nVidia GTX 760 4GB vs. AMD R9 290 4GB?

Ok, so I've read that nVidia graphic cards work better with flight sims (I specifically use Prepar3d 2.x) but is this really true and why is it so? The GTX 760 4G Bs below are $20 to $40 cheaper than the R9 290 4GBs. Which should I get?

Also, according to these benchmarks ( http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html ), the R9 is a ways more powerful than the GTX 760.

Also note that the above GTx 760s are 4GB but are the 4GBs worth the extra money over 2GB GTX 760s?

GTX 760 4GB

EVGA 04G-P4-2768-KR G-SYNC Support GeForce GTX 760 4GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 SLI Support SC 4GB w/ EVGA ACX Cooler Video Card

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130949

ZOTAC ZT-70406-10P G-SYNC Support GeForce GTX 760 4GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500312

EVGA 04G-P4-3768-KR G-SYNC Support GeForce GTX 760 FTW 4GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 SLI Support Video Card w/ EVGA ACX Cooler

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130944

GIGABYTE GV-N760OC-4GD REV2.1 GeForce GTX 760 4GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 ATX Gaming Graphics Card

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125494

R9 290 4 GB

MSI Radeon R9 290 Video Card

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8857306&CatId=7387

XFX Radeon R9 290 Double Dissipation Edition Video Card

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8869860&CatId=7387

ASUS Graphics Cards R9290-DC2OC-4GD5

http://www.amazon.com/Asus-R9290-DC2OC-4GD5-ASUS-Graphics-Cards/dp/B00HWQUI02/ref=sr_1_5?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1416849923&sr=1-5&keywords=R9+290

After many years of running AMD\ATI gpu's, I switched to NVidia last year and am very pleased with the better performance on the "mid-range" video cards that I use. Another important factor for me is that AMD has dropped support for older versions of DirectX in their newer products, and I run legacy simulators like Microsoft Train Simulator. I don't think AMD has anything close to NVidia Inspector when you want to tweak your gpu for best results in FSX.

Here's a recap of why NVidia has been the preferred video choice for FSX, from FlightSimWorld:

As far as choosing specific brands of a graphics card, users are advised to go with a NVIDIA because FSX was optimized for that platform. FSX stores most of its textures in DDS (.dds) file format that is a proprietary NVIDIA compression format. This format first needs to be decompressed before being stored in the VRAM. NVIDIA decompresses these files faster. Hence, this is one reason why they perform better than ATI in FSX.

Another big difference between platforms is FS's image quality. Nvidia's drivers have a specific AA mode that ATI doesn't, called the "combined" mode. What this mode does is use both normal multisample AA, which smoothes the edges of polygons, and a supersampling componet, which smoothes the entire scene, including the insides of polygons (textures) and what are called alpha-test objects - the trees, fences, power pylons and so on (anything that looks like it's composed of flat 2D pieces basically).

ATI has two modes essentially - multisampling only and supersampling only. The problem with supersampling-only is that it is extremely intensive on the GPU - it works by rendering the scene internally at a higher resolution (double for 2X SSAA, quadruple for 4X SSAA and so on) and then using that higher resolution image as the "map" for how to blend the pixels to smooth the image. So, if one’s running 1920X1200 and they want say, 4X SSAA, they're actually rendering the sim at both 1920X1200 and at 7680X4800. That puts a huge amount of strain on the card, much much moreso than standard multisample AA. The problem with multisample AA of course is that it only gets polygon edges; it can't touch the insides of polygons or the alpha test objects. This is why one sees "shimmering" usually if they just run a pure MSAA mode.

The mode everyone uses with FS is called "8xS" - this breaks down to a 4X MSAA filter and a 2x1 SSAA filter together. The "2x1" means that only the horizontal resolution is being rendered at 2X the displayed resolution for creating the SSAA "map". So basically it's a lower quality version of supersampling. The net effect though is that one can get something that looks very close to full blown super sampling, but without basically any of the performance hit.

It’s worth noting that the combined mode is hidden by default in the Nvidia drivers. One has to use an application like nHancer or Nvidia Inspector to actually enable it in the FS profile. It is there though and the ATI driver doesn't have anything like it. In most games, the combined mode isn't actually useful, it's still too slow, but because FSX is so CPU-bound, users can use it without problems since the video card is massively underutilized to begin with.

