Graphics card memory - AMD series

Hello,

Is there any perceptible difference between a 4GB card and an 8GB card? Say, an RX 570 at 4 GB versus an RX 580 at 8GB?

My original card (GTX 570) died but it was great for FS2004. Can't buy them new anymore. Looking at RX 470/480 and RX570/580, which all outperform the GTX 570. Just don't know if the RX series I'm looking at is overkill for FS9? Will FS9 really perform and look better using RX series versus some slightly less powerful card?

Thanks,

Darrin

From what I've seen on different forums, and such, FS9 and FSX don't do nearly as well with AMD chips. The NVidea GFX cards seem to have a big edge on the AMD ones. Intel CPU's and NVidea GFX card(s) are the way to go, from what I understand.

The AMD stuff will run the sims ok, but not as good as Intel and Nvidea.

I've not tested it out myself, so I can't be certain, but this is all info I've picked up on the net.

Hope it helps a little...

Pat☺

To be honest, I doubt you'll really see a visual difference at all. I ran a GTX 560 TI and it worked well in FS2004 and FSX. About a year ago I upgraded to a GTX 1050TI (wanted a GTX 1060, but the market was insane at the time), and it runs no different.

FS is a CPU orientated game. And about 25% of the processing is in the GPU. That's it. So if FS is the only game you use, a GTX 1050TI or even something even older would work well. Amount of RAM will make no difference unless you run multiple large screens.

I actually read years ago that you wanted AMD for a GPU as they were more powerful in the graphics department, and Intel for a CPU. Whether that's true today I don't know. I think that's largely a fanboy thing which I don't particularly get into to. I do have a PSU and motherboard preference though since they have been good to me: Antec and Gigabyte. Of course a lot of times price dictates quality. My current MOBO cost me around $220. The PSU, while older is an Antec 750 Gold I bought for I think around $100.

I think in large part it depends on what you are doing and what your budget is. If it's FS and nothing but FS, and by that I mean FS2004 and FSX, then you want Intel for the powerful single thread capability over AMD.

If you plan on playing other games, then multi-threading capability is what you want and that's a toss up between Kabe, Coffelake and Ryzen.

Pertaining to the GPU and the Sim, I don't think it matters at all. Like I said, about 25% of the GPU is used in the Sim, so a beefed up GPU will have no bearing once so ever. If you're gonna play Red Dead Redemption II, then yeah...

I actually read years ago that you wanted AMD for a GPU as they were more powerful in the graphics department, and Intel for a CPU. Whether that's true today I don't know. I think that's largely a fanboy thing which I don't particularly get into to.

It wasn't a fanboy issue when it came to FSX and Nvidia vs AMD GPUs when the sim was released. Due to the way the FSX rendering engine works performance would take a very noticeable hit when flying in clouds and heavy weather on Radeon GPUs. Nvidia also fixed FSX specific bugs for at least a couple years while AMD lost interest in the sim pretty quick. On the other hand, many games would, and still do, run great on Radeon GPUs.

As for FS2004, 4GB of video RAM is already plenty. More isn't going to make any difference.

I'm sure that was FS specific, and not something that affected other games. I mean, I had a 6600 GT and while it performed well, when I flew in the Clouds in GTA San Andreas there was a noticeable lag. But in FS2004 there was no lag. And at the time I download from here at the library HD clouds for FS2004. This was circa 2007 though.

Edit-

Here it is! Bought it with my tax return circa 2006. This would be a great collectors item. Wish I had the money to blow. It's brand spanking new. https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Chaintech-Computer-NVIDIA-GeForce-6600-GT-SE6600G-128MB-GDDR3-PCI-Express/332193158748?epid=73820951&hash=item4d5841565c:g:0IwAAOSw3ZRY~T1j:rk:8:pf:0

Look at how far GPUs have gone. My God, 128 MB or RAM. LOL

I agree with Phantom Tweak I run FS9 on 3 different PC's in my scenery design work and find that over 2 gig of card ram shows not improvement, however using my tweaks document on my web site really gets things looking good. I am working on a revised version to be released with the new The Natural World Scenery you can email me for a copy

Howard

Web : http://biggles11.wix.com/the-natural-world

Mail : biggles11@btinternet.com

It wasn't a fanboy issue when it came to FSX and Nvidia vs AMD GPUs when the sim was released. Due to the way the FSX rendering engine works performance would take a very noticeable hit when flying in clouds and heavy weather on Radeon GPUs. Nvidia also fixed FSX specific bugs for at least a couple years while AMD lost interest in the sim pretty quick. On the other hand, many games would, and still do, run great on Radeon GPUs.

 

As for FS2004, 4GB of video RAM is already plenty. More isn't going to make any difference.

Well this is FS9 we are talking about not FSX. And this is a FS9 forum. I have been AMD CPU's and AMD GPU's all the way since FS95. I have never seen any problem running any version of FS with my AMD equipment. Not even in detailed clouds. As for FSX I used it one day and quit. I just didn't like it.