Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

nandrews

Quad Pro and Triple video cards still not enough?

Recommended Posts

I have recently bought a hi-end gaming system with quad processor and triple 9800 video cards, but still get bad stepping and low frame rates with the performance settings at max!I assumed that this system would be enough to run FSX Accel' with 'all the stops out' but it seems not. I get stepping and various video delays and unwanted effects when flying and looking around. Landing at a major airport gets only frame rates around 6-7!Surely it should be better than this?Any suggestions as to what I might do would be gratefully received.Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Current games do not take advantage of quad core processors. The gamers choice at the moment is dual core.As for graphics cards in SLI and Crossfire, this is a VERY touchy subject for gamers. A recent test in a PC magazine that I read last month, put a vast array of nVidia and ATI cards against each other in SLI/Crossfire mode...the result was shocking. Only one of the cards (and it wasn't a 9800 from what I recall) showed any kind of overall performance gain. The tests were very varied, at different resolutions, different tasks/games etc, but all in all, I was shocked by the results.Sadly the lastest and greatest (on paper) hardware setup doesn't guarentee good results, in any game/sim.Regards,Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Al,Not the reply I was hoping for! But thanks anyway.I am sure the Quad core won't be wasted.But surely the three cards strapped together show some kind of improvement over one 9800 alone?!!I am not entirely convinced the PC has been set-up right. There was no instructions with it as to which, of 6 sockets, I should connect the monitor to! But I got from them 'the top card and the right connector, but if that doesn't work try the left one"!!! Not reassuring!Is there a graphics evaluation tool (s/w) that I could use to prove my system is working as fast as it should?If there is no performance improvement from 3 cards over just one then that is truly shocking and worrying. Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nigel.Unfortunately I don't know the technical in's and out's of why multi-card setups can be a hinderance rather than a help.The magazine article was very detailed, but sadly I don't have it to hand, as its at work. But I'll bring it home with me this evening and post some details from the relevant part, as they definately had 9800's in the test.Al.P.S. Shouldn't have to wait until this evening actually - I am sure I can find the time to post later this morning whilst at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Thanks Al,>>Not the reply I was hoping for! But thanks anyway.>I am sure the Quad core won't be wasted.>But surely the three cards strapped together show some kind of>improvement over one 9800 alone?!!>I am not entirely convinced the PC has been set-up right.>There was no instructions with it as to which, of 6 sockets, I>should connect the monitor to! But I got from them 'the top>card and the right connector, but if that doesn't work try the>left one"!!! Not reassuring!>>Is there a graphics evaluation tool (s/w) that I could use to>prove my system is working as fast as it should?>If there is no performance improvement from 3 cards over just>one then that is truly shocking and worrying. >>NigelNigel,It's absolutely the SAME thing where you plug in your monitor, its just the matter of getting a picture. You can test yourself if there is some performance increase, by taking two cards out, and benchmarking. Same with three. I would hardly doubt that its going to make ANY difference... only better thing with more cards is higher AA/AF, meaning really a nice picture. In my world not really enough to justify the cost.Still, the core clock and cache is what flight sim likes. Having less core and less cache but more cores won't give you more FPS. As example, Q9300 vs E8500, E8500 (in FS!!) will win anytime - I deliberately took similarly priced processors. Take QX9770, probably going to give you a healthy smoothness boost, but no FPS boost. Why not? Because FS is very CPU dependant, and is only using >>ONE CORE<< for rendering. Others are used for texture loading...Thus, more cache + ghz, more FPS.3D Mark is what usually people use for benchmarking, check www.futuremark.comYou can also consequently compare your system to others.My advice? Get yourself FS9, with sh**loads of addons, you will be getting FPS beyond your imagination, and graphics better than FSX (oh yay, FSX lovers don't flame me...