• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

  • Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Is there much difference between these two cards please?

I completely disagree. Couldn't disagree more in fact.

So here is a comparison of a 580 a 680 and a Titan with a chart of the FPS achieved in a good number of benchmarks and in-sim testing (FSX & P3D). This clearly shows that the GPU can make a significant difference to achievable frame rates and correlates to my own findings in FSX when I upgraded my graphics card (overall 40% increase in FPS).
 
That's not correct there is something intrinsic in the architecture of Nvidia cards that make them better for FSX the performance of their AMD counterparts is noticeably poorer this is the sole reason why I am using an Nvidia card as I have always preferred the stock image quality of AMD cards. FSX makes full use of the graphics card I experienced a 40% increase in frame rates when I upgraded my 680 to 780ti.

+1
 
So here is a comparison of a 580 a 680 and a Titan with a chart of the FPS achieved in a good number of benchmarks and in-sim testing (FSX & P3D). This clearly shows that the GPU can make a significant difference to achievable frame rates and correlates to my own findings in FSX when I upgraded my graphics card (overall 40% increase in FPS).

Yes P3D does. FSX really doesn't. The graph you've have shown is comparing AA methods. i.e. Using Nvidea inspector.... Like I said. Out of the box FSX hardly touches the GPU. It only uses it if you specifically configure your card to do the AA etc.

Ive seen it on both my GTX770 and 390x. Without doing anything the GPU is hardly being used at all - remains at idle temps. (yes even the 390x...idle temps). GPU isn't used for graphical computations, just for sending the image to the monitor. The CPU loads all the terrain and handles shadows, physics, all that stuff. P3D does use the GPU much more than FSX. It's common knowledge all over the net and I've been playing FSX since launch.
 
Yes P3D does. FSX really doesn't. The graph you've have shown is comparing AA methods. i.e. Using Nvidea inspector.... Like I said. Out of the box FSX hardly touches the GPU. It only uses it if you specifically configure your card to do the AA etc.

Ive seen it on both my GTX770 and 390x. Without doing anything the GPU is hardly being used at all - remains at idle temps. (yes even the 390x...idle temps). GPU isn't used for graphical computations, just for sending the image to the monitor. The CPU loads all the terrain and handles shadows, physics, all that stuff. P3D does use the GPU much more than FSX. It's common knowledge all over the net and I've been playing FSX since launch.

I had a 670 with this cpu and it ran fsx fine out of the box at 50's fps. I got a 780 and it ran at 60fps constant with vsync on. Did my cpu magically gain 10 fps for no reason!

Nope.
 
I had a 670 with this cpu and it ran fsx fine out of the box at 50's fps. I got a 780 and it ran at 60fps constant with vsync on. Did my cpu magically gain 10 fps for no reason!

Nope.

Im not saying it makes no difference. I was disputing "FSX makes full use of the graphics card" because it does not. Just look at your GPU clock and temps when playing it. It is an extremely CPU driven game. "!"
 
Op if going 2nd hand i would get a 290 or a 780 if you can, they are between 100 and 150 pounds and xfor that price you wont get better performance for the few games you play.

Even a 770 or a 7970 would be fine but get the best you can for your £
 
Nvidia cards are supposed to run better due to the way they handle FSX's clouds.

The CPU is absolutely key to minimum frame rates in FSX but if you also want to make it look as pretty as possible (SGSS/DSR and lots of clouds) then you need a reasonable graphics card. FSX looks pretty nasty without plenty of AA (shimmering etc.).

Based on my experiences I would say a 970 is your best bet at 1080p for FSX bang for buck.

Not kept up with P3D really but I wouldn't use anything less than a 970 for that either.
 
Nvidia cards are supposed to run better due to the way they handle FSX's clouds.

The CPU is absolutely key to minimum frame rates in FSX but if you also want to make it look as pretty as possible (SGSS/DSR and lots of clouds) then you need a reasonable graphics card. FSX looks pretty nasty without plenty of AA (shimmering etc.).

Based on my experiences I would say a 970 is your best bet at 1080p for FSX bang for buck.

Not kept up with P3D really but I wouldn't use anything less than a 970 for that either.

REX soft clouds for the win. Best clouds I've ever used.
 
Sorry OP as I don't want to degrade your thread any further or continue to turn it into an FSX thread which is not what you intended this will be my last post on the subject. You have a number of reply's from people with personal experience who confirm that the more powerful your graphics card the higher your framerates will be, along with the evidence I posted from a very respected member of the FSX community. Also Nvidia cards are universally recognised to be more suited to FSX than AMD, if you wanted to use DX10 mode with Steves Fixer for example this is only fully supported with Nvidia cards. If you are in any doubt then I'd encourage you to visit FSX based forums to confirm this for yourself. I personally wouldn't take anyone seriously who calls FSX a game or says it is something they play................I hope you enjoy your new card whatever you decide to get.
 
Back
Top Bottom