Funny about out af all these posters trying to convince everyone how well their AMD's run, NOT ONE have posted results in the FSXMARK11 thread. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Intel ######. I used to have my own business building and selling PC's, was an AMD authorised reseller, and would NOT sell an Intel system as at the time they were overpriced, under-perfoming rubbish. I wouldn't even have an Intel PC in my house. All that changed with the advent of Core 2 Duo. AMD have been miles behind ever since, and I can't see this changing anytime soon.

No chip is capable of running FSX maxed out. We are all using tweaks. Most people turn off bloom and run medium traffic settings, etc.Also different resolutions give different results. In my case, I was running 3X 23" monitors (5760 x 1080) but changed to a single 27" 2560x1440.

Phenom II's aren't really below i3's in performance. The Black Edition X6's and the very top X4's perform around the level of an i5-7XX or i7-8XX (sometimes even around the level of an i7-930, depending on applications). They definitely don't hold the power of an SB chip but for the price of an i7-2600K I got a motherboard, 8GB DDR3 RAM, and a 1090T that I'm content with. Actually a fun fact that I didn't even know until a few weeks ago. Both AMD and Intel's current line-up of chips aren't built on 'new' technology. Both are revisions of prior technology. The current i7's and i5's are built on Core and Core 2 technology. Core was released in early 2006 and Core 2 followed a few months later. The current Phenom II's are a revision of Phenom which was released in late 2007. AMD's technology isn't older than Intel's in fact, it's younger! Well, unless you consider K10 was built off K8. Intel has just had a more aggressive and faster paced R&D which allowed them to jump from LGA 775 to 1156 to 1366 to 1155 in 5 years while shrinking from 65nm to 32nm while AMD stuck with socket AM3 (now AM3+) for five years and has only done a shrink from 65nm to 45nm. *EDIT: I forgot to put in the main sentence here, that bashing AMD for being 'ancient' isn't quite accurate. They've just been slow on becoming 'modern' if that makes any sense. It'd be nice to have some real competition with the release of Bulldozer. Even if it could compete properly with Nehalem that would be great considering AMD's lower prices. Until then I'm selling all my old Core 2's I have laying around and putting hours into designing for FSX to find the money to buy an SB-E or IB system.

It's not only the nm. Intel architecture is way ahead: compare AMD's 45nm against Intel's 45nm.And do you seriously think that if Bulldozer turns out being a beast AMD will keep on selling cheap? come on. They sold their Athlon 64 for a grand IIRC when they were in the lead

No chip is capable of running FSX maxed out. We are all using tweaks. Most people turn off bloom and run medium traffic settings, etc.Also different resolutions give different results. In my case, I was running 3X 23" monitors (5760 x 1080) but changed to a single 27" 2560x1440.

The SB is running maxed out , What about autogen ? water ? LOD these are important.

Funny about out af all these posters trying to convince everyone how well their AMD's run, NOT ONE have posted results in the FSXMARK11 thread. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Intel ######. I used to have my own business building and selling PC's, was an AMD authorised reseller, and would NOT sell an Intel system as at the time they were overpriced, under-perfoming rubbish. I wouldn't even have an Intel PC in my house. All that changed with the advent of Core 2 Duo. AMD have been miles behind ever since, and I can't see this changing anytime soon.

I have a sempron 3300+ with a HD something something and I was running FSX at stock scenery and a couple of tweaks , do not remember the display settings the fps was 25-27 and low 12 and this was in europe where there were no buildings. Then I went and bought an intel dual core 3.0 a good performer in FSX and then I went and bought an AMD Athlon X3 nice in FSX and now I will go and buy a SB :)And after that If the FX are real good I will go and buy them. The other machines will then run Linux :) BUT RIGHT NOW IT IS Intel Performing

Close to...not max. Difference. You're arguing against the evidence here. Intel's technology blows AMD's away by....well the amount I showed above. Triple 1280x1024 monitors only. Doesn't support triple 1920x1080 or other widescreen monitors.

TH2G can do 3x 1920x1080 now apparently: http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/th2go/

I've given up on these AMD ###### trying to convince me AMD is ahead of the game compared to intel. I'll be in the NGX forum if anyone wants me

I've given up on these AMD ###### trying to convince me AMD is ahead of the game compared to intel. I'll be in the NGX forum if anyone wants me

Hahah.

Funny about out af all these posters trying to convince everyone how well their AMD's run, NOT ONE have posted results in the FSXMARK11 thread.

I made an entire thread when I upgraded to my 1090T with FSXMark11 results for basic FSXMark setup, with overclock, with FSX tuned. Nobody responded though

I've given up on these AMD ###### trying to convince me AMD is ahead of the game compared to intel. I'll be in the NGX forum if anyone wants me

I don't believe AMD is ahead of Intel, their current lineup is far behind Intel. I'm not much of a ###### on either side. I lean towards Intel since I've used Intels from Pentium 3 up until my last system with an E8400. After looking at my very limited budget and realizing that I needed more RAM (DDR2 is expensive as hell so it had to be DDR3) and probably could benefit from some extra cores, AMD was really the only choice, I couldn't have gotten what I needed from Intel for the ~$300 I had available. Hopefully next upgrade I'll have a decent amount of money to spend and be able to get SB-e or IB. I'm not sure if many people posting here are AMD ######, most FSX users are generally tilted towards Intel. AMD doesn't offer the performance but they aren't worthless

It's not only the nm. Intel architecture is way ahead: compare AMD's 45nm against Intel's 45nm.And do you seriously think that if Bulldozer turns out being a beast AMD will keep on selling cheap? come on. They sold their Athlon 64 for a grand IIRC when they were in the lead

Lol no not cheap, but cheaper. I can't afford a $1000 top of the line Intel but a ~$300 top of the line Bulldozer is a bit better. That is if BD can beat SB, if not than a $300 SB chip makes much more sense to me :)

I've given up on these AMD ###### trying to convince me AMD is ahead of the game compared to intel. I'll be in the NGX forum if anyone wants me

I never said AMD was better than Intel or the other way round, all I'm saying is that you get the same performance for less money.

You do not get the same performance though. The sandy bridges wipe the floor with the AMD's. And simmer, I wasn't directing that at you! Sorry shouldve made that clear. I was a lurker back when you posted that topic, I remember reading it.

Lol no not cheap, but cheaper. I can't afford a $1000 top of the line Intel but a ~$300 top of the line Bulldozer is a bit better. That is if BD can beat SB, if not than a $300 SB chip makes much more sense to me :)

But why an x6 for FSX if you are in a budget? AMD offers good bang for the buck in multithreaded apps. You would have the same performance with an X3You know that you'll need a new mobo for Bulldozer and then you will have more cores doing nothing? for 300$ you can get an 2500K and a motherboard

I never said AMD was better than Intel or the other way round, all I'm saying is that you get the same performance for less money.

How can you keep repeating such a bull crap? based on what?

You do not get the same performance though. The sandy bridges wipe the floor with the AMD's. And simmer, I wasn't directing that at you! Sorry shouldve made that clear. I was a lurker back when you posted that topic, I remember reading it.

Hey I thought you were @NGX , aha can't give up on this Intel AMD stuff. Hey ppl , I think the point has been proved, MAD guys ooops AMD guys including me 50% , THE CURRENT INTEL PERFORMS THE BEST IN FSX period.

How can you keep repeating such a bull crap? based on what?

Prove me wrong.