|
Home > Archive > Simulation > July 2005 > FS2004 Performance: AMD vs. Intel
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
FS2004 Performance: AMD vs. Intel
|
|
| Santosh Kumar 2005-05-28, 8:32 pm |
| Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
| |
| Rob R. Ainscough 2005-05-31, 8:31 pm |
| AMD
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
| |
| Vic Baron 2005-06-01, 8:32 pm |
|
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Santosh Kumar 2005-06-02, 8:32 pm |
| Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Vic Baron 2005-06-02, 8:32 pm |
| Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Santosh Kumar 2005-06-02, 8:32 pm |
| Rob -
Which AMD processor?
And to which Intel Processor were you comparing it to.
Santosh Kumar
"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:Ou7olmjZFHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
AMD
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
| |
| Rob R. Ainscough 2005-06-02, 8:32 pm |
| For Gaming I'd stay with AMD FX55 as it works best with current games since most games are not effectively using multiple processors/cores.
For software development work, power user stuff, rendering, one AMD 64 X2 at 2.4Ghz to save money, but I'd most likely go with TWO dual core AMD Opterons. For my development work I currently use two Xeon's (which don't share a memory controller).
AMD's crossbar technology is more sophisticated than Intel's (which has to use the FSB to communicate with the other processor) -- both Intel/AMD use a shared memory controller (AMD path to the controller is much faster). When more threaded multi-processor/core software is developed, then AMD's crossbar tech will work better for threading as any shared information across threads will NOT require a trip on the FSB and can stay exclusively on-die -- Intel's dual core approach will require the FSB.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OApF7w3ZFHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Rob -
Which AMD processor?
And to which Intel Processor were you comparing it to.
Santosh Kumar
"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:Ou7olmjZFHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
AMD
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
| |
|
| Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Santosh Kumar 2005-06-07, 8:33 pm |
| AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Pringle 2005-06-12, 12:30 am |
| i'm with yomus, get over it and just play the game
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eAXreR7aFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Santosh Kumar 2005-06-12, 8:31 pm |
| Hey, it's MY $$$$ that I'll be forking out to replace my aging system.
It's easy for you or anyone to say "get over it" if you're not the one whose gonna have to fork out the funds for it. And to me, it's not a game; i'm gonna be using it to help train for my instrument rating and my multi-engine since i've already invested a substantial amount into it already over the past few years.
I need to get the best perfromance I can for the buck and want to make sure whatver conifguration I opt for that it will last for a good few years. (MY current Pentium III system has sustained me since 1999). Athlon64 possibly fits into that equation as well if the industry moves to 64 bit within a year. But it's a balance, i realize, between getting the best performance (Hyperthreading?) today vs. lonegevity (x64). I posted on this newsgroup in part to help make that decision.
Thank you very much.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OqlZlOubFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
i'm with yomus, get over it and just play the game
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eAXreR7aFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Pringle 2005-06-12, 8:31 pm |
| well if you tried harder at school, then you wouldn't have to worry about money.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OoYKv20bFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hey, it's MY $$$$ that I'll be forking out to replace my aging system.
It's easy for you or anyone to say "get over it" if you're not the one whose gonna have to fork out the funds for it. And to me, it's not a game; i'm gonna be using it to help train for my instrument rating and my multi-engine since i've already invested a substantial amount into it already over the past few years.
I need to get the best perfromance I can for the buck and want to make sure whatver conifguration I opt for that it will last for a good few years. (MY current Pentium III system has sustained me since 1999). Athlon64 possibly fits into that equation as well if the industry moves to 64 bit within a year. But it's a balance, i realize, between getting the best performance (Hyperthreading?) today vs. lonegevity (x64). I posted on this newsgroup in part to help make that decision.
Thank you very much.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OqlZlOubFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
i'm with yomus, get over it and just play the game
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eAXreR7aFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Santosh Kumar 2005-06-12, 8:31 pm |
| That's a pretty arrogant comment. What are you, rich and priveleged or something?
FYI, I'm still in school; therefore need to be frugal.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eHdwfP1bFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
well if you tried harder at school, then you wouldn't have to worry about money.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OoYKv20bFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hey, it's MY $$$$ that I'll be forking out to replace my aging system.
