Ati 5870 vs. GTX 285: head-to-head comparison

[Guest UlfB]

Thanks for the report!

[Guest djt01]

In case an update is of interest:I installed the latest Catalyst drivers. They added a couple of fps. But they do not provide improved anti-aliasing settings, or any option to change the LOD settings. The 5870 can give a really good image, but you have to set "super sampling" anti-aliasing, which brings FSX to its knees.Unable to reconcile myself to the (few) instances of shimmering and to the (IMHO) poor anti-aliasing on the 5870, I have now re-installed my GTX285. It's odd. When I installed the 5870, I did not at first notice any real difference in visual quality: just faster framerates in the default aircraft. But going back to the GTX285, using Nick_N's Nhancer settings (pretty much) the improvement in visual quality is instantly noticeable compared with the 5870. IMHO the GTX285 has a definite edge on the 5870 in terms of visual quality at the moment, thanks to the ability to set "combined" mode anti-aliasing at 8x from Nhancer and thanks to the ability to control LOD settings (I assume this is what makes the difference: these are the two things most obviously missing from the Catalyst control panel). For the add-on heavies, the slight loss in framerates compared with the 5870 is negligible. For the default aircraft, the loss in framerates is noticeable NUMERICALLY: but the overall smoothness of the sim is not affected adversely by going back to the GTX285.I would be interested to know what others have found.Tim

Tim, the lack of not being able to

[tfm 184]

Tim, the lack of not being able to

[Guest djt01]

Looks interesting: I hope you'll keep us posted about these developments.Incidentally, a good place to do the comparison - and what tipped me over the edge with the 5870 - is at KIAD. Not sure of the gate numbers - but try slewing in daylight in a 747 to the terminal building which is next-but-one to the furthest south. The vertical lines on the terminal building are - on my kit - horrid with the 5870 at any setting except the "super-sampling" mode. This is at 1920x1080x32. With the GTX285 and the "combined" 8x (or 12x) mode it's still not perfect, but it's a lot better IMHO.Tim

I wouldn

[Guest Nick_N]

In case an update is of interest:I installed the latest Catalyst drivers. They added a couple of fps. But they do not provide improved anti-aliasing settings, or any option to change the LOD settings. The 5870 can give a really good image, but you have to set "super sampling" anti-aliasing, which brings FSX to its knees.Unable to reconcile myself to the (few) instances of shimmering and to the (IMHO) poor anti-aliasing on the 5870, I have now re-installed my GTX285. It's odd. When I installed the 5870, I did not at first notice any real difference in visual quality: just faster framerates in the default aircraft. But going back to the GTX285, using Nick_N's Nhancer settings (pretty much) the improvement in visual quality is instantly noticeable compared with the 5870. IMHO the GTX285 has a definite edge on the 5870 in terms of visual quality at the moment, thanks to the ability to set "combined" mode anti-aliasing at 8x from Nhancer and thanks to the ability to control LOD settings (I assume this is what makes the difference: these are the two things most obviously missing from the Catalyst control panel). For the add-on heavies, the slight loss in framerates compared with the 5870 is negligible. For the default aircraft, the loss in framerates is noticeable NUMERICALLY: but the overall smoothness of the sim is not affected adversely by going back to the GTX285.I would be interested to know what others have found.Tim

and so regardless of the advantage you are now seeing the differences in the AA method between Nv and ATi.To be quite honest.. even if they address it in the driver, I know where the main issue sits and its not in the driver. Some people are not sensitive to IQ in this respect but I am and I can see the difference between the twoAlso, and touching on the poster that sees no difference between the 8800 and the 5870 in payware, ... that makes sense since the 8800/285 are almost matched to the 5870 with respect to memory bandwidth efficiency. Although the 5870 goes about it a bit differently than the 88/285 its basically the same on the cards with the 285 a bit better than the 8800. Its not all CPU although that is part of the equation. With the 5870 it comes down to 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other. I wouldn

[Chuck_B 2]

Although this thread has been focused mainly on FSX and I fly FS9, I've been following it and it's related threads with great interest for the past week or so. Enough interest so that I was motivated to swap out my 1 year old 4870 for a new sapphire 5870 that was on sale at TigerDirect for $379 and I just wanted to add my 2 cents for posterity. With the 5870 I have noticed no frame rate improvement whatsoever in my sim. Nothing. Nada.But it has eliminated one thing that has plagued me for months and months and I've seen it with both nVidia cards (I have also had a 285 in my machine recently) and ATI: scenery tear. I haven't had a hint of scenery tears since installing the 5870. And it's been satisfying enough so that I've decided to keep it in for now.

[Guest UlfB]

But it has eliminated one thing that has plagued me for months and months and I've seen it with both nVidia cards (I have also had a 285 in my machine recently) and ATI: scenery tear. I haven't had a hint of scenery tears since installing the 5870. And it's been satisfying enough so that I've decided to keep it in for now.

