Hi allToms has (finally!) updated their FSX SP2 GPU Charts. The link is http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-hd-48...w-31433-22.htmlLooking at the charts the 9800GTX+ performs phenomenally well (when paired with an appropriate CPU of course). That Core clock at 675MHz and Shader Clock at 1675 just seems to have no equal (I run mine at 720/1800 with no issues whatsoever).The Readeons are still up to 30%(!!!) slower than Nvidia cards - wish we could find out what the real issue is here - this disparity has been going on for ages so it cannot be simply drivers. I also do not believe that Tom's is somehow biased. Any ideas anyone? Nick?I know that Tom's is not known as the best out there but this is all we got...Konrad

>Hi all>>Toms has (finally!) updated their FSX SP2 GPU Charts. The link>is>http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-hd-48...w-31433-22.html>Finally! Been looking forward to this.>Looking at the charts the 9800GTX+ performs phenomenally well>(when paired with an appropriate CPU of course).But of course. I've explained why this is so in another thread in this sub-forum titled "Frame Rates". It is post #7/reply #6, in case anyone's curious.>That Core>clock at 675MHz and Shader Clock at 1675 just seems to have no>equal (I run mine at 720/1800 with no issues whatsoever).>Just for clarification's sake: the 9800 GTX+ has a stock core clock of 738MHz. It is actually the regular 9800 GTX which which runs at 675MHz core (1688 shader processor clock domain - but that's irrelevant for FS, as I've also explained in the aforementioned post).>The Readeons are still up to 30%(!!!) slower than Nvidia cards>- wish we could find out what the real issue is here - this>disparity has been going on for ages so it cannot be simply>drivers. I also do not believe that Tom's is somehow biased.>Any ideas anyone? Nick?>ATi just has more overhead in their drivers, look at GPGPU performance for further evidence of this (see FAH GPU v2 client performance results)>I know that Tom's is not known as the best out there but this>is all we got...>I only visit Tom's for their charts. Their analysis is lacking compared to more technical sites like the Tech Report, Xbitlabs, Beyond3D, real world tech, etc, etc. Good thing is you don't have to be subjected to their views to see the charts :)

>Just for clarification's sake: the 9800 GTX+ has a stock core>clock of 738MHz. It is actually the regular 9800 GTX which>which runs at 675MHz core (1688 shader processor clock domain>- but that's irrelevant for FS, as I've also explained in the>aforementioned post).My mistake - late at night here...Thanks for your other comments, will check out the posts and hopefully learn something for the day!Konrad

What a pity they didn't include the 8800 Ultra and GTX in their tests. The result is that they tell us what we can expect if we already have the latest kit (which, in this event, we can find out for ourselves anyway), but not how much better it will perform than the last generation of kit. It is therefore, I am sorry to say, a typically pointless exercise - and, I suspect, marketing rather than journalistically driven.Tim

Hi TimThe older gen cards do have FSX charts on Tom's.Link as follows: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/gamin...-X-SP2,781.htmlHow relevant the comparisons are is of course debatable, but at least they're there...Konrad

I can confirm this. In another post below I noted that my new 9800GTX+ has more than enough horsepower even with my older E6750 without overclock on CPU or GPU. Great card!Shez

>What a pity they didn't include the 8800 Ultra and GTX in>their tests. >>The result is that they tell us what we can expect if we>already have the latest kit (which, in this event, we can find>out for ourselves anyway), but not how much better it will>perform than the last generation of kit. >>It is therefore, I am sorry to say, a typically pointless>exercise - and, I suspect, marketing rather than>journalistically driven.>>Tim]A1 TimToms still up to his old tricks of marketing hardware, not testing itThe web site is just as corrupt and twisted as it was in his BBS days

Nick, these sort of comments just leave me (and mostly everyone reading this) confused. Your suggestion seems to be that Toms is marketing Nvidia Cards (for whatever reason) over ATI (at least as far as FSX is concerned). Does this then mean that ATI does, in fact, perform on par with Nvidia in FSX or not? Are there indeed overhead issues with ATI and FSX as mentioned, or not? Should folks looking to decide what GPU is best for FSX use these charts or not?Why is it sooooo hard to get a straight response on this issue?Sorry Nick, but using words like corrupt and twisted without any attempt at an explanation just suggests that you have a bone to pick with Toms.Konrad

