ATI/AMD Sucks!?!?

[VaporizedSteel 0]

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

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

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

[Osirith 14]

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

[VaporizedSteel 0]

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!?

[Osirith 14]

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).

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

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

[VaporizedSteel 0]

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:

 

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

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.

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

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.

[WotanUK 289]

 

 

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. 

[VaporizedSteel 0]

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.

[Taver 57]

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

[dazz 69]

******* 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

[Arwen 289]

 

 

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.

[VaporizedSteel 0]

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!?