Page 1 of 1
GeForce / Radeon comparions
Posted: 31 Mar 2011, 14:03
by DanKH
Re: GeForce / Radeon comparions
Posted: 31 Mar 2011, 14:13
by DarrenL
Interesting. Mine in bold, better than some 68xx series....!?!
GeForce GTX 580 192384 MB/sec
GeForce GTX 580 3GB 192384 MB/sec
GeForce GTX 480 177408 MB/sec
Radeon HD 6970 176000 MB/sec
GeForce GTX 590 164160 MB/sec
Radeon HD 6950 2GB 160000 MB/sec
Radeon HD 6990 160000 MB/sec
Radeon HD 6950 160000 MB/sec
GeForce GTX 285 2GB 158976 MB/sec
GeForce GTX 285 1GB 158976 MB/sec
Radeon HD 5870 153600 MB/sec
GeForce GTX 570 152000 MB/sec
GeForce GTX 280 141696 MB/sec
Radeon HD 6870 134400 MB/sec
GeForce GTX 470 133920 MB/sec
GeForce GTX 560 Ti 128256 MB/sec
Radeon HD 6850 128000 MB/sec
Re: GeForce / Radeon comparions
Posted: 31 Mar 2011, 15:32
by DaveB
A graphics card with 3GB onboard!!

I only have 2GB installed on my mobo
ATB
DaveB

Re: GeForce / Radeon comparions
Posted: 02 Apr 2011, 10:32
by ianhind
My current graphics card is near the bottom of that list
Although I do have one in a box here that appears in the middle of the list
Just CBA to swap them over at the moment

Re: GeForce / Radeon comparions
Posted: 02 Apr 2011, 12:25
by jonesey2k
I love that smell you get from new computer hardware...
Re: GeForce / Radeon comparions
Posted: 06 May 2011, 07:08
by DavidK
Thanks, DanKH, for that link -- I've recently bought a new computer (with FSX not the least consideration!) but the onboard nVidia graphics seem to leave a lot to be desired (when FSX is the no.1 consideration). So, I've started looking for something better to plug in and use.
Although it's three years old,
this is intriguing as it seems to suggest the older nVidia 8xxx or 9xxx cards outperform the early 2xx cards (or have I misread it?). Like (I imagine) many people, I'm looking for something that's not too recent (read: expensive) but still able to deliver FSX smoothly (at last!).
David
Re: GeForce / Radeon comparions
Posted: 07 May 2011, 12:56
by timholyoake
I get the impression that some of the new technology has left FSX behind. I think that MS developed FSX honestly believing that Chips were 500 megs then 1 gig and were headed towards 3 Gig, so it was perfectly reasonable to expect that they would be in the 5 - 6 Gig range 5years on when FS XI was to be released. Not for a second did they imagine that speed would remain almost constant, and that people would have multi core processors doing the job for them. Ditto Graphics cards.
So simply FS X was not designed to use all the new mod stuff. while it makes the best of a bad job with the older stuf while waiting for speeds to increase.....
Re: GeForce / Radeon comparions
Posted: 12 May 2011, 19:03
by Rick Piper
Hi Guys
those throughput charts are very pretty
but they don't show FSX graphics performance which is almost identical with every one of the listed cards.
but charts are relevant for non FS games and apps
Regards
Rick
Re: GeForce / Radeon comparions
Posted: 16 May 2011, 11:31
by Brian Franklin
jonesey2k wrote:I love that smell you get from new computer hardware...
So does your bank manager!
Re: GeForce / Radeon comparions
Posted: 19 May 2011, 05:39
by timholyoake
tell me about it ! ! ! just spoken to Toby at "Wired2fire"who selflessly saved me from iminant solvency ...... again !