FSX Dynamic Benchmark Run Results

[Guest D17S]

It continues to amaze me how much effort a user might be willing to spend for that single, arguable, additional click of that autogen sidebar. There on the other hand, it might be reasonable for a purveyor of the beneficiary of that additional click to seek means to propose even a subjective enhancement to that product's functionality, despite the cost. The product's good, It doesn't need all this. Really! There's no need to spend the effort to promote subjective improvements that simply are NoT needed, or even generally recognizable. Relax, the product's fine.However at some point a user must cut through the hyperbole and apply a hard-reasoned Dollars v Sense analysis. Especially for those with less of the former and clearly more of the later.Also the PCI buss is at a ~ AGP8X "saturation" point. In other words, we are just now starting to use the capacity of that old AGP8X pipe. The PCI-e v1.1 still has capacity way beyond any Vcard's needs today and tomorrow. It will take several V-gens to soak up even PCI-e 1.1's capacity. PCI-e v2 is beyond even that. It's just more marketing future-looking to entice a lay audience.

[Noel 4,507]

>Since you are not going from a -really- slow card to the Ultra>I think I would wait and even if it costs a bit more get more>for your money that will come from better tech. The 8800 768>cards are the FSX kings but their era is coming to an end..>waiting would probably be a better choice given their time as>king is closing fast now.Yeah, I think that is what I'm leaning towards. I will wait a while tho n see if drivers for the 4800 ATIs improve the picture for a 4870 or even a 4870x2. I do much appreciate ATI's IQ in both Radeons I had over any nV card. I still maintain it's mostly a hardware issue.QX9650 w/ Retail HSF|ASUS P5E3 Premium WiFi|4GB Muskin Ascent 7-6-6-18 1T DDR3-1600|EVGA 8800GT|Seagate SATA 2 x 2|Seagate Cheetah 15K.x|XP Pro SP2|Vista 64--maybe never to be installed

[Noel 4,507]

>It continues to amaze me how much effort a user might be>willing to spend for that single, arguable, additional click>of that autogen sidebar. Absolutely. I discovered that the 800 set up as good as I could (ie, just before it died!) did really quite well. With my performance maximum comprised of:Texture Image Update Rate = 100% when textures reach their maximum resolution, the farthest out from the point of reference as is possible within the confines of the game.Frame Rate = 100% when at least 30 FPS are maintained at all time, preferable 40 FPS or more, but 30 as the minimum.Smoothness Factor = 100% when the subjective viewer percieves zero lack of liquid smoothness, zero "hitches", jerks, stutters, or what have you.So, to score 100% in overall performance, one has to multiply (we will skip relative weighting) all three at 100% each. With DDR2-800, I maintained I could get 88-90% of perfection. That is #### good. With this stuff at XMP settings, same CPU clock, I move it up to 96%. So Sam, how right you are. We pay some bucks to squeeze out that last 8 or 10%.I had the money, and I don't have alot of other pricey hobbies :()Yer Both Right :()

[Guest Nick_N]

>It continues to amaze me how much effort a user might be>willing to spend for that single, arguable, additional click>of that autogen sidebar. exactlyhowever there is more to the result of correct hardware spec and purchase than your attempt at suggesting it is only a single click of the slider, much moreand now Noel does not have to stress out trying to get that overall smooth and very full and rich experience with FSX.. as a matter of fact his system is not even close to a stress point and FSX is delivering more than it ever would before as he continues to discover with use.and to top it all off, he

[Guest djt01]

>You give advice based on what you are not willing to pay for.>I call that justifying your personal decisions, Amen, I

[Guest Nick_N]

>With DDR2-800, I maintained I could get 88-90% of perfection. That is #### good. That was with a serious clock that pushed the limits if I am not mistaken and that is as far as you would have ever gone. And if I am not mistaken that was with the information I provided on CAS and MCH tuning too.My point is you are not killing yourself or your system any longer to get what you call 96%, and, you now have the ability to upgrade and have it make a difference too.=============================Questions: How much did it cost you in time and money to go through that DDR2 system, try different memory.. push, push , push .. test and tweak... and finally get that estimated 88%? Subtract all that time, money and hassles that from what you paid in one shot for the DDR3 system you have now and is it really costing you an arm and a leg in compare for the DDR3 result without the silly clocking needed and all that time/money put into the DDR2 trial to get there?Knowing now you could have FSX running as it is now on a system pretty much out of the motherboard box and without all the trips to newegg for replacement parts and upgrades, which system would you prefer to have had to begin with?=============================Beauty of course is in the eye of the beholder... its the same with FSX. The last person I invited over to look at FSX on my system was convinced they had a great looking and great running simHe was floored by the difference he saw...and he was running clocked at DDR2-1200 and CAS5 water cooledHes on DDR3 now and no longer listens to a water pump and radiator fansthese 88-96% numbers are also only relative to the person in front of the screen and what they balanced the sim for. Fly a PMDG out of Heathrow on 80% default AI traffic and water/scenery/AG/car/airport vehicle/boat slider at 100%.. and bloom 88-96% drops real fast even on DDR3. That boost is for the next gen of platform/cpu and video card to cover.you are not running the settings that kill performance the most at 88-96% even with DDR3The point I am making is the more raw horsepower and memory performance you have, with less bottlenecks, the better FSX experience you will have.. that goes for now and a year from now and DDR2 ain't gonna cut itpay me now or pay me laterbeat your head tweaking and ordering upgrades to try and squeeze it, or buy the right parts... including that Raptor drive which will make a difference as I had proven the suggestion it won't bull too, and have funThere are those who fly FSX and those who tweak it... which one do you want to be?The bottom line is: You need to spend as much as it takes to keep you from tweaking more than flying... and you need to LEARN what parts work and what doesnt, and, how to set it all up.

