The way I understand it Phil pointed the article out not because of the specific framerates being achieved but to illustrate the improvement in framerates using the newer hardware.

In Toms review, wheres the 8800GTX and 8800 Ultra?The wider memory bus should have put them on top of the FSX list.

Sorry, but I think the Tom's article is completely worthless so far as insight into FSX is concerned. As the posts on this thread show, nobody can now have any confidence that the same settings were used with different setups. The clear implication of the article is that all settings were at "Ultra" high: but that is manifest nonsense, as anyone with a modern PC who has tried the Sitka approach at "Ultra" high settings will confirm in an instant.Since the article is unreliable in these crucial respects, it seems to me that it is unreliable in all respects. That is the trouble with careless journalism: once it becomes clear that PART of an article is lacking in rigour, it becomes difficult to place confidence in ANY of it. Makes you wonder what was the purpose of the article.By the way, I'm not having a go at poor old Phil Taylor, who obviously feels under the kosh at the moment: the article was nothing to do with him.Tim

I have been able to attain 209.2 FPS in the same area and same FS setup as Tom's Hardware. I set an average of almost 21,000 3dmarks vs 15,000 in the THW highest end spec system. I suggest you start there.See my specs below.Regards,Mike T.

That's just a Q at 4. Xfire/SLI bumps eyecandy, but won't help with FPS. Check your sliders.