Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

Hey guys and girls :lol:

 

Ok, this is my computer system.

750watt psu

6gigabytes 1866mhz ram

intel core i7 920 @ 3.5ghz.

7200rpm harddisk.

ATI Radeon HD7850

 

I don't have any issues in the way FSX runs. That is that other sims or games run much more rapidly. But having seen various videos and complaints I consider my smoothness quite acceptable if nore more. Having read various guides online made that possible. Im referring to guides like most notoriously NickN guides but other guides aswell.

 

I have read all those guides aswell as just reading random peoples opinion on the internet. And all these people say that Nvidia is better in FSX then a Radeon GPU.

 

But that Boggles me upside over for the following reasons.

 

-It's said that FSX is like double as intensive on the CPU rather then on the GPU.
-My FSX framerates have only increases after I performed my overclock profile from 2.67ghz to 3.5ghz.

^^ Thus meaning the CPU bottleneck was pumped in with more juice to generate a higher framerate ^^

My GPU just freshly followed suit on a uphill climbing CPU.

 

-Just noticeably there must atleast be some kind of difference between ATI and Nvidia on the FSX simulator. Something I might notice to if I could atleast compare the two equivalent GPU brand cards for a test.

But I can't since I don't own a Nvidia card.

 

So I was wondering if people could tell me why nvidia is better in fsx. You might infact turn me over to the other side :ph34r:

But quite honestly. Before I buy a GTX 6 or 7 series I will first upgrade my whole intel MB/RAM/CPU to something like a Haswell platform.

Which isn't anytime soon, I was just wondering about the difference between ATI and NVIDIA for FSX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

ATI is fine - there are happy ATI users on this forum as well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I am the proud owner of an Asus HD7970 Matrix Platinum graphic card, and am very happy with it, FSX included. 

 

It seems there was a time when nVidia cleary had an edge, including about driver quality, but I am not sure there is really such a difference today.  I did choose this card in December, 2012 since this was among the best power/price ratio and also because it uses 3Gb Vram.

 

You will find more tips and tricks for nVidia but you will find the equivalent for ATI, don't worry.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very good to hear...

 

Probably ATI isnt "BAD" but it's a little less good from what I hear.

but that still wonders me why I hear all those controversial calls towards ATI. They don't actually say ATI is bad. Just that it's less good for FSX specifically. NickN actually said that. Not that he is god and all but just saying for relating the cryout from what I hear a trusted person.

 

Then how does this result into benchmarking I wonder?


Hello,

 

I am the proud owner of an Asus HD7970 Matrix Platinum graphic card, and am very happy with it, FSX included. 

 

It seems there was a time when nVidia cleary had an edge, including about driver quality, but I am not sure there is really such a difference today.  I did choose this card in December, 2012 since this was among the best power/price ratio and also because it uses 3Gb Vram.

 

You will find more tips and tricks for nVidia but you will find the equivalent for ATI, don't worry.

 

Chris

 

Oops, you replies when I answered.

 

So that quality difference is just something from the past!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that quality difference is just something from the past!?

 

Well, that's probably very difficult to affirm as one would need to test one nVidia and one ATI cards with equal power, on exact same hardware configuration, and exact same FSX config... Almost no one could afford money and time to just do that :)

 

So i could not say that I have equivalent, better or lower perfs with an ATI card, but I sure can say I am able to use FSX at 2560x1440 at 30 fps with high settings and DX10 mode (and of course, it drops to low 20 with very dense scenery, traffic, etc... but it's CPU-related).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ever do buy an NVIDIA CARD, you will never re-buy an ATI/AMD CARD. :good:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's probably very difficult to affirm as one would need to test one nVidia and one ATI cards with equal power, on exact same hardware configuration, and exact same FSX config... Almost no one could afford money and time to just do that :)

 

So i could not say that I have equivalent, better or lower perfs with an ATI card, but I sure can say I am able to use FSX at 2560x1440 at 30 fps with high settings and DX10 mode (and of course, it drops to low 20 with very dense scenery, traffic, etc... but it's CPU-related).

 

Roger!

