AVSim FanCon news

AMD showed this unannounced system at FanCon


it will be announced in the next week or so.

What they showed was the new Phenom Quad core CPUs, planted on a mobo with 4 PCI-E slots and the new chipset, and the mobo loaded with 4 new RV670 GPUs.

This is the fall lineup for AMD/ATI, called the Spider platform. AMD/ATI wouldn't tell us the real name for the RV670 GPU but we will find that out real soon now.

This hw was getting 12 FPS or so with pre-release drivers on both default scenery ( Friday Harbor, Courcheval ) and the OrbX 15cm/pixel custom textures ( Tasmania, Australia ). And it was pretty playable at that speed. Which should translate to close to 24 FPS with one monitor per graphics card.

They mentioned prices were something like $400US for the quad CPU, $200US for each GPU, and $150US for the 4-slot mobo. Not bad at all considering the heat and power is much better too.

The cost of the flat-screens will set you back, though. .

Comments (9)

  1. Cartman says:

    Hm i’m waiting for the Penryn-based CPUs, but i hope Intel has to lower their prices.


  2. FElixFFDS says:

    Mr. Taylor doing hard core research on the new AMD Phenom system:


  3. Piotmkg says:

    Sorry Cartman to be the one to dissapoint you but penryn won’t give you more fps, it’s only 45nm C2D, nothing more. For us, FSX simmers, its time to wait for Nehalem, but i suppose untill then MS will release FS11 and Nehalem won’t be enough for it. For me it’s time to uninstall FSX and install FS2004 boy it run flawlessly on my rig.

    here is qx9650 tested in FSX with acceleration so for MS no excuses that it will go faster with newest addon http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_115d.html

  4. Cartman says:




    You can’t disappoint me, because FSX runs well on my PC.

    I only hope that a Penryn-Quad is able to reduce the temporarily FPS drops caused by high traffic settings with traffic add-ons like MTX.

    I don’t need more FPS, i need a constant framerate to run FSX really smooth.

    FSX runs already flawlessly on my System and i think that depends on the add-ons you are using.

    "it’s only 45nm"…lol only? And what do they mean with "Once the game is configured to high settings"? Turing bloom on in DX9? Or did they run in DX10? Traffic to 100%?  Where did they fly?

    Finding the right balance is the key to run FSX well and that can’t be simply described with "high" and "low" settings. Look at Page 3 of their article and you will see the advantages of the QX9650 and of course could these advantages be knocked out by the wrong settings.

  5. Piotmkg says:


    my fsx runs poor (6-12fps) and i dont set it to max, i would call it middle. traffic 75%. addons LDS 767, my traffic x, fs global 2008, active sky X and some aerosoft mega airport sceneries. i have the same addons for fs2004 and i runs 3x faster on my rig.

  6. Cartman says:


    Traffic=75% with MTX is set too high. Look at the traffic explorer and you will see hundreds of ai airplanes (probably way too much ATC can handle). MTX is also using FSX-models which are enabling moving jetways and that will drop your FPS too.

    Try Airliner Traffic=40%, GA=20% and set ground vehicles to minimum or off.

    Bloom off and Water at 2*Low. Autogen=Dense, Scenery=Very Dense.

    On Airports i have 25-35FPS and in the air between 40 and 60. Sometimes 100 or more, but unfortunately not constant. I would be totally happy, if i only have 25FPS in every situation, but without any stutters.

    It’s also problematic if you compare FS9 and FSX add-ons, because genuine FSX add-ons are often more detailed and more complex than their FS9 contra part. And the quick ported FS8/9 to FSX add-ons are often have a very bad performance and that isn’t the fault of FSX.

    Try also the newest drivers and Updates for your System and better don’t use tools like nHancer – i have strange problems since XPack with camera views (stuttering with high FPS) and without nHancer it seems to be much better.

    PS: There is a new Nvidia beta driver (169.09).

  7. Ian McPhail says:

    I’m with Cartman.  My performance with an Intel6700 and a 8800GTX is like his and a Matrox TH2G.  Why on earth would I want to buy that AMD rig that would take me back to 6-12fps??  All I want now is constant fps to give me continuous smooth – that is the improvement I seek, and maybe pernryn and the next iteration of the 8800 cards might do it.  I don’t need much more by way of fps, but I would like to see the fluctuations ironed out.

    However the various announcements would suggest that ACES has gone as far as it intends to go with FSX.  We must now wait for FS11 which will effectively be the next SP.

  8. Shel800521 says:

    I really don’t see the big deal, i run FSX perfectly fine, approx 30-40fps at airports such as schipol, brussels, washington etc… my traffic settings are set at 45% with MTX installed. I have other addons such as photo real scenery for the whole of europe and usa, fsx global 2008 and X graphics which really transforms FSX into something else. My point is valid, and too a certain degree i agree with Cartman regarding the settings which are applicable in different variations of FSX, however i have a dual core AMD 4600+ with 2X 8800 640mb Asus cards in SLI, nothing great, 4GIG memory etc… My point is valid like i’ve said, i run FSX better than i run FS9 and i can see no way of returning to FS9, FS9 absolutely sucks, i have done over 119 hours of flying in FSX and have travelled nearly every variation throught the globe and have never seen a decrease below 22 fps excl NYC at 18fps.

Skip to main content