Hi Captains,found this interesting article about "1 ULTRA vs. 2 GT SLI":http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardwar...rformanceratingMy question to all FSX and 744X users:Which of the competitors is most similar to FSX/744X demands to compare the results to the sim?3DMark06Anno 1701Clive Barker's JerichoColin McRae DirtCompany of HeroesF.E.A.R.Gothic 3OblivionPreyRainbow Six VegasStalkerUnreal Tournament 3Direct3D-10-BenchmarksBioshockCall of JuarezCompany of HeroesCrysisLost PlanetWorld in Conflictregards,VP

has nobody an idea?regards,Volker

These all sound like fast "shoot 'em up" arcade games. If so, FSX doesn't really resemble any of them.You need a good video card to get decent performance from FSX; but by far the biggest bottleneck for FSX is the clockspeed of your CPU. SLI (Nvidia) and Crossfire (ATI) are a complete waste of money for FSX (in fact I'm not sure they're even properly supported).My experience is this. I had a factory overclocked GTS which gave good performance on my system. But out of curiosity, I upgraded to a factory overclocked Ultra. This brought an improvement of about 1-5 FPS in built-up areas. Whether or not that is a worthwhile improvement obviously depends on your circumstances.But, if the choice is between 1 x Ultra and 2 x GT cards AND if you only want to play FSX, then go for the Ultra. But to be frank, just 1 x GT card will give you extremely close to "the best possible" performance, for a lot less money.Tim

So non of these games can be compared to the FSX-engine and it's cornerstones. Astonishing!Sounds that it's better to buy an highend Quad+1card than an medium+SLI.Thank you Tim!