Where is that "Don't feed the trolls" .gif when I need it?

 

LOL Jim,

 

This is the second thread that I've seen where you have jumped in with a non relevant comment.

 

Here the context of the discussion is about DX instancing, DX9-10,11 and in the middle of it you post "DX9 is great" ??? :wacko:  Exactly what kind of reply were you looking for?  :huh:

 

And now you want to call someone a troll?  :(

 

Kettle Black much?  :blink:

 

 

Funny guy, you take care.  :rolleyes:

I don't know when Jim jumped on board, but the walking flying desaster that FSX RTM was made me learn the fine art of overclocking - in no small part also thanks to NickN (may his reputation rest in piece). I wouldn't run a PC at stock speed nowadays.

Overclocking is overrated.

 

Like Jim, I have an AMD based system (970, not 965) and FSX runs great. I do not run AI as I fly online, and I don't run AutoGen as it stutters like crazy and causes OOM after 3 hours (if I'm lucky) but none of those things have anything to do with lack of horsepower - the coding behind them is crap.

 

I run DCS maxed out (which detail-wise is far greater than anything FSX is capable of) and I often get in excess of 60 FPS, so I agree that there is nothing wrong with AMD based systems.

 

You only have to look at how many Intel owners complain of issues and have to overclock, only to get the same performance I do with my "rubbish" AMD system, to realize that maybe the *LACK* of similar posts by AMD owners speaks volumes about the hardware.

 

Maybe AMD owners have more realistic expectations, and realize that FSX is still poorly coded and will OOM eventually even after spending $2000 on hardware to run it.

 

Fact: memory leaks will continue to exist no matter what tweaks you apply, and FSX has a lot of them!

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Not sure if serious...

 

People like higher performance to be able to use autogen (again, not sure if serious...) and other 'fancy' stuff like that at smooth FPS, despite the "bad" coding. Nothing you can do about that, but there are ways to fly stutter free in very nice scenery.

 

Of course you can lower some things, but with more power you don't have too. I overclocked my CPU from 3.6 to 4.6 GHz, and that matters a lot. Only took half an hour to get it right, stable and safe (I was new to overclocking) and it is free performance I already had in there. Same cooler, same CPU.

 

But everybody must do what he/she wants, buy the newest stuff, lower the settings, overclocking, DX10, just default scenery, whatever. The software is what it is, so if you appreciate nicer looks than you have got to find another way.

Jim is stuck in the 80s. You know the ones where change is a frightening word?  Too bad, cause they miss out out on things which embrace advancing technology.  DX11, will come, 64 bit simulator (maybe p3d, perhaps some other one that becomes mainstream) Dx16 by that time, but Jim is going to be smiling ear to ear because hes running DX9 on his AMD CPU non OC. You cant stop advancing technology, and you can bet companies do not stop innovating which pushes simulators even more. Who wouldve thought PMDG can do what they do from 2007?  or any other 3PDs for that matter. 

 

And yes Jim I fly alot. I keep my tweaking to a minimum and try some different things, but I push my hardware to the limit and get the most out of it within its reasonable constraints and my budget which isnt much. Its called saving for the next upgrade. 

 

I cant wait for the next simulator to take advantage of new technology to see what we and devs can throw at it. Im after the real as it gets phrase, since ill never fit in a real cockpit. Going to be awesome!

Robin, Get ready to labeled a liar and and a troll.

 

Dave, I live in the present, and not hope for an FSX that will never see the light of day. My hardware from the past or any other current hardware is not going to magically turn FSX into a DX11, 64 bit program. Nor will it turn XPX into that. Nor will it turn P3D into something it's not. When my current hardware fails and it is time for a rebuild, then I will take a look at current hardware and go from there.

Before this thread goes off on a tangent, is there any real evidence that AMD is actually better than Intel (or vice versa) for FSX - or are they just urban myths?

Enough with all that overclocking and hardware upgrade nonsense!

It is impossible to improve FSX in any way, so you shouldn't even try!

 

I agree with you Jim. Why bother, when it looks just as great with older stuff?

 

Nice screenshot btw in the AVSim gallery section!

 

 

 

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 4 fps (Unlimited)                                                                                | 

|                                                                                                           |

|                                                                                ____                   |

|      \  |  /                                                                  (____)                  |

|    --(   )--                         ____                                                            |

|      /  |  \                             /\                                                                |

|                             ______|  |______                                                   |

|                            \______|O|______/                                                 |

|                                         |   |                                                              |

|                                         |   |                                                              |

|                                     __\|||/__                                                          |

|                                     \_____/                                                          |

|                                                                                                           |

|                                                                                                           |

|                                                                                                           |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Just kidding guys

"Hello World"

 

:lol:

Before this thread goes off on a tangent, is there any real evidence that AMD is actually better than Intel (or vice versa) for FSX - or are they just urban myths?

 

Only in the pricing department.

Lets put this to rest gentlemen.

