>Well I "just" picked up a evga 8800GTX 768 (at 625/1850),>from my evga 7900GTXKO.>>2 frames more at KSEA (went from 19 to 21). Same visual>settings etc as was. 97.92 drivers installed. Same issue with>textures on buildings taking a sec or two to come on in the>distance. I noticed more of a increase when I went from the>7800GTCO to the 7900GTX though. I tried the 7950 superclock in>OCT, I traded it for the 7900GTX.>>So anyways that cost me 325 a frame, and its going back>tommorrow. Beside's every other game I own plays maxed out>with the 7900 anyways. Might buy one later on again in the>fall.>>I'd go with the GTS so you can put the other 300 in your>pocket and/or spend it on paywear. (Based on it only costing>you 90, as they are giving you 300, the GTS superclock is only>389 cdn.)>>Regards'>>Garett>>Try the 100.65 video driver.

"Try the 100.65 video driver."Thanks Buck but I'm on XP. And one headache at a time thanks ... ;)I was following Pat's experiences as well as a few others with the 8800, but I wanted to see it for myself. I have a good vendor who lets me "try" this stuff - so I take him up on it from time to time.Some would probally say its my rig being a little dated, but its hardly slow. As I said, FSX is the ONLY game that doesn't scream - every other game/app even with shader 3.0 like R6 Vegas just fly's with my current setup (& 7900).Actually I picked up some more Mushkin Redline at the same time that helped more, as now I have the FSB at 265@1:1 mem w 11X multi, and it cost 300 less.FSX is too CPU dependedent in relation to GPU loading, IMHO. I will wait to see what SP1 offers before any more hardware "just" for FSX. Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 is out at the end of the month - I'll bet I'll run that maxed out as well.Regards'Garett

Agree, @ 1280x720 there will hardly be a difference. Also, AFAIK, 8800s aren't full DX10 GPUs. They miss 'something IC' MS would like to see 'in hardware'. Kind regards Jaap