I get as low as 15fps with my mentioned platform some very rare spikes down to 10fps but also mostly around 20 in highly dense areas. With GEX, REX, FTX and UTX that I didn't mention as of yet and some airport addons. I'm still having Orbx on my wishlist yet to obtain B)

 

If you ever do buy an NVIDIA CARD, you will never re-buy an ATI/AMD CARD. :good:  

 

Haha lol, although quite honestly, I dont think that will be the course.

I have owned dozen of Nvidia cards. Although since the old Nvidia 8000 series I only had ATI. Not sure why I would ever go from nvidia to ati. And would now go from ati to nvidia but wouldn't return back to ATI :lol:

 

Something should miraculously go wrong with AMD/ATI for that to happen :unsure:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD is not bad at all. Their processors are cheap, of good quality, and perform great from what I've seen. I like Radeon video cards also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an HD 5770, and for the past 3 years, all it does is cause me problems and headaches. The drivers are terrible. I get atikmdag.sys/atikmpag.sys BSODs, driver stops responding, video acceleration and playback issues, and every once in a while I get a driver that causes an incompatibility with a game I know (at least it gets fixed in future drivers).

 

Stay away. Your HD 7850 is being supported now, but when they release the HD 9000 series, they'll forget about everything before that. NVIDIA keeps adding features to GPUs from 2006 (PhysX, Adaptive V-Sync etc.), while AMD can't bother adding FSSGSSAA with automatic LOD adjustment on anything before the HD 7000 series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


If you ever do buy an NVIDIA CARD, you will never re-buy an ATI/AMD CARD.

 

Rubbish... I have had both and i am more than happy with my 7970.  I run FSX at 5760x1080 across 3 monitors it doesn't have any issues not even the 'famous' cloud issue.

 

Outside of FSX i wouldn't even look twice at a nVidia card.

 

AVSIM user "Cvearl" did a lot of work on mythbusting regarding the perceived dominance of the nVidia cards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is turning into a ATI VS Nvidia topic.

And you know what, I really dont care at all, please keep going on. Even such topic result in valuable informative replies. Although Im not the moderator to judge that.

 

But do keep in mind that I personally don't and never did see any of the 2 brands over the other.

My question wasn't whether Nvidia was/is better then Ati or the same question in reverse.

 

But the question was to determine the better for the simulator in specifically. Nvidia could kick the fsx engine upside over while the Ati could kick the Crysis 3 engines up side over.
In the latter case I could not care as it's not my intended question.

 

But really, go on. I hope I didn't work as a interruptor in the debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an AMD 7950 and I also run 5760x1080. I use to have the cloud problem until driver 12.6. but since then the cloud problem has been resolved. I have tried all the usual tweaks such as shader 3.0 and such but have found that I only need 3 tweaks in fsx.cfg.

 

Affinitymask=14

Highmemfix=1

Bufferpools=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

******* Altuve's Shader 3.0 mod made a big difference for me. All in all I'm very happy with my 7950, and that's coming from a GTX580.

Problem with AMD cards is there's nothing in between 2x, 4x & 8x SSAA, but 4xSSAA is already comparable if not better than nVidia's 8xS + 2xSGSS 

Another point goes for AMD for allowing switching AA modes on the fly, something you can't do with nVidia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


But the question was to determine the better for the simulator in specifically. Nvidia could kick the fsx engine upside over while the Ati could kick the Crysis 3 engines up side over.
In the latter case I could not care as it's not my intended question.

You may have read Nick's thread on simforums, but if not, I would suggest taking a look at it: THE FSX COMPUTER SYSTEM: THE BIBLE - BY: NickN  

 

I found it helpful when I was wading through all the conflicting info of what the best build might be for both games AND flightsims. Much of the above is focused on more extreme overclocking than what my system is going to have, but I still found a lot of information which was helpful in helping me decide what I needed (then I had to compromise a bit, to stay near what I have in my computer budget).

 

This is taken from the above, under the Video Cards section:

 

 

 

ATI Video Adapters: I will not discuss or address ATi video cards in this document. Nvidia is the GO-TO card for FSX. AMD/ATi announced directly they will not develop nor will they make any effort to accommodate the older rendering engine MSFS uses and there are issues with the adapters and the older FSX render engine.

