ATI 5850 for FSX or not

[Thai09]

Har-har!

"Me making my poor, outdated, amd cpu bottlenecked ati card render clouds against its will..."

I'm laughing all the way over to that "El Cheapo" AMD HP I'm stuck with, but now i loove it, thanks!

Because it's cheap, it's running 25+30

[Speed of flight]

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.

[T1MT1M]

Biggest troll ever speed of light.



The funny thing about all this is how very wrong you are and how little you seem to know about hardware.

Also the reason why nnng is telling you that you're wrong is because he doesn't want anyone from this forum listening to your bad advice and not buying the best thing that they can with what funds they have available.

[Slotback]

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.

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.

Also, I can agree that an ATI card doesn't care what kind of CPU you have, i.e. a Phenom (2) or i7.

Good, because you denied it previously.

Only geeks care about a number on a score sheet.

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.

Lets see the program run faster.

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?

[Slotback]

^ 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?

Because anyone can post a bunch of pictures with very high FPS to show how good their own computer hardware is. But in actual simming the ground would melt into a blurry mess, the weather engine would not be able to keep up, and there would be stutters and microstutters every practical microsecond. You apparently missed the part where I said... "What actually does matter, however, is the actual experience the hardware gives". If you want a fair comparison then this needs to be factored in, otherwise one can very easily show that one specific hardware (whether intentional or unintentional) is better than another. Yes, I can post fancy screenshots with a Pentium 4, very easily. It does not mean it's good hardware at all. This applies to you also, you need a fair comparison. I can provide that with non-fsx benchmarks. Perhaps Nick N can when he comes back.

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.

Yes and until that is done the Phenom II / 4870 is not any better than i7. I will say that it is extremely naive to expect the Phenom II to even come close to the i7 (when in all benchmarks IT DOES NOT). That, however, would be like actually claiming the Pentium 4 is in the same league as a Phenom II only because of a lack of an FSX benchmark. Entirely illogical.

. 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.

More misleading information - and you wonder why I reply like I do?

No Phenom II comes close to any variant of the Intel Core i7. The fastest Phenom II is a direct competitor to the Core i5 750.

I got AMD's FLAGSHIP processor, and results as good as Intel's best, for $700 cheaper.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1037/8/


The only time you get a different result is when the graphics card becomes a limiting factor. FSX is CPU bound not GPU bound.


I mean how obvious does it have to become?

I guess you'll state you get within 50% of the i7 975 while paying a quarter as much... true... but there's a catch.... the Core i5 750 does also. Mainstream processors are typically very good bang for buck. And now I suppose everyone that gets an Intel is sheep? Um... maybe because they have the money and it's also significantly faster?

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,

It's not about air cooling, it's about relaxing external clocks and loosing the memory performance of the Phenom II, which means you start loosing out on performance per internal clock clock cycle. 4.0ghz is often very similar to 3.8ghz on a Phenom II simply for this reason.

and smoke your "beating me by .1 or .2 GHz" (which is not enough to boast like you do) overclock.

It's not that it's faster by 0.1 to 0.2ghz, it's that it's faster by 40% for the same clock speeds. Have you seen the superPI records for AMD, versus Intel? Core i7 calculated pi to 1 million decimnal places in 6.670 seconds with Core i7 975@6009MHZ. No AMD processor was on the leaderboard. I don't see why it matters, it's not as if people are going to be playing FSX with a 975 at 6.0ghz nor an AMD at 7ghz.

Is it REALLY WAY BETTER, or is it just blind loyalty?

Of course it is WAY better but it is also WAY more expensive (which I've already stated). If you want to talk about blind loyalty look at your own posts. Anyone the purchases an i7 is sheep? No memory controller on i7? Just as fast as Intel Flagship? Calling benchmarks retarded crap simply because they don't agree with you? You even name the pictures you post things like, "Try_this_Nvidia6.jpg"? GDDR5? "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." Now you're upset when I call you out on posting BS. WTF

Do you just check a score on some retarded 3d benchmarking utility crap,

You asked me to look at benchmarks. I did. Now you're stating that benchmarks (even real ones, like World In Conflicts for example) are "retarded" "crap".

Also, the Core i7 920 (2.66ghz) will get to 3.8 - 4.0ghz on air.

Core i7 950 (3.0ghz) will get to about 4.0ghz on air

Core i7 975 will get to 4.2 - 4.4ghz on air.

Sorry, but when you get a Core i7 to much higher clock speeds than the Phenom II, despite the Core i7 getting 40% more performance for the same clock speed... it's pretty damn obvious which is better, which is the overclockers dream,,, and so on.

[Thai09]

Biggest troll ever speed of light.



The funny thing about all this is how very wrong you are and how little you seem to know about hardware.

Also the reason why nnng is telling you that you're wrong is because he doesn't want anyone from this forum listening to your bad advice and not buying the best thing that they can with what funds they have available.

Arrogance, only arrogance!

Speed of Flight has shown that it's possible to have a great

[Slotback]

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.

Ouch. I got called a weenis by some guy on the internet that didn't know that i7 had an integrated memory controller and thought that Phenom II 965 was as fast as Core i7 975.

... why didn't you understand it then? Because either you did understand it (just deny it like you have everything else), or you are a child, or you are someone who is over 60.

It's ok, though. I can understand the lack in intellect that often follows someone who wants to win so badly.

Ouch. I am hurting real bad from one of your inane gimmick postings. I really look forward to your reply to this, because I'm sure it will be filled with more technical inaccuracies, more denial, more hypocrisy, more contradictions and personal attacks.

