Here is a link to a review of the Radeon 9800 XT as tested under FS2004 (all settings used are shown in link). I find it interesting that a game that uses virtually no DX9 effects still performs better on ATI hardware than on Nvidia hardware. ATI seems to have won the DX9 battle pretty handily. They've had the lead since September '02 and just continue to extend it. I wonder who will be first to come back with "just wait for Det. 50!" or "Just wait for 5950 Ultra" or "just wait for NV40!"... Enjoy: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI5LDk=-Max Cowgill

Interesting. If I had only waited another month, I could have got a 9800XT. Nevermind :)

Just goes to show how important a powerful Video Card is in FSim even without AA & AF running. I'm gonna wait for the Loci (R420) do out next spring before I upgrade. My 9700 Pro does a really nice job for now. I'm currently running the autogen fix and just today installed Chris' cloud pack. Both gave me a nice boost in frames and I can now run in heavy weather with clouds maxed with density on high, scenery complexity and autogen maxed at 4xAA & 16xAF with great frames.

Interesting article, couldn't find what drivers they used.I am glad they tested different resolutions, but why the custom settings, just turn it all on full to get a good idea of what it can do as this is what everyone wants is maxed settings, especially if you spend the kind of money a high end gaming system costs. This is how I am running on my new Athlon 3200 rig (G4 4600) with no AA and 4X AF and getting between 24-30 (locked at 30) at 16X12 res.Sure proves what a hit AA and AF give!Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

>Just goes to show how important a powerful Video Card is in>FSim even without AA & AF running. I'm gonna wait for the>Loci (R420) do out next spring before I upgrade. My 9700 Pro>does a really nice job for now. I'm currently running the>autogen fix and just today installed Chris' cloud pack. Both>gave me a nice boost in frames and I can now run in heavy>weather with clouds maxed with density on high, scenery>complexity and autogen maxed at 4xAA & 16xAF with great>frames.Amen to that. I'm waiting for R420 as well. I'd love to have a Radeon 9700 or better but poor college students such as myself can't afford such luxuries :( I'll just be saving my pennies until R420 is released next March/April and Athlon 64 FX has its pin change sometime in H1 '04. -Max Cowgill

>Interesting article, couldn't find what drivers they used.>>I am glad they tested different resolutions, but why the>custom settings, just turn it all on full to get a good idea>of what it can do as this is what everyone wants is maxed>settings, especially if you spend the kind of money a high end>gaming system costs. This is how I am running on my new>Athlon 3200 rig (G4 4600) with no AA and 4X AF and getting>between 24-30 (locked at 30) at 16X12 res.>>Sure proves what a hit AA and AF give!>>Regards, Michael>KDFW>>http://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpg>>CalVirAir International VA>www.calvirair.com>Cougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviation>www.cgrmtnhelos.comMichael, Catalyst 3.7 drivers were used with ATI cards & Detonator 45.23 drivers were used with GFFX 5900 Ultra. According to the test setup page here: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI5LDM=

>Here is a link to a review of the Radeon 9800 XT as tested>under FS2004 (all settings used are shown in link). I find it>interesting that a game that uses virtually no DX9 effects>still performs better on ATI hardware than on Nvidia hardware.> ATI seems to have won the DX9 battle pretty handily. They've>had the lead since September '02 and just continue to extend>it. >I wonder who will be first to come back with "just wait for>Det. 50!" or "Just wait for 5950 Ultra" or "just wait for>NV40!"... >Enjoy: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI5LDk=>>-Max CowgillIt is really suprising to see results this close as the NV card is antialiasing >all< ground objects as well as clouds (who cares) as well as a lot more work for its whole scene aniso as compared to the limited AF of the ATI cards.My testing has shown the 9800P out in front by 10-15% in 1600x1200 But I used more than just "fair weather" and that may account.Someone might want to let HC know that you can record a flight for good testing as well as the need to turn off the variable impact of ATC.

