Corsair H170i Elite Capellix XT review
Forspoken: PC performance graphics benchmarks
ASRock Z790 Taichi review
The Callisto Protocol: PC graphics benchmarks
G.Skill TridentZ 5 RGB 6800 MHz CL34 DDR5 review
Be Quiet! Dark Power 13 - 1000W PSU Review
Palit GeForce RTX 4080 GamingPRO OC review
Core i9 13900K DDR5 7200 MHz (+memory scaling) review
Seasonic Prime Titanium TX-1300 (1300W PSU) review
F1 2022: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Review: Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020): PC graphics performance analysis
Are you ready to take a short flight with us? We look at one of the most anticipated games of 2020, Microsoft Flight Simulator, in a PC graphics performance and PC gamer way. We'll test the game on the PC platform relative to graphics card performance with the latest AMD Radeon and NVIDIA GeForce graphics cards.
Read the article here.
Review: TeamGroup Cardea Ceramic C440 PCIe 4.0 NVMe - 08/18/2020 02:53 PM
Hold on tight as we shift into sixth gear with the TeamGroup Cardea Ceramic C440 PCIe Gen 4 x4 SSDNVMe. This bad boy reaches super fast transfer rates passing 5 GB/sec. Put it into a Ryzen 3000 / B550...
Review: Deepcool CL500 chassis - 08/14/2020 03:45 PM
This round we’re taking a look at the Deepcool CL500, a mid-tower PC chassis with a mesh front design that supports good airflow. In terms of the overall concept, it’s quite similar to the Macube3...
Review: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G (Renoir) APU - 08/13/2020 01:28 PM
There is a new hybrid processor in town, meet the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G. The uniqueness of this event is that the processor series announced and released a few weeks ago should not have got into the r...
Review: CORSAIR iCUE LT100 Smart Lighting Towers - 08/12/2020 06:02 PM
Today we're presenting the Corsair iCUE LT100 Smart Lighting Towers. We must admit that Corsair has a real passion for RGB LEDs. RAM modules have them, as well as AIOs, chassis, headphones, and other...
Review: Asus ROG Strix XG27UQ (UHD - HDR - DCS 144 Hz) - 08/12/2020 08:36 AM
In this review, we look at the ROG Strix XG27UQ, and what a fantastic product we test today. In specifications and quality I mean, as the ROG Strix XG27UQ is a 27" Ultra HD slash HDR rated monit...
Avro Arrow
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 2009-11-21
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 2009-11-21
#5821676 Posted on: 08/25/2020 07:10 PM
That being said I don't really care for the whole "the game was developed before DX12" argument he's taking.
I think you misunderstood me. I only said that was the reason that it's only DX11 right now. I wasn't making an excuse for Microsoft (I was poking fun at them with their "service packs", after all), I was only saying what was the most likely reason. Remember that DX12 wasn't really developed my Microsoft (at least, not like DX11 was) because a good chunk of it is AMD Mantle, kinda like Vulkan.
Plenty of games were in development before DX12 but shipped with semi-competent DX12 versions - Division, GoW, etc. They could have definitely launched this game on DX12. Asobo either decided it wasn't priority or they simply don't have the engine developers that are familiar enough with the API.
I agree that plenty of games did adopt DX12 in the middle of development and turn out pretty well and you could very well be right that this one could have as well, however, the sheer scope of this simulator is beyond any game that I've ever seen (and I've been gaming on PCs since 1984). Implementing DX12 on a project of this scale may have been considerably more difficult and time-consuming. Rather than making people wait for the DX12 implementation (which is apparently on the way), perhaps they just decided to release it as DX11-only and bring DX12 along later. It might even buy them more time to actually do it right (as naive as that sounds) because people HATE delays and FSX came out fourteen years ago. It did develop a rather large and rabid following (as a pilot myself, I know a TON of people who are FSX junkies) so this could be why. It also might not be, because everyone who wasn't directly involved in FS2020's development is only able to make semi-educated guesses about the reasons that certain things were done in the way that they were.
in the reality where Nvidia has a better D3D11 implementation than AMD
which is this one.
AMD's driver is choked up on the CPU most of the time in this, to the point gpu usage tanks along with clocks
I really don't think that this is the reason. Of course nVidia has a better implementation of DX11 than ATi, but that has always been the case. How does it explain the GTX 1660 outperforming the GTX 1070 or the RX 470 outperforming the R9 Fury?
What's going on seems to be a lot more complicated than just saying "nVidia is better than ATi".
(And yes, I realise the fact that I still call refer to Radeons as ATi belies my age. Also the way I type "nVidia". LOL)
This game could revitalize the PC HW industry. Nvidia, AMD, Intel and other HW makers will likely have a surge in sales from its release as ppl will feel more of a need to upgrade their gear.
Kinda like Crysis, Arma III and Windows Vista.
Why do people even watch him? Makes no sense...
For the average person, his level of knowledge is deep enough and they find him entertaining to watch. Those are the keys to success in showbusiness (and YouTube IS showbusiness). Always be likable and always pander to the lowest common denomnator.
It doesn't, and never did. The fact you're using a motherboard bios that allows the CPU to provide pci-express 4.0 to it (again, the motherboard doesnt have pci-express 4.0) doesn't change this fact, and enjoy your error rate?
What are you on? LMAO Dude it DOES and still DOES and is currently USING IT and has been. Holy hell. How is it that hard to believe? Read the shit above, Proof was posted. I don't have the bios that removed it.
It doesn't, and never did. The fact you're using a motherboard bios that allows the CPU to provide pci-express 4.0 to it (again, the motherboard doesnt have pci-express 4.0) doesn't change this fact, and enjoy your error rate?
It's currently using it the only board I had where it WASNT usable was my asrock a320m DGS. It didn't support it at all. I'm on a gigabyte now, Wife has my asrock. This one supports it fully and its used it as i have it SET to it instead of auto and there has been ZERO issues pal, Running a 5700 OC on it full speed & 4.0. Gaming is a breeze. I haven't crashed, No errors, No bogged down system, Nothing of the like. There ARE 320's that do it PROPERLY.
It doesn't, and never did. The fact you're using a motherboard bios that allows the CPU to provide pci-express 4.0 to it (again, the motherboard doesnt have pci-express 4.0) doesn't change this fact, and enjoy your error rate?
Again, Did more reading just now. Yeah, Gigabyte was one of the ones who had it enabled fully for a320's and FUNCTIONING properly. There's even videos on it. Do some searching. It was never disabled on my model of their 320, Enabled from the get go. My arock had the option, But the reason I say didn't support it, You'd enable it and the GPU would hang some times. This one, PERFECTION.
So, You're right on SOME areas of this. All 320's can do it and did, But the problem wasn't because AMD wanted folks to buy into their new boards, It was the fact the traces on the lower tier boards and how they're made. But, Depends on manufacturer.
That being said I don't really care for the whole "the game was developed before DX12" argument he's taking.
I think you misunderstood me. I only said that was the reason that it's only DX11 right now. I wasn't making an excuse for Microsoft (I was poking fun at them with their "service packs", after all), I was only saying what was the most likely reason. Remember that DX12 wasn't really developed my Microsoft (at least, not like DX11 was) because a good chunk of it is AMD Mantle, kinda like Vulkan.
Plenty of games were in development before DX12 but shipped with semi-competent DX12 versions - Division, GoW, etc. They could have definitely launched this game on DX12. Asobo either decided it wasn't priority or they simply don't have the engine developers that are familiar enough with the API.
I agree that plenty of games did adopt DX12 in the middle of development and turn out pretty well and you could very well be right that this one could have as well, however, the sheer scope of this simulator is beyond any game that I've ever seen (and I've been gaming on PCs since 1984). Implementing DX12 on a project of this scale may have been considerably more difficult and time-consuming. Rather than making people wait for the DX12 implementation (which is apparently on the way), perhaps they just decided to release it as DX11-only and bring DX12 along later. It might even buy them more time to actually do it right (as naive as that sounds) because people HATE delays and FSX came out fourteen years ago. It did develop a rather large and rabid following (as a pilot myself, I know a TON of people who are FSX junkies) so this could be why. It also might not be, because everyone who wasn't directly involved in FS2020's development is only able to make semi-educated guesses about the reasons that certain things were done in the way that they were.
in the reality where Nvidia has a better D3D11 implementation than AMD
which is this one.
AMD's driver is choked up on the CPU most of the time in this, to the point gpu usage tanks along with clocks
I really don't think that this is the reason. Of course nVidia has a better implementation of DX11 than ATi, but that has always been the case. How does it explain the GTX 1660 outperforming the GTX 1070 or the RX 470 outperforming the R9 Fury?
What's going on seems to be a lot more complicated than just saying "nVidia is better than ATi".
(And yes, I realise the fact that I still call refer to Radeons as ATi belies my age. Also the way I type "nVidia". LOL)
This game could revitalize the PC HW industry. Nvidia, AMD, Intel and other HW makers will likely have a surge in sales from its release as ppl will feel more of a need to upgrade their gear.
Kinda like Crysis, Arma III and Windows Vista.
Why do people even watch him? Makes no sense...
For the average person, his level of knowledge is deep enough and they find him entertaining to watch. Those are the keys to success in showbusiness (and YouTube IS showbusiness). Always be likable and always pander to the lowest common denomnator.
It doesn't, and never did. The fact you're using a motherboard bios that allows the CPU to provide pci-express 4.0 to it (again, the motherboard doesnt have pci-express 4.0) doesn't change this fact, and enjoy your error rate?
What are you on? LMAO Dude it DOES and still DOES and is currently USING IT and has been. Holy hell. How is it that hard to believe? Read the shit above, Proof was posted. I don't have the bios that removed it.
