Hello Everyone! I was just wondering, why do NVIDIA cards supposedly run fsx better than ATI cards, even if the ATI is slightly higher spec? I am considering buying a new rig, and I will probably get a NVIDIA, but I'm just curious. Currently, I have an ATI.

My ATI card runs FSX w/out any problems, and FS9 very very good, which is the sim I use.

I have an odd issue with my NVidia 9500 GT and FSX--no matter how I try or what drivers I use, anti aliasing doesn't seem to work on aircraft in FSX. In FS9 and all my other apps, anti aliasing runs gloriously. With FSX it doesn't matter what setting I use, whether it be Nvidia Override, Enhance or the internal AA in FSX. I've tried AA from 2X to 16X to no avail. That being said, my add-on aircraft (exterior wise) look great in FS9 and just passable in FSX. I still get a lot of enjoyment out of FSX and the NVidia card is great at pumping out textures--take a look at some of my screenshots. Maybe someone has seen this and can offer a clue.

 

Back to the topic, I once bought an ATI card, some years ago, and was disappointed with the way the default settings looked vs. Nvidia. I returned it for an Nvidia card. Perhaps ATI has improved but I've stuck with Nvidia since.

 

John

 

Example Screenshots, look closely at the Duke and 172 and you'll see stairstepping in the exterior textures:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/386481-out-of-innsbruck-photoreal-alpine-scenery/

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/386308-realair-duke-flying-over-phoenix/

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/385903-realair-duke-over-the-texas-panhandle/

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/386105-carenado-172-over-maryland/

Prepare yourself for the a really excited user faceoff. For me, I run FSX with high degree of scenery and realism, HD weather, 100% AI with Ultimate Traffic 2 on a middling WIN 7 system. I am very happy with the way it looks and flies using the latest payware aircraft (PMDG 737NGX) and others. At KATL, KJFK, KORD, EGLL, etc., I am happy with my frame rates and the fluid movement. My video card is an old ATI 4850 running 1680 x 1050 using maximum AA and AF through the FSX setting. .

 

It is what you make it IMHO.

I swapped back and forth 2 times between a 6970 and 560Ti. While the ATI gave me at best 10% more overall framerate, the nVidia was stutter free(consistant) and super smooth panning. ATI was very jerky panning the view, annoyingly so. I have since sold my ATI card.

My Radeon 6670 does the job well, but I can't really compare since I've never owned an Nvidia card.

"It is what you make it IMHO." +1 to that.

 

I've owned both (3 ATI and 4 Nvidia cards over the past 7 years, nothing low end to skew results) and never found one to be any better in FS2004/FSX than the other aside for newer generation vs. older and therefore more powerful. Any current decent mid-range card and up you'd be looking at should have NO issues running FSX with great results.

 

Please no offense to the 9500 GT user, but that card was at the lower end of Entry Level even when new. It's apples and oranges.

Love my ATI/AMD Sapphire 2G DDR5 card..... and the several ATI Radeons I have had before this... No slam on NVidia... Just happy with what I know...

 

And BTW... what Dave_YVR say's.... and I 110% agree... "NO issues running FSX "

 

Jeff

Handles vertical sync better and AA. Just overall a better product. Just like the intel cpu's are overall a better product than the AMD's. Doesn't mean the ATI and AMD's do not work - just means that overall the nvidia and Intel work better more consistently.

 

Vic

Certain "things" (technical term) are designed into the Nvidia product that work better with the aging FSX than AMD's product. I believe Word Not Allowed did some extensive testing on can actually tell/show why Nvidia outperforms AMD when it comes to FSX. Now having said that, it doesn't mean you can't get a good experience using AMD as many will testify here.

 

I tested a AMD 6970 against an Nvidia 580 for many months going back and forth and I just got a better visual and performance experience with the 580. So I went that route. I would say if FSX is not your main game of choice you could stay with AMD and get a pleasing experience but also take advantage of the many other latest games that AMD has an edge on.

 

Otherwise go Nvidia. I have two 580's in Surround using Prepar3d. Which... is another option. If you wish to stay with AMD you could move up to P3D as it has just been certified to work with AMD cards.

My Radeon 6670 does the job well, but I can't really compare since I've never owned an Nvidia card.

Same-O in 3ds went to 7750 Hd-does fine for me only fly GA and in 3d monitor. ATI are not bad cards they may not be as good as Nividia with FSX, but for low energy use the AMD cards do well in that regard and it easier to upgrade and 3d setup more flexible with amd.

 

Nividia is a better card but it costs a lot more money for decent one and energy to use. Nividia setup is properitory makes it hard to do 3d on HDTV 3d and they cost a bit more.

Hardware wise, AMD is just as good as NVIDIA, however software wise AMD tends to have some problems with drivers that seem to affect FSX a lot according to some people. For example I've heard about anti-aliasing not working properly, stutters in clouds, AMD driver crashes, etc. NVIDIA cards might not necessarily give you better performance but at least you are SURE that you've bought something trouble free while with AMD you MIGHT have problems. However as others say, some run AMD without problems, others don't.

 

Myself I would recommend an NVIDIA. I have an NVIDIA GTX 670 from Asus and it's the best video card I've ever had. It runs all games at max settings even with high anti-aliasing settings and supersampling settings.

Having owned over 100 cards throughout the years, all i can say is nVidia is far more refined and consistent in their drivers. They're just undeniably better overall.

 

While the ATI cards came out faster in some duels, the actual in-game performance wasn't that different and the constant defective ATI drivers always put me out one way or another.

 

My last ATI was a 5970 and i'm not touching another anymore. Super fast, super performant... and super bugged. I had it watercooled and it even managed to have a "cold bug" issue where it would hang if you ran 3D apps before it had the chance to go over ~25ºC.

 

Right now i have a GTX670 and this is a stunning card. Much faster than my previous 580 (overall, not just FSX, although it IS a bit smoother), uses far less power and it is quieter. Impressive.

 

This is why i'm sticking with nVidia for a long time to come, unless they screw up major.

 

 

Having owned over 100 cards throughout the years

 

Holy cow! How many PCs have you built! LOL

I agree apples and oranges.

 

I used to have 2x ndivia 9500s in sli =, they where terrible. kept idleing out. used to get flashing screens etc etc

 

I now have a Radeon hd 8560 (i think)... Never had any problems with it.

 

I also have 8 gig ram, which i think helps things.

 

Ive spent hours and hours tweaking FSX and dont get stutters or have any issues.

 

But one of the things I found a must though is a product called xtreme fsx PC. heres the link http://secure.simmar...me-fsx-pc.phtml

 

The other thing I found is a MUST and I cant stress enough how much is to DEFRAG your HDD. I have O and O its is great.

 

and heres a couple of screenshots. My rig never goes below 25fps. Even with UT2 on full sliders But like I said Ive spend hours and hours tweaking and testing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

upload