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read on the forums the more convinced I become that high-powered processors and video cards are only part of the solution. The rest of the solution comes from matching the performance of the components to maximize each and eliminate any bottlenecks. With that much money invested I'd do one more thing - visit http://fs-gs.com/ to see if this process can make a difference. You only pay if satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And with a BIT of selfhelping, reading, you can learn a lesson for life in terms of computing and save yourself great deal of money. These forums have more than enough info on everything. Sorry had to comment on this service, as I found it only ludicrous.Besides, its the fact that FSX even today can't run with all sliders right on no matter how expensive hardware is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nigel,What processor do you have and what speed does it run at? Also, do you know the front-side bus speed for your mobo? Those are two critical areas for good FSX performance.For example I have a E8400 clocked at 3GHz but because it is installed in a mobo with a FSB speed of 1333MHz it's very nippy and I have most settings near to or at max even without overclocking.As others have said FSX cannot take significant advantage of SLI/CrossFire so unless you run other games that do I suggest you use a single card. FSX will not suffer as a result.Post your specs and it will help us determine what you can expect to get in FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My best freind owns a computer store so I get to play around with some exotic set ups.I cannot take them home for FREE but I can tinker and get it at his cost.My MACHINE?I run a ancient AMD dual core FX-62 running at 3.0. 2 gigs ddr2800,xp and a BFG 8800gtOC.This machine is NOTHING techie number cruncher wise compared to these fire breathing,overclocked monster I see here.But I see no REAL eye poppping,jaw dropping difference when we load FSX on a custom rig.We are talking 10-15% here and there,a few seconds loading this and that. But well over a grand if not more for it. A $600 card buys ALOT addons and other things like money down on a 32 inch HD TV. In FSX it buys you bragging rights at least for the next 3 months.SLI-HA Dont get me started as my blood pressure is already rising.I suggest a middle of the road performance machine thats benn tried and true and avoid the cutting edge,brand new tech stuff.I am planning on finally replacing my MOB,proc,ram and spending MAYBE a grand. I say MAYBE cause I just tried a 9800gtx and saw little difference so I am stil not convinced throwing money at FSX is going to meet my expectations.Let the hardcore guys take the leap o faith with their $$$ and you spend it on, GEX,FEX,UTX and a bunch of addons.In as year or so, the hardware that will tame by simple brute force will be cheap.:-fume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JIMJAM, excellent post :DThe FX-62 is not fat from performance compared to E6600. I know what you are talking about :D :DI didn't try any of the newest hardware, but I see people complaining ALL the time. But remember the time when E6600 came out, people calling it utopia for FS9. Well, until people start calling some CPU utopia for FSX, I won't be upgrading "for FSX", he**, don't even have it installed...When that time comes, wait for next gen, and then upgrade. My experience with CPUs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me I am no hardware guru.But I have spent and seen people spend a TON of cash.Now remember this is a FSX FORUM so I am assuming that by the way they are described, are built specifically for FSX.You can go over to Crysis or Fear forums and its the same thing.8 gigs,3 harddrives,2 gig sli cards,quads,enough power and cooling to control a nuclear reactor and they are bragging about how long they ran Memtest :-lolI know a guy from the store that power drinks Jolt Colas and Red Bulls up till 3am ocing his monster rig running 3dmark over and over trying to squeeze out that higher score.Of course if you try to run FSX or any game on it, its anybodies guess if the game will load at all.To the guys that have the cash, or credit and buy all this cutting edge chinese hardware,Go for it!My problem has been that its so exotic that none of the games support it.And if it does, the gains or measured in nanoseconds and small %s.My dad just bought the fastest quad core machine with 4 gigs of the fastest ram and liquid cooled. The case had cool looking neon lights ect.Mind you he has never played a game.He said he wanted to be "future proofed" another catch phrase I wish was banned. Future proofed means you get screwed now and you can prove it later. Yeah dad, you sure can run turbo tax really fast now!I joke not at but with the tech geeks cause I was one.I had the sig with everything listing including connectors,fan speed,mouse res ect ect.Just get what everyone else seems to be having luck using.I would rather go to Newegg and read the owner reviews than trust