If you use ATi with FSX and want 'the works' on the screen you may very likely end up being forced to install hacked shader files (3.0) from AVSIM in order to come close to Nvidia performance in heavy weather conditions which means you will effectively be forced to deal with nonsense issues to correct glitches that come with that hack. The hack is not full support for Shader 3.0 and Nvidia cards do not need that shader hack. Do not install that shader hack with a Nvidia video adapter!

I am not a fan-boy as I was an ATi user at one time just as I was a AMD processor user before Intel released the Core2 series processors and crushed AMD with Flight Sim performance. If in the future AMD/ATi makes a change that eliminate the issues with their video adapters and FSX, I would certainly be open to using them again, until that time Nvidia is the card to purchase for a FSX system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have read Nick's thread on simforums, but if not, I would suggest taking a look at it: THE FSX COMPUTER SYSTEM: THE BIBLE - BY: NickN  

 

I found it helpful when I was wading through all the conflicting info of what the best build might be for both games AND flightsims. Much of the above is focused on more extreme overclocking than what my system is going to have, but I still found a lot of information which was helpful in helping me decide what I needed (then I had to compromise a bit, to stay near what I have in my computer budget).

 

This is taken from the above, under the Video Cards section:

 

As far as I know I read all NickN massive post regarding tweaks, help etcetera. Including that one. And that one is one of those sources that I mentioned where people (NickN in this case) was swearing Nvidia over ATI.

 

As for extreme overclocking. My I7 920 is a bad C0/C1 chip. I couldn't get it much further above 3.5ghz even if I used LN for cooling.

 

ATI Video Adapters: I will not discuss or address ATi video cards in this document. Nvidia is the GO-TO card for FSX. AMD/ATi announced directly they will not develop nor will they make any effort to accommodate the older rendering engine MSFS uses and there are issues with the adapters and the older FSX render engine.

If you use ATi with FSX and want 'the works' on the screen you may very likely end up being forced to install hacked shader files (3.0) from AVSIM in order to come close to Nvidia performance in heavy weather conditions which means you will effectively be forced to deal with nonsense issues to correct glitches that come with that hack. The hack is not full support for Shader 3.0 and Nvidia cards do not need that shader hack. Do not install that shader hack with a Nvidia video adapter!

I am not a fan-boy as I was an ATi user at one time just as I was a AMD processor user before Intel released the Core2 series processors and crushed AMD with Flight Sim performance. If in the future AMD/ATi makes a change that eliminate the issues with their video adapters and FSX, I would certainly be open to using them again, until that time Nvidia is the card to purchase for a FSX system.

 

And that is the exact that I read. So is this still true?

 

******* Altuve's Shader 3.0 mod made a big difference for me. All in all I'm very happy with my 7950, and that's coming from a GTX580.

Problem with AMD cards is there's nothing in between 2x, 4x & 8x SSAA, but 4xSSAA is already comparable if not better than nVidia's 8xS + 2xSGSS 

Another point goes for AMD for allowing switching AA modes on the fly, something you can't do with nVidia

 

 

So is dazz ******* Altuve's shader 3.0 mod a solution for what NickN claims a Ati card failure.

And what does the hacked shader file do what all nvidia cards seem to do that Ati doesn't.

 

The answer to that question might aswell get me closer into knowing what nvidia does better in fsx over where ati fails at. Clearly assuming from a post amateuristic standpoint (that means me) that it fixes shader model 3.0 for ati what nvidia supposed to do by default.

 

How that nvidia leap presents itself in better graphics or performance?!?!?

You tell me!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to that question might aswell get me closer into knowing what nvidia does better in fsx over where ati fails at. Clearly assuming from a post amateuristic standpoint (that means me) that it fixes shader model 3.0 for ati what nvidia supposed to do by default.

 

NVIDIA does Shader Model 2.0 on FSX better than AMD (because AMD drivers don't fully support it). Which means that AMD GPUs need the Shader Model 3.0 hack to get performance close to NVIDIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NVIDIA does Shader Model 2.0 on FSX better than AMD (because AMD drivers don't fully support it). Which means that AMD GPUs need the Shader Model 3.0 hack to get performance close to NVIDIA.

