HD4870 X2 on nForce Motherboard - technical question

[geoffco 0]

Hey folks,I am about to buy a new PC, in bits (one week to payday - woohoo!) I've been waiting/saving to do this for a really long time so I'm really going for it ;)I already have some lovely PC3-16000 memory (Patriot Viper 2x2Gb 2000Mhz) for some overclocking fun but to run this at full pace, it seems I need an n790i chipset mobo... At least I have yet to find a review where they got DDR3 to 2000Mhz on any other chipset (I've seen 1980MHz but it was a bit ropey).I quite fancied the ASUS Rampage Extreme with which I could use an ATI HD4870 X2 card which I wanted to get but I am worried about the memory not clocking properly. So, I could get a ASUS Striker II Extreme board but I can't find any info about running this GFX card on an n790i board... does it have issues I wonder?Does anyone have any info or experience on this?What would be the best nVidia graphics alternative?Currently I'm swaying towards getting the Rampage Extreme / 4870 X2 and then trying and run the memory a little slower but with tighter timings... still not sure though...GeoffPS. The rest of the setup will be: E8600 (will overclock it of course and may upgrade to a QX but not until I save more cash), Enermax 1kW PSU, 2xWD Velociraptor and Thermaltake watercooling...

[TechguyMaxC 516]

Technically what you want to do is feasible, but I do not recommend it. 2 recommendations, if I may:1) do not buy an Nforce board, they are inferior solutions compared to the competition, in a number of respects. Heat output, power consumption, performance, and stability chief among those issues. You will be much happier with a motherboard that uses an Intel chipset such as a P35/P45 or X38/X48. 2) do not buy a multi-GPU configuration if your only performance concern is FS. Especially don't buy an ATi card for FS. While they perform adequately, Nvidia's driver is able to deliver higher frame rates in FS, even with "lesser" hardware. Case-in-point: a $200 9800 GTX will outperform that $500-$600 4870 X2 in FSX. See this site for proof: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-hd-48...w-31433-22.html

[Guest Nick_N]

FinallySomeone with some solid tech ability and understanding on this board!absolutely agree with dropping the Nvidia boardI would probably go with the 280GTX, a Rampage Extreme (get BIOS 0801 which solves memory chip stability issues) and Mushkin DDR3 1600 which will do both 1600 7-7-7 1T @ tRD 6 and 1800 8-8-8 1T @ tRD7Put a Q9650 or if you wish to throw down the cash a QX97.. run it at 4050GHz @ 1800, 3.6 at 1600 for the Q9650.. (QX97 has the multiplier and will do 4050 at 400FSB or 450)and rock onI cant comment on the Patriot memory however be aware to take full advantage of a Q96 (no multiplier change) you must be running 450MHz and the Rampage will do it.. just helped someone set that clock up at SimVyou may need to work VTT, CPU GTL and NB GTL a bit to stabilize that at 1800here are the numbers with a Q9650 and the 2x2GB Mushie's on the 0801 BIOS @ 1800http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/Ya...5569427/105#1121600 is strait forward.. no noise trimmingYou will need a good CPU cooler.. the OCZ Vendetta2 is a good choice.

[Soeren Jensen 3]

Hi Nick NI have been reading your contributions with great interest. And I, like many other`s, are looking forward to read about your conclusions on the new i7 nehalem core, especially as I intend to build one myself.Now to, what I can`t make up my mind about..I have seen that you prefer the 280GTX over the Ati 4870 1GB, or the Ati 4870 X2, as it should simply be faster in FSX.Something that hasn`t be discussed much, is the image quality, or the sense of colours and depth in the picture. And I would very much appriciate if you, or anyone else who has these gpu`s, would perhaps comment on that.Does that 280GTX beside speed, give that same quality picture as the Ati?Does it matter anything, that memory on the 280GTX is DDR3, and on the Ati it is DDR5?And what if a 40" HDTV is intended as screen, would that make any difference?I was especially thinking about the 2GB memory on the ATI 4870 X2. Jensen

[TechguyMaxC 516]