>>Sorry Nick, but using words like corrupt and twisted without>any attempt at an explanation just suggests that you have a>bone to pick with Toms.>>KonradKonradI have explained over and over again on this and other forums why and how Toms Hardware plays gamesATI can not beat Nvidia in FSX under heavy weather and scenery conditions right now no matter what ATI card is usedThe ATI x2 is a shader based performance card which will run as king in Crysis but falls short in FSX in compare to a 8800GTX, Ultra, 280 since FSX is designed from old tech and uses old school methods of renderingMy comments went back to the fact that Tom leaves out the 8800GTX Ultra which is still available on the market and would be high on that list... They don

KonradI did actually have the old charts in mind and in fact it's precisely because these are the only (or main) source of comparison on Tom's website that I feel a bit concerned (though I certainly don't want to get involved in a big row!) Looking at the two sets of charts, you can see how the old cards perform with old drivers and you can see how the new cards perform with new drivers. This - potentially - creates a misleading impression that the new cards are much better than the old ones, even if previously they were sometimes more-or-less on a par; whereas the reality MAY be that the old cards with new drivers still sometimes compete quite favourably with the new cards with new drivers. (Personally I have absolutely no idea what such a comparison might show and I'd be interested to find out).I have no knowledge of the background or history of Tom's Hardware. My only point is that to publish this kind of comparison, at least without a heavy health warning, is not good journalism; and since this is perfectly obvious (at least to me), it does leave me wondering what's actually going on. On the other hand, maybe the writers are actually just a bunch of enthusiastic and innocent kids who genuinely just don't anticipate this sort of problem.Tim

All right, I can see where you are coming from and I have no doubt that your experience with Toms history (shady or otherwise) is a lot better than mine. However, aside from the 8800GTX being left off this list (the relevance of which depends on where you are anyway as I could not find this card for sale in my neck of the woods a few months ago), and the other things you mention as not adding up; it seems to me that Toms FSX GPU charts are in fact correctly exposing the general trend of Nvidia being better than ATI when dealing with FSX.If ATI cannot keep up with Nvidia under heavy weather and scenery conditions as you point out then for all intents and purposes one should not go with ATI at all for FSX, as is suggested by Tom's anyway?Am I missing something here?Konrad

That is correctThe 8800 Ultra is still out there.The 280 would be my next choiceIf you play Crysis or need that kind of shader horsepower support I suggest the ATi x2 and live with where it can not overcome the Nvidia cards in FSXYou do need to have a PCIe 2.0 board for the 280 or the x2. The higher functions of the card require the extra power suppled by the 2.0 slot although the lower standard will run the cardAs for if Tom has the ATI card listed correctly or not IS the issue.. they may not have it listed high and they may present a 'generally' correct representation that it will not beat nvidia in FSX... but the question is: how correctly is is listed with other cards?With Tom, you dont knowJust like they left out the 8800 ULtra in those tests... you dont know if that card would beat the others and in what circumstances

>All right, I can see where you are coming from and I have no>doubt that your experience with Toms history (shady or>otherwise) is a lot better than mine. >>However, aside from the 8800GTX being left off this list (the>relevance of which depends on where you are anyway as I could>not find this card for sale in my neck of the woods a few>months ago), and the other things you mention as not adding>up; it seems to me that Toms FSX GPU charts are in fact>correctly exposing the general trend of Nvidia being better>than ATI when dealing with FSX.>>If ATI cannot keep up with Nvidia under heavy weather and>scenery conditions as you point out then for all intents and>purposes one should not go with ATI at all for FSX, as is>suggested by Tom's anyway?>>Am I missing something here?>>KonradThe gist of it is that their conclusions are correct, but not as a result of their methods.

Hi TimI agree with you 100% that older cards with 180 series drivers are potentially a whole different story and it could be the case that the 8800GTX/Ultra etc would outperform the 9800GTX if they had been compared directly using the same drivers. I doubt it though, especially when taking the 9800GTX+ into account.As I see it FSX is just one of many benchmarks used by Tom's for testing GPU's and I am not sure if it would even be possible for Tom's to keep the GPU list 100% up to date for each card and always for the latest drivers. Can you imagine the number of benchmarks they would have to run to achieve this? And what about all the other AAA titles...The trend from Tom's Q3 FSX GPU Charts points to the 9800GTX as being the king of the hill at that time so my thinking would be that is why we only see the 9800GTX(+) brought forward to these new benchmarks for backwards comparison purposes as it were. The logic would be that if the 8800GTX benefits from newer drivers then the 9800GTX would do so at the same or similar rate, therefore the 9800GTX(+) would remain ahead to this day.This is all speculation on my part...Konrad

>On the other hand, maybe the writers are actually just a bunch>of enthusiastic and innocent kids who genuinely just don't>anticipate this sort of problem.>Don