 

 

Like I said, I'm a post amateur on this although not completely a down syndrome on these subjects. But is A shader model not just a model that either works or completely doesnt work (either of the 2). According to you the óne (namely nvidia) has a edge on either processing, imaging, using the shader 2 model better then ATI.

 

If this is true then how does this edge on nvidia card image itself on the FSX monitor. In other words what are the graphical differences between ATI.

 

Surely the 3.0 shader model ATI hack solves this (this = what is that exactly? Meaning = I'm dieng for a answer)

 

So what are the downsides to this shader hack.

 

My guesses...

-My computer crashing.

-My monitor to go black everywhere / anytime

-strange game glitches

-overrides by newer ati drivers

-bsods

-corrupt files

 

Questions regarding the above fears.... is the shader 3 model hack uninstallable by keeping all the original ati driver files intact? Or is non of the above fears true and does the hack actually work?

 

And then again, what does it improve apart from a new working shader model. The shader model is just the name. Are their comparable graphics (links) that compare these differences (links to pictures perhaps)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the shader mod's readme 

 

 

 

KNOWN PROBLEMS
==============
 
After a 'Shader' re-compile, it is perfectly normal to experience short stutters, this only happens once, as objects are 
compiled inside the sim, you can test this by loading an area just after a shader re-compile and then re-run it again and 
you'll see stutters dissapear.
 
When under HEAVY fog (no visibility) effects such as fireworks or smoke coming out of industrial buildings will be visible in the distance.
This is due to this effects being hardcoded INSIDE FSX and being Shader 2.0 compatible only. This same problem can be experienced when using
FSX in DX10 preview mode. Its barely noticeable.
 
When in 'Map mode' view, if you zoom out to the max setting, you'll see the earth completely white due to how 'fog' effects are implemented in
the Shader 3 mod.
 

This Shader Mod is NOT compatible with FS Water Configurator

 

Non issues really

Other than that I've noticed no side effects, it's been running flawlessly from the word go.

 

NickN most likely has not even tried the mod on an AMD card and has a tendency to shoot down *******' achievements, just like Word Not Allowed's or rival developers like Orbx (and let's face it, FTX-Global beats the crap out of UTX)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the shader mod's readme 

 

 

 

 

Non issues really

Other than that I've noticed no side effects, it's been running flawlessly from the word go.

 

NickN most likely has not even tried the mod on an AMD card and has a tendency to shoot down *******' achievements, just like Word Not Allowed's or rival developers like Orbx (and let's face it, FTX-Global beats the crap out of UTX)

 

Ofcourse, he may not have tried it.

 

But If those are the benefits, gloud fog seen on earth when zooming out.

And smoke from factories are my only benefit (whether the 3.0 hack brings issues or not) then it's not valuable at all really.

 

I don't care at all for those benefits. In fact If I were the FSX designer chief programmer I wouldn't even order those pathetic perks to be incorporated in the system.

 

So that is it then? If there are further benefitis to shader model 3.0 (in ati's case it's notorious hack) I see no reason to have it installed.

 

Is this the fuss NickN is going berserk all about?

Or is there more....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an AMD 7950 and I also run 5760x1080. I use to have the cloud problem until driver 12.6. but since then the cloud problem has been resolved. I have tried all the usual tweaks such as shader 3.0 and such but have found that I only need 3 tweaks in fsx.cfg.

 

Affinitymask=14

Highmemfix=1

Bufferpools=0

 

This is all true. While not needed, Bojote's Shader 3.0 mod will improve performance even more in clouds than what I was getting on my nvidia card. It is a simple file "back up and replace" routine and will switch from SM2.0 to SM3.0 instructions. Required update for ATI users IMO only because .... It ROCKS in ATI. Saw no performance boost on nVidia. ATI likes SM 3.0 and above. The SM2.0 code in FSX was legacy for backwards REALLY BACKWARDS compatability to OLD CROTCHETY DX9 hardware. LOL.

 

I'll give you an example. AVSIM user Dario (Dazz) has a 7950 comming from a GTX580. I am a GTX660Ti to a 7950 to a 7970 user. We are both VERY happy. Dario supplied me his GPUMark2 test (It's an extreme 4 layer 8x8 Cloud test for FSX). At 4xSSAA set in driver, I was getting 20 fps before SM3.0 and updating to SM3.0, I get 30. Thats over a 40% increase in Cloud performance!

