Graphics Card Opinion

M

McGene

New member
Hope I'm posting this in the correct place :)

I'm completely new to this hobby so I purchased RF 7.5 with the InterLink controller. The installation went well and the program seems to run just fine in Windows 10.

I started playing first with take offs and all went well. The graphics were smooth and flawless.

However, once I started landing training -- the graphics got very choppy. Not sure if that's common or if my card is not good enough.

I currently use a Radeon HD3600. It has 3323MB available with 512 MB of dedicated video and 2560x1600 resolution.

Is this sufficient or do I need to upgrade my card? If so, what would you recommend?

Thanks for your time
-gene
 
I can tell you what NOT to buy. I have an nVidia GT-430 w/2G dedicated RAM that benchmarks about 6x yours. It works quite well under RF5.5, but is TOTALLY inadequate for RF-X. I get 50+fps at 1920x1080 in 5.5 with everything maxed, and only 6fps in X with everything min'ed at X's lowest resolution. Base your decision on RF-X requirements, not 7.5 unless you want to upgrade again for RF-X. Plan ahead & buy the best card you can afford. Ones that will work with X start around $200.
 
Last edited:
The OP is talking about running 7.5. Before we go and recommend a high end video card, we should find out what the rest of the PC consists of. That card came out in 2008, and if the PC is also that old, it's at best a Core 2 quad, unless he purchased at the end of 08 when the first generation i7's came out which is a good machine, but a bottle neck for a 1060...

McGene, what are the rest of the specifications of your computer? Type of processor and ram would help us recommend your best course of action.
 
Last edited:
technoid said:
Jim, he said he's running at 2560x1600. Is a GTX 1060 good enough for that?
Click to expand...

I'm going to answer that with a "maybe". I have a system at home that runs it great at 2560x1600 with a lesser card, but until we have more people out there reporting their results I don't feel like I can make a promise.

There is no reason why you have to run at desktop resolutions. RF 7.5 could probably run at 5120x3200 on my machine but it wouldn't look any better than it does at 2560x1600. There is more to visual quality than pixel density.

Jim
 
Jim I have a question for you. Is it possible for KE to create a short benchmark. A short fly over demo about three to five minutes long over of one of the more demanding fields so people can download it and test their system for acceptable performance before buying. Nothing fancy but give a Min, Max, and Avg report at the end. Not necessary but I'd like to see a frame rate range showing percent of the demo in that range.

15 - 25 fps 25%
25 - 45 fps 50%
45 - 60 15%
60 Up 10%

It's great to see a Max value of 63 fps but if that was only for 10 to 20 frames out of the whole demo it doesn't help the person decide how well their system is running the demo. But with a frame rate range showing the percent of the demo that ran in those ranges would give the person a pretty good look at their system profile.
 
jbourke said:
I'm going to answer that with a "maybe". I have a system at home that runs it great at 2560x1600 with a lesser card, but until we have more people out there reporting their results I don't feel like I can make a promise.

There is no reason why you have to run at desktop resolutions. RF 7.5 could probably run at 5120x3200 on my machine but it wouldn't look any better than it does at 2560x1600. There is more to visual quality than pixel density.

Jim
Click to expand...

Good answer. And I agree about not always running at desktop resolution, but that's often what people do that don't understand what you just explained. Frame rate takes a big hit as the resolution goes up and the highest resolution isn't always the best way to go. But if you want a solid 60 fps, any gamers target, I'm not sure a 1060 can get there at 2560x1600 no matter what the processor.
 
technoid said:
Jim I have a question for you. Is it possible for KE to create a short benchmark. A short fly over demo about three to five minutes long over of one of the more demanding fields so people can download it and test their system for acceptable performance before buying. Nothing fancy but give a Min, Max, and Avg report at the end. Not necessary but I'd like to see a frame rate range showing percent of the demo in that range.

15 - 25 fps 25%
25 - 45 fps 50%
45 - 60 15%
60 Up 10%

It's great to see a Max value of 63 fps but if that was only for 10 to 20 frames out of the whole demo it doesn't help the person decide how well their system is running the demo. But with a frame rate range showing the percent of the demo that ran in those ranges would give the person a pretty good look at their system profile.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine how that would work. It seems like it would have to be a complete copy of the program, but with only 1 plane & airfield. Could it even be done with a reasonable download size? I doubt it.

What about using published benchmarks? Do a google search on "GT-430 benchmark" - the first search result will take you to Passmark's Average G3D Mark = 656. "GTX-1060 benchmark" = 9054. Is there a "magic number" that will indicate that RF-X is likely to run at acceptable frame rates? Granted, that doesn't take the user's CPU/RAM/Storage into account, but it might give a better idea than the "DirectX 11 Mid-Range Video Card with 2 GB of video memory" that's recommended now. I THOUGHT my GT-430 MIGHT be ALMOST good enough & I could limp along & upgrade later. But its G3D mark shows that it's obviously not good enough.

Hey McGene, want a 2G GT-430 for $50 that should run 7.5 perfectly well so I can afford something better for RF-X? :D That's MOSTLY a joke, but.... Trouble is, I've already returned RF-X & ordered 7.5.
 
Last edited:
Bill Stuntz said:
I can't imagine how that would work. It seems like it would have to be a complete copy of the program, but with only 1 plane & airfield. Could it even be done with a reasonable download size? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

We could do it with a fractal terrain or something to save on download size, maybe.

