yes that's what I meant and you are right but there is hardly any load on the card, as I just mentioned now I am back to normal performance regardless of the GPU. The only trivial questions is why flying the PMDG have altered performance in the cfg? I guess we may never find out.

 

That's because the card isn't being pushed to it's core GPU limits. It's inherently incompatible with FSX.

Yes, but performance in FSX is generally determined by the power of the CPU. I would think that the 3GB R9 280x would be good enough for the GPU requirements of FSX, even if AMD cards are not the best option.

 

Anyway, Bandyair appears to be satisfied with his performance now, so I suggest more flying, and less wibbling!

 

That's because the card isn't being pushed to it's core GPU limits. It's inherently incompatible with FSX.

 

 

Again it performs better then my GTX 670 now that cfg is fixed. Not sure why every die hard Nvidia fan keeps saying these things. This is my first ATI card and I am impressed.

 

Yes, but performance in FSX is generally determined by the power of the CPU. I would think that the 3GB R9 280x would be good enough for the GPU requirements of FSX, even if AMD cards are not the best option.

 

Anyway, Bandyair appears to be satisfied with his performance now, so I suggest more flying, and less wibbling!

 

 

Exactly and appreciate the help from everyone here!

I would be curious though as to why flying pmdg has changed performance.

Also if there is any other CPU I could upgrade to however I doubt it. The 4770K or the 4930K seem to be the lone options and they are not worth the trouble. Possibly the next generation. Maybe... Reason I ask is that in mid atlantic flight just had a BSOD so had to increase core voltage to 1.45 which is not healthy.

I can't see much point upgrading from an i7 3930k. That is a very powerful CPU, and I doubt that anything else will significantly improve performance in FSX. My i5 2500k is 2.5 years old now, but I still consider it to be a potent weapon in the PC world. I am not an expert, but I reckon that the rapid increases in CPU power that have been the norm over the past decade or two are not quite as dramatic these days, now that we seem to have hit a "clock frequency wall".

Have to agree clock speed does not mean much these days its all about multi core cpus we are just out of luck with FSX lets hope MS will surprise us with a new version.

Right at the end just wanted add a simple logical observation. Generated a very heavy thunderstorm in REX and loaded the 777 at LHBP payware where I was usually getting low fps. Fps was low of course round 14 however once switched to outside view it was up to 35-40 so if it was a bottleneck with the R9 GPU surely would have struggled with the heavy clouds and weather. It just proves there is nothing wrong with it and fsx simply cannot utilize GPU power over a certain range thus it is as always the CPU is the bottleneck. I am sure I will get heaps of very technical explanations why Nvidia is better but it just makes no difference at this level of the GPU game for fsx as simple as that.

Funny everyone still keeps favouring posts here suggesting that the cause was the graphics card despite that fact the this issue was related to an entirely different problem as it was proven. Jus don't get it peeps:)

That's Nvidia ###### for you :wink:

EDIT: I've seen some ridiculous censorship in my time, but the one above has me baffled :huh:

I wonder what you wrote there. Maybe add spaces?

It starts with "fan", and ends with "boys".

Unfortunately this is how it was.... Earlier AMD cards DID have issues in FSX - mainly in clouds, and AMD didn't do anything driver level to help out.

 

Your fps still seem low though... I get about 17-20 in heavy scenarios with the NGX.

That may be true Ryan, but almost every comment against AMD cards in this thread, heck, in all of AVSIM, come from those that have either never used one, or not in years. I was in the same camp until I dropped my GTX 580 for a pair of 6950s years ago (now on 7950s), and from my experience, I can honestly say that most of the people that speak against AMD cards either do not know what they are talking about and just parrot what others have said, or are biased (even if rightly so) by experiences from many years ago, which is effectively the same thing.

 

AMD cards are just fine in FSX (and even better in P3Dv2, but that is another topic altogether). The only thing you lose is the ability to run SGSSAA, instead having to choose between standard MSAA or SSAA, and I suppose the NI 1/2 refresh option (which RadeonPro DFC can cover). That's it. The latest architectures from both sides are actually more similar now than they have ever been. Still different of course, no doubt, but nowhere near as far apart as they once were. This isn't 2007 anymore.

 

That said, there are at least the two reasons I highlight above why someone might still want to go with nVidia, and that's perfectly valid. Neither of them have anything to do with this thread, though. Does nv have an edge in some cases ? Sure, I'd say so, but it is a small one, and you'll definitely pay for it. If you don't mind that, or just prefer nvidia, even for irrational reasons, that's fine, I don't want to argue that and actually understand that completely. I just wish people with no modern experience with AMD cards would refrain from spreading FUD, that's all.

 

(Remind me to tell my cards after I land in HKG that they can't run FSX because they are incompatible, lol)

 

(ok maybe that ^ was a bit snarky, but I really have no idea what that even means  :lol: )

fan boys that's what I thought:) As mentioned I have been in the computing business very heavily since the commodore 16 and even before just can't remember what it was called I think the ZX Spektrum and played flight sim on those great machines. So point is in about 30 years of computing this is my first ATI card which I am very happy with (always owned the top of the line Nvidia cards), heaps cheaper too and performs just as good in FSX as any other nividia that is a fact full stop. Sorry boys and girls. I would buy other cards is that was necessary as did in the past.

Ryan my fps goes beyond 20 sometimes the average low is 14.

BRIAN well said! My point was that most users here completely ignore the fact that my issue was solved and it had NOTHING to do with the GPU they still keep going on about how Nvidia is better. I just don't believe sometimes how ignorant people are. Well let them pay twice the amount for the same performance. You will never convince them otherwise. This comes from 10 years of hardware sales.

I'll second Brian's thoughts. I've been running AMD/ATI for quite a while now going from a 5850 to a 7950 with an i2500K proc. I get great results. Please go to the hardware section and read the topic started by CVEARL on AMD/ATI configurations. It's a 10 page read but very very good. Lot's of good tips. I love the crisp graphics derived from ATI cards in not only flight simming, but also in other applications.

 

Having said all of that, I am aware that their is a performance hit in very cloudy skies. I am also aware that ATI drivers and also their update process leave me muttering not too nice words...LOL. Enjoy your great rig and do experiment with settings as recommended above.

What I seem to remember most about the only ATi card that I have used (a Radeon 9800 Pro) was that the colours seemed more "vibrant" than when using an Nvidia card. That might not be the case now, but I distinctly remember it back then.

What I love about the R9 is that it is dead silent even at full tilt I can hardly hear it as opposed to my GTX 670 which annoyed the hell out of my when playing anything due to noise.