Simviation Forums

Hi everybody,

Last week I upgraded my system from a P4 3.4Ghz with a 7800GS 512DDR3 card to a P Dual Core 3.4 (3.9)Ghz with a 7900 GT (XFX Xtreme ) card.

My framerates are 35% higher now.

However yesterday a supplier nearby started to sell several brands with a GTX7950/2

[quote]Hi everybody,

Last week I upgraded my system from a P4 3.4Ghz with a 7800GS 512DDR3 card to a P Dual Core 3.4 (3.9)Ghz with a 7900 GT (XFX Xtreme ) card.

My framerates are 35% higher now.

However yesterday a supplier nearby started to sell several brands with a GTX7950/2

Finally I bought a 7950GTXdual card to see if it would make any difference compared to my 7900GT card.

Not a single framerta extra !

Not at 1024x768 nor at 1200x1600!
My AA was set to 4 and AF to 16.

Because I am running at 3900 dual core I can only conclude that Fs is graphical not that difficult for even a 7900GT card.

So I returned the 7950GTXdual card.

Ya that result really dosn't supprise me at all. FS is not a game that was designed around being able to use SLi. Check a game like COD2 that was, and you'll notice the difference. However the 7800 is probibly the best card that FS was designed for. Everything else is overkill for FS. But on the grander scheem of things, a 7950GX2 is not a bad card to have.

Cheers
Cameron

Something does not sound right... It sounds like only one core was working. Are you sure your BIOS has the correct update so the dual core is FULLY recognized and used? It is a major issue about those cards that the BIOS must be updated to support the dual core card.

There is allot more to FS9 than frame rates... however you saying the card provided no increase at all makes absolutely no sense UNLESS you hit the highest frame rate possible in FS9

And if i remember right thats 160 FPS?

Cheers
Cameron

Just look in the last Pc Pilot ; there was no difference between a sli 7800 gtx and a single 7900gtx and a sli 7900gtx.

Like it has been said many times before : Fs relies heavily on the cpu and less on the gpu.

If a 7900Gt can handle everything at ease than a 7900gtx will offer nothing extra.

I was able to do the same test with the pc of a friend who has a 7900gtx.
When replacing that card for my 7900gt no extra framerates.

Fs where you taxi between the 3d buildings or where the ground below slowly passes is very different compared to a racing game like Need for speed where you race between the 3d objects and buildings.

Also most of the color "effects" like in adventure games are not used in Fs.

Therefor a 7900gt seems more than enough for Fs2004.

When FSX comes out I will buy a faster card again to compare.
If is offers extra performance I will keep it and if not I willl return it again.

Happy flying,

( Btw I have a Asus P5WD2-E Premium mobo with the last bios and the gtx7950dual was recognised as so. )

Last night I tried FS with my BFG 7950 GX2 and was also a little  surprised. With the frame rate set at unlimited I ran a constant 60 FPS. That is not as good as my 7800 GTX did.

Am sure my problem is my CPU not keeping up with the GPU.

Also I was running XP64 so don't know if that made a difference or not. Am getting ready to load FS9 into Vista and see what happens.

Am getting ready to load FS9 into Vista and see what happens.

Have fun with a blue screen

Vista's hardware 3D support is horrable. You'll be luckey to even load up KSEA.

I tried to get BF2 and NFSMW to work, and neither did.

Cheers
Cameron

I would keep the 7950 as it will rip through fsx when it comes out  ;D

Ok gang, heres the deal. I just ran a series of flights with Vista64 that I had also ran with XP64. I saw absolutely no difference in frame rates or any visual differences. I used my Saitek X52 and it worked flawlessly.

One thing I did find with the 7950 that sucked though. I loaded the addon scenery for Edmonton Alberta and it almost stopped my computer. Frame rated dropped as low as 6. My 7800 GTX on XP32 ran 40 FPS with no problem. I don't have XP32 loaded on this computer so can not make any comparison.

Screen resolution was set at 1680 x 1050. I tried it at 1024 x 768 but got bad artifacts.

fs9 is heavily CPU intensive, and not so intensive on the GPU. Infact, fs9 isn't optimized for SLI.

I even underclocked my card by 100mhz and saw no diferance.