We wouldn't want to spend time on something like this unless this proved to be a lasting issue. My thinking is that dealers and customers haven't learned to pay attention to the system requirements yet. Or maybe we need to do a better job of explaining those requirements. In any case once people sort that out we'll have fewer customers coming here to complain about the performance.

What about using published benchmarks? Do a google search on "GT-430 benchmark" - the first search result will take you to Passmark's Average G3D Mark = 656. "GTX-1060 benchmark" = 9054. Is there a "magic number" that will indicate that RF-X is likely to run at acceptable frame rates? Granted, that doesn't take the user's CPU/RAM/Storage into account, but it might give a better idea than the "DirectX 11 Mid-Range Video Card with 2 GB of video memory" that's recommended now. I THOUGHT my GT-430 MIGHT be ALMOST good enough & I could limp along & upgrade later. But its G3D mark shows that it's obviously not good enough.
Click to expand...

Yes we use the Passmark score extensively. You'll see that the GTX 460 has a score of about 2500. That is a good minimum, provided the card also has 2GB of video memory. We've proven support for less performant cards in the lab but we don't recommend them.

The cards we officially support have all been made in the last 5 or 6 years. So right off the bat, if a person bought his machine more than 5 years ago there is a really good chance it won't run RF-X.

There are unfortunately a lot of new cards that are junk, many of them are built into motherboards. The situation is confusing to consumers because video card manufacturers do clever things to make their useless cards sound useful to customers.

Jim
 
You'll see that the GTX 460 has a score of about 2500. That is a good minimum, provided the card also has 2GB of video memory.
Click to expand...
If I had known that before I ordered RF-X, it would have saved me some trouble. "Mid-Range 2G DX11" is too subjective. I SHOULD have looked at the published benchmarks, but I didn't know enough to do so until I discovered that my GT-430 was hopeless for RF-X.

It might be a good idea to update the documentation and your "sticky" post. I'm NOT pissed off about my experience because I KNEW I was taking a chance that it wouldn't work before I ordered it. But I suspect that a lot of customers would be, if they believe that their PC/Video runs 7.5 "well enough" and should "do" for RF-X, too.
 
Graphics Card + Other specs

Wow, had no idea I would get such great response. Thank you!!

One post asked for other specs from my computer.

The processor is an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E8400 running at 3.0 GHz. It's overclocked at that speed but has run fine with no over heating since I built the machine in 2008.

I installed the program RF7.0 (free upgrade to 7.5) on the SSD drive.

Anyway, the general consensus is that I need a new video card. I'm retired so no more annual bonuses coming my way -- so, I'll be looking for the best "value" card. I'm not a gamer and the only reason I bought this simulation is to learn the controls before spending money on a plane that I will likely crash!!

Thanks again for the input.
-gene
 
That system won't run RF-X so don't worry about getting a monster video card. The CPU would be a bottleneck. If you are just going to be flying 7.5 though, a Nvidia 760 would be a good option. Anything more and your CPU would be holding it back. I would check ebay for a used one. I wouldn't pay more than about 70 bucks for one.
 
csgill75 said:
That system won't run RF-X so don't worry about getting a monster video card. The CPU would be a bottleneck. If you are just going to be flying 7.5 though, a Nvidia 760 would be a good option. Anything more and your CPU would be holding it back. I would check ebay for a used one. I wouldn't pay more than about 70 bucks for one.
Click to expand...
I TOTALLY agree. You should see a significant improvement in 7.5 w/ a better video card without spending more than that, and 7.5 should do what you NEED. Gene, it sounds like you're in the same boat I'm in.
 
Thanks guys ... this is exactly what I was hoping for ... some very direct and specific advice. I'll look into the Nvidia 760.

I know I haven't provided info on my motherboard, but based on my current chip, do you think I could upgrade the chip (or should)?

True, I have no need to run any simulation other than RF7.5, so it may make no sense to invest more into my PC than necessary. Currently, it does all that I need it to do.

Again, I really appreciate the knowledgeable assistance from you guys!

-gene
 
You could probably upgrade your CPU to something like a Q9550 quad core chip for $35 bucks or so. It benchmarks nearly twice as fast as your E8400.
 
I wouldn't put much money into it. Newer machines are so much faster and you can get a decent one that can run RF-X for around a grand.
 
Was using Excel today and my PC completely locked up. Fortunately, I save on a regular basis and didn't loose anything.

Frankly, what I'd like to do first before changing out the CPU or buying another machine, is to do a complete reformat and re-install. I'm sure over the years my system has become bloated with trash, etc. I do use CCleaner from time to time, but more is really needed.

I don't have a Windows 10 CD since I did the online upgrade from Win 7. That may be a problem...

Oh, BTW, I tried the landing trainer again and had no graphics issues. Also, trying to fly a Heli -- which "ain't" easy!!!

-gene
 
McGene said:
Was using Excel today and my PC completely locked up. Fortunately, I save on a regular basis and didn't loose anything.

Frankly, what I'd like to do first before changing out the CPU or buying another machine, is to do a complete reformat and re-install. I'm sure over the years my system has become bloated with trash, etc. I do use CCleaner from time to time, but more is really needed.

I don't have a Windows 10 CD since I did the online upgrade from Win 7. That may be a problem...

Oh, BTW, I tried the landing trainer again and had no graphics issues. Also, trying to fly a Heli -- which "ain't" easy!!!

-gene
Click to expand...

Try downloading Windows 10 from here

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows10

You can download the installation files to a Thumb Drive or download the iso to burn to DVD.
 
Looks like a product key is needed. Don't think this will work for me since I only upgraded win7 to win10.

Thanks anyway!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top