Now, with respect to the hardware itself, I personally don't think it's really accurate to say that either is better - they constantly one up each other with each product revision. If one plays games other than FS, they'll see this on the various review sites.

After many years of running AMD\ATI gpu's, I switched to NVidia last year and am very pleased with the better performance on the "mid-range" video cards that I use. Another important factor for me is that AMD has dropped support for older versions of DirectX in their newer products, and I run legacy simulators like Microsoft Train Simulator. I don't think AMD has anything close to NVidia Inspector when you want to tweak your gpu for best results in FSX.

 

Here's a recap of why NVidia has been the preferred video choice for FSX, from FlightSimWorld:

 

As far as choosing specific brands of a graphics card, users are advised to go with a NVIDIA because FSX was optimized for that platform. FSX stores most of its textures in DDS (.dds) file format that is a proprietary NVIDIA compression format. This format first needs to be decompressed before being stored in the VRAM. NVIDIA decompresses these files faster. Hence, this is one reason why they perform better than ATI in FSX.

 

Another big difference between platforms is FS's image quality. Nvidia's drivers have a specific AA mode that ATI doesn't, called the "combined" mode. What this mode does is use both normal multisample AA, which smoothes the edges of polygons, and a supersampling componet, which smoothes the entire scene, including the insides of polygons (textures) and what are called alpha-test objects - the trees, fences, power pylons and so on (anything that looks like it's composed of flat 2D pieces basically).

 

ATI has two modes essentially - multisampling only and supersampling only. The problem with supersampling-only is that it is extremely intensive on the GPU - it works by rendering the scene internally at a higher resolution (double for 2X SSAA, quadruple for 4X SSAA and so on) and then using that higher resolution image as the "map" for how to blend the pixels to smooth the image. So, if one’s running 1920X1200 and they want say, 4X SSAA, they're actually rendering the sim at both 1920X1200 and at 7680X4800. That puts a huge amount of strain on the card, much much moreso than standard multisample AA. The problem with multisample AA of course is that it only gets polygon edges; it can't touch the insides of polygons or the alpha test objects. This is why one sees "shimmering" usually if they just run a pure MSAA mode.

 

The mode everyone uses with FS is called "8xS" - this breaks down to a 4X MSAA filter and a 2x1 SSAA filter together. The "2x1" means that only the horizontal resolution is being rendered at 2X the displayed resolution for creating the SSAA "map". So basically it's a lower quality version of supersampling. The net effect though is that one can get something that looks very close to full blown super sampling, but without basically any of the performance hit.

 

It’s worth noting that the combined mode is hidden by default in the Nvidia drivers. One has to use an application like nHancer or Nvidia Inspector to actually enable it in the FS profile. It is there though and the ATI driver doesn't have anything like it. In most games, the combined mode isn't actually useful, it's still too slow, but because FSX is so CPU-bound, users can use it without problems since the video card is massively underutilized to begin with.

 

Now, with respect to the hardware itself, I personally don't think it's really accurate to say that either is better - they constantly one up each other with each product revision. If one plays games other than FS, they'll see this on the various review sites.

Thanks for the info. The only other game I play is War Thunder and even they are partnered with nVidia. Also, what do you think about 2Gb vs 4GB? In one forum post somewhere else, a few people suggested at least 2GB of VRAM for FSX and 4GB for Prepar3d.

After many years of running AMD\ATI gpu's, I switched to NVidia last year and am very pleased with the better performance on the "mid-range" video cards that I use. Another important factor for me is that AMD has dropped support for older versions of DirectX in their newer products, and I run legacy simulators like Microsoft Train Simulator. I don't think AMD has anything close to NVidia Inspector when you want to tweak your gpu for best results in FSX.

 

Here's a recap of why NVidia has been the preferred video choice for FSX, from FlightSimWorld:

 

As far as choosing specific brands of a graphics card, users are advised to go with a NVIDIA because FSX was optimized for that platform. FSX stores most of its textures in DDS (.dds) file format that is a proprietary NVIDIA compression format. This format first needs to be decompressed before being stored in the VRAM. NVIDIA decompresses these files faster. Hence, this is one reason why they perform better than ATI in FSX.

Uhmm .DDS stands for Direct Draw Surface... has nothing to do with Nvidia.