>Hi Nick N>>I have been reading your contributions with great interest.>And I, like many other`s, are looking forward to read about>your conclusions on the new i7 nehalem core, especially as I>intend to build one myself.>>Now to, what I can`t make up my mind about..>>I have seen that you prefer the 280GTX over the Ati 4870 1GB,>or the Ati 4870 X2, as it should simply be faster in FSX.Jensen, the simple fact of the matter is that Nvidia's graphics driver more efficiently handles the workloads Flight Sim places upon their graphics cards than as is the case for ATi. You can see this illustrated quite well here:http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-hd-48...w-31433-22.html>Something that hasn`t be discussed much, is the image quality,>or the sense of colours and depth in the picture. And I would>very much appriciate if you, or anyone else who has these>gpu`s, would perhaps comment on that.>Does that 280GTX beside speed, give that same quality picture>as the Ati?The color saturation differences you're referring to are purely a subjective matter. Some prefer ATi's default color saturation values, some Nvidia's. There's no right answer in this case. As for any other image quality discrepancies, those were taken care of with the release of the Geforce 8 series which introduced angle-independent anisotropic filtering, and numerous high quality anti-aliasing modes. Bottom-line: Nvidia offers similar image quality to ATi between the same generations of competing products. >Does it matter anything, that memory on the 280GTX is DDR3,>and on the Ati it is DDR5?The type and clockspeed of memory utilized by a graphics card is not the only factor which contributes to its total memory bandwidth, you also have to consider the bus-width which in this case is twice as wide on the Nvidia card (512-bit vs. 256-bit). The GTX 280 and 4870 offer similar amounts of memory bandwidth, both in excess of 100GB/s. At this point I'd like to point out that memory bandwidth itself is not terribly relevant to Flight Sim, for which there are no current settings which exceed the capabilities of either card (assuming both have 1GB VRAM). >And what if a 40" HDTV is intended as screen, would that make>any difference?I run a 42" Plasma 1080P HDTV as my sole PC monitor and am very happy with the image quality it delivers in every game I play (FS9/FSX, some strategy games and several first person shooters). One thing to be concerned with is the distance at which you will use this monitor. I usually sit 5-6' away from my monitor while gaming as I find this is the optimal viewing range for a screen this size. I do not recommend using a screen this size at regular desktop viewing distances of only 2-3' as it can fill up too much of your field of view and cause you to have to move your eyes constantly, which in turn causes eye strain. You may need to experiment with viewing distances to find the optimal distance for you. >I was especially thinking about the 2GB memory on the ATI 4870>X2.Don't worry about this, as the amount of memory has no impact on FS performance once you move beyond 512MB. Regards,Max

[Guest Nick_N]

ATI suffers in design to Nvidia's 8000 and 200 series cards where FSX needs the horsepowerThe x2 will clobber in Crysis but will not overcome a 8800GTX in FSXI agree with Max on everything with the exception of 512MB being a hard limitIt is in fact true that the FSX application will only want to see 512 and under normal resolution, single monitor situations with no config tweaks 512 is all that will ever be used however above 512 does have a use in 2 areas1. Frame buffer for larger resolutions and multimonitor2. Bufferpools setting in the FSX.cfgFSX will have access to above 512MB when you use the bufferpools tweak in the FSX.cfg file. I use 80MB (80000000) because I have a 768MB video cards and the tweak works well on my systems. I also use high res wide screen monitors so above 512 does have a use with FSXBufferpools reserves video memory and will allow FSX to reserve what ever amount you place in that setting for scenery around the aircraft above 512MB. Its use is best seen when making turns in large scenery environments and flying low into a bush airport over a massive amount of autogen trees. Those on 512MB cards should be very careful with that tweak. I would not set greater than a 10-15MB BP with a 512 card and that amount is really not very helpfull when you consider the huge amount of scenery and AG with high slider settings... this is why the 640, 768 and 1GB VM cards do have a use to FSXWhen you get into 1GB cards... do be aware the 64bit OS becomes a necessity at that point. Between 4GB and a VC with 1GB of memory the PCIe memory mapping can become problematical with a 32bit OS. They will work but one is squeezing the limits with a 1GB video card in 32bit for address space

[TechguyMaxC 516]

Nick, thanks for the addendum about multi-monitor situations, which I did not account for in my previous post.I think however you'll find that in any single-monitor situation my statements still stand. This can be observed by using a profiling tool which can show vram usage. PerfHUD will do this for Nvidia cards while running DirectX applications and can be found here: http://developer.nvidia.com/object/nvperfhud_home.htmlPerfStudio does the same for ATi cards and can be found here: http://developer.amd.com/gpu/perfstudio/Pages/default.aspx

[Guest Nick_N]

Max, apologies as I was not trying to say you were wrong.. just pointing out where above 512 does have a use and is not a hard limit with the application. You were correct that FSX does not use more than 512 under normal or typical user circumstances.I just like to try and make sure all areas are covered so everyone reading who may fall under different circumstances gets the information that may pertain the them. Bufferpools, even in a single monitor lower res setup, can help assuming the video card has 640, 768 or 1GB of VM. Its a bit tricky to tweak since once must observe the result on the screen and pull back on the amount reserved if OOVM spikes are seen but it does serve a good purpose when correctly tuned for the scenery/sliders being run.BP use can be seen with VM monitoring tools. When BP is set to a value in the config it will register in the tool during FSX use above 512 by the amount of VM reserved in the config.It is a 'test and see' setting. Depending on the system, FSX settings and the scene/circumstances being rendered some will see that last bit of stutter disappear.. others may not