anything Toms Hardware or any of the other tech sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Future proofed means you get screwed now>and you can prove it later. Yeah dad, you sure can run turbo>tax really fast now!Oh man, you can really make people laugh :D:D:D:DBut its true. The best hardware is checked hardware. Usually newest things don't even run without problems. Gettings newest, and then spending hours and days just trying to make it work?Take an example: 8800GT came out. I waited couple of days for people to start telling success stories. Ordered and bought. Came home, installed exactly the right driver with nhancer and I was flying with more fluidity and higher quality picture than before in minutes time. And oh yeah, this was/is FS9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gotta have a sense of humor in this game.I mean I see guys running out buying $1200 proccessors and dual $650 cards with nitrogen cooling systems for JUST the possibility of running a few more FPS.Then you hear that a new latest and greatest was just released at 1/2 the price and stomps their stuff in the ground.I would and have been rather angry but they take it in stride.I wish I could find it but I ran across a post at one of those OCers sites where ot was a total war over, 1T VS 2T command in bios.I am talking knock out,flamefest,come to your house and kick your a** fighting over this.A few got banned. Heck I do not even know what 1t or 2t does:-hmmm Sorry for Hijacking this guys thread. I posted earlier for info on a new computer and right now is just a bad time as the hardware and software is just all out of sync.I bought a PS3 and been loving life.FSX is the SOLE game on my system other than those bad videos that some how ended up on my hard drive:-lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>And with a BIT of selfhelping, reading, you can learn a>lesson for life in terms of computing and save yourself great>deal of money. These forums have more than enough info on>everything. Sorry had to comment on this service, as I found>it only ludicrous.>Besides, its the fact that FSX even today can't run with all>sliders right on no matter how expensive hardware is.I would have to disagree. I took the plunge in April and enlisted the help of FS-GS and it was probably the best money on flight sim I have ever spent. I am running a stock E8400 at 3.0 ghz and a EVGA 8800GTS 512mb vid card and after the fs-gs service I can't think of any setting that I don't have the slider maxed out. Well to think of it, I have bloom turned off, but thats about it. I am able to enjoy FSX at it's fullest with all the AI and weather setting at full tilt and never snif single digit frames, even when flying my LDS 767.There is a lot of self help in the forums, sure. But everyones system is different and not all tips and tweaks apply to everyone. Some help, some make things worse. I fiddled with FS9 for months on my last system to get it set up great, and even then there may have been more that I could have done but I spent more time messing with it than flying. If everyone had the knowledge that these folks have, we would never have all the posts about why there FSX runs horrible. It's more than just .cfg tweaks. I guess in the end you have to decide, would I rather be zipping thru FSX or fiddling with my system getting it to perform at it's fullest? :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>everything. Sorry had to comment on this service, as I found It's more than>just .cfg tweaks. I guess in the end you have to decide, would>I rather be zipping thru FSX or fiddling with my system>getting it to perform at it's fullest? :-)Of course its MUCH more. The whole system has to be balanced and working towards one goal. Couple of other big fishes around these ponds and I, we just didn't see where this guy was going (####, he even almost ruined my windows). While for some complete noobs in terms of software configuring, fs-gs might be a good thing, for most, it would be a waste of time. MHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alsummers,Were you going to post a link to a review on SLI performance with triple cards? I would be interested to see, but the new posts in this thread have got me really depressed!I suppose I should be greatful that I can even run FSX with all the performance sliders at the max. Also accept that if I want to get better FPS at major airports then I'll have to back them off (but which ones and how much - the perenial question).NigelP.S. I think I was not sure about FSX when even the demo glitched and jumped all over the place! I wonder why they haven't fixed the demo flight in FSX so it is smooth (and doesn't have the a/c turning of the runway and missing the taxiway by a mile!)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote"This is what even FS9 does to a pretty strong machine (27.5fps average):"Looks excellent to me, or have I missed something?Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you missed a lot - this is FS9!!! Concerning the hardware, and 4 year old simulation, what does that tell you? In 3 years, we might have that with FSX... but not today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, with respect then no I didn't miss something.I think I would expect that sort of frame rate in FS9 on such a view.Tell me if I am wrong, but that doesn't look too demanding.I would however be somewhat impressed if that frame rate was displayed on short finals to a major airport with multiple runways and active traffic.Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, that is exactly what I ment. You were looking into FSX with high framerates, and were disappointed with high-end hardware. I am running almost high-end hardware, and in a simple sea-clouds-aircraft situation, it brings the system to its knees.No, you are right. It doesn't look very demanding, but clouds still do bring FS into lower framerates.I am not using any active traffic, so can't be of much help here (I am always flying online when flying), but I can gladly post you an approach to some airport with multi-runways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I have recently bought a hi-end gaming system with quad>processor and triple 9800 video cards, but still get bad>stepping and low frame rates with the performance settings at>max!>>I assumed that this system would be enough to run FSX Accel'>with 'all the stops out' but it seems not. I get stepping and>various video delays and unwanted effects when flying and>looking around. Landing at a major airport gets only frame>rates around 6-7!>>Surely it should be better than this?>>Any suggestions as to what I might do would be gratefully>received.>>NigelYEA...It should be much better than that......I get 40-50 frames constant,and drop to 30-35 at big airports..At times I push onto the 115 area ....My custom system is too a quad,,And all cores do work just fine.....If you know how to set them up(In Vista)..... Now then..I started this out with SLI 8800 GTS cards,frames /performance were higher(much) but I learned it did not support Dualview that I wanted...So I dropped the SLI for one Ultra.... Case: Digital Storm 850Si Power Supply: 750W Corsair HX (Dual SLI Compatible) (Silent Edition)Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz (1066MHz FSB) (8MB Cache) overclocked 3.38Motherboard: nVidia 780i Core 2 Quad (nForce 780i SLI)Memory: 4GB DDR2 Corsair at 1066MHz Dominator (Dual Channel) (Extreme-Performance)Hard Drive 1: 150GB Western Digital Raptor (10K RPM) (16MB Cache) (SATA) (Extreme SpeedHard Drive 2: 250GB Western Digital (16MB Cache) (7200 RPM) (SATA)Video Card: 8800 Ultra EVGA 786Sound Card: Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi FPS Fatal1ty Champion (Includes Front I/O Unit)Cooling: Air Cooled Stage 3 WindTunnel (Copper Heatpipe Heatsink & Zalman Case Fans)Windows OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate (64-Bit Edition) (For Enthusiasts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harleyman,Well that is encouraging, where you will see others experience suggests at least SLI doesn't help FSX.It would be too much to ask you for any more details, wouldn't it? On how you configured your Vista for Quad core and SLI such that you got the frame rates you did?Was it an extensive and involved process or maybe some simple rules to follow?Just a few pointers would be very welcome.Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Current games do not take advantage of quad core processors. >The gamers choice at the moment is dual core.>>I run my FSX on all 4 cores of my quad...I watch them go daily as I monitor tempts.......Core 0......100% off the batCore 1......70-100% off the batCore 2..... 60-70 while flyingCore 3....30-40% while going into a large airport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,Thanks for your advice.I should say I am getting already getting some very useful help from another member here. But you asked for my specs and here they are:-Processor Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 1066FSB 12MB Cache Quad Core Core 64 Bit Processor Processor Speed 4 x 2.66GHz Memory 2GB Corsair XMS 6400 DDR2 800MHz Dual Channel Ram Hard Drive Dual 74GB 10,000RPM WD Raptors (2 x 74GB) Striped Raid 1 x 500 16MB Buffer SATA Hard Drive Graphics Triple Nvidia 9800GTX 512MB PCI-E Graphics Running In SLI Mode Drive 1 LG H20L Blue - Ray Rewriter & HD DVD Player Drive 2 20x Dual Layer +R/-R/RW DVD burner Sound ADI 1988B 8-channel High Definition Audio CODEC Motherboard Asus Striker2 Formula SLi nVidia 780I They show also:-Front Side Bus 533 / 800 / 1066 / 1333 MHzwhich suggest they didn't know what it was!Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites