Video Card Advice

**MudMarine** · May 18th, 2009, 20:16

Just looking for some advice on a new video card. Wondering if this card will work well with my 790i Ultra board? I any other info will help just tell me. Thanks guys!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc..._-Pst01Descrip

harleyman · May 19th, 2009, 04:33

That card at almost $300.00 has

621 core clocks
2268 memory clocks
1 Gig and 512 bit interface GDDR3

This card has for $199.00 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161265

770 core clocks
4000 memory clocks
1 Gig Mem and 256 bit interface GDDR5

Both would be great for FSX..More than needed actually for FSX, but great for other games ....

**MudMarine** · May 19th, 2009, 06:58

Thanks Harleyman but I'm not putting a ATI card in my box. I've had them before and been very disapointed. NVIDIA for me.

**Alexraptor** · May 19th, 2009, 07:16

Plus you can't really compare them right off that like that since Nvidia uses, Core AND Shader clocks and different cores entirely. And the fact that the ATI card has lower memory bandwidth.

But if money is not an issue you might want to have a look at a 2GB
GTX280
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130487

Should do wonders with FSX tweaks that utilize graphic memory

(such as LOD distance and bufferpools)

harleyman · May 19th, 2009, 07:21

That card does not have good reviwes from what I see......

Why all the tweaks...I run FSX solid on an E5200 and a 3850 ATI card..No tweaks needed at all...

I do understand what you're saying about their different structures though !

**Alexraptor** · May 19th, 2009, 07:27

Its a new card though and 3 reviews isnt pretty conclusive.

Anyway, the tweaks i mention arent just performance enhancers, the LOD distance tweak uses a lot of RAM and VRAM, but greatly increases the clarity of textures are greater distances and eliminates those blurries, the bufferpools tweak that was mentioned which success rate is highly variable allows for FSX to run great with extreme autogen density etc.

Even without tweaks lots of VRAM is beneficial, it allows for greater screen resolutions, as well as HD textures(4096x4096)

We all have different priorities and what we are satisfied with, and some of us like me really do want to push the limits

harleyman · May 19th, 2009, 07:51

Then I say push on.......

**MudMarine** · May 19th, 2009, 08:52

I don't want to push anything. I just want a stable, cool running video card. Something that can improve my FSX experience which has been VERY unsatisfying! Something is crashing and locking up my system when I run FSX. Memtest ran fine. So it could be either the video card which seems to be running hot or my CPU.............

**Alexraptor** · May 19th, 2009, 09:05

Then you might want to have a look at a standard GTX 285, slightly more pricy, and a bit faster, but has a 45nm core VS the 65nm core of the GTX 280, in english that means the 285 uses less power, and thus runs cooler.

**MudMarine** · May 20th, 2009, 19:55

Thanks Alex, I'll check them out.

**Major_Spittle** · May 22nd, 2009, 14:37

I just ordered one of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150330

<TABLE style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=8 width=460 bgColor=#dddddd border=0 itxtvisited="1"><TBODY itxtvisited="1"><TR class=sectionHeader itxtvisited="1" span><TD align=middle bgColor=#005599 itxtvisited="1">Specifications Comparison</TD></TR><TR class=tableTitle itxtvisited="1" span><TD align=middle itxtvisited="1">

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The things I looked at was

<TABLE class=specification cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=name>Memory Clock</TD><TD class=desc>2300MHz</TD></TR><TR><TD class=name>Memory Size</TD><TD class=desc>896MB</TD></TR><TR><TD class=name>Memory Interface</TD><TD class=desc> 448-bit
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

448 Bit interface should make for good bandwidith. bandwidth = bits X speed (think of an interstate, # of lanes X speed of cars). I don't know what speed it is running at for sure but I would guess it runs at the Memory clock speed.
Bandwidth is how fast the stuff (textures) stored in memory can get to the graphic processors.

896mb of Memory, this will be how much graphic memory can be loaded on to card waiting to go to the graphic processors. This will determine the max resolution you can run on a monitor. More memory should help keep FSX running smooth in higher resolutions, but without tweaking FSX it will only utilize a certain amount of the memory.

72 Texture filtering units, Nvidia puts more of these in their cards than ATI does. I would assume this will speed up how fast textures will load in the game which is a big issue for me with my current 8800gt.

Anyway, I should get the card next week and will find out how well it runs. The only tweak on my current system is to Bufferpools as I recall. I greatly increased the amount of memory buffer being used and noticed it takes longer for plane textures to load and be drawn, but once it does it runs smooth as silk. It does the same with clouds too.

**Major_Spittle** · July 13th, 2009, 08:39

Just as an update on this thread I had to return my gtx260 because I had issue with it crashing in certain games. I really didn't see that much of a performance boost in fsx over my 8800gt. I tried all sorts of tweaks and nothing really seemed to help.

Now I have an ATI 4890 card that cost the same price. I just got off playing FSX and it looked amazing. I turned up all the eye candy settings in the ATI control center to max and loaded it up over seattle with low clouds and it looked stunning and ran with better frame rates than the gtx260.

I was running Catalyst 9.7 RC3 for XP on Vista 64 as the driver. I don't remeber what my tweaks in the FSX.cfg file were last, but this card seems to do well with them.