[TechguyMaxC 516]

Nick,no problems, happy for the clarification :)I've not used the bufferpool setting. Does it act as a sort of additional texture cache, or am I misinterpreting your meaning? I understand that it is VRAM set aside for a specific use, I'm just not sure what that use is, specifically.Thanks,Max

[Guest Nick_N]

Its the amount of bytes allocated for one pool of vertex and index buffers to store geometryTo have what is not on the screen stored in reserve means as you bank its q'd up for instant display without any lagthey reserve 4MB by default after SP1This covers most situations for typical 256-512VM systems but does not take into account our honking large VM cardsFor a 640 card I would max it at 35MB (35000000) For a 768 card I would max it at 70-100 depending. Some scenes can still OOVM at 90-100 with 768 which goes back to the use over 512 in the frame buffer which is not displayed with any VM monitor tool

[TechguyMaxC 516]

>>Its the amount of bytes allocated for one pool of vertex and>index buffers to store geometry>>>To have what is not on the screen stored in reserve means as>you bank its q'd up for instant display without any lag>>they reserve 4MB by default after SP1>>This covers most situations for typical 256-512VM systems but>does not take into account our honking large VM cards>>For a 640 card I would max it at 35MB (35000000) >>For a 768 card I would max it at 70-100 depending. Some scenes>can still OOVM at 90-100 with 768 which goes back to the use>over 512 in the frame buffer which is not displayed with any>VM monitor toolGeometry storage rather than texture, gotcha. Great info, thanks Nick! You must've done some rather exhaustive FSX testing ;)

[Guest Nick_N]

>>Geometry storage rather than texture, gotcha. CorrectWhich is why some will report changing the setting works and others report no change, or, worse perfIt depends on the system and the scene/sliders being rendered and the circumstancesI also run a 70-80 Texture Bandwith Multiplier

[Guest Nick_N]

One other thing too MaxFSX functions on a priority system. In that, what one would expect to give in performance by LOWERING setting can cause WORSE performanceIf the right hardware is installed most will find these settings are cherryhttp://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_post...D=149607#149607Now with default AI traffic and someone not running a very fast quad and DDR3 I would suggest no higher than 30 for AL and GA, 10 for Cars and 20 for ships and boats... AI to 3/4 (Very Dense) or 100% depending on the scene. Airport Vehicles is up to the user but I would not exceed mediumFor those on even slower systems... 20 for AI traffic, 5 for cars, 15 ships and boats airport vehicles to LOW with a 1/2 (DENSE) AG slider and 3/4 on the Scenery Complexity... and turn off THERMALS under the weather settings. Everything else should remain the same as I posted, including shutting down AC LABELSProof of taking advantage of the priority system and using it as a base to find the sweet-spot is in the results which are commonhttp://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=28461 I could probably post about 50 of those :)be aware UTX USA/Canada added car traffic to side streets in their last patch. In that the method they used does NOT allow the FSX traffic car slider to remove the footprint of autos off FSX even with the slider set to ZERO. The only way to remove car load with the latest UTX patch is to turn off moving car traffic in the UTX config tool settingsA setting of 10-12 for cars in the USA with UTX after their latest patch is probably about the same as 20+ if not more. Those running UTX USA on slower systems after that patch should disable cars in the UTX tool.Frames should be (for any decent system) unlimited in heavy urban saturated scenery or locked 30 in the bushThats a by system tweak however with fast systems and saturated PCIe buss from AG, unlimited does serve a purpose and FSX is different than FS9 in that respect. Locking is an area one must test however I lock at 30 and have never needed to lock lower. Slower systems should probably lock at 24That and bufferpools are the two areas one must seek and tweak to find the sweetspot..and of course Vsync is always ON and fly full-screen

[TechguyMaxC 516]

Lots of great info there, thanks again Nick. Can't wait to try out FSX with some new tweaks!

[Guest Nick_N]

>Lots of great info there, thanks again Nick. Can't wait to>try out FSX with some new tweaks!You may want to take a gander at this...http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/Ya...?num=1208959973If you are on XP, follow the first 2 posts to the letter and use O&O Defrag 8.6 (link for 8.6 is 3-4 posts down) good for 30 days and you can try the process.I assume you being technically in the know you have already cleaned up the start registry for programs that are not needed at bootDo be aware.. shutting down services past what I posted in that thread is not only useless, if you shut down the wrong ones you can actually force Windows to run worseandA service can not be shut down correctly using software. One must disable the service through the LOGON TAB and reboot or the service still places a footprint on the system. NOD32 is the only AV I know of which does not impose a footprint that reduces FSX or FS9 performance which is why I suggest it. That and I have never been hit with anything using the AV. The AV is the only thing I suggest.. not the security suite