By the way, your 400+screenshot doesn't even look genuine. Looks photoshopped.

Ouch. Because anything that disagrees with you must be fake, amirite? I bet your reply will, yet again, be something incredibly inane, condescending, inaccurate, and most of all misleading. Let me provide you with an example:

1. "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." Yes, nice cover for your own ignorance.

2. "Me making my poor, outdated, amd cpu bottlenecked ati card render clouds against its will..."

d. Just figure I'd help you out the same way you did to the poor guy wanting to upgrade on a budget.

If you want to talk about bad advice then look no further than your own posts.

As for me.. well......
http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaB ... 1261604513

"One of the friendliest forums on the Net!"

Yep, but also with some of the most arrogant "I-know-better-than-You" types around.

Apologies, Thai09. If there was one person who I had been undeservingly rude to, it would be you.

[Thai09]

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!

[T1MT1M]

[quote]

Arrogance, only arrogance!

Speed of Flight has shown that it's possible to have a great

[Slotback]

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?

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/YaB ... 1165332791

[Speed of flight]

Biggest troll ever speed of light.



The funny thing about all this is how very wrong you are and how little you seem to know about hardware.

Also the reason why nnng is telling you that you're wrong is because he doesn't want anyone from this forum listening to your bad advice and not buying the best thing that they can with what funds they have available.

"Wrong" being knowledgeable, yes. Dude, if I'm wrong, it's only in theory. Surely, you're just mad cuz you spent a bunch o' money, and some guy didn't, and is doing as well as you...

I haven't said anything to really be wrong about. I pick on Intel a little about it's price, and that is totally correct.
You're wrong about me being wrong, mr. wrongy wrongpants. Nanny nanny naaannyy. Now we're both acting the same.

[Speed of flight]

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.

SO WHAT IF YOUR BENCHMARK SCORES ARE HIGHER!

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

[Speed of flight]

You know, If I were posting pics and said that I was running i7, NNNG would say that it is expected to get that kind of performance on i7. Since I did this using Phenom II, and ATi, it just can't be true. Even though I stumbled upon a great combination in hardware, I must somehow just be wrong.

Getting good performance on an AMD and ATI is "nonsense". If Intel is as good, then where's your pics? It's not as good. The part that you are drilling is that Intel is WWAAAAAYYY better, but noone else has posted a legitimate picture in here with as good performance, even yourself. You are talking nonsense, cuz you're saying that your alma-mater is better, and you can't prove it.

There are combinations out there that rock, while most are struggling. These are the folks I'm trying to help, just like you are. Just because you get a bigger commission in your store for selling an item with an astronomically inflated price tag on it, does not make it better. Benchmarking scores don't make it better. Being more expensive doesn't make it better. Handling 86 million digits of Pi in 6 seconds doesn't make it better. If it DOES WHAT YOU NEED AND WANT IT TO DO BETTER, then it's better. I say and I quote, "I don't have the fastest machine there is." I am aware of this. But if somebody wants tips on hardware and how to change bios settings to maximize it, I will recommend to them my combination. It works for me, and it does what I need and want it to do.
I will NOT recommend Intel. I don't use intel, and you don't even use the one you recommend. That is the "blind loyalty" of which I am speaking. You use a Q6600 or some garbage, and recommend folks get an i7. I got a Phenom II, 4870 512 MB, 8 GB ddr2 800, and MSI K9A2 Platinum. That is what I got, and I'm head-over-heels with its performance. It does what I need it to do, and it does it better than most. Even better than some of the Intel i7 machines (NOT ALL, some). THAT is what I'll recommend to folks.

I actually tried mine.

[Speed of flight]

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]

You know, If I were posting pics and said that I was running i7, NNNG would say that it is expected to get that kind of performance on i7. Since I did this using Phenom II, and ATi, it just can't be true. Even though I stumbled upon a great combination in hardware, I must somehow just be wrong.

Getting good performance on an AMD and ATI is "nonsense". If Intel is as good, then where's your pics? It's not as good. The part that you are drilling is that Intel is WWAAAAAYYY better, but noone else has posted a legitimate picture in here with as good performance, even yourself. You are talking nonsense, cuz you're saying that your alma-mater is better, and you can't prove it.

There are combinations out there that rock, while most are struggling. These are the folks I'm trying to help, just like you are. Just because you get a bigger commission in your store for selling an item with an astronomically inflated price tag on it, does not make it better. Benchmarking scores don't make it better. Being more expensive doesn't make it better. Handling 86 million digits of Pi in 6 seconds doesn't make it better. If it DOES WHAT YOU NEED AND WANT IT TO DO BETTER, then it's better. I say and I quote, "I don't have the fastest machine there is." I am aware of this. But if somebody wants tips on hardware and how to change bios settings to maximize it, I will recommend to them my combination. It works for me, and it does what I need and want it to do.
I will NOT recommend Intel. I don't use intel, and you don't even use the one you recommend. That is the "blind loyalty" of which I am speaking. [glow=yellow,2,300]You use a Q6600 or some garbage, and recommend folks get an i7[/glow]. I got a Phenom II, 4870 512 MB, 8 GB ddr2 800, and MSI K9A2 Platinum. That is what I got, and I'm head-over-heels with its performance. It does what I need it to do, and it does it better than most. Even better than some of the Intel i7 machines (NOT ALL, some). THAT is what I'll recommend to folks.

I actually tried mine.

Well said, Speedoflight!

NNNG:

"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."


You don't even use an i7, how can you recommend it then? :-?

That's the "Parrot mentality" and it's widespread here and it's damn boring!