It's easy for you or anyone to say "get over it" if you're not the one whose gonna have to fork out the funds for it. And to me, it's not a game; i'm gonna be using it to help train for my instrument rating and my multi-engine since i've already invested a substantial amount into it already over the past few years.
I need to get the best perfromance I can for the buck and want to make sure whatver conifguration I opt for that it will last for a good few years. (MY current Pentium III system has sustained me since 1999). Athlon64 possibly fits into that equation as well if the industry moves to 64 bit within a year. But it's a balance, i realize, between getting the best performance (Hyperthreading?) today vs. lonegevity (x64). I posted on this newsgroup in part to help make that decision.
Thank you very much.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OqlZlOubFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
i'm with yomus, get over it and just play the game
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eAXreR7aFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Black Airforce 1's 2005-06-13, 12:32 am |
| dunno bout pringle but i am rich and suggest that you buy your own plane.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:#VnY#z4bFHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
That's a pretty arrogant comment. What are you, rich and priveleged or something?
FYI, I'm still in school; therefore need to be frugal.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eHdwfP1bFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
well if you tried harder at school, then you wouldn't have to worry about money.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OoYKv20bFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hey, it's MY $$$$ that I'll be forking out to replace my aging system.
It's easy for you or anyone to say "get over it" if you're not the one whose gonna have to fork out the funds for it. And to me, it's not a game; i'm gonna be using it to help train for my instrument rating and my multi-engine since i've already invested a substantial amount into it already over the past few years.
I need to get the best perfromance I can for the buck and want to make sure whatver conifguration I opt for that it will last for a good few years. (MY current Pentium III system has sustained me since 1999). Athlon64 possibly fits into that equation as well if the industry moves to 64 bit within a year. But it's a balance, i realize, between getting the best performance (Hyperthreading?) today vs. lonegevity (x64). I posted on this newsgroup in part to help make that decision.
Thank you very much.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OqlZlOubFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
i'm with yomus, get over it and just play the game
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eAXreR7aFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Santosh Kumar 2005-06-13, 8:32 pm |
| I prefer to fly other people's airplanes. Maintenance and other responsbilities are too much of a headache. Unless you are putting in a crap load of hours, the cost is not justified. I know because I am a pilot.
"Black Airforce 1's" <airforce1@nike.com> wrote in message news:e5NuoM8bFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
dunno bout pringle but i am rich and suggest that you buy your own plane.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:#VnY#z4bFHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
That's a pretty arrogant comment. What are you, rich and priveleged or something?
FYI, I'm still in school; therefore need to be frugal.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eHdwfP1bFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
well if you tried harder at school, then you wouldn't have to worry about money.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OoYKv20bFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hey, it's MY $$$$ that I'll be forking out to replace my aging system.
It's easy for you or anyone to say "get over it" if you're not the one whose gonna have to fork out the funds for it. And to me, it's not a game; i'm gonna be using it to help train for my instrument rating and my multi-engine since i've already invested a substantial amount into it already over the past few years.
I need to get the best perfromance I can for the buck and want to make sure whatver conifguration I opt for that it will last for a good few years. (MY current Pentium III system has sustained me since 1999). Athlon64 possibly fits into that equation as well if the industry moves to 64 bit within a year. But it's a balance, i realize, between getting the best performance (Hyperthreading?) today vs. lonegevity (x64). I posted on this newsgroup in part to help make that decision.
Thank you very much.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OqlZlOubFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
i'm with yomus, get over it and just play the game
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eAXreR7aFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Vic Baron 2005-06-13, 8:32 pm |
| Santosh - I am also a pilot and have been for many years. I use my system also for IFR practice.
I can sympathize with the "best bang for the buck" approach BUT you are beating a dead horse. The combinations of the motherboard/cpu/ graphics card and memory are endless and each one will perform differently. You can ( and have ) post the "which is best" question and if you wait long enough , you'll get 50/50 responses. You can analyze all the data specs from the mfgrs and unless you have the exact test system you will not get the same results.
FLIP A COIN and buy one. Either way you will be right. Then find the right memory video card combination and go fly.