It doesn't, and never did. The fact you're using a motherboard bios that allows the CPU to provide pci-express 4.0 to it (again, the motherboard doesnt have pci-express 4.0) doesn't change this fact, and enjoy your error rate?
It's currently using it the only board I had where it WASNT usable was my asrock a320m DGS. It didn't support it at all. I'm on a gigabyte now, Wife has my asrock. This one supports it fully and its used it as i have it SET to it instead of auto and there has been ZERO issues pal, Running a 5700 OC on it full speed & 4.0. Gaming is a breeze. I haven't crashed, No errors, No bogged down system, Nothing of the like. There ARE 320's that do it PROPERLY.
It doesn't, and never did. The fact you're using a motherboard bios that allows the CPU to provide pci-express 4.0 to it (again, the motherboard doesnt have pci-express 4.0) doesn't change this fact, and enjoy your error rate?
Again, Did more reading just now. Yeah, Gigabyte was one of the ones who had it enabled fully for a320's and FUNCTIONING properly. There's even videos on it. Do some searching. It was never disabled on my model of their 320, Enabled from the get go. My arock had the option, But the reason I say didn't support it, You'd enable it and the GPU would hang some times. This one, PERFECTION.
So, You're right on SOME areas of this. All 320's can do it and did, But the problem wasn't because AMD wanted folks to buy into their new boards, It was the fact the traces on the lower tier boards and how they're made. But, Depends on manufacturer.
Astyanax
Senior Member
Posts: 14973
Joined: 2018-03-21
Senior Member
Posts: 14973
Joined: 2018-03-21
#5821811 Posted on: 08/26/2020 08:22 AM
GTX 16 and RTX 20 have independent Integer units, the 16 cards demonstrate super performance over Pascal. 16 and 20 both also have FP16, dedicated in 16 and as a function of the Tensor cores in 20.
I really don't think that this is the reason. Of course nVidia has a better implementation of DX11 than ATi, but that has always been the case. How does it explain the GTX 1660 outperforming the GTX 1070 or the RX 470 outperforming the R9 Fury?
GTX 16 and RTX 20 have independent Integer units, the 16 cards demonstrate super performance over Pascal. 16 and 20 both also have FP16, dedicated in 16 and as a function of the Tensor cores in 20.
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 2277
Joined: 2005-08-05
Senior Member
Posts: 2277
Joined: 2005-08-05
#5822752 Posted on: 08/28/2020 06:19 PM
Looks like "SLI" is working in this game: https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=367692&d=1598333009
Looks like "SLI" is working in this game: https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=367692&d=1598333009
brogadget
Senior Member
Posts: 280
Joined: 2020-08-22
Senior Member
Posts: 280
Joined: 2020-08-22
#5825973 Posted on: 09/04/2020 10:51 PM
Nice to see SLI is working. Someone can confirm a working AMD CF setup? With the new FS2020 release, it´s like, as it has allways been... I never wanted to use those "low-end" or "mid-range" graphic settings...never...ever...only "ultra-settings" and everything else set on max is what counts, otherwise I can stay with FSX or x-plane. And when it comes to the "30fps are enough for a flight sim" statements, in my opinion, yes for an A320 or 747 maybe it is okay, but when you are in an "Extra 300" then even 60fps are NOT enough, especially when using an "old school joystick" for quick turns. The new FS also has a much better weather implementation, creating turbulances and clouds with a heavy "rumble" effect on the airplane, therfore, for me, as it is with every other game, fps are the most important thing. This sim will defenately have an impact on new hardware sales...I want to update as well, but BEFORE I am looking forward to see the RTX30...(maybe in NVLink, SLI? if guruof3d can grab two!?!?) in the review charts, btw: what is youtube Linus?
edit: is this true, correct?!?: TWO RTX3080 cards are almost same price as ONE RTX3090 card?
Nice to see SLI is working. Someone can confirm a working AMD CF setup? With the new FS2020 release, it´s like, as it has allways been... I never wanted to use those "low-end" or "mid-range" graphic settings...never...ever...only "ultra-settings" and everything else set on max is what counts, otherwise I can stay with FSX or x-plane. And when it comes to the "30fps are enough for a flight sim" statements, in my opinion, yes for an A320 or 747 maybe it is okay, but when you are in an "Extra 300" then even 60fps are NOT enough, especially when using an "old school joystick" for quick turns. The new FS also has a much better weather implementation, creating turbulances and clouds with a heavy "rumble" effect on the airplane, therfore, for me, as it is with every other game, fps are the most important thing. This sim will defenately have an impact on new hardware sales...I want to update as well, but BEFORE I am looking forward to see the RTX30...(maybe in NVLink, SLI? if guruof3d can grab two!?!?) in the review charts, btw: what is youtube Linus?
edit: is this true, correct?!?: TWO RTX3080 cards are almost same price as ONE RTX3090 card?
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 2015-12-25
Performance is beyond pathetic, i'll stick to X-Plane 11.