It aint much, but if anyone was considering buying a new gpu for fsx you can see that more power does make a difference, at least under the settings they are using. I've always been firm in believing that fsx is a cpu limited application, so its nice to see the gpu making a difference. I might pick one of these up, since it seems like ati drivers are getting along better with fsx then nvidia drivers are.http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3219&p=2

Note that this only works out to be a 10% perf boost for 100% extra GPU horsepower, and even then it is at a very high res that many would not use (2560x1600), so such an upgrade is pretty poor bang for buck for most people out there. At least if you throw more CPU speed at FSX, you get back about 66% of the increase in FPS improvement.Gary

Another FSX benchmark.http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_200...2=715&chart=292

I've always been>firm in believing that fsx is a cpu limited applicationThis seems to the be the conventional wisdom. I have always found it odd that people seem to think it has to be "either, or." It's quite possible it's a leap-frogging that depends on what settings one uses. Super dense 512bit clouds can take down a whimpy GPU, in which case it's the GPU that's the limiter. This reality has been present in FS9 for a long time. At least I haven't heard a compelling argument otherwise.QX9650 w/ Retail HSF|8GB Muskin PC-6400|ASUS P5E|EVGA 8800GT @700|Seagate SATA 2 x 4|Seagate Cheetah 15K.x|XP Pro|Vista 64--soon to be installed

Sure, It is also worth noting that the fps are both very high, which means they arent flying over london with max autogen, so the gpu difference is more apparent.