With FSX being the only application running on taskbar, you can see fsx spreading the load across all cores.

 

******* tweaked with external limiter locked @ 30 fps. Very smooth performance (20-30fps) in the NGX at payware airports.

 

For $160, I'd say this is a steal. It can even run BF3 while I'm in cruise on flight sim.

 

 

Overclocked from stock 3.1ghz to 4.2ghz. Cooled with hyper 212+

 

System Specs:

AMD FX-8120 @ 4.2ghz

Asrock 970 Extreme3 mobo

Radeon HD7850 2gb

Sandisk Extreme SSD 120gb

Win7 64bit

 

Settings I run:

 

 

 

Conclusion:

Its no where near as bad of a product as many people have portrayed it to be. Sure you will likely get better performance with a higher end Intel cpu. But for the price you pay, AMD has got it right.

 

Hope this helps, thanks for viewing.

Hi thanks for sharing. It's always good to see how the alternatives to Intel are doing. I remember when AMD was king with the XP series while Intel was floundering with P4.

 

I just want to understand the multithread/CPU screenshot above. #1 is at 95% and seems to be doing most of the work for FSX. The other 7 cores/threads are above 25%. What are they doing? I thought there wasn't a big benefit to many cores in FSX.

AMD cards are great but when it comes to drivers, you are out of luck...

I'm glad you are happy with the performance of your system. One thing I notice from your screen shots though is a lack of A.I. traffic, which is the biggest test of CPU performance in FSX. I would be interested to see your results with heavy A.I. traffic.

Hi thanks for sharing. It's always good to see how the alternatives to Intel are doing. I remember when AMD was king with the XP series while Intel was floundering with P4.

 

I just want to understand the multithread/CPU screenshot above. #1 is at 95% and seems to be doing most of the work for FSX. The other 7 cores/threads are above 25%. What are they doing? I thought there wasn't a big benefit to many cores in FSX.

 

Core #1 stays loaded while the rest of the cores fluctuate usage. One thing I've noticed is right when I exit FS, cores 1-7 idle at 0% and core 0 usage is around 2% for general web browsing. When I load FS back up, all cores become active.

 

 

I'm glad you are happy with the performance of your system. One thing I notice from your screen shots though is a lack of A.I. traffic, which is the biggest test of CPU performance in FSX. I would be interested to see your results with heavy A.I. traffic.

 

I was flying online when I took these shots and I fly exclusively on the vatsim network so I have 0 need for A.I. sliders.

I was flying online when I took these shots and I fly exclusively on the vatsim network so I have 0 need for A.I. sliders.

 

It's not an equal comparison. Your CPU is doing far less work than mine, so for you to say:

"Its no where near as bad of a product as many people have portrayed it to be. Sure you will likely get better performance with a higher end Intel cpu. But for the price you pay, AMD has got it right."

is only true if you're willing to compromise and not use A.I. Very few people here are willing to do that. Also, since you're not running a benchmark of any particular kind I (or anyone else) can't go and replicate your settings to demonstrate the true performance difference between the various hardware components out there. If you care to go run FSX Mark 7, 11, or FSX GPU Mark and post the results then we can make such a comparison on an equal footing, and fairly evaluate the performance characteristics of the hardware in question.

Try using real cloud textures, like REX, also. There has been so many benchmarks comparing the two and hands down the Intel's will out perform the AMD FX series, If I guys happy with what he's running so be it but to say better or equal under unfair circumstances is not completely accurate. I usually pay no mind to theses type of things.

It's not an equal comparison. Your CPU is doing far less work than mine, so for you to say:

"Its no where near as bad of a product as many people have portrayed it to be. Sure you will likely get better performance with a higher end Intel cpu. But for the price you pay, AMD has got it right."

is only true if you're willing to compromise and not use A.I. Very few people here are willing to do that. Also, since you're not running a benchmark of any particular kind I (or anyone else) can't go and replicate your settings to demonstrate the true performance difference between the various hardware components out there. If you care to go run FSX Mark 7, 11, or FSX GPU Mark and post the results then we can make such a comparison on an equal footing, and fairly evaluate the performance characteristics of the hardware in question.

 

Well stated...

Let me get this straight, because I don't use ai traffic/fly offline and only fly on vatsim, my post is invalid? I have ran FSXMark11, why are the A.I. sliders in the FSXMark11 display settings.cfg set to none if its so important?

Let me get this straight, because I don't use ai traffic/fly offline and only fly on vatsim, my post is invalid? I have ran FSXMark11, why are the A.I. sliders in the FSXMark11 display settings.cfg set to none if its so important?

 

Slow down. Re-read what I said. You're comparing unequal things so you can't expect other people to take your comparison for what you're intending. No one's questioning your use of flight sim, you're free to use it as you like. It is your conclusion that lies in question. If you care to provide evidence that backs up your assertion, feel free to post your FSX Mark performance numbrs in the official thread so we can all compare.