So that is my mini-mini reveiw from someone that has ran both the latest nvidia and ati cards.

harleyman · July 13th, 2009, 11:45

I love that new 4890...

Just built a Q9650 system with that card and it was amazing to say the least..What color and clarity it has..

Thanks for that...

harleyman · July 13th, 2009, 15:08

Testing Sig....

Nsidious9 · September 21st, 2009, 22:58

Harley, I disappear for a while and you've jumped ship to ATI???

harleyman · September 22nd, 2009, 06:29

Originally Posted by Nsidious9

Harley, I disappear for a while and you've jumped ship to ATI???

Hey...You have been missing..

I have had ATI cards now for like 2 years....LOL

Nsidious9 · October 12th, 2009, 22:58

Wow, I can't believe it's been that long! Oct 28 will be the 1 year mark of me leaving Digital Storm. Now I am with Jetline Systems...

How do you like your ATI cards?

Nsidious9 · October 12th, 2009, 23:00

hey Major Spittle,
You're not going to notice ANY differences with your new graphics card and the 8800GTX when it comes to FSX. FSX isn't designed to utilize the GPU but mostly the CPU. If you want better framerates and performance with FSX, then you will need a better CPU.

harleyman · October 13th, 2009, 02:36

Originally Posted by Nsidious9

Wow, I can't believe it's been that long! Oct 28 will be the 1 year mark of me leaving Digital Storm. Now I am with Jetline Systems...

How do you like your ATI cards?

I really like the newer ATI cards...

I have a 4870X2 card that FSX just HATES....So I pulled it and now have a lowely 3850 and run FSX off that with no problems..I have even run a 24 and 19 inch off it at the same time...LOL

**Major_Spittle** · October 14th, 2009, 14:42

Originally Posted by Nsidious9

hey Major Spittle,
You're not going to notice ANY differences with your new graphics card and the 8800GTX when it comes to FSX. FSX isn't designed to utilize the GPU but mostly the CPU. If you want better framerates and performance with FSX, then you will need a better CPU.

Actually I had the 8800gt with 512mb or memory. It couldn't handle light bloom, water textures, or the AA/AF settings that the 4890 is now doing. I am running a Q9450 @ 3.6 right now and won't be upgrading until I can get a 6 core Gulftown processor when they are released. I'm hoping that that will truely be the end all to my FSX woes.

harleyman · October 14th, 2009, 15:15

I kind of doubt that the 6 core will do anything for FSX as its only built for 2 cores, and with the release of SDP1 will somewhat use a quad core..

BUT...lets hope anyways...LOL

**Major_Spittle** · October 14th, 2009, 17:34

Attachment 13467

Mine pegs out all four cores all the time. Things that really peg it out is modeling fire and smoke, dust on the ground, clouds, and vapor. Everytime I go to external view or pan around it loads up my CPU. Q9450 @ 3.6 GHZ

harleyman · October 14th, 2009, 18:25

Typically on a quad cores 2-3 just run textures...Its a big help though..

Have no clue how it will , and what it will run on 6 cores...

**Major_Spittle** · October 14th, 2009, 20:00

It was my understanding that SP1 updated the game to use the operating system's Job Scheduler to run textures. The operating system will assign work across all threads available (evenly if MS set it up that way for textures) which means all cores will be used. It should be easily confirmed by someone running an i7 processor if all 8 threads are being used by FSX while flying. I don't have an i7 so maybe some with one can verify this?

At least that is what I learn years back in computer nerd school.

I researched my own question and found this in another forum:

"Tried it here... i7 920 on evga x58, FSX SP2

0) With HT OFF in the bios I noted 4 'cores' 0,2,4,6 being used by FSX.

1) With HT on and NO AffinityMask set, I noted 4 'cores' 0,2,4,6 being used by FSX.
Same result as having HT off in the bios.

2) With HT on and AffinityMask = 255,
I noted all 8 'cores' 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 being used by FSX.

Loading times seemed dramatically fasted with HT ON and AffinityMask = 255
maybe just a perception at this point could have been other reasons, like cache being used,
but it was clearly faster for my quick test.

3) With HT on and AffinityMask = 254,
I noted cores 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 being used by FSX, core 0 was not used by FSX.
I noticed no difference from AffinityMask = 255 as far as load times or stuttering.

4) In areas were stutters happen, like Vancouver using Vancouver+,
I noticed no difference HT on or HT off.

Intel's i7 seems to be like a wild horse, that needs to be tamed.
It has raw power, but it's misunderstood and tempermental
The chips run very hot and need high voltage to get high clocks.

I think it will take a couple chip batches and MB revisions to get it stable and predictable.

FSX and i7 can be amazing at times but the stuttering when it happens seems to have more buck than the core setups did.

I'm still not convinced it offers much more for FSX than a quad core/duo setup would at 4GHz. "

it appears that my simple view of SMT is incorrect and not all CPU threads are the same. ( real vs. hyperthread ) I figured MS just broke up textures into X number of threads (simutaneously executable) and the Job Schedule took over from there and sent them to all available threads on the CPU.

This appears not to be the case.

I guess this is another wait and see.

harleyman · October 15th, 2009, 00:17

LOL.

I honestly don't know how it all will go myself....

But I think I read all that from NickN a while back too!

I too am wanting to know the deal once and for all...

Thatks for reminding me of that thread...