>>Here is a link to a review of the Radeon 9800 XT as tested>>under FS2004 (all settings used are shown in link). I find>it>>interesting that a game that uses virtually no DX9 effects>>still performs better on ATI hardware than on Nvidia>hardware.>> ATI seems to have won the DX9 battle pretty handily. >They've>>had the lead since September '02 and just continue to extend>>it. >>I wonder who will be first to come back with "just wait for>>Det. 50!" or "Just wait for 5950 Ultra" or "just wait for>>NV40!"... >>Enjoy: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI5LDk=>>>>-Max Cowgill>>It is really suprising to see results this close as the NV>card is antialiasing >all< ground objects as well as clouds>(who cares) as well as a lot more work for its whole scene>aniso as compared to the limited AF of the ATI cards.>>My testing has shown the 9800P out in front by 10-15% in>1600x1200 But I used more than just "fair weather" and that>may account.>>Someone might want to let HC know that you can record a flight>for good testing as well as the need to turn off the variable>impact of ATC."Results this close" You are kidding, right Paul? Considering that MSFS always has been almost entirely CPU dependant it's practically amazing that there's any measurable difference between different GPU architectures, let alone the 25% FPS improvement of the 9800 XT vs. the 5900 Ultra in some cases. Did you really look at those benchmarks? In every post of yours in which there is a debate about GPUs you never fail to mention how Nvidia has better AF/AA quality or how their GPUs are "doing more work" thus excusing their poor performance relative to ATI cards. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and back your statements up for once? You can make statements such as the above all day long but they don't mean anything without any evidence behind them. You can quote architectural theory at me all day long too but if you can't prove said theories with actual benchmarks AND screenshots it doesn't mean a darn thing.-Max Cowgill

Most know how much better ATI's AA is over Nvidia. It's now also known that ATI's AF is better than Nvidia's AF simply because Nvidia's drivers force lower IQ in order to get an acceptable framerate. That fact is being discussed all over the web. An ATI spokeman said not too long ago that ATI had 97 percent of the high end GPU market, had a majority of the mobility market and was gaining rapidly in all the other categories. That's why Merrill recommends "Sell" regarding Nvidia Stock.

I really wish there was a standard test.All sliders to the rightWhat is enabled and what is not enabled in settingswhat weather scheme is usedwhat location is usedwhat default a/c is used with what panel 2d or v/cThen list the systems specslike CPUVideo cardrametcProvide this a test name and then let that be the standard.Use only default and that way anyone could provide results.It would mean a lot if we had a standard to test by just like how 12 inches = a foot. I guess there are so many factors like programs running in the background etc etc but if someone would take the time to list a complete checklist of standards then we could all state facts based on results of an equal playing field.NP

>>>Most know how much better ATI's AA is over Nvidia. It's now also known that ATI's AF is better than Nvidia's<<<http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/kirk_interview/If you think about it, the only true winners in this battle are the end users. I don't give a crap which one is better myself, so long as they both keep up the high quality they're at now. Good time to be a gamer.

>>>>Most know how much better ATI's AA is over Nvidia. It's>now also known that ATI's AF is better than Nvidia's<<<<>>The FX5900 Ultra is either equal too, better, or worse than>ATI with AA/AF. Every benchmark I've seen shows extremely>variable results depending on what benchmark. There are a few>specific reso's on some games where Nvidia is a good chunk>behind - some where it's clearly ahead. Saying ATI is "much>better" is far from accurate.>>It is true that DX9 stuff works better on ATI cards at the>moment. This is because ATI put out the first gen DX9 cards>long before Nvidia could and programmers didn't wait. Some>games were in Beta before even being played on an Nvidia card>yet.>>This interview with Nvidia's David Kirk explains alot:>>http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/kirk_interview/>>>If you think about it, the only true winners in this battle>are the end users. I don't give a crap which one is better>myself, so long as they both keep up the high quality they're>at now. Good time to be a gamer.LMAO, an Nvidia PR man explaining away the poor performance and IQ of GFFX. DX9 works and *looks* better on ATI cards because ATI cards are superior. End of story. We've been reading about both these architectures for at least a year now and everyone but diehard Nvidia supporters and those who stand to lose something by admitting ATI superiority have come to the same conclusion - ATI won this round. -Max Cowgill

One must wonder why this debate gets rehashed in this forum over and over and over by the same people if the end result is so crystal clear.Jim

Dis Max guy need to lay off da coffee.

>Dis Max guy need to lay off da coffee.Gee, thanks for the opinion. So insightful and relevant to the conversation. You've helped tremendously! It's not as though we needed another participant to argue against me, there's quite enough of those already. This must be "Take a Shot at Max Day" and nobody told me about it... Guess I forgot to check my mail.-Max Cowgill