Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest D17S

Gettin' ready for DX10

Recommended Posts

Guest D17S

Interesting article:http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...W50aHVzaWFzdA==Hard OCP is one of the few review sites that routinely uses FSX as a benchmark. You can skip right to that portion of the review here: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...W50aHVzaWFzdA==The main point is that FSX relies much more on the CPU than the Vcard. For you Do-it-Yourself system builders (like me), that might help in the decision making process. Get all the CPU you can afford . . . and surprisingly, $170 ought to do it. FSX is not multi-thread enabled, so their comparison between the single core

Share this post


Link to post
Guest MauiHawk

One thing, though, to keep in mind if you are planning on moving to Vista and have or will be buying a DX10 card: Most of the changes to DX10 performance-wise were focused on recuding CPU overhead to manage graphics. The idea is that DX10 games will be able to do much more graphics with less intervention from the CPU. Further, DX10 introduces a geometery pipeline that can be used for physics calculations among other things. I'm not sure if this applies to FS as much as other games, but I think its possible some tasks, such as animating ground and water vehicles, can be offloaded to the gfx card.Anyway, the point being if DX10 lives up to its billing with the FSX DX10 patch, the CPU should become less of a bottleneck and may put some more emphasis back on high-end gfx solutions.

Share this post


Link to post

this by far has to be the most interesting thing ive read on these forums!!LOL!Josh..


Cheers Josh Cliff

Share this post


Link to post

I've been thinking of the hardware jump from FS9 to FSX.. as far as I can tell.. there is no point in upgrading now at all.. NONE of the hardware available now will do the job properly.. I am waiting at least another 6 months before buying any hardware at all.. and sticking with FS9.. Even the 8800GTX cards can't do the job properly.. look at the settings they have.. I want to see what this DX10 patch does to FSX.. what vista does to FSX and then.. once the market it settled.. I'm going to make my decision..Craig


Craig Read, EGLL

Share this post


Link to post

>.. I am waiting at least another 6 months before>buying any hardware at all.. and sticking with FS9.. >CraigWise decision !. Applause !Jose Luis.


signed: José Luis

Share this post


Link to post
Guest MauiHawk

You know, one thing that really ticks me off is message board l33tism. As you've probably guessed, my life isn't dedicated to FS and I'm not claiming to know anything your uber-head doesn't already contain.I was simply pointing out that DX10 is supposed to allow for reduced loading on the CPU. Maybe its naive to think DX10, Vista, the hardware out there, or FSX's forthcoming patch will be able to benefit much from this... or maybe there's been many other topics on here discussing some point I'm obviously unaware of, but I'm not sure it really makes you that much cooler to LOL in my face. Grow up.Now, since I obviously have much to learn from you, maybe you'd be kind enought to help: I have FS9 and PMDG 737NG. I haven't used it much for the last 6 months, but have become intrigued by FSX coupled with DX10. I plan on getting a new gfx card in the next 6 months or so (not just for FS... whether it makes sense for FS or not, I'm getting one in the next 6 months). Obviously, it would pay to wait and see what comes of DX10 and the patch. Outside of that, what do I need to know that I'm so obviously missing.Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest D17S

And here I thought he was reacting positively to my post! But the main point was that the current DX9'd FSX is CPU limited. That provides us two main hopes for FSX and MauiHawk brings up an important hope. 1) This new GPU technology (Nvidia's 8XXX series and ATI's R600) can provide CPU-like functionality. If DX10 can (somehow) offload some CPU duties to the GPU, there's possible salvation at hand. 2) The other hope is multi-thread enabled programs. However, right now, it is NOT the Vcard horsepower that is holding FSX back. It is the CPU. I was totally shocked at mid-slider levels Hard OCP had to maintain to keep the game playable. The SLI meter never registered any usage of the second 8800GTX at all until they got up to AA a-gazillionX. The programs frame rates sunk to unplayable levels and the Vcards' horsepower was not even one-half used. Even a core 2 dual X6800 could not drive FSX at playable frame rates above a mid slider level. That's why I was posting a way to get even more CPU torque from that E4300, the Little-Engine-that-Could (what a trooper!) My best guess is that FSX will continue to be CPU limited. Off-loading that much workload to the GPU is a holy grail that we are just not close to yet (I think??). Multi-threading is closer (I think??) . . . but neither are upon us (I know!!)I don't think FSX will be about waiting for a better Vcard. As far as the CPU technology, I think that is now stabilized. We're going to go faster for sure. . . but the real boost will be from adding additional cores. AMD had this basic single threaded Core 2 technology figured out for the last 2 years and Intel finally caught up. This Core2 deal is just a bit more efficient (clock for clock) than AMD's FX/Athlon. However it's helpful to us right now because has the potential to run much higher clocks (like that amazing little E4300!) Also, Intel's 45 nanometer technology is all about putting more cores on the same die. This will not be so much about going faster. The next leaps in processor capability will be about adding more cores. So what are these software guys doing for FSX . . . and every other ravenious program out there? What do YOU think they are doing? FSX will be about buying the right hardware, optimizing this ExisTing hardware, then waiting for the software guys to catch up. Any real improvements from here will be about the software working better with the unused hardware capability that we already have (i.e., multicores and this AmaZing new GPU technology).That's where we're going (IMHO, of course). Waiting is always good, because competitive, evolving, "same stuff" technology (like the ATI R600) will drive prices down . . . but (pretty much) the hardware is already here.