I've used nVIDIA cards for many years now and over the years I never had any problems with scenery tear. Just set Vertical Sync on (in nVIDIA control panel or in the nHancer profile).

[Chuck_B 2]

I've used nVIDIA cards for many years now and over the years I never had any problems with scenery tear. Just set Vertical Sync on (in nVIDIA control panel or in the nHancer profile).

I know! . . . believe me I was astounded (and incredibly disappointed) when I had the nVidia card in, and I was flying into KBOS under heavy overcast and there it was -- spikes through the air and textures ripping themselves to pieces. It was the first nVidia card I've ever seen it happen with, and I'm no longer in any mood to try and push hardware around so that it works right so it went right back to the retailer. Problem eliminated with the 5870.

[Guest j0nx]

There will be no frame rate improvement going from a 285 to a 5870 regardless of what the OP says. There was none going from an 8800 to a 4850 nor from a 4850 to a 285 (excluding the abysmal cloud performance of the 4850 of course which seems to be fixed now with the 5800 series). FSX is a strictly CPU based game and GPU makes and models make little difference in any kind of performance that you will get. You will be sadly disappointed if you are expecting frame rate gains in FSX by moving from one of these cards to the other.

[Guest UlfB]

There will be no frame rate improvement going from a 285 to a 5870 regardless of what the OP says. There was none going from an 8800 to a 4850 nor from a 4850 to a 285 (excluding the abysmal cloud performance of the 4850 of course which seems to be fixed now with the 5800 series). FSX is a strictly CPU based game and GPU makes and models make little difference in any kind of performance that you will get. You will be sadly disappointed if you are expecting frame rate gains in FSX by moving from one of these cards to the other.

Can't agree. I replaced my 8800GTX with the GTX285 and could benchmark a 25% increase of the average fps flying over London City. Much smoother flights with more autogen.

[Guest j0nx]

Did the same thing and saw no loss or gain myself. I think people are falling prey to hype and the placebo effect personally and I'll leave it at that.

[tfm 184]

Did the same thing and saw no loss or gain myself. I think people are falling prey to hype and the placebo effect personally and I'll leave it at that.

Nobody said that upgrading graphics cards would be a silver bullet for every (or indeed any) situation. What (most) people want, is enough raw data coupled with the observations of other people based on experience rather than surmise, to make up their own minds. The review sites don't provide either of those things, because they're not interested in FSX, so we have to do the best we can for ourselves.If you think you see a difference, and you can measure it, it's not placebo.Tim

[Guest UlfB]

Did the same thing and saw no loss or gain myself. I think people are falling prey to hype and the placebo effect personally and I'll leave it at that.

No, I carefully benchmarked and measured average fps in a saved test flight scenario. No room for placebo effect.

[Guest Nick_N]

Nobody said that upgrading graphics cards would be a silver bullet for every (or indeed any) situation. What (most) people want, is enough raw data coupled with the observations of other people based on experience rather than surmise, to make up their own minds. The review sites don't provide either of those things, because they're not interested in FSX, so we have to do the best we can for ourselves.If you think you see a difference, and you can measure it, it's not placebo.Tim

well said Tim, well saidwhich goes hand in hand with what I posted in another thread=====================================I use 4 machines, 2 with the new card and 2 with the card I wish to check it against. All of equal hardware type and clock speedsThis places a real world probability into the result and does not allow an issue with a single card to skew a result. It allows the test to reveal one card may be working but not as well as it should be. It also does not allow the wildcard of swapping OS

[tfm 184]

...I use 4 machines, 2 with the new card and 2 with the card I wish to check it against. All of equal hardware type and clock speeds... I went through 4 GTX 285's to find 2 that matched each other in head to head results.. I had found 2 that showed a defined 10-15% difference with equal spec product which means there is another variable floating around. The G200 series was not without its issues and one of them was consistency in manufacture to end result. Therefore benchmark and user reports will also tend to vary ...

It is salutory - and disheartening - to learn that not all cards with the same specifications perform equally. No wonder people report having such mixed experiences. It is one thing for the manufacturers to rely on advertising/marketing hype. But this sort of variance sounds to me like something different. It sounds as it you gamble when you buy a card: you might get a duff one and just live with the disappointment under the assumption that you have been a victim of hype, rather than of faulty manufacturing. These cards are not cheap. People really shouldn't have to take "pot luck" with them. I suppose there's no practical way for such a tiny interest group as FSX-users to force the industry into being more transparent with consumers. But I wonder whether we might set a ball rolling? I wonder what coherent argument the manufacturers could mount against this suggestion: package the cards with a simple diagnostic tool - or let it be downloadable from the internet - which lets consumers test the card (including performance) against all relevant parameters and against known benchmarks, so that they can tell at once whether they've got a duff one. Tim