ATI 5850 for FSX or not

[T1MT1M]

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!

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.

[Slotback]

"Wrong" being knowledgeable, yes. Dude, if I'm wrong, it's only in theory.

So only because of the lack of an FSX benchmark makes you right? You get what you consider acceptable performance from a Phenom II. I never denied that. If you claim that it is "good as good (maybe better)" than i7 then you are dead wrong.

Surely, you're just mad cuz you spent a bunch o' money, and some guy didn't, and is doing as well as you...

In theory you are wrong, and in practice you have not tried an i7 on FSX yet.

I pick on Intel a little about it's price, and that is totally correct.

Essentially what you have done is rubbish all benchmarks, then tell us the Phenom II is the same as a $1000 Core i7 975. It is very much true that the Phenom II 965 is much better value for money than the Core i7 975. It is also very much true that the Core i5 750 is much better value for money than the Core i7 975. It is also very close in performance and price to the Phenom II 965. These facts have nothing to do with Intel versus AMD, only which market segment each respective processor is designed to serve.

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.

Which is false. You will save money by going Phenom II the same way you save money by going Core i5 750.

WHere's your 900+ FPS screeny? Can't make one? Bet not.

You said that about the last one which you thought was photoshopped. And it seems you do not understand what a fair benchmark is.

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.

No, this is what you said:

"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."

"Got a screen shot yesterday almost 300FPS! Ask those Nvidia guys if they ever got that! Here you go..."

"Go with Nvidia if you must (loyalty is important) but your frame rate junk will always be a problem."

" Can't imagine how much a pain THAT must be for an Nvidia guy. "

" 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!*"


And I tried to tell him that if he wants a high end computer then Core i7 / ATi Radeon 5800 is the way to go. And if t hat costs too much, then downgrade to a slower Core i7 or even Core i5, then lastly Phenom II. (this was reply #18) Do you or do you not deny this?

You came back with a post riddled with personal attacks, asked me to provide proof and asked if listened to the benchmark folks (reply #21). And then you posted BS about AMD/ATI combos, GDDR5 and integrated memory controllers. Hey, don't try and take a moral high-ground and don't deliberately misinterpret what I've said either.

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.

Nope, you show me. You're going against all evidence. ALL OF IT. Don't accuse me of parroting when you parrot AMD marketing from about 2005.

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.

No, you are again putting words in my mouth or deliberately misinterpreting what I have said. Let's be clear. If what I am saying is true (and it is) then a Phenom II system is not necessarily the best possible hardware for MSFS. I am not denying that you get what you think is good performance. However what you have shown is absolutely nothing special. A Core i7 is very likely to give you significantly better results, but again, it is more expensive.

and all you can do is say (drooling) iNTeL iS BEtTeR *snort* (licking the window on the short bus).

That's all you can say about AMD/ATi which is not true. Go read your own posts.

[quote]

AVG FPS on FSX

YOUR Intel chip

[snippyfsxer]

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.

[T1MT1M]

[quote]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.

[Slotback]

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.

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.

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.

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".

Handling 86 million digits of Pi in 6 seconds doesn't make it better.

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.

[Slotback]

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 are ignoring all benchmarks, and are just assuming that AMD will give you the best possible experience ONLY because it has given you a good experience. This is a very dangerous assumption. You do not recommend Intel because your are biased and you absolutely refuse to accept the Core i7 is much faster than the Phenom II, which is against all tests. All fair tests aka benchmarks.

. You use a Q6600 or some garbage, and recommend folks get an i7.

Your point?

BTW, my processor came out in 2006. If I add a $50 cooler to it and get it to 3.6ghz (which is usually easy to achieve) it would have about the same performance as your Phenom II overclocked. If I am lucky I might of gotten one of the Q6600's that overclock to 4.2ghz on air where it would murder a Phenom II. By the way, for them four years I've had the Q6600, you have probably been stuck on dual FX-74's which sucked against the Q6600 because they cost twice as much, were slower, overclocked less and used twice the power. You must of later changed to the Phenom 9850 which was an epic failure, and just now you've caught up with the Phenom II? FYI, how much money have you wasted buying four processors to only get slightly faster than my Q6600? Because that's what you would of been required to do to merely keep up with the Q6600 from the date it came out. I bet you that's the path you would suggest to take because after all, you do not advise getting an Intel no matter the evidence.

[T1MT1M]

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

[Thai09]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RwHaAtVeaA

[T1MT1M]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RwHaAtVeaA

And why exactly are you still here?

[ShaneG_old]

As a faithful  AMD / ATI user of several years and many of their
products, I can easily say that my wife's Intel / Nvidea system
out performs mine with FSX.

A quick peruse of the screen shot forums will supply more evidence 
of the Intel - Nvidea - FSX magic combo.  Not just with the i7s or Q series either. 

And most hard core simmers will tell you, FPS in MSFS don't mean
squat, it's all about the 'smooth flight experience' , which is something you can never prove with a screen shot .

I love my system as it is, but I would do it differently next time.

Tastes great, or less filling?

[Speed of flight]

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...

[Speed of flight]

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

I can't imagine what this has to do with anything excepting that I would open myself up to some kind of criticism for saying "Yes", so I'll just say "no comment".

[Thai09]

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

I[b] think the Phenom guys are totally ignoring the issue of the superiority of the DDR3.

[Brett_Henderson]

Wow.. five pages (and counting), to argue about what was long ago known, by avid simmers.

An Intel based computer is a better choice for FSX.. whether that better performance is = to the extra cost is a person-by-person.. budget-by-budget thing.

Personally, regardless of budget.. if I'm talking to a person building a sim computer today.. I'd advise that if your next build is more than 24 months from now.. NOT going with an Intel Quad-core is mistake. That extra hundred bucks or two.. will be the best, long-term money spent. Better performance today, plus (hopefully) a longer, useful life.

[T1MT1M]

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.a ... 6819115202

Phenom II 965 $200
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... -_-Product

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.