn't have as good an arguement as I'd thought, but I didn't really think I needed to. I've got proof!
ALL SHOULD REMEMBER!!!! This is just a friendly and respectful rivalry. If any INTEL guys can run this game faster, with the tweaks I've been using, I will gladly resign as the self-appointed FSX FPS champ (not as I deserve it, I just took it )

I'm excited that the hardware has finally caught up with the crunch of FSX. I'm very happy with the purchases I'd made, and learned how to get as much as I can out of it. If anybody has a comparable rig, maybe we can tell others how to get the best of theirs on FSX. This is still a very heavy sim: people still trying to just run it, some of them.

Keeping with the friendly competition part, anybody else got almost 300 FPS with everything maxxed? HA! I dare you! Post pics!

[Speed of flight]

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.

[Speed of flight]

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.

That bugs me a little. How do you know, mister? Have you tried EVERY piece of hardware out there? That's a blanket statement made by someone who obviously doesn't know. That's rude, even. What do you run? You get 300 FPS? I bet not. Don't tell me that it isn't working, or that it doesn't, when it does, obviously.

Where's your proof? Do you listen to the benchmark folks? Or do you actually buy ALL the hardware there is to get, and try it? How can you say that when it's actually true? Don't just try and argue with no basis. You haven't a clue, my friend. It works for me. I posted pics just to prove it.
You're a nay-sayer. I did it with Windows 7 64 bit, too. It's what I run. If you can prove that there's no corelation, do it. I will tell you this, though:
They are the SAME company. One would think that they work TOGETHER to make a good product for a fair price. If you stopped shooting from the hip and actually TRY before you just say, you may see your error. Don't tell me, pardner. You prove it, and I'll listen. Otherwise, be quiet. people actually want to know how to make things go faster, and you saying stuff like that is just sabotage. You don't run my rig, so you don't know what is faster. Find out for yourself, and then post pics. PROVE IT. Then talk.

Another thing: AMD Phenom 2 holds the world record for overclocking. 7 GHz (with liquid nitrogen, I think). Who's ACTUALLY faster, and then who is faster IN THEORY may be two different subjects...

[Rich H]

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.

[Speed of flight]

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.

Now that's what I'm talking about! Thank you! Geeze. I apologize for bein a jerk. I hate it when somebody says something with only theory, instead of experience. Another guy gave someone a hard time over an OS upgrade issue, and he told the poor guy that he didn't know what he was talking about, or that he was wrong, or whatever. I felt like I had to help the guy out! That kind of junk has no room anywhere, and I don't like it. With some folks, you can show 'em proof, and they will still say "You're wrong", or "You don't know what you're talking about", that kind of junk, without any counter-arguement/proof. I would have hoped for an intelligent "arguement" (a point-for-point discussion) about what worked or not, and maybe even a little friendly competition, er sumthin.

Maybe we can get back to that, now...

[Speed of flight]

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!

[Speed of flight]

[quote]Speed of Flight is really enthusiastic.

[Slotback]

Wow.

ATI has been using GDDR5 for 2 years now.

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.

AMD has been making their own chipsets to put on motherboards.

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

AMD/ATI is the faster, better thought-out, co-ownership of overclockers fantasies:

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 ... ,1407.html

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/gami ... ,1634.html

Granted, an Intel processor can overclock on air to higher levels than an AMD (most of the time). However, AMD's architecture puts the RAM controller ON THE PROCESSOR. It doesn't have to scource the socket on the MB. Each has their advantages and disadvantages.

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.

[Slotback]

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.

That's generally what happens when your CPU is not fast enough for your type of flying, or you have the framelock set to unlimited.........

. How do you know, mister? Have you tried EVERY piece of hardware out there?

I could ask you the same question.

.... Because I have hundreds if not thousands of posts on overclocking forums such as OCAU, I work at a computer store, & also my sources, such as ANANDTECH for example, have tested every piece of hardware out there.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3619&p=6

[Slotback]

Another thing: AMD Phenom 2 holds the world record for overclocking. 7 GHz (with liquid nitrogen, I think). Who's ACTUALLY faster, and then who is faster IN THEORY may be two different subjects...

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

They are the SAME company. One would think that they work TOGETHER to make a good product for a fair price.

What your saying is NOT demonstratable by a single benchmark.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/ ... _scaling/4

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/ ... html#sect1

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

Do you work for AMD or ATi?

[Slotback]

Where's your proof? Do you listen to the benchmark folks? Or do you actually buy ALL the hardware there is to get, and try it? How can you say that when it's actually true? Don't just try and argue with no basis. You haven't a clue, my friend. It works for me. I posted pics just to prove it.

I didn't know I had to post benchmarks only to show the blatantly obvious... this is stuff school children could understand...... but I digress.... I posted benchmarks... they all agree with me, not you.

That's rude, even. What do you run? You get 300 FPS? I bet not

I run a two year old Q6600 (2.4ghz) overclocked to QX6850 spec (3.0ghz) and an overclocked 8800GT videocard. I get a constant smooth 26 fps, which allows me unlike you to have crystal clear all the way up to 600 knots.