[jdk2 1]

>It also seems that a lot of individuals at these forums only>want to hear what they want to hear and nothing else. DING DING DING...no more calls please, we have a winner!Regards,Jim Karn

[Guest D17S]

If you're looking for a slight Vcard bump, you might look at the 9800GTX+. It has the same shader count, but at a higher clock. These are 55nm GPUs and will O/C to ~ 800Mhz. $170 A/R. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814130385And consider: If a 256bit memory interface actually limited the performance of AnY 128 shader Vcard, these higher memory/GPU clocks simply could Not provide Any additional benefit. If the 256 bit interface was limiting, it would simply cap performance at some level. Yet these higher clocks clearly do make a difference. The 256bit interface does not cap anything. Additionally, if this memory interface was really a performance factor, the 512bit interface with the 2X0GTs cards would provide a boost. It doesn't. Therefore, the Ultra/GTX 384bit interface is not a factor that requires consideration.The 8800Ultra/GTX is simply a slower 128 shader Vcard with an extra 256M of Vmemory. It's 384 bit memory interface is irrelevant to any 128 shader Vcard's performance. The extra 256ms of Vmemory may outweigh the significantly slower GPU clock, but I really doubt it. For instance, in FS(X) there's just no way my Q6600 at 3.6 is going to match a QXXX at 4.2 no matter how much ram I run (or how fast I run it).

[lost16 0]

If bus speed is key to graphic card edge, why not use Nvidia's 260 or 280 cards,(448 bit and 512 bit memory buses respectively vs 384 bit for Ultra)? And both have more memory that the 8800 Ultra (896 mb and 1 gb vs 768 mb)? As for driver issues, I'm getting used to the black squares and rectangles when I pan too fast with just about every version of Nvidia drver software.

[Guest D17S]

Actually the memory buss's "bit" moniker is about capacity, not speed. A GPU that runs faster may need more memory buss capacity, or not. The point was that the a 256bit memory buss capacity is plenty to handle ANY 128 shader GPU (8800Ultra/GTX/9800+++/whatever). Maybe it takes a 512bit memory buss capacity to handle a 240 shader GPU (280GTX). That I don't know.

[Guest Nick_N]

Blaaa Blaaa BlaaaI would go into why but it just means I have to waste more energy than its worthI tried that months ago.. gave upSam.. just like you don

[Noel 4,507]

