benchmarks: 774X best compared to... (1 ULTRA vs. 2 GT ...

[Guest Foizman]

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

[Guest Foizman]

has nobody an idea?regards,Volker

[tfm 169]

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

[Guest Foizman]

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!