 

AMD VS Intel vs FSX

 

Stock VS O/C

 

 

This really should all be in another post, I'll try to dig up all the old published benchies and put them all together in a post later on in the hardware forum, but for starters:

 

Apples to Apples same settings Stock and then all O/C to the same speed of 3.6GHZ AMD Phenom II X3 720 / X4 810 vs Intel Core 2 QX9650 / I7-920 Bloomfield

 

AMD: http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI0MTI0MjEwMUh6Z01pVGpleDJfN18xNF9sLmdpZg==

 

Average FPS Stock & OC  (stock speeds are different OC are the same)

 

AMD X3 @2.6 -23.1 @3.6 -26.9 AMD X4 @2.6 -22.1 @3.6 -28.0

 

Intel QX @3.0 -26.6 @3.6 - 31.5 Intel I7 @ 2.6 -24.5 @3.6 -33.5

 

Intel: http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI0MTI0MjEwMUh6Z01pVGpleDJfN18xM19sLmdpZg==

 

As noted the Intel chips just scale really well when overclocked, now imagine that I7-920 @ 4.2GHZ, 

 

As I said there is a reason I ditched my much loved AMD even at 4GHZ it was a dog compared clock for clock to the Intel chip, and they have continued to be stronger and stronger for FSX

 

After the  Bloomfield I7-9xx, there was a good 10-15% more clock per clock increase in power with Sandy and Ivy and now even another 10%+ with Haswell let alone that these chips easily do 4.4/6 or more for the weaker but faster OC friendly Sand&Ivy (5GHZ+) (see the hardware forum to compare Intel chips).

 

Please, time to put away the fanboyism and just use an open mind and be honest. None if this is to say anyone needs to feel bad about what they own or don't own, but please, one really is better than the other. 

 

And you stock AMD guys take note - OC helps!

I hope AMD come up with something in the MB, CPU, RAM department that can out perform Intel. 

 

Intel needs another wake up call for their processors.  The "new" 4960X (still 6 core) is not really much better than current 3970X ... maybe 1-2% improvement and this is going to carry out thru 2014 and maybe into 2015.  Intel has done this before, fallen asleep at the CPU wheel ... looks like Intel's focus is mobile and lower power CPU/GPU.  Bad news for desktop simmers/gamers ... but it leaves the door wide open for AMD to step up their desktop CPU game. 

 

It has been many years since AMD had top performance spot for CPU, MB, RAM, maybe Intel's "new focus" is AMD's opportunity to come out with some faster processors and take back the top honors they held many years ago?  I hope so, because we (consumers) need some competition again to drive down CPU prices and get Intel back working on the desktop front again.

 

Until then, we continue on with Intel's lack luster desktop "next gen" CPUs for the next couple of years.  Not impressed Intel.

 

 

AMD VS Intel vs FSX

 

Why do the frame rates increase with time?

I hope AMD come up with something in the MB, CPU, RAM department that can out perform Intel. 

 

Intel needs another wake up call for their processors.  The "new" 4960X (still 6 core) is not really much better than current 3970X ... maybe 1-2% improvement and this is going to carry out thru 2014 and maybe into 2015.  Intel has done this before, fallen asleep at the CPU wheel ... looks like Intel's focus is mobile and lower power CPU/GPU.  Bad news for desktop simmers/gamers ... but it leaves the door wide open for AMD to step up their desktop CPU game. 

 

It has been many years since AMD had top performance spot for CPU, MB, RAM, maybe Intel's "new focus" is AMD's opportunity to come out with some faster processors and take back the top honors they held many years ago?  I hope so, because we (consumers) need some competition again to drive down CPU prices and get Intel back working on the desktop front again.

 

Until then, we continue on with Intel's lack luster desktop "next gen" CPUs for the next couple of years.  Not impressed Intel.

 

I agree somewhat but I also don't follow, for FSX the Haswell is a healthy 10%+ Better.

 

 http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412162-cpus-compared-clock-for-clock-fsxmarkcpu/

 

 

for FSX the Haswell is a healthy 10%+ Better.

 

It's good to see FSX CPU variance test data but I wouldn't use that as definitive for a few reasons:

 

1.  Chipsets and motherboards are not the same in all cases (can't be) so not really apples to apples.

2.  Affinity setting, 6 core vs 4 core, again not apples to apples. 

3.  Chart is confusing, were all CPUs tested at 4Ghz only?  Would have thought max stable Ghz for each would have been more appropriate (either air or water)?

4.  Trying to do CPU loading test (aka use a lower performing graphics card) doesn't really represent FSX hardware.  FSX does push more on the CPU but it still benefits from improved GPUs (Titan comes to mind when working thru 4096 clouds with high levels of AA).

5.  Haswell 1150 dual channel vs. 2011 quad channel.

 

The data is interesting, but just as FSX is balancing game, so is the hardware ... the two are not independent of each other.  RAM timing improvements on a quad channel setup produce overall better performance than the same timing improvements over a dual channel motherboard ... but again, not really apples to apples and synthetic tests don't really add-up because they aren't emulating what real world applications/games might do.  And then there is the issue of having 2 additional CPUs available to process other OS activity and/or Add-Ons.  So again, not really Apples to Apples and it removes real world context from the equation.

 

But for the sake of debate (because I know this might generate an endless threads of people defending a purchase/CPU choice), lets assume the out-of-context 10% improvement value can be applied to any system with a Haswell ... 10% of 30 fps is 3 fps (difference is even lower in problematic areas where you need it the most).  At the current rate (about 18-24 months) Intel is "increasing" performance, it'll take over 10 years to go from 30 fps to maybe 45 fps in FSX -- possibly longer given Intel's shift in focus to less power and mobile computing where significant desktop updates are moving further and further apart.

 

What I would like to see Intel/AMD focus on for the desktop computer is much improved bus bandwidth, 8 channel (or higher) RAM (= even more expensive motherboards), and much better chipsets that can leverage the abilities of multi-cores and multi-GPUs.  Sadly Intel appear to be getting out of the desktop/motherboard business: http://www.zdnet.com/intel-to-leave-desktop-motherboard-business-by-2016-7000010269/ ... door open for AMD?

 

Rob