Will your system be perfect? Nope - no matter what you do you will always want better frame rates, better graphics.
Old American saying - "You pays your money and you makes your choice"
Good luck -
Vic
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uVe0CDCcFHA.2964@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I prefer to fly other people's airplanes. Maintenance and other responsbilities are too much of a headache. Unless you are putting in a crap load of hours, the cost is not justified. I know because I am a pilot.
"Black Airforce 1's" <airforce1@nike.com> wrote in message news:e5NuoM8bFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
dunno bout pringle but i am rich and suggest that you buy your own plane.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:#VnY#z4bFHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
That's a pretty arrogant comment. What are you, rich and priveleged or something?
FYI, I'm still in school; therefore need to be frugal.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eHdwfP1bFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
well if you tried harder at school, then you wouldn't have to worry about money.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OoYKv20bFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hey, it's MY $$$$ that I'll be forking out to replace my aging system.
It's easy for you or anyone to say "get over it" if you're not the one whose gonna have to fork out the funds for it. And to me, it's not a game; i'm gonna be using it to help train for my instrument rating and my multi-engine since i've already invested a substantial amount into it already over the past few years.
I need to get the best perfromance I can for the buck and want to make sure whatver conifguration I opt for that it will last for a good few years. (MY current Pentium III system has sustained me since 1999). Athlon64 possibly fits into that equation as well if the industry moves to 64 bit within a year. But it's a balance, i realize, between getting the best performance (Hyperthreading?) today vs. lonegevity (x64). I posted on this newsgroup in part to help make that decision.
Thank you very much.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OqlZlOubFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
i'm with yomus, get over it and just play the game
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eAXreR7aFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Black Airforce 1's 2005-06-14, 8:32 pm |
| good point vic
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uDoqOYDcFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Santosh - I am also a pilot and have been for many years. I use my system also for IFR practice.
I can sympathize with the "best bang for the buck" approach BUT you are beating a dead horse. The combinations of the motherboard/cpu/ graphics card and memory are endless and each one will perform differently. You can ( and have ) post the "which is best" question and if you wait long enough , you'll get 50/50 responses. You can analyze all the data specs from the mfgrs and unless you have the exact test system you will not get the same results.
FLIP A COIN and buy one. Either way you will be right. Then find the right memory video card combination and go fly.
Will your system be perfect? Nope - no matter what you do you will always want better frame rates, better graphics.
Old American saying - "You pays your money and you makes your choice"
Good luck -
Vic
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uVe0CDCcFHA.2964@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I prefer to fly other people's airplanes. Maintenance and other responsbilities are too much of a headache. Unless you are putting in a crap load of hours, the cost is not justified. I know because I am a pilot.
"Black Airforce 1's" <airforce1@nike.com> wrote in message news:e5NuoM8bFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
dunno bout pringle but i am rich and suggest that you buy your own plane.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:#VnY#z4bFHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
That's a pretty arrogant comment. What are you, rich and priveleged or something?
FYI, I'm still in school; therefore need to be frugal.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eHdwfP1bFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
well if you tried harder at school, then you wouldn't have to worry about money.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OoYKv20bFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hey, it's MY $$$$ that I'll be forking out to replace my aging system.
It's easy for you or anyone to say "get over it" if you're not the one whose gonna have to fork out the funds for it. And to me, it's not a game; i'm gonna be using it to help train for my instrument rating and my multi-engine since i've already invested a substantial amount into it already over the past few years.
I need to get the best perfromance I can for the buck and want to make sure whatver conifguration I opt for that it will last for a good few years. (MY current Pentium III system has sustained me since 1999). Athlon64 possibly fits into that equation as well if the industry moves to 64 bit within a year. But it's a balance, i realize, between getting the best performance (Hyperthreading?) today vs. lonegevity (x64). I posted on this newsgroup in part to help make that decision.
Thank you very much.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OqlZlOubFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
i'm with yomus, get over it and just play the game
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eAXreR7aFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Rob R. Ainscough 2005-06-16, 8:33 pm |
| Are you related to the chips? ha ha ha
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eHdwfP1bFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
well if you tried harder at school, then you wouldn't have to worry about money.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OoYKv20bFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hey, it's MY $$$$ that I'll be forking out to replace my aging system.