It's not an equal comparison. Your CPU is doing far less work than mine, so for you to say:

"Its no where near as bad of a product as many people have portrayed it to be. Sure you will likely get better performance with a higher end Intel cpu. But for the price you pay, AMD has got it right."

is only true if you're willing to compromise and not use A.I. Very few people here are willing to do that. Also, since you're not running a benchmark of any particular kind I (or anyone else) can't go and replicate your settings to demonstrate the true performance difference between the various hardware components out there. If you care to go run FSX Mark 7, 11, or FSX GPU Mark and post the results then we can make such a comparison on an equal footing, and fairly evaluate the performance characteristics of the hardware in question.

 

 

Slow down. Re-read what I said. You're comparing unequal things so you can't expect other people to take your comparison for what you're intending. No one's questioning your use of flight sim, you're free to use it as you like. It is your conclusion that lies in question. If you care to provide evidence that backs up your assertion, feel free to post your FSX Mark performance numbrs in the official thread so we can all compare.

 

When did he compare anything to anything? He was simply pointing out that his AMD is doing well and is a good option for people on a budget. He even said you'd get better performance with a higher end Intel cpu. Hint: It helps to read.

 

Conclusion:

Its no where near as bad of a product as many people have portrayed it to be. Sure you will likely get better performance with a higher end Intel cpu. But for the price you pay, AMD has got it right.

 

Hope this helps, thanks for viewing.

When did he compare anything to anything? He was simply pointing out that his AMD is doing well and is a good option for people on a budget. He even said you'd get better performance with a higher end Intel cpu. Hint: It helps to read.

 

Without a full picture of the chip's performance you can't make the conclusion which he has made. We don't know how it performs with A.I., which is the most CPU-dependent performance bottleneck. I'm not sure where the confusion or the animosity is coming from here...

Its no where near as bad of a product as many people have portrayed it to be. Sure you will likely get better performance with a higher end Intel cpu. But for the price you pay, AMD has got it right.

 

1. When did we ever portray AMD as "bad"?

 

2. Of course you will get much better performance at no higher cost.

 

3. AMD is actually a bad bang for buck....

 

 

8120 is $140 at Microcenter and the 2500K is only $20 more for $160. - I don't ever understand why AMD users are always saying "such a good value", "cheaper and more budget oriented".

 

Statements as such are senseless considering you are paying only 20 dollars more for a *much* more capable CPU from Intel.

Without a full picture of the chip's performance you can't make the conclusion which he has made. We don't know how it performs with A.I., which is the most CPU-dependent performance bottleneck. I'm not sure where the confusion or the animosity is coming from here...

 

Then why doesn't FSX MARK11 include A.I traffic? AI traffic doesn't do anything for the online only user. In my case (ONLY ONLINE) I get 20-30 fps with most sliders to the right in the NGX VC at payware airports.

 

lol do you want me to go full A.I and take a screenshot of the frame counter?

 

 

1. When did we ever portray AMD as "bad"?

 

2. Of course you will get much better performance at no higher cost.

 

3. AMD is actually a bad bang for buck....

 

 

8120 is $140 at Microcenter and the 2500K is only $20 more for $160. - I don't ever understand why AMD users are always saying "such a good value", "cheaper and more budget oriented".

 

Statements as such are senseless considering you are paying only 20 dollars more for a *much* more capable CPU from Intel.

 

^lol u just did

 

They actually perform the similar in most real world applications:

"really no difference"

 

Not many people have a microcenter in their state. So newegg $160 vs $220. 8150 and 8120 are same chip just the stock clock is lower.

Without a full picture of the chip's performance you can't make the conclusion which he has made. We don't know how it performs with A.I., which is the most CPU-dependent performance bottleneck. I'm not sure where the confusion or the animosity is coming from here...

 

Well you can conclude you'll get good performance on vatsim with the NGX. I thought that was pretty easy to figure out myself. He never made the conclusion that his AMD chip gets good performance with AI traffic and that people using AI traffic should get it, he simply posted stating the performance he has using what he does. You're acting like he came in here saying the AMD 8120 is better than Intel, like he's comparing the two. He isn't. Why is this such a huge deal to you?

 

1. When did we ever portray AMD as "bad"?

 

2. Of course you will get much better performance at no higher cost.

 

3. AMD is actually a bad bang for buck....

 

 

8120 is $140 at Microcenter and the 2500K is only $20 more for $160. - I don't ever understand why AMD users are always saying "such a good value", "cheaper and more budget oriented".

 

Statements as such are senseless considering you are paying only 20 dollars more for a *much* more capable CPU from Intel.

Well actually there is a thread on here that you yourself posted in talking about the AMD chip and how your brother has it, guess what, there were people acting as if the AMD chip was bad in that post. People do portray AMD chips as bad.

 

 

I getting a phan boy vibe from this thread.