Simviation Forums

Although far from being an

'

look at the freakin video card they used

if a benchmarker does not understand FSX their results will be tainted

LOL, good luck on getting any hardware site to take any time to

Yes it is a shame

Most people do not run FSX in DX10 mode and they were also running things completely out of whack.. there was a huge thread gap between the scenery and the shader passes.

Putting a ATI card into that test and saying.. THIS IS WHAT IT IS FOR ALL GAMES .. is a freakin JOKE

Now, even if they had not tuned the test sim correctly I would like to see the difference beween their high and mightly ATi x2 and a GTX 285 in DX9 running AA and AF off of NHANCER

OWNED!

freakin AMD slugs would have been sent back to their mommies..   and thats what I mean.. those tests are ALL not looking too bad for AMD not matter what they said

I dont like it.. it looks like a setup being made to look fair

[quote]Yes it is a shame

Most people do not run FSX in DX10 mode and they were also running things completely out of whack.. there was a huge thread gap between the scenery and the shader passes.

Putting a ATI card into that test and saying.. THIS IS WHAT IT IS FOR ALL GAMES .. is a freakin JOKE

Now, even if they had not tuned the test sim correctly I would like to see the difference beween their high and mightly ATi x2 and a GTX 285 in DX9 running AA and AF off of NHANCER

OWNED!

freakin AMD slugs would have been sent back to their mommies..

[quote]


"Don't mince words, Bones.

[quote]Yes it is a shame

Most people do not run FSX in DX10 mode and they were also running things completely out of whack.. there was a huge thread gap between the scenery and the shader passes.

Putting a ATI card into that test and saying.. THIS IS WHAT IT IS FOR ALL GAMES .. is a freakin JOKE

Now, even if they had not tuned the test sim correctly I would like to see the difference beween their high and mightly ATi x2 and a GTX 285 in DX9 running AA and AF off of NHANCER

OWNED!

freakin AMD slugs would have been sent back to their mommies..

Its like anything else.. when you sit at the top of the food chain what comes down the road will usually be a snack instead of a meal

at the same time I would not go back to IntelQ

i7 and FSX need a bit of TLC to get in sync but the main gig is the VC.. right now the only card that can really keep up is the 285. What we need is another card that is horsepower based and kicks the 285.. not a new CPU

What we need is another card that is horsepower based and kicks the 285.. not a new CPU

I

The part of the card that is used, caters to what FSX needs.

ATi is going to continue to be a shader rendering engine geared card... My concern is as Nvidia finally shifts gears in that direction 100% it will mean a complete halt to anything good for FSX and a great deal of time between releases that work... its already started.. The best card for FSX past the original 768MB 8800GTX or Ultra is the 280/285.. thats 2006 to 2008 .. 2 years and without the same leap in ability the 8800 provided.

hopefully the 285 wont be the last however i7 needs more raw horsepower and focus of that aspect of the video adapter for FSX and even the 285 is challenged by that.



2GB? other than massive resolution or MM with large resolution, nothing.. and even those circumstances are limited. The 1GB card is fine

Success with pref increases and large bufferpool amounts (above 100MB) are not typical. Its a combination of motherboard and card that drives the use and its result. But if you are thinking you can set a 500GB+ BP and see anything.. no. As a matter of fact, the only advantage with those running 450-490 is for sound latency issues which are motherboard specific.

I would not have wasted my money if the card was for FSX use only

2GB? other than massive resolution or MM with large resolution, nothing.. and even those circumstances are limited. The 1GB card is fine

I would not have wasted my money if the card was for FSX use only

With the rumors flying about Nvidia