It's easy for you or anyone to say "get over it" if you're not the one whose gonna have to fork out the funds for it. And to me, it's not a game; i'm gonna be using it to help train for my instrument rating and my multi-engine since i've already invested a substantial amount into it already over the past few years.
I need to get the best perfromance I can for the buck and want to make sure whatver conifguration I opt for that it will last for a good few years. (MY current Pentium III system has sustained me since 1999). Athlon64 possibly fits into that equation as well if the industry moves to 64 bit within a year. But it's a balance, i realize, between getting the best performance (Hyperthreading?) today vs. lonegevity (x64). I posted on this newsgroup in part to help make that decision.
Thank you very much.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OqlZlOubFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
i'm with yomus, get over it and just play the game
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eAXreR7aFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Black Airforce 1's 2005-06-16, 8:33 pm |
| stop coughing ha ha ha, shut up rob
"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:OPA9u6rcFHA.3808@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Are you related to the chips? ha ha ha
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eHdwfP1bFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
well if you tried harder at school, then you wouldn't have to worry about money.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OoYKv20bFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hey, it's MY $$$$ that I'll be forking out to replace my aging system.
It's easy for you or anyone to say "get over it" if you're not the one whose gonna have to fork out the funds for it. And to me, it's not a game; i'm gonna be using it to help train for my instrument rating and my multi-engine since i've already invested a substantial amount into it already over the past few years.
I need to get the best perfromance I can for the buck and want to make sure whatver conifguration I opt for that it will last for a good few years. (MY current Pentium III system has sustained me since 1999). Athlon64 possibly fits into that equation as well if the industry moves to 64 bit within a year. But it's a balance, i realize, between getting the best performance (Hyperthreading?) today vs. lonegevity (x64). I posted on this newsgroup in part to help make that decision.
Thank you very much.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OqlZlOubFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
i'm with yomus, get over it and just play the game
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eAXreR7aFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| Rob R. Ainscough 2005-06-16, 8:33 pm |
| I'd suggest you avoid nVidia graphics cards and especially avoid SLI setup (FS2004 will not even run in SLI mode).
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gr...ormance-30.html
Since FS2004 is also very CPU intensive these benchmarks might help
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/200....html#synthetic
I currently run an ATI X800XT Platinum Pro video card (AGP) with an Intel P4EE running at 3.73Ghz (220Mhz FSB). I'm in the process of working out water cooling options that will help me realize about 25-33% gain in performance under FS2004. I'm currently at the point where I can turn EVERY up to max (there are a lot of FS settings) running in 1600 x 1200 32bit 4X AA and 8X AF -- with clouds running a mid day flight in a 172 out of Seattle (straight climb to 3000 ft) I get a low of 10.9 fps, high locked in at 29.9 fps, and an average of 18.1 fps. If I can get my low number to 15 fps and my average to 24 fps, via water cooling my overclocked system, then I'll be happy.
Keep in mind I've got every possible option turned up to max quality, max density, max traffic, etc. etc. I've been working on an extensive spreadsheet showing the relative performance difference for all the various settings (it's a big spreadsheet and growing as I test more).
I would NOT wait for dual core, current offerings will be slower for gaming systems.
Rob.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uVe0CDCcFHA.2964@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I prefer to fly other people's airplanes. Maintenance and other responsbilities are too much of a headache. Unless you are putting in a crap load of hours, the cost is not justified. I know because I am a pilot.
"Black Airforce 1's" <airforce1@nike.com> wrote in message news:e5NuoM8bFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
dunno bout pringle but i am rich and suggest that you buy your own plane.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:#VnY#z4bFHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
That's a pretty arrogant comment. What are you, rich and priveleged or something?
FYI, I'm still in school; therefore need to be frugal.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eHdwfP1bFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
well if you tried harder at school, then you wouldn't have to worry about money.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OoYKv20bFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hey, it's MY $$$$ that I'll be forking out to replace my aging system.
