ATI/AMD Sucks!?!?

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

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.

[VaporizedSteel 0]

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)

[dazz 69]

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)

[VaporizedSteel 0]

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....

[cvearl 60]

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.

[ingcarlos26 0]

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

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

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. Edited July 30, 2013 by linux731

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

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.

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

Saw this on Facebook... I HAD to share it:

 

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

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.

[JimmiG 244]

What you have to remember is that FSX is very old "legacy" software. The rules that apply to modern applications and games do not apply to FSX because it was developed in 2004-2005 when CPUs and GPUs both worked very differently.

 

The main reasons people go with Nvidia for FSX is that the drivers more readily expose a lot more options to improve the image quality, such as the "xS" and SGSS anti-aliasing motes and "Clamp Negative LOD Bias", which are the two most important ones. With modern game engines, you don't need to use those "tricks", but the old graphics engine FSX uses benefits greatly. Nvidia drivers are also supposed to be slightly more CPU-efficient, saving precious CPU cycles for AI traffic and the terrain engine.

 

The reason people go with Intel CPUs for FSX is for their vastly superior single-threaded performance. AMD will sell you more cores at most price points, but the cores are weaker. In many situations, properly optimized code can compensate. Most modern games are GPU-bound anyway, so CPU performance doesn't matter so much. FSX is not very optimized for multi-threading at all, and doesn't rely on the GPU for much work either.

[cvearl 60]

The main reasons people go with Nvidia for FSX is that the drivers more readily expose a lot more options to improve the image quality, such as the "xS" and SGSS anti-aliasing motes and "Clamp Negative LOD Bias", which are the two most important ones. With modern game engines, you don't need to use those "tricks", but the old graphics engine FSX uses benefits greatly. Nvidia drivers are also supposed to be slightly more CPU-efficient, saving precious CPU cycles for AI traffic and the terrain engine.

ATI does not need clamp negative LOD bias. There is no aniso shimmer with AF at standard or HQ quality in the driver.

 

I do like nvidia inspector ability to allow for transparency AA separate from geometry AA. That's cool. 8xS with 2xSGSS trans looks a smidge sharper than 4xSSAA but is also a tick harder to do. Radeonpro dev is looking at combined mode possibility for a future release for ATI.

 

Not sure about the freeing up CPU part. I did not measure it. I know my over clocked 660ti was 25% slower than my 7950 stock clocked in my tests at same settings without SM3.0 applied. For example flying the pattern at KSEA with ORBX PNW enabled and building storms theme. Although, they were the same in the cloud test gpumark2. Once I applied SM 3.0, the 7950 was 50% faster in the cloud test. I should have tried a 670 for a more apples to apples test but I only had a week with those two cards to play test fsx.

 

This current generation from both brands is so tit for tat in fsx, its good for everyone. After $400, you have no other option except nvidia though. ATI has nothing on the table in the $550 and up single GPU market. Nvidia has the 780 and titan. If that's your goal and budget, you only have nvidia.

 

C.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

ATI AMD being "worse" than nVidia is the same situation as exists over why AMD is "worse" than Intel - marketing BS.

 

I have always had AMD processors except for the one time I got an Intel Core2 Duo - and was thoroughly disappointed. Performance vs. price was worse than the AMD, and overall it didn't perform well at all (and I had the GeForce 7950GX2 which at the time was the fatest card on the market). The system I have now is nearly 3 years old and still kicking the arse of later Intel/nVidia rigs.

 

It's an AMD Phenom II X4 at stock 3.5 GHz with an AMD 6750 at stock. It rocks FSX at 1600x1200, and no stutters, and no silly tweaks to FSX.cfg required either (except for HIGHMEMFIX=1 as that does actually change the way FSX processes graphics). I wouldn't mind upgrading the graphics card, but this is more than adequate for now.

 

Oh yeah - it cost less than half the Intel equivalent, too.

 

FYI - for a long time I ran AMD/nVIdia, but when the crazy situation with nVidia drivers started in the last 100.xx series and early 2xx.xx series, I jumped to AMD instead, seeing that they seemed to get their act together regarding drivers (I had a bad experience with ATI in the late 90s and never went back for the best part of a decade). Now I highly recommend ATI AMD over nVidia (I see nVidia keep pumping out new drivers every few days, and people keep complaining of crashes in the drivers).

 

AMD forever!

 

LOL - case in point: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/414697-how-do-i-know-if-my-i7-processor-is-degraded/

 

I hate to think what that rig cost. I have yet to see an AMD processor user complaining that their processor "degraded" or can't get good performance out of FSX. Interesting that it is always Intel/nVidia users that are doing the complaining. :rolleyes:

 

One thing that must be remembered is FSX programming sucks. On any computer, it will have lousy performance as it is so poorly coded.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[ingcarlos26 0]

ATI AMD being "worse" than nVidia is the same situation as exists over why AMD is "worse" than Intel - marketing BS.

 

I have always had AMD processors except for the one time I got an Intel Core2 Duo - and was thoroughly disappointed. Performance vs. price was worse than the AMD, and overall it didn't perform well at all (and I had the GeForce 7950GX2 which at the time was the fatest card on the market). The system I have now is nearly 3 years old and still kicking the arse of later Intel/nVidia rigs.

 

It's an AMD Phenom II X4 at stock 3.5 GHz with an AMD 6750 at stock. It rocks FSX at 1600x1200, and no stutters, and no silly tweaks to FSX.cfg required either (except for HIGHMEMFIX=1 as that does actually change the way FSX processes graphics). I wouldn't mind upgrading the graphics card, but this is more than adequate for now.

 

Oh yeah - it cost less than half the Intel equivalent, too.

 

FYI - for a long time I ran AMD/nVIdia, but when the crazy situation with nVidia drivers started in the last 100.xx series and early 2xx.xx series, I jumped to AMD instead, seeing that they seemed to get their act together regarding drivers (I had a bad experience with ATI in the late 90s and never went back for the best part of a decade). Now I highly recommend ATI AMD over nVidia (I see nVidia keep pumping out new drivers every few days, and people keep complaining of crashes in the drivers).

 

AMD forever!

 

LOL - case in point: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/414697-how-do-i-know-if-my-i7-processor-is-degraded/

 

I hate to think what that rig cost. I have yet to see an AMD processor user complaining that their processor "degraded" or can't get good performance out of FSX. Interesting that it is always Intel/nVidia users that are doing the complaining. :rolleyes:

 

One thing that must be remembered is FSX programming sucks. On any computer, it will have lousy performance as it is so poorly coded.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 

Robin can you share your FSX settings (scenery, traffic, target fps, etc...)?

Do you use add ons?

 

I use a 7850 with an Intel i7 2600s.

[Adam T Lutley 12]

I've built 3 AMD/ATI based PC's and 2 Intel/NVIDIA based platforms, all for running MS flight sims. I've always been an ardent AMD supporter for their value and overall performance. Things might be changing with the latest offerings, specifically the ATI graphics cards and may need to be revisited. There simply is no contest when running single threaded apps like FSX. Intel beats AMD clock for clock. This is not something I just googled and regurgitated here. believe me I wish AMD was superior in this regard.