760 is a midrange card... the 290 is the high end of AMDs.

Also the "NVidia" logo means nothing. There are plenty of PC games that are coming out now that still have that stupid logo, even though the games were specifically made for ATI tech.

Can your system(specs?) utilize the 290 for FSX

Do you need that much card for other apps?

I recently installed a GTX 970, which is roughly comparable to th R9 290.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1068?vs=1355

My CPU is at 4.875GHz, RAM at 2333MHz, Windows and FSX are on seperate SSDs.

I use FSXMark 11 to bench my changes, FRAPS to log FPS, Core Temp to log CPU temp, and GPUz to log my video card's functions.

With my slider settings set up to average 25-30 FPS on the ground at JFK, Heathrow, Seattle, and most other Acceleration enhanced default airports, my last test gave me a FPS Avg: 33.463 - Min: 22 - Max: 42, with a peak GPU load of 54% @ 66C. My hottest CPU Core was 63C.

If you don't have an upper echelon overclocked system, the R9 290 is overkill for FSX...Don

I think I'll be going with the GT 760. I've had a better experience with nVidia graphics in the past. Furthermore, some of the programs I use can be accelerated using the CUDA cores (Matlab and Solidworks).

Also, I don't plan on running textures on max. I probably will run them on medium or high. My priority is on the features like accurate (but not necessarily high res) ground texture and air traffic. I'll be happy as long as I can run all the addons I want even if the resolution isn't the highest or even high.

Think the GTX 760 will be fine for that? I've also read that Prepar3d is also very CPU intensive so I'll be spending a bit more on that.

Can your system(specs?) utilize the 290 for FSX

Do you need that much card for other apps?

 

I recently installed a GTX 970, which is roughly comparable to th R9 290.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1068?vs=1355

 

My CPU is at 4.875GHz, RAM at 2333MHz, Windows and FSX are on seperate SSDs.

I use FSXMark 11 to bench my changes, FRAPS to log FPS, Core Temp to log CPU temp, and GPUz to log my video card's functions.

 

With my slider settings set up to average 25-30 FPS on the ground at JFK, Heathrow, Seattle, and most other Acceleration enhanced default airports, my last test gave me a FPS Avg: 33.463 - Min: 22 - Max: 42, with a peak GPU load of 54% @ 66C. My hottest CPU Core was 63C.

 

If you don't have an upper echelon overclocked system, the R9 290 is overkill for FSX...Don

I'm thinking of using a AMD FX-8350 CPU.

Seriously consider spending a little more on your CPU.

Intel's CPUs are much more adept at running single threaded apps like FSX.

Motherboard and compatible RAM prices are similar.

AMD FX-8350 @ 5.15GHz FPS: Min 18.7, Max 37.0, Ave 28.1

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329116-fsxmark11/page-46#entry2945838

Intel i5-4670K @ 4.2GHz FPS: Min 23.0, Max 55.0, Ave 41.4

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329116-fsxmark11/page-41#entry2696909

Even though the Intel i5-4670K(~$235) is giving up almost 1GHz in speed, it far outperforms the FX-8350(~$150).

An i7-4790K(~$300) will blow both of the above out of the water.

It doesn't take an exotic mobo to get an i5-4670K to 4.3-4.4GHz and that is the 4790K's stock Turbo speed. Forget the i7-4770K. The i7-4790K is cheaper...and faster...Don

Seriously consider spending a little more on your CPU.

Intel's CPUs are much more adept at running single threaded apps like FSX.

Motherboard and compatible RAM prices are similar.

 

AMD FX-8350 @ 5.15GHz FPS: Min 18.7, Max 37.0, Ave 28.1

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329116-fsxmark11/page-46#entry2945838

 

Intel i5-4670K @ 4.2GHz FPS: Min 23.0, Max 55.0, Ave 41.4

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329116-fsxmark11/page-41#entry2696909

 

Even though the Intel i5-4670K(~$235) is giving up almost 1GHz in speed, it far outperforms the FX-8350(~$150).

 

An i7-4790K(~$300) will blow both of the above out of the water.

 

It doesn't take an exotic mobo to get an i5-4670K to 4.3-4.4GHz and that is the 4790K's stock Turbo speed. Forget the i7-4770K. The i7-4790K is cheaper...and faster...Don

Compared to getting a R9 290, the GTX 760 I've got is $40 cheaper. I'll be spending that for a better CPU. I was originally budgeting only $150 for the CPU but now, I can spend more there. Thanks for the suggestion.