Share this post


Link to post

MauiHawk,I assume you were refering to the post after yours? I'm not sure exactly what that person contributed or wasn't sure exactly how to take their post either to be honest.. I don't use my machine solely for FS either.. I do a lot of hard number crunching and modelling on it for my current job.. so understand your point of view totally..I do totally agree with what you're saying.. DX10 will hopefully reduce CPU load.. and improve performance.. I guess I'm just sceptical as reading about FSX as an example.. we were promised some substantial performance gains.. It was supposed to be a complete re-write from top to bottom to get rid of the old bottle necks..I guess the ultimate problem.. being non-specific about software applications.. is that most software developments are addons to already existing software applications (because it's cheaper).. win95 built on to make 98.. then again to make ME.. then again to make 2000.. and so on.. What we need is some software company to have to guts to throw everything in the bin.. get with a hardware manufacturer.. and re-write and design from scratch.. This of course won't ever happen.. Vista.. alas.. is built on XP technology.. so the whole thing unfolds with a depressing inevitability..The ONLY solution as an engineer to this whole GFX card and upgrading hardware problem rubbish.. is to sell something like a VERY FAST (they can currently run from anything between 1 to 20 GHz, of course MASSIVELY expensive at that pace!) running FPGA (fully programmable gate arrays) rather than a dedicated GPU or any other hardware for that matter.. An FPGA can be reprogrammed to operate in a different way at any point.. it could be programmed to control a car engine.. run traffic lights.. control a pump and tank system.. run aircraft avionics and navigation systems.. run your toaster.. or alarm clock.. or even interpret and process graphics.. They could be sold with current DX support and then reprogrammed for the next DX in the series with smaller software updates and NO hardware upgrade (bought at a much reduced price).. You could even reprogramme it to use older DX series if games run better with it.. An FPGA could do anything.. it could be your Physics processor.. your GFX card.. your Network card.. Sound card.. To some point the GTX cards use FPGA tech.. by having their shaders able to switch and do other jobs (as I understand it).. but it's not quite the same.. Once your FPGA for graphics becomes too slow.. you can reprogramme it and it can become your new all singing all dancing sound card.. while you get a quicker FPGA for your GFX.. of course if it's 20GHz.. it can probably do EVERYTHING.. at once..I guess what concerns me is spending loads of money on hardware and then not being able to use it as I intended.. I know the GTX card now.. can't do the job well and at


Craig Read, EGLL

Share this post


Link to post

good topic. Its a wait and see game for me, personally i dont really want to spend any money at the moment on upgrading. Ill wait a few months until the new windows and the new batch of graphics cards come in. Nice research Sam!


Paul McMahon

Ireland

747400.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

good topic. Its a wait and see game for me, personally i dont really want to spend any money at the moment on upgrading. Ill wait a few months until the new windows and the new batch of graphics cards come in. Nice research Sam!


Paul McMahon

Ireland

747400.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Are microsoft releasing a Vista edition of FSX? i thought i read that a while back..might make more interesting hardware requirements. Also i guess for running PMDG aircraft a little extra grunt from the CPU and Graphics is needed


Paul McMahon

Ireland

747400.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Loiosh

They're releasing a DX10 version of FSX. Since DX10 requires Vista.... Yes, they're releasing a Vista version of FSX. It will be an update of some sort.

Share this post


Link to post

I purchased FSX out of curiosity, only to remove it completely the same hour (including a complete system re-install since FSX taints the existing FS9 install). There are at least two camps. Camp 1 are the folks who are not into the serious simming. These folks are fine with the native MSFS aircraft, native ATC, native simulated weather and all the mediocre elements of MSFS. Camp 1 does not really care if the image staggers a bit. They do not care if they have to turn the sliders down. They are happy to get the new toy and to play with it a bit until the novelty wears thin and all the missions/adventures are done (or not). This camp likely are more oriented towards the play station genre. This is fine, I am not judging them, only, stating an opinion (I play PlayStation 2 with the kids!). Flight sim is not their hobby /passion/ pastime. The initial FSX release was/is for Camp 1. Curiously just before the Christmas shopping season.Camp 2 are the folks that encompass a wide range of serious simmers. The folks that comb through these forums and enjoy the fidelity of aircraft like PMDG


Cheers, Scott Ball

Share this post


Link to post

>My bottom line is this: Enjoy FS9 now with high frame rates>and the great, mature, debugged and stable (more or less)>add-on products with relatively cheap hardware prices. The>fact that FSX is not DX10 & MultiCore CPU ready, and DX10>hardware is not really mainstream yet, boils down to one>conclusion


signed: José Luis

Share this post


Link to post

Ive been following this thread closely and would like to see it posted in the hardware part of this forum to let those Tech heads give their piece of mind on it!!..CheerzJosh


Cheers Josh Cliff

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...