I've always wondered why nobody but me could get SLI working. oh well more frames for me I guess....

I got it working fine last year with 2 - 7950GT's and performance didn't improve a lick in FSX and really hardly anywhere else. In fact, changing those two cards out for an ATi 4870 was one of the best decisions I've ever made.What does this thread have to do with SLI anyways?

if you actually read the original message you'd know. But it's obvious that it touches some peoples ego... and if you haven't notice according to NVIDIA it works.

if you actually read the original message you'd know. But it's obvious that it touches some peoples ego... and if you haven't notice according to NVIDIA it works.

No one said it didn't work, I had FSX running with two 8800 GTX's years ago, but again for the thousandth time it's does nothing to help performance, period.

Thats fine I'm not going to get into an argument here just because you couldn't accomplish something... it's your failure not mine. It works as advertised.

.. it's your failure not mine. It works as advertised.

:( Isn't it time to have your diaper changed? :(

Edit:The first thing about game design is understanding the limits of your hardware... not chasing some mystical dragon. Your system is designed to handle so much GAME and if you go over that limit... nothing will work properly including SLI. If you manage to run LEAN and avoid common memory issues, you'll get the desired results on any CPU/GPU combination. That's what they do for PS3/Xbox360... you are expected to do the same as a user of FSX on the PC. You can tweak all you want but it's best to just turn it down a notch or two.I think that supercedes the entire guide... have fun and happy gaming!

Thats fine I'm not going to get into an argument here just because you couldn't accomplish something... it's your failure not mine. It works as advertised.

You? Argue aimlessly? Not you! Couldn't be.

Let's be clear .. I was not talking directly to anyone but to the typical "buy Intel i7, AMD s****"I was just writing my experience with this AMD system and the same principle of "helping others to get FSX going" applies here and using less money.If you want my sincere opinion is.. FSX = "the worst FS release since FS2000" .. period."Yes Tim, I do hear the ocean calling"I'm pretty sure you are old enough to remember not too long ago when FS runs better on AMD systems rather the Intel ones ... as we say in my country "no escupas para arriba..." .. google it.Regards

Edit:That's what they do for PS3/Xbox360... you are expected to do the same as a user of FSX on the PC.

You really have got to be kidding, you're not this clueless are you?

You really have got to be kidding, you're not this clueless are you?

:( Isn't it time to have your diaper changed? :(

I can already smell it...

Let's be clear .. I was not talking directly to anyone but to the typical "buy Intel i7, AMD s****"I was just writing my experience with this AMD system and the same principle of "helping others to get FSX going" applies here and using less money.If you want my sincere opinion is.. FSX = "the worst FS release since FS2000" .. period."Yes Tim, I do hear the ocean calling"I'm pretty sure you are old enough to remember not too long ago when FS runs better on AMD systems rather the Intel ones ... as we say in my country "no escupas para arriba..." .. google it.Regards

Lets get something clear, what I said at the end of my post was not directed at you or anyone else in this thread and was in response to someone else who knows exactly what that means and who would read it when they browse the forum. The defined content of both your posts was derived not only from the topic and the question the OP asked, but from the rest of the discussion that ensued in response to a faulty benchmark and the reality of hardware choices. No where in the OPs original question did he place lying about performance or

It's too bad this forum is being poisoned by a few seemingly unqualified and under-experienced children. It seems a FEW of us are under the impression this is a Gamespot forum, where it's perfectly acceptable and common to say silly things such as "Xbox sux" and "PS3 ru1ez". (A 'for instance', of course)If it's not constructive, I can't see a purpose in typing it. Hell, I've been debating on even posting this. This is the infamous AVSIM forum, where dignified and mature discussion--Not pissing contests-- are welcomed. :(

Hi, as I was the original poster and had asked all people that read these posts... and I would hope they all use there rigs to get the best out of FSX.... In there opinion, what they thought (about using top range Intel or top range AMD). Thank you Jarhead for the link, most helpful. but as to your views on what i had asked for .....no thanksNick_N, you have a view but sadly of no use to me.......no offence Well AVN8tr what can i say .......do you read o/p'sCharly, your reply was what I was looking for, thank you.If every one just replied with there personal views on the rigs THEY run with FSX, good points, bad points ect. AMD or Intel. That would be of great help, I am of considerable intellect to make good use of that sort of information.Is this forum just a place to have a slanging match or to help genuine simmers...........ffs. peter.

You posted a subject that has a high differential in opinions usually based on what a person has purchased. Most AMD users have never seen an Intel system run FSX (like you stated about yourself) and most Intel users have never bothered with AMDIn that, the answers you get will vary and have a high probability for very inaccurate comparison (AMD or Intel) based on emotional need to justify the purchase and not a defined response that addresses the question at hand.. which one will provide the better result. You never said cost was a factor. As posted I have both Intel and the mentioned AMD systems sitting right here in which I do check side by side with different hardware (ie; memory, video adapters, coolers)So although I do agree my initial post may have been directed at clarifying a web benchmark which displays numbers that are not consistent with real world FSX use between Intel and AMD and that are if fact on topic since the question you placed to the forum was " are the intel chips better or what......", I most certainly clarified there is a difference between the two and did so without any bias to the brand or the cost of each platform. Bottom line: Although a user can use AMD with FSX and get very good results based on what 'they' consider 'good' as compared to past AMD product line and FS9 or FSX, the AMD user will not be presented with the same performance curve ability with respect to application load in FSX. AMD has certainly gotten better in the last year but they have not overcome Intel in Flight Simulator X performance. If cost is a high factor for you, which was not stated in your original post, then buy AMD. It will certainly run FSX significantly better than the older AMD products, but it will not run it equal or better than current Intel. Hopefully that will change in the future as we could all use some relief in that respect. good luck with your decision.. as I stated earlier, make it a good one. :(