>>With DDR2-800, I maintained I could get 88-90% of>perfection. That is #### good. >>>>That was with a serious clock that pushed the limits if I am>not mistaken and that is as far as you would have ever gone.>And if I am not mistaken that was with the information I>provided on CAS and MCH tuning too.That is probably a slight overestimate. Maybe 85-88% is closer.>My point is you are not killing yourself or your system any>longer to get what you call 96%, and, you now have the ability>to upgrade and have it make a difference too.I dont' see any upgrades in my future, except for a video card. I will probably skip nehalem . . .>Questions: How much did it cost you in time and money to go>through that DDR2 system, try different memory.. push, push ,>push .. test and tweak... and finally get that estimated 88%?Way too much. This happened the moment . . . my P5E would no longer boot up. And I truly don't know what happened to it. I remember pushing the DDR2 all the way to 1200, FSB of 440 or something I can't remember now, and . . . no joy. Back she went for an RMA replacement. I am going to build my brother a new system with those parts, plus either this EVGA 8800GT, or if I end up keeping it, I'll buy him a new one. It's very quiet and works, and it's dirt cheap.>Subtract all that time, money and hassles that from what you>paid in one shot for the DDR3 system you have now and is it>really costing you an arm and a leg in compare for the DDR3>result without the silly clocking needed and all that>time/money put into the DDR2 trial to get there?I would agree with this in my case Nick. I have a champagne budget, so Sam's value-conscious recommendations are very appropriate but perhaps more so for the person seeking excellent value/performance combination, and I would offer the same to most people, unless the client had the dollars and didn't mind spending for it. It's another 10% better, and you pay a few hundred bucks for this, maybe about $340 at the time. I'll lose some money for sure, but live n learn we hope.>Knowing now you could have FSX running as it is now on a>system pretty much out of the motherboard box and without all>the trips to newegg for replacement parts and upgrades, which>system would you prefer to have had to begin with?I had no idea what I was buying. I did know that better DDR3 was pricier than value or value + DDR2, but I didn't know there could be any noticable difference. Again, i now give it about 10% improvement. That is meaningful, and expensive. Nick I think you have to appreciate another reality: I was a happy camper with the DDR2 until I began reading various posts by you and maybe others. No offense to you intended, but it is true, I was a happy camper and amazed at the excellent performance I was getting. I had the 4-core X running around 4Ghz, and THAT helps ALOT :() 85-88% of perfection is . . . pretty good!>these 88-96% numbers are also only relative to the person in>front of the screen and what they balanced the sim for. Fly a>PMDG out of Heathrow on 80% default AI traffic and>water/scenery/AG/car/airport vehicle/boat slider at 100%.. and>bloom 88-96% drops real fast even on DDR3. That boost is for>the next gen of platform/cpu and video card to cover.>>>you are not running the settings that kill performance the>most at 88-96% even with DDR3>Sure.>The point I am making is the more raw horsepower and memory>performance you have, with less bottlenecks, the better FSX>experience you will have.. that goes for now and a year from>now >>and DDR2 ain't gonna cut it>>>pay me now or pay me later>>beat your head tweaking and ordering upgrades to try and>squeeze it, or buy the right parts... including that Raptor>drive which will make a difference as I had proven the>suggestion it won't bull too, and have funMy 15K.3 scsi's do ok too. I have FSX living alone on a 76Gb 15K.3 scsi.>There are those who fly FSX and those who tweak it... which>one do you want to be?I enjoy both.It's all good. Thanks Sam for your wit and prose, and logic. And you Nick for your various insights. I learned alot about memory timings, uninteruptable power supplies, and a couple of other things. Many thanks to Sam for his recommendation of the awesome SATA II drives 5y warrantied for a lousy $59 apiece. And the 8800GT was, IS, clearly the excellent value and performance choice. I can play Crysis and COD:MW beautifully (no, not the best, but plenty ok) with it, and it runs FSX super.You know guys with the Super MD-80 Pro I am seeing 28-34 in the middle of KFSO and 60 in the air with plenty of sliders right. It's amazing. I DO like the visual sharpness of the PMDG stuff, which I guess is where the MD-80 picks up frames as it's a bit soft looking for my liking, but it is a very complex bird, more so than the PMDG stuff I think, but performs like a freakin' Baron 58 glass cockpit. You can generalize a little from the autopilot, VNAV and FMS functiosn in the 737NG, but that ain't good nuf to complete flights with. Once you learn it, it's very cool.

[Guest D17S]

(Sorry, couldn't resist, but it was gettn kinda slow ;) I'm bad. That's fsure!)

[Guest Nick_N]

>My 15K.3 scsi's do ok too. I have FSX living alone on a 76Gb 15K.3 scsi.that works too I understand the desire to appreciate the knowledge sharedyou know better than to buy Kmart hardware now Noel. If you had gone for the 8800 768 instead of the tradeoff 8800 512 you would not be looking at alternative VC's right now thinking you may be able to do betterLOLlets get real and realistic, regardless of what you went though the bottom line is DDR2 800 was BS for what you wanted out of FSXif that was not true you would still be running it!GOOD NIGHT, Mrs. Calabash,.. wherever you arePS: Dont write off upgrades in memory and CPU yet Noel... the market machine wants you to believe one thing right now... and then you will discover after the gas wears off you will actually have some upgrades to work with other than VC. At least now you are not stuck in Sams world for screenshots:-erks

[Noel 4,507]

>>My 15K.3 scsi's do ok too. I have FSX living alone on a 76Gb>15K.3 scsi.>>>that works too>> >>I understand the desire to appreciate the knowledge shared>>you know better than to buy Kmart hardware now Noel. If you>had gone for the 8800 768 instead of the tradeoff 8800 512 you>would not be looking at alternative VC's right now thinking>you may be able to do betterNick, it's not always appropriate to view everything only from one's own point of view. Sorry, but if I had bought a 8800 768 right now I would feel poorly about wanting to dump it for an ATI card, whose IQ I very much appreciate over these things. After all is said n done, picking up an 8800GT was a very good move for me as it buys some time until I can get back to ATI. QX9650 w/ Retail HSF|ASUS P5E3 Premium WiFi|4GB Muskin Ascent 7-6-6-18 1T DDR3-1600|EVGA 8800GT|Seagate SATA 2 x 2|Seagate Cheetah 15K.x|XP Pro SP2|Vista 64--maybe never to be installed