Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X800XT = 25% to 40% increase in FPS?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
September 18, 2005 9:18:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Colin said:
I went from a Radeon 9800pro 128mb to an X800XT 256mb
I immediately saw an appreciable gain in performance in FS9
to the order of approx 25% to 40%

I was just wondering if results like this were commonplace or is Colin just
lucky?


Dallas

More about : x800xt increase fps

Anonymous
September 18, 2005 9:18:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Dallas wrote:
> Colin said:
> I went from a Radeon 9800pro 128mb to an X800XT 256mb
> I immediately saw an appreciable gain in performance in FS9
> to the order of approx 25% to 40%

Is there a keystroke or ?? that tells you
the current frame rate?

L
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 9:59:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Does that card have a NVIDIA equivalent? Or does Raedon stand by itself
here?

I want to buy a second card and run my current card for one or two monitors
for fsnav and/or moving map or... but I thought that I read on a ng before
that mixing cards don't work so well and I have an FX5700 Ultra Golden
Sample.

Mr. Steve

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:AjhXe.213$oc.192@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Colin said:
> I went from a Radeon 9800pro 128mb to an X800XT 256mb
> I immediately saw an appreciable gain in performance in FS9
> to the order of approx 25% to 40%
>
> I was just wondering if results like this were commonplace or is Colin
> just
> lucky?
>
>
> Dallas
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 11:42:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

> Colin said:
> I went from a Radeon 9800pro 128mb to an X800XT 256mb
> I immediately saw an appreciable gain in performance in FS9
> to the order of approx 25% to 40%
>
> I was just wondering if results like this were commonplace or is Colin
> just
> lucky?


a X800XT is miles faster than a 9800pro, so id say yes. The doubling of Gfx
ram i think helps alot too, since now all FS2004 textures can be stored in
the gfx memory. which is 30-50gb/s bandwidth compaired to <6gb/s on system
ram.

Going from a 9700pro to a GF7800GTX i doubled my image quality AND doubled
my FPS.

In games that really need gfx power you will be 100+% faster at some
settings, but FS games are normaly CPU limited due to all the flight
dynamics etc...

--
From Overlag - Adam Webb
September 19, 2005 12:22:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

> Colin said:
> I went from a Radeon 9800pro 128mb to an X800XT 256mb
> I immediately saw an appreciable gain in performance in FS9
> to the order of approx 25% to 40%
>
> I was just wondering if results like this were commonplace or is Colin
> just
> lucky?
>
>
> Dallas

That's my guess-timate Dallas, all I know was I saw a massive difference in
FPS games and FS9 installing the X800 card. In actual benchmark programs the
X800XT performed twice as fast my then 9800pro in my research I did before
buying ... and the 9800pro is still a capable card.

Cheers.

Colin

PS: Something I remember in my research before buying was your system can be
bottlenecked, apparently the X800XT needed a CPU around 3GHz to start
getting the best out of it, I was running a P4 3.2GHz then clocked to
3.6GHz, now 3.8GHz with water cooling .... this will have to do me until
around mid summer next year when the specs of FS10 will be known and I'll be
upgrading practically all the internal hardware of my PC.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:02:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

ctrl-z two or 3 times

--
From Overlag - Adam Webb
"Lumpy" <lumpy@digitalcartography.com> wrote in message
news:3p5v77F8lm9gU1@individual.net...
> Dallas wrote:
>> Colin said:
>> I went from a Radeon 9800pro 128mb to an X800XT 256mb
>> I immediately saw an appreciable gain in performance in FS9
>> to the order of approx 25% to 40%
>
> Is there a keystroke or ?? that tells you
> the current frame rate?
>
> L
>
>
September 19, 2005 3:03:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Colin"
>this will have to do me until
> around mid summer next year when the specs of FS10 will be known and I'll
be
> upgrading practically all the internal hardware of my PC.

I wonder why everyone thinks we'll have to upgrade to run FS10? When FS2002
came out it was much better and ran faster than FS2000 on the same machine.

Besides, what are you going to upgrade to?.. you've already got state of
the art.. Send me your used stuff when you upgrade. :-)



Dallas
September 19, 2005 4:34:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

> "Colin"
>>this will have to do me until
>> around mid summer next year when the specs of FS10 will be known and I'll
> be
>> upgrading practically all the internal hardware of my PC.
>
> I wonder why everyone thinks we'll have to upgrade to run FS10? When
> FS2002
> came out it was much better and ran faster than FS2000 on the same
> machine.
>
> Besides, what are you going to upgrade to?.. you've already got state of
> the art.. Send me your used stuff when you upgrade. :-)

Yup, the system handles FS9 very well just now, I have a hunch FS10 will
need faster hardware though and I want to change over to A64 dual core (not
just for FS9/10) by next summer.

I've actually been pretty good, normally upgrade every year, this rig has
lasted me nearly 2 years now with a mid life upgrade with the X800XT about a
year ago.

Colin
September 19, 2005 8:26:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Adam Webb"
> Mhz (big) increases are a
> thing of the past......which is a great shame.

Nice hardware essay. thx

So what is the deal with processor speeds today? We zoomed from 850 Mhz to
1 Ghz, then to 2 Ghz, then 3 Ghz all in short order. Then 2 years ago
processors got stuck in the 3 Ghz range and have not moved since.

Have we hit the technology wall. Is 3 - 4 Ghz the theoretic limit for a
long time to come?

Dallas
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 8:26:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <N5rXe.186$0m6.75@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com says...

> Have we hit the technology wall. Is 3 - 4 Ghz the theoretic limit for a
> long time to come?

Pretty much. Expect to see advances in terms of dual core, quad core,
etc. (ie, number of processors), not individual processor speed.
Unfortunately, doesn't help with single threaded processes (like FS)
designed to run on single processor systems. It's a problem we've been
facing in the area in which I make a living (scientific number
crunching). Luckly there we have control over the code and can work on
making it run in ever smaller pieces on ever more CPUs.

/Chris T
September 19, 2005 9:38:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Chris Thomas"
> Luckly there we have control over the code and can work on
> making it run in ever smaller pieces on ever more CPUs.

Great!
Why don't you send your resume over to the boys at MS Flight Sim? :-)

Dallas
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 12:57:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <P9sXe.212$0m6.207@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com says...
>
> "Chris Thomas"
> > Luckly there we have control over the code and can work on
> > making it run in ever smaller pieces on ever more CPUs.
>
> Great!
> Why don't you send your resume over to the boys at MS Flight Sim? :-)
>
> Dallas

Well, when FS does support multiple threads, I've got a great machine to
try it on:
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/news/spotlight.htm#Dawson_162

That's 512 processors (PowerPC chips, so it wouldn't actually run FS in
it's current incarnation.)

For a better look, see:
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/download%5Fdawson.htm

/Chris T
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:29:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Colin" <Colin@NONEOFTHATSPAMSTUFFkatana1000.plus.com> wrote in message
news:39436$432dbe79$545c31d3$15476@nf5.news-service.com...

..... this will have to do me until
> around mid summer next year when the specs of FS10 will be known and I'll
> be upgrading practically all the internal hardware of my PC.

I'm not playing that game! :0))

Iain
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 4:05:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

> Does that card have a NVIDIA equivalent? Or does Raedon stand by itself
> here?

An ATI X800XT is equal to a 6800GT or a 6800ultra

However if you going to splash out on a 6800ultra you may as well get a
7800gt

Be warned though, all the latest Gfx cards are PCI express not AGP.

--
From Overlag - Adam Webb
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 4:24:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

> "Adam Webb"
>> Mhz (big) increases are a
>> thing of the past......which is a great shame.
>
> Nice hardware essay. thx
>
> So what is the deal with processor speeds today? We zoomed from 850 Mhz
> to
> 1 Ghz, then to 2 Ghz, then 3 Ghz all in short order. Then 2 years ago
> processors got stuck in the 3 Ghz range and have not moved since.
>
> Have we hit the technology wall. Is 3 - 4 Ghz the theoretic limit for a
> long time to come?
>
> Dallas

Both Intel, and AMD kept using the "easy way" to get mhz/ghz improvements,
by reducing the size of the product from 330nm, 250nm, 180nm, 130nm and then
the procces started to "break" at 90nm. Due to current leakage getting worse
and worse, and heat getting worse and worse its become hard to improve
things. For instance each step above had quiet a large Voltage drop, ie 3.3v
(330nm) to 2.5v (250nm) then 1.6v (180nm) then 1.4volts (130nm), but the
90nm CPU's still use 1.4 as well, and being a smaller proccess it made loads
of heat. And since it also has a smaller area for heatsink contact the Temps
have gone through the roof.

Intels P4 design also failed to deliver, they made a CPU that did less work
per mhz (IPC), so they "looked" better being 3.8ghz vs the 2.4ghz-2.6ghz AMD
are stuck at. However even though Intel may sell a "3.8ghz" cpu in most
cases its throtting at full load because its overheating. Not to mention a
2.4ghz AMD can beat a 3.8ghz Intel in most cases.

Intel will shortly be going back to the P3 style core, that is currently
winning the Mobile market. The new P3 style core is called Dothan, and has
simular performance to an A64 at the same mhz. Theres many different code
names for the Desktop version. Like Yothan etc.

However dont expect Mhz increases other than 200mhz here or there for a few
years. Intel have already got 65nm working, however its just as bad as 90nm,
ie no improvements in mhz etc. However 45nm they are testing is apparently
"fixed"....

Ohhhh i wonder when the OT police will be here? :-)
--
From Overlag - Adam Webb
September 19, 2005 11:15:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Adam Webb"
> Both Intel, and AMD kept using the "easy way" to get mhz/ghz improvements,
> by reducing the size of the product from 330nm, 250nm, 180nm, 130nm and
then
> the procces started to "break" at 90nm.


Bless you Adam!.. You have, in a few short sentences, saved hours of
reading at Tom's Hardware.

Now I gotta ask, how are you so up-to-date on all this... is it your line
of work?

Dallas
September 19, 2005 11:24:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Adam Webb"
> However dont expect Mhz increases other than 200mhz here or there for a
few
> years.

That changes the perspective of this group quite a bit! Everyone is
assuming FS10 will be a new processing challenge and is counting on
(dreading) having to upgrade to the latest and greatest hardware.

Now I ask, what latest and greatest hardware will there be to upgrade to if
processing speeds are stuck at current levels? With the exception of
multi-processors.. FS10 can't throw that much more of a challenge at us
because all the hardware platforms are stuck at 2003 performance levels.

(I hope :-)

Dallas
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 12:42:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

> "Adam Webb"
>> Both Intel, and AMD kept using the "easy way" to get mhz/ghz
>> improvements,
>> by reducing the size of the product from 330nm, 250nm, 180nm, 130nm and
> then
>> the procces started to "break" at 90nm.
>
>
> Bless you Adam!.. You have, in a few short sentences, saved hours of
> reading at Tom's Hardware.
>
> Now I gotta ask, how are you so up-to-date on all this... is it your line
> of work?
>

I was going to be my line of work, however im still stuck as a manager in a
UK supperstore.

I read alot on hardware and find it very interesting. Some would say im a
geek....... But does that mean someone who knows alot about cars or planes
is a geek? ;-)


> That changes the perspective of this group quite a bit! Everyone is
> assuming FS10 will be a new processing challenge and is counting on
> (dreading) having to upgrade to the latest and greatest hardware.
>
> Now I ask, what latest and greatest hardware will there be to upgrade to
> if
> processing speeds are stuck at current levels? With the exception of
> multi-processors.. FS10 can't throw that much more of a challenge at us
> because all the hardware platforms are stuck at 2003 performance levels.
>

Totaly true. The work now lies heavyly on the software makers to make there
software more efficent, and to make use of 64bit/ Dual core. However there
WILL be hardware improvements, just not as easy or regular as before. That
also means prices will stay high for the top end for a long while. Bottom
end, and the mobile markets will be where the real competition starts. Hence
threads like "$250 PC" etc.

One thing though. Microsoft admits to trying to kill off the PC gaming
market... because they want us buying Xbox's... Do you still think FS10 will
be out?

--
From Overlag - Adam Webb
September 20, 2005 12:52:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Adam Webb"
> Microsoft admits to trying to kill off the PC gaming
> market... because they want us buying Xbox's... Do you still think FS10
will
> be out?

They could never kill us off and move us to an Xbox and a television set, we
wouldn't move... they would just simply loose the market.

From my perspective our market is strong. In fact our market is so strong
that we could live without Microsoft if we had to.


Dallas
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 12:52:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:TxFXe.713$oc.441@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Adam Webb"
>> Microsoft admits to trying to kill off the PC gaming
>> market... because they want us buying Xbox's... Do you still think FS10
> will
>> be out?
>
> They could never kill us off and move us to an Xbox and a television set,
> we
> wouldn't move... they would just simply loose the market.
>
> From my perspective our market is strong. In fact our market is so strong
> that we could live without Microsoft if we had to.
>
>
> Dallas
>

Unfortunately, Microsoft is so big, they could live without us as well!

They could decide FS wasn't worth the trouble, and drop it. I don't think
this is likely, though.

If they decide to get rid of it, they would probably sell it off. It's a
tiny bit of business to MS, but it would be quite a chunk for a much smaller
operation like the current MSFS third party developers.

Bob McKellar, who had this experience with MS in the accounting software
business
September 20, 2005 11:46:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Bob McKellar"
> If they decide to get rid of it, they would probably sell it off.

I've always suspected that Flight Simulator was a pet project of Bill Gates.
Microsoft was very aggressive in acquiring Sublogic and it was a little out
of character for them to grab a game title while they were busy crushing the
rest of the business software world.

I'm guessing that Bill liked the "leading edge" that Flight Simulator was to
PCs of the day.

Dallas
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 2:26:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:42:09 +0100, Adam Webb wrote:

> One thing though. Microsoft admits to trying to kill off the PC gaming
> market... because they want us buying Xbox's... Do you still think FS10 will
> be out?

It will be "out," in due time. All the "when will it be soup" questions
are simply useless speculation... ;) 

Bill
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 2:29:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:e7PXe.755$0m6.309@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Bob McKellar"
>> If they decide to get rid of it, they would probably sell it off.
>
> I've always suspected that Flight Simulator was a pet project of Bill
> Gates.
> Microsoft was very aggressive in acquiring Sublogic and it was a little
> out
> of character for them to grab a game title while they were busy crushing
> the
> rest of the business software world.
>
> I'm guessing that Bill liked the "leading edge" that Flight Simulator was
> to
> PCs of the day.
>
> Dallas
>
That might be the case. However, it would have to be a matter strictly of
the computer side, since BG does not, to my knowledge, have any real
aviation interest. I don't think MS even has company planes (open to
correction!). Although, one of the other early Microsofties (Allen?) has
spent a bunch of money on a real airplane collection for his own enjoyment.

Bob McKellar
September 20, 2005 4:38:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Bill Leaming wrote:
>
> It will be "out," in due time. All the "when will it be soup"
> questions are simply useless speculation... ;) 
>

OK.....
................
....................
Are we there yet????


<G>
!