It's easy for you or anyone to say "get over it" if you're not the one whose gonna have to fork out the funds for it. And to me, it's not a game; i'm gonna be using it to help train for my instrument rating and my multi-engine since i've already invested a substantial amount into it already over the past few years.
I need to get the best perfromance I can for the buck and want to make sure whatver conifguration I opt for that it will last for a good few years. (MY current Pentium III system has sustained me since 1999). Athlon64 possibly fits into that equation as well if the industry moves to 64 bit within a year. But it's a balance, i realize, between getting the best performance (Hyperthreading?) today vs. lonegevity (x64). I posted on this newsgroup in part to help make that decision.
Thank you very much.
"Pringle" <raw_54@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OqlZlOubFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
i'm with yomus, get over it and just play the game
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eAXreR7aFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
|
| I fully agree with you about nVidia graphics cards Rob. I just go with ATi -
I know them and trust them. You've got quite the performance with that
X800! What chip do you have?
jkb
| |
| Santosh Kumar 2005-06-27, 3:31 am |
| Finally made my decision:
Processor
I will be going for an AMD Athlon64 X2 4400+. Reason I decided on 4400+ instead of 4200+ is that both are basically the same processor at same speed (2.2 GHz) but the 4400+ has 1 MB Cache per core (for a total of 2 MB) instead of just 512MB per core (for a total of 1 MB). Even though FS by itself will not be able to use Dual processing, i will be able to keep other things running in the background without worrying about its impact on FS2004. Plus, hopefully I can assign the affinity for FS9.exe to the 2nd core in the Windows Task List.
It appears that AMD is now the new standard for 64-bit computing and Intel has "lost" the "battle" with MS dropping all Itanium support for it. Intel's EM64T is virtually identical to AMD64... full 64-bit registers and everthing... only difference is Intel has HyperThreading and AMD has 3DNow + onboard memory controller + HyperTransport.
Based on everyone's post, it seems like replacing the FSB with HyperTransport bus benefits EVERY program and much more so than the marginal multithreading capability obtained with Intel's Hyperthreading.
Well done AMD. Maybe Intel will revamp their bus in the near future to allow for higher throughput at lower clock rates. If nothing else, AMD is going to force Intel to improve their design... I will evaluate for my next computer after this one whether to go back to Intel.
System Board
I will be going for an ASUS NVIDIA nForce4 SLI based motherboard. Even though I probably won't use SLI just yet, I want to make sure that I have that available for future upgrade.
RAM
I deteremined experimentally that 1GB of system ram was more than adequate for FS2004 even with MegaScenery installed
Video Adapter
I'll probably go for a 256MB or 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 68xx or 7xxxx series card PCI-Express.
Putting in the order tomorrow morning. Thanks to everyone for their input.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
| |
| Rob R. Ainscough 2005-06-27, 8:33 pm |
| Cool,
Can you do me a favor and run FS2004 in the following situation and the monitor your frame rates:
Turn ALL detail up to max except set AutoGen Scenery at NONE.
Turn you graphics card detail to 4X AA, 8X AF at 1600 x 1200 (set FS2004 to the same) and highest quality Mips (lowest performance).
Set weather to Fair.
Set time to 1pm.
Set airport to Seattle-Tacoma (FS default)
Set aircraft to cessna 172
Take off from Seattle-Tacoma and do a 500 fpm climb to 3000 ft straight out -- monitor your fps while you continue to pan around the cockpit.
Note the lowest frame rate you hit and the highest, and want you feel is your average and let us all know.
Thanks, Rob.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23tDuDVteFHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Finally made my decision:
Processor
I will be going for an AMD Athlon64 X2 4400+. Reason I decided on 4400+ instead of 4200+ is that both are basically the same processor at same speed (2.2 GHz) but the 4400+ has 1 MB Cache per core (for a total of 2 MB) instead of just 512MB per core (for a total of 1 MB). Even though FS by itself will not be able to use Dual processing, i will be able to keep other things running in the background without worrying about its impact on FS2004. Plus, hopefully I can assign the affinity for FS9.exe to the 2nd core in the Windows Task List.