 

Hey. Look. Nothing wrong with switching brands. Try nVidia if you like. But if you want a bump in performance in FSX? I can tell you this. You definately need a whole new computer my friend. Also, your 7850 is basically equivalent to a GTX660 (non Ti) which are rougly the same as ATI6970 and GTX570 or thereabouts depending on clock variant. These are ~$200 cards.

 

For academics sake, the 7970 Ghz edition is roughly equivalent to a GTX680 in FSX. I have confirmed it with Word Not Allowed's FSX blog site where he tested the GTX580/680 and Titan against eachother in FSX with various AA modes. He gave me some good guidance for testing his FSXMark11 and his AACloudtest (from his tables) with identical settings to him and I either matched or beat the GTX680 results he had. I matched with SM2.0 (Default FSX) and I beat the results once I employed the Shader 3.0 mod. Not trying to compete. I just like to know facts. I would have no trouble flipping a coin choosing GTX680 versus 7970Ghz.

 

As for Shader 3.0... The MOD is a simple install. All it does (after making backups for you first) is drops a new ShadersHLSL folder and WaterConstants.Xml file into your FSX root folder. Then it flushes your shader cache (recommended from time to time regardless) which rebuilds when you start FSX again and adds this line to your FSX.CFG... 

 

[GRAPHICS] => ALLOW_SHADER_30=1

 

NOTE: Shader Mod 3.0 is great for boosting performance on ATI cards where clouds are concerned but I did not like his changes to the water. I still use SM3.0 mod in DX9 mode but reverted to the default FSX water rendering with REX water themes. To revert to default water rendering (ATI never had a problem with that anyway) after you install the MOD, you copy the original 18 Water Files from the back up folder the install made (they start with the word water) back into the ...\ShadersHLSL\Terrain folder (in the FSX root folder) and restore the WaterConstants.Xml (delete his and make a copy of the back and rename the copy of the backup to WaterConstants.Xml).

 

SM3.0 is not needed for these new ATI cards. They keep up dollar for dollar out of the box last few years but really shine in SM3.0 in my personal tests. I also STRONGLY recommend the RadeonPro utility. It's kind of like nVidia Inspector.

 

Charles.

NVIDIA does Shader Model 2.0 on FSX better than AMD (because AMD drivers don't fully support it). Which means that AMD GPUs need the Shader Model 3.0 hack to get performance close to NVIDIA.

 

True for 3 years ago but now False on current family of ATI versus current family nVidia. Sorry. This is old info now.

Non issues really

Other than that I've noticed no side effects, it's been running flawlessly from the word go.

 

NickN most likely has not even tried the mod on an AMD card and has a tendency to shoot down *******' achievements, just like Word Not Allowed's or rival developers like Orbx (and let's face it, FTX-Global beats the crap out of UTX)

 

+1 to all this but I think you meant FTX-Global beats the crap out of GEX. I know you did. Just giving a hard time to an old FSX mentor. :)

 

Charles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about amd processors? Is there any amd processor that is worth buying for fsx?

I think they're amazing, especially the new FX series. I'm seriously considering getting one when I'm in the market for a new CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had 7850hd couple days till card overheated was not bad for fsx the color shades look better and lively nividia it's once you work around cloud hit say they are pretty equal for most part. All buy 7790hd for Xmas to thrown on my amd machine. CPU on amd is far less effective clock for clock with fsx, but do like the fact for majority of games fx6300 is comparable with my i5 3570k cpu. Amd upgrading is cheaper and cost of CPU is 120 compared 220 with intel, but Intel tend to be harder to upgrade. Do not think AMD is crap it prevents intel charging $500 for i5 with k CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about amd processors? Is there any amd processor that is worth buying for fsx?

 

Just no. AMD CPUs perform greatly in multi-threaded situations, however FSX is dominantly single-threaded, and AMD CPUs are very weak in that respect. Intel CPUs perform a lot better in FSX.

 

Steamroller is looking to change that though, so let's see what the future will bring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites