57 replies to this topic

[learjet45dream]

You said that through your research, the X2 5000+ is the best processor for FS, and that the 8600gts does better with FSX than the 8800gtx. Thats basically what you said.
I just went to LAX in FSX with all settings on ultra high, default 747, and got a max of 15 FPS in spot view, and about 10 in VC. there is no way that an X2 5000+ and an 8600gts can pull off ultra high in FSX and get a solid 20 FPS anywhere. Maybe over the ocean, but thats it.

[tech-drummer]

learjet45 aka JK, on Mar 10 2008, 09:31 PM, said:

You said that through your research, the X2 5000+ is the best processor for FS, and that the 8600gts does better with FSX than the 8800gtx. Thats basically what you said.
I just went to LAX in FSX with all settings on ultra high, default 747, and got a max of 15 FPS in spot view, and about 10 in VC. there is no way that an X2 5000+ and an 8600gts can pull off ultra high in FSX and get a solid 20 FPS anywhere. Maybe over the ocean, but thats it.

Im tired of arguing. Im gonna go back to my old forum where the people are nice and don't try to find every little thing wrong with what someone says  

[Granulf]

tech-drummer, on Mar 11 2008, 03:03 AM, said:

ONce again, i never said anthying about X2 5000+ being than a C2D or C2Q , or that the 8600gts was better than the 8800gtx ultra. All i said is that the 8600gts works better with my systemwhen using fs.

Really, are you sure you never stated that?

tech-drummer, on Mar 10 2008, 02:01 AM, said:

Well thats because mabie if you did some research you would find that my overclocked 8600gts has better performance than 2 8800gtx(s), and my prosser is the best for flight sim...thats y i got it

[CPT_Joske]

I agree with people here, your system cannot run at ultra high all sliders, traffic etc in high dense areas. Maybe above fields away from buildings etc but not at major cities or airports. Infact no pc can achieve this yet, which we could ask Microsoft what PC they used to get there screenshots from.

One thing i will agree on with techdrummer is that running FSX at 1024x768 resolution with a 256mb 8600GTS achieves better frame rates than the 768mb 8800GTS. I do have the XFX XXX Edition which was the best GTS on the market at the time. I've actually tested this, so Toms hardware was correct. I did however doubt 'Toms Hardware' being correct as everyone on this forum in a previous thread when i asked how to improve performance, told me the 8800GTS/Ultra would show me a better improvement in FSX with higher frames, therefore i had to try it. I put the 8800GTS into my PC, new drivers etc. Played FSX for a few hours and i noticed the frames where down atleast 5fps. However if i put the 8800GTS to higher resolutions it would have higher frames than my 8600GTS, but i don't need such high resolution anyway. So he is true.

I don't have sliders at max, but i have them 1/2 - 3/4 of the way, plenty of tweaks, clouds all maxed out and traffic at 45% and i get 30frames (locked) at airports like Hamburg, Warsaw, Liverpool, Stansted, Frankfurt etc. I still do not fly into major airports like Heathrow due to my frames bouncing around 17-25frames which to me is not playable.

[ryant]

when u say ultra high u mean set to ultra high or customize and then move all the sliders to the right and everything else check ..?

Guys I HAVE A QUESTION DID your FPS WENT DOWN BY 10 AFTER INSTALLING SP2 OR FSX ACCELERATOR? MINE WENT FROM 28FPS TO 20FPS WITH SETTINGS CUSTOMIZE ULTRA HIGH USING AND GOING BY THE FSX BENCNMARK......

ANYBODY WANT TO DOWNLOAD THE BENCH MARK GO HERE http://blogs.msdn.co...-benchmark.aspx

[CPT_Joske]

Has anyone tested the new 1GB ATI 3870 X2, its two graphic cards in one. Completely wipes the floor with the 8800Ultra or similar, until Nvidia release its 9800. This should show some performance power with the right hardware.

[RussianMenace]

Both 9800GTX and GX2 are a joke. GTX is an overclocked GTS, and the GX2 is two underclocked GTS 512's sandwiched together. As for 3870X2, might be worth it if/when ATi works out all the driver issues.

[UdWbMp]

This didn't surprise me at all. When I run FSX in Windows mode, and open my Task Manager and CPU usage, FSX only uses 50-80% of the CPU. Over clocking the video card doesn't even make a difference in the game.

I think FSX has horrific coding that doesn't exploit the computer fully.

[RussianMenace]

Microsoft...inefficient code....omg...say it ain't so!

Nuff said.

[Ashton Lawson]

It's not horrific coding, it's a who knows how old engine that's been built over again and again every FS version, which is why it is so CPU-bound.

FSXI is getting itself a new engine, so it shouldn't be much better.

[ollyau]

Str!ker, on Mar 15 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

It's not horrific coding, it's a who knows how old engine that's been built over again and again every FS version, which is why it is so CPU-bound.

FSXI is getting itself a new engine, so it shouldn't be much better.

Along with Windows 7 (supposedly rewriting from scratch).

Train Simulator 2 I guess is going to be the last simulator based on the old engine.

[reider]

Quote

Train Simulator 2 I guess is going to be the last simulator based on the old engine.

I think that may do well and really take off!  

Reider

[kewlceo]

tech-drummer, on Mar 10 2008, 07:38 PM, said:

Im tired of arguing. Im gonna go back to my old forum where the people are nice and don't try to find every little thing wrong with what someone says  

Oh man, we do miss you.



Hope you're enjoying the warm and fuzzy old forum where you'll never learn anything. Sure, we're rude, mean, and argumentative at times, but you'll actually gain knowledge here.

[FunkyBuddy]

kewlceo, on Mar 16 2008, 08:49 AM, said:

Sure, we're rude, mean, and argumentative at times, but you'll actually gain knowledge here.

Amen to that KewlCEO

[Cameron S.]

I can run FSX reasonably well (20-40FPS in most urban areas) with my OCed 5000+ BE and 8800GT on high/ultra settings.

Edited by Cameron S., 08 July 2008 - 09:02 PM.

[Ashton Lawson]

Mango, on Mar 10 2008, 04:12 AM, said:

KLM SEA-AMS, on Mar 10 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

Well if it is true, then there is hope for all of us.

I can promise you that a PC with this specs won't run FSX at Ultra High settings (what did they set to Ultra High ?)

But there is always hope...  

I have a QX9650 overclocked to 3.6 (aiming for higher in the future), with 4GB of DDR3 RAM, and 2X 9800GX2s, and I can't run FSX on Ultra High.  It is impossible with realistic framerates .

My GX2s, though, can handle light bloom and 2x2 SuperSampling at 2560x1600, which makes the picture very very smooth and clear .

But man, you need only touch AI and any FSX system blows up .

[Reject]

As a newbie on this forum, I must say Im appalled. Sorry, but I thought flight sims gathered mature people, but some people (not most) constantly proves me wrong.

I feel for tech-drummer. If you feel that his words does not match his rig, then by all means, feel free to challenge his results. I would however have liked to see some sense. For example:

"There is no way" isnt part of a rational argument.

"running FSX at 1024x768 resolution with a 256mb 8600GTS" IS a part of an argument.

If you do not agree, or if you feel the results not are representative of said test system, then please...provide counter-ARGUMENTS and/or data that proves otherwise.

Edited by Reject, 09 July 2008 - 01:30 AM.

[Mul.]

Yeah, hardware related threads can turn out like this and at the end of the day his selection of components for his budget was hardly way off the mark for March 2008 anyway. It is a poor show and a cold welcome to an otherwise good forum but this topic has been dormant for 4 months now, so I'll be locking it this time.