It appears that AMD is now the new standard for 64-bit computing and Intel has "lost" the "battle" with MS dropping all Itanium support for it. Intel's EM64T is virtually identical to AMD64... full 64-bit registers and everthing... only difference is Intel has HyperThreading and AMD has 3DNow + onboard memory controller + HyperTransport.
Based on everyone's post, it seems like replacing the FSB with HyperTransport bus benefits EVERY program and much more so than the marginal multithreading capability obtained with Intel's Hyperthreading.
Well done AMD. Maybe Intel will revamp their bus in the near future to allow for higher throughput at lower clock rates. If nothing else, AMD is going to force Intel to improve their design... I will evaluate for my next computer after this one whether to go back to Intel.
System Board
I will be going for an ASUS NVIDIA nForce4 SLI based motherboard. Even though I probably won't use SLI just yet, I want to make sure that I have that available for future upgrade.
RAM
I deteremined experimentally that 1GB of system ram was more than adequate for FS2004 even with MegaScenery installed
Video Adapter
I'll probably go for a 256MB or 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 68xx or 7xxxx series card PCI-Express.
Putting in the order tomorrow morning. Thanks to everyone for their input.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
| |
| MAx 95 \(Raps MVP\) 2005-06-28, 12:31 am |
| yer cool, bout time
"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:uiqGoa2eFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Cool,
Can you do me a favor and run FS2004 in the following situation and the monitor your frame rates:
Turn ALL detail up to max except set AutoGen Scenery at NONE.
Turn you graphics card detail to 4X AA, 8X AF at 1600 x 1200 (set FS2004 to the same) and highest quality Mips (lowest performance).
Set weather to Fair.
Set time to 1pm.
Set airport to Seattle-Tacoma (FS default)
Set aircraft to cessna 172
Take off from Seattle-Tacoma and do a 500 fpm climb to 3000 ft straight out -- monitor your fps while you continue to pan around the cockpit.
Note the lowest frame rate you hit and the highest, and want you feel is your average and let us all know.
Thanks, Rob.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23tDuDVteFHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Finally made my decision:
Processor
I will be going for an AMD Athlon64 X2 4400+. Reason I decided on 4400+ instead of 4200+ is that both are basically the same processor at same speed (2.2 GHz) but the 4400+ has 1 MB Cache per core (for a total of 2 MB) instead of just 512MB per core (for a total of 1 MB). Even though FS by itself will not be able to use Dual processing, i will be able to keep other things running in the background without worrying about its impact on FS2004. Plus, hopefully I can assign the affinity for FS9.exe to the 2nd core in the Windows Task List.
It appears that AMD is now the new standard for 64-bit computing and Intel has "lost" the "battle" with MS dropping all Itanium support for it. Intel's EM64T is virtually identical to AMD64... full 64-bit registers and everthing... only difference is Intel has HyperThreading and AMD has 3DNow + onboard memory controller + HyperTransport.
Based on everyone's post, it seems like replacing the FSB with HyperTransport bus benefits EVERY program and much more so than the marginal multithreading capability obtained with Intel's Hyperthreading.
Well done AMD. Maybe Intel will revamp their bus in the near future to allow for higher throughput at lower clock rates. If nothing else, AMD is going to force Intel to improve their design... I will evaluate for my next computer after this one whether to go back to Intel.
System Board
I will be going for an ASUS NVIDIA nForce4 SLI based motherboard. Even though I probably won't use SLI just yet, I want to make sure that I have that available for future upgrade.
RAM
I deteremined experimentally that 1GB of system ram was more than adequate for FS2004 even with MegaScenery installed
Video Adapter
I'll probably go for a 256MB or 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 68xx or 7xxxx series card PCI-Express.
Putting in the order tomorrow morning. Thanks to everyone for their input.
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
| |
| Santosh Kumar 2005-07-02, 3:35 am |
| Finally put together an AMD Athlon64 X2 4400+ Dual Core system with an ASUS A8N-SLI nForce 4 SLI system board and NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3 GPU (single card only).
Learned that FS2004 does support multiple processors / cores by virtue of the fact that it's multithreaded. Apparently all that is really needed for multi-processor support is for the program to be multithreaded and the OS (Windows) takes care of the rest.