However, I'm not quite sure I want to delid my CPU. That seems quite risky to me.

Delidding is not necessary. At all...for anything but extreme overclocking.

I assume he was getting ready to push his OC into the stratosphere...Don

Delidding is not necessary. At all...for anything but extreme overclocking.

I assume he was getting ready to push his OC into the stratosphere...Don

So even without Delidding, the CPU you recommended is better than the FX-8350?

According to CPUBenchmark the i5 4670K has a Passmark of 7,686 while the FX-8350 has a Passmark of 9017. However, this does not take into account how Intel processors have the advantage for single-threaded applications as you suggested as a benefit to running Prepar3d better.

Also, can you explain why you found it beneficial to run Windows and FSX and P3d on separate HDDs? I was able to snag a single Corsair SSD for $40 after rebate (I've had good experiences with Corsair rebates in the past so I'm not too concerned) and I am thinking of using that for both Windows and FSX.

Yep. For FSX, Intel's architecture is far superior.

I have no actual data to support my theory, but, I think that Windows and FSX/P3D being separate, on fast SSDs, have less of a chance to slow each other down.

Their internal buffers should be more than fast enough to cover any addressing lag.

Also, on a Quad core machine, an Affinity Mask tweak in the FSX.cfg should give priority to FSX on 3 cores, leaving the other to Windows and it's background processes....Don

For years I was a huge fan of AMD boards and CPS. They are still, in my mind more bang for the buck for most applications. And I still generally suggest them.

However I found FSX runs much better on Intel boards with Intel chips. So the last two computers I built for FSX installations have Intel i-7s. They aren't even the hottest ones. But they are much better and even more stable with FSX than any other chip I've found.

Yep. For FSX, Intel's architecture is far superior.

 

I have no actual data to support my theory, but, I think that Windows and FSX/P3D being separate, on fast SSDs, have less of a chance to slow each other down.

Their internal buffers should be more than fast enough to cover any addressing lag.

 

Also, on a Quad core machine, an Affinity Mask tweak in the FSX.cfg should give priority to FSX on 3 cores, leaving the other to Windows and it's background processes....Don

This is all fantastic advice. I'm really learning a whole lot here. Thanks.

As for the motherboard with an Intel CPU (I'm thinking of the i5- 4690K which is a newer version of the 4670K you suggested and goes for $180* on Microcenter) I'm thinking of the MSI Z97 PC Mate which I can get for $55 bundled with the aforementioned CPU.

Can you also make recommendations for RAM? I know that DDR4 is out but they are still expensive so I'm looking into DDR3 only. I'm thinking at least 4GB though 6 or 8Gb is preferred for use in my other applications. I'm looking forward to a 64bit version of P3D though. I'd expect it to give quite a boost. I'm willing to spend at most $10/1GB of ram.

I'm thinking these G.SKILL Sniper 8GB. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231416&cm_re=RAM_DDR3-_-20-231-416-_-Product

*Here's a curious thing. The MSRP of the 4690K is $265, $5 more than the 4670K. However, it's going for $209 right now on Amazon compared to the $234 price tag of the older 4670K. Marketing to get their latest item out there maybe? Regardless, I like it

You need to be careful with your CPU/Mobo combination. Because the i5- 4690K is so new, the motherboard's BIOS may not support it.

In this case the MSI Z97 PC Mate CPU support list does not show the i5- 4690K.

That does not mean they won't support it.

Click "Ask a Question", register, and find out if the support page is out of date.

Their existing BIOS may actually work fine. BE SURE.

From the many reviews that I've read on the PC Mate, updating the BIOS can kill the board, so, I'd suggest passing on that and stick with the i5-4670K.

The GIGABYTE GA-Z97-D3H is more expensive, but, it has many desirable features.

A Dual BIOS(Main,Backup) feature is recommended on any mobo.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128713

This is the support and download page, where you can check CPU, Memory, etc.

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4961#dl

To use the i5-4690K or i7-4790K you'll need to update the BIOS.

F6 min. F7 recommended.

The mobo manual should explain that process in detail.

There are other budget Z97 boards out there, but, none as well regarded as GA-Z97-D3H.