AMD vs Intel

Do people with AMD have as many problems playing FSX as Intel users?

Ive been reading alot about people problems and it seems people with Intel processors have problems with getting the balance right between framerates and quality.

I have a AMD Athlon 64 3200+ and FSX runs great! I can put everything on ultra high and still get around 10-17FPS.

My other specs are

1.5GB RAM
256 nVidia onboard graphics
80GB SATA HDD

Its nothing special but seems to run FSX like a dream!

AMD 64 3400+ here without problems at all.
Although i had never use an Intel i don't think that i would change AMD.

Last edited by Greekman72 on Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total

Try this:
1. put your auto traffic to 100% or max
2. Auto gen to 100% or max
3. Fly over New York City

Just curious how your system performs.

Im glad to ehar this because i also have AMD 64 3400 Processor, so that means in 9 days once i get FSX it should run great with my comp.

My other specs are 1GB RAM
Nvidea Geforce FX 5500 256mb Vid card, 113GB hardrive with 50GB free space left. Very nice to here AMD seems to work beter at first setup.

Looking forward to your report.

Well thats a nice set up but dont expect to run FSX in MAX settings/

I have an ASUS nVidia 6800GT 512 and 3 GB of RAM.
In MAX settings ,especially in the high details areas, i have some probelms in smoothness running.
Im still searching (unfortunatelly dont have the time i wish to spend about FSX)for the best compination between perfrormance and smoothness.

poor frame rates is nothing to do with processor manufacturer or processor logo names......it's more to do with the video card GPU.

FSX is greatly dependent on the GPU (Video Processor) than the CPU or Memory. That's why M$ chose those minumum CPU and Memory requirements without too much thought about the below average Video cards many people have.

M$ should of stated quite clearly that 256MB of 256Bit DDR3 VRAM is the absolute minimum requirement....

I switched from Intel to AMD a long time ago and have gone through 2 or 3 AMD processors. I am very happy with their performance and I probably won't be going back to Intel. On the other hand, processor is not that important anymore, GPU is.

AMD have had the "bang for buck" title for 2 or 3 years now,but the new Intel core2 seems to have the advantage acording to certain benchmarking tools
The trouble with duel core CPUs is that the program must be written to use the 2 cores(sadly FSX is not)

Hawk_345 may have problems running at max due to your GFX card

The guest posting saying

Im sorry but FSX uses a totally different way of programming and the way the GFX are processed.
FSX is far more reliant on the CPU than ever before(yes you must have a tidy GFX card),but a lot more of the graphics is controlled by the CPU

Even more when DX10 and Vista hit the shelves

Firstly
Yeah upto a point the GPU has the greatest impact on how a game or simulator will perform, but an average slower cpu would bottleneck a high end card.

Secondly
I am currently using an AMD based CPU for my desktop and its working great at the moment. I managed to overclock my 4400X2 to the performance levels of 4800X and saved myself some bob. AMD were the better chips when I bought my computer.
However AMD is no longer the best value for performance chips anymore. Intel has taken back the lead with the core duo 2 chips and even the cheaper in the core 2 duo range perform really well. AMD is having a hard time at the moment because their new super expensive high end FX 62 is struggling to compete with cheaper core 2 duo chips. If I was going to buy a new processor at the moment then Intel would be the way I'd go. However I have no doubt AMD will release something in the future that will take AMD back to the top.