Justifications:
1) Before running FS2004, noticed that processor utlization for each CPU (core) was at idle.
Upon starting FS2004 and going through the menus, I noticed most of the load was on CPU 1 (the 2nd core), while CPU 0 remained relatively idle.
When I started the actual flight, both CPU 0 and CPU 1 showed up at roughly just under 50% each (about 45%-47%).
2) I changed the processor affinity so that only CPU 1 was checked.... CPU 0 went back to idle, and CPU 1 went to 100%. I repeated the opposite case and set the affinity for CPU 0 only... CPU 1 went to idle, CPU 0 went to 100%. I rechecked CPU 0 and CPU 1, CPU 0 went from 100% to rougly under 50% and CPU 1 went from idle to about the same. (They both very slightly).
3) Opened up Process Viewer (PVIEW.EXE) from Visual C++ 6.0, found out that FS9.exe is multithreaded... it's running 8 different threads.
Framerate wise... i've been average over 70-100 FPS with everything maxed out and running MegaScenery Los Angeles. Every once in a while, framerate would burst to 200-300.
Framerate dropped slightly when utilizing only 1 core. With other stuff running in background, lowest I was able to get it to go was ~36 FPS. But for the most part it stayed 70-100. Often times averaging in the 100 range.
This is a pretty exciting find for me. If there is anyone else with Dual Core (either Athlon64 X2 or Pentium D or Pentium EE), you can try the same experiemnt to verify what I have stated here.
Santosh Kumar
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eAXreR7aFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
AMD's appears to be generally cheaper though and i'm hearing that newer AMD's run a lot cooler than the Intels.
I normally stick with Intel, but i've been hearing news that AMD is actually giving better performance... at a cheaper cost.... that's why i'm looking into AMD.
"Yomus" <Busted5@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uSILI60aFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi all and Mondry, Tuesdry.... Sundry
guys both processors are about the same, so stop worrying and just enjoy the game!
Cheers
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eAkKLh5ZFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Negative. I base my opinion on personal observation on several of my old systems. Had one with an Athlon XP3200 (?) IIRC it was 2.16G and another with an equivalent Intel chip. Also had earlier versions around 1.4g . In both instances the Intel *appeared* to run FS smoother with fewer problems. Current system is P4 3.4 - very efficient.
IMHO, unless you put your choice into a system that's set up exactly as the testbed, you have changed the variables and negated the testing. I would venture a guess that with this question you could get an equal number of people on either side, regardless of "testing".
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:O3zXRw3ZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Vic -
Have you actually compared it with an equivalent AMD?
Santosh
"Vic Baron" <vgbaron@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:euuW$dsZFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uRcXtU4YFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Let's hear it...
Which gives better peformance for FS2004?
AMD's improved overall architecture (Hypertransport connections and direct memory connection to CPU via Hypetransport)?
or....
Intel's hardware multithreading (Hyperthreading)
INTEL
| |
| scott s. 2005-07-02, 8:35 pm |
| "Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:#fFNn7sfFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:
quote:
>
> Upon starting FS2004 and going through the menus, I noticed most of
> the load was on CPU 1 (the 2nd core), while CPU 0 remained relatively
> idle.
>
> When I started the actual flight, both CPU 0 and CPU 1 showed up at
> roughly just under 50% each (about 45%-47%).
>
I guess the question is, if each processor is showing 50% load, is there
really any improvement over one core at 100% other than perhaps better
cache / memory utilization?
scott s.
..
| |
| Santosh Kumar 2005-07-02, 8:35 pm |
| | |
| scott s. 2005-07-07, 12:31 am |
| "Santosh Kumar" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:OT2dl50fFHA.2424@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:
quote:
> My take is that two cores combined has more computation power than
> FS2004 requires. That's my best guess. (Kind of like, bad example i
> know,... winword.exe will not use up 100% of the CPU but only whta it
> requries).
That's a possibility. It would take some good performance monitoring
to know what is going on with the processes/threads while the idle
task is running. Possible waiting for disk I/O to complete? Or
maybe memory bandwidth is a bottle neck. To what extent is the
graphics hogging busses making CPU wait?
scott s.
..
|
| |
|
|