Well here's the results for better or worse....http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...GVudGh1c2lhc3Q=Keep in mind it is a very high end system that was used, including Core 2 Duo X6800 CPU & Nvidia's latest motherboard - nForce 680i SLI.Cheers to [ H ] for including FSX in their set of benchmarks.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

noooooooooooooo, not now... just when i was beginning to feel happy about my smoooooooth 3.7 fps :-(:-xxrotflmao

Hm, those tests were in DX9 mode of course and the hardware is stuff that will be more average a year from now. Things look a little better at least...MAJOR props to ardOCP! I have liked that site in the past but now I am going to have to visit them more. RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Thanks for sharing that.

If the architecture of FSX doesn't change, nothing drastic is going to happen in turns of its performance. I think I'm going to wait until the FSX DX10 patch comes out before making a decision on buying the new cards. With due respect, given the FSX scenery settings they used, I'm sure you can get close to that kind of FR even with your system.

>If the architecture of FSX doesn't change, nothing drastic is>going to happen in turns of its performance. uh...Agreed,...were you replying to my post??>I think I'm going>to wait until the FSX DX10 patch comes out before making a>decision on buying the new cards. With due respect, given the>FSX scenery settings they used, I'm sure you can get close to>that kind of FR even with your system.Well, they are using a E6700 Core2Duo so I'm not quite in that league. But certainly it's not blowing my system away, either, and I like to be blown away when I upgrade. Those settings they used were hardly top-notch imo, especially using 2m textures (what a waste given that vid card), water 1.x high, and a very low terrain complexity slider.Heck I run 100 terrain slider, for example. :)RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Yes I'd tend to agree that the in-game settings they used do seem a tad low for the systems capabilities.I have an E6700 OC'ed @ 3.1Ghz and a (now considered old) Nvidia GF 7800GTX vid card, along with 2Gb of Corsair 800Mhz ram..I have my FSX settings higer than what they benchmarked & in general don't get significantly worse performance than what they are showing.Though it is worth noting that for their tests, they did zoom all the way out. That will certainly tax the system more and cause poorer performance results.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

I am convinced that somewhere in the FSX code is broken. The bottle neck is not in the gfx (a fast gfx card allways helps) card. I have a feeling that ACES is trying to do what DX10 can deliever in software with the current version of FSX. Haven said that, the DX10 patch might bring dramatic performance increase. Then again, Phil from ACES said a few days ago that they were just looking into what DX10 can and cannot do. Now, that, in itself is self contradictory. I will wait for the perfomance bench of FSX with its DX10 patch before deciding if I am going to buy this card

No mention of autogen settings!Probably "crippled"!!!;-) Jay

I am probably not going to buy that card. Well, I might buy it *IF* the rest of you that try it out, say it is awesome in FSX with DX10.Then I might be strongly tempted.Otherwise I will wait until the 2nd generation of DX10 cards come out, probably about 7-8 months down the line here.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

They ran everything out of the box. Autogen and Scenery complexity are both set to normal. With due respect, even my machine can get 12 fps above NYC with their settings. So far, it looks that this card is a waste of money for me if I buy it.

Like i said in another thread, the card didn't really improve my frame rate in either version of flight sim but it just made everything run so much smoother and look so much better due to being able to run high levels of AA and AF with no frame rate hit. I think i may have gotten a 2 or 3 fps increase in fs9 and 1 or 2 fps in fsx. Both versions of flight sim are just too cpu bound to get any kind of significant frame rate increase from a video card upgrade. The card is worth its salt just for the increase in the visuals that it provides and for getting rid of those dang blurries. Blurries are gone now, and i mean GONE.

Well, since I've had neglible worst-case FPS impact in FS with any video card upgrade I've done over the last two years, no matter what level of AA/AF I run, this is great news. No need to upgrade until DX10 and Vista really shines, which should be a couple of years at least :-lolGary

What is your frame rate like? I am building an e6600 and will OC it to 3.5+GHz. The only difference between your processor and mine is extra 2MB in the L2.

Can't say for sure yet, because I am only running FSX beta 3 until my AVSIM conference FSX Deluxe version arrives. Having said that, I'm glad I didn't uninstall FS9 + addons too soon, because that version certainly kicks butt over my previous A64 3700+ / X800XT / 1G PC3200 RAM hardware config. Let's just say FSX is not exciting me too much in the performance department at this stage of release. Gary