DJT, thank you for checking with your friend on the dual monitor w/280. It would be nice to move guages, etc to the other monitor while flying and not have to close them.

As I recall the dual monitor problem mentioned was specific to the 260 however the 280, although did not show that exact same problem, a similar issue appeared when the system was switched to SLi/dual monitor mode but was fixed in a later driver release. I do not know the status on the 260.With the 280 I know the issue was software/driver and not hardware but please do wait to hear back from djt01. It was first reported back in June and I am fairly sure Nvidia already fixed it. It was only seen on the 280 in SLi mode

A reasoned approach? Now your talking my language.This 386bit memory interface story simply does not ring true in light of the non-subjective, reasoned evidence. The GTX2X0s should be showing incontrovertible improvements across the board because of their memory interface and increased memory size. They're not.If you're looking for a slight Vcard bump, you might look at the 9800GTX+. It has the same shader count, but at a higher clock. These are 55nm GPUs and will O/C to ~ 800Mhz. $170 A/R.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814130385I've O/C'd 8800GTs and thought I saw some difference in hi-Vload environments. I may have picked up a couple of frames during my CatIII approaches. . . . but this was only only on the basis of a GPU clock increase. But when I'm gleefully pulling out of a successful Grand Canyon run in my P-51 into a solid overcast, I'm not watching frames. Geeze guys. The animus is just getting thick and being lead by its ordinary mentor. This is about fun. However with the default airplanes, All sliders are already maxed, sans water at 2XL/shadows/bloom and a one notch 'give-back' of AG. Traffic at 20/20/20/10/20/20. This ol' [email protected]/DDR800/8800GT rig has no problem with the default product. I have no issue with clouds and the default airplanes. Don't even run the frame counter. It runs fine.The PMDG/LevelD airplanes are another story. Below 10K, all other settings can remain but I have to give back all but one notch of AG and traffic goes to 10/0/0/0/0/0/0/0 (more for ATC chatter than anything else). This is All CPU based stuff.Now consider the reasoning: If a 256bit memory interface actually limited the performance of AnY 128 shader Vcard, these higher memory/GPU clocks simply could Not provide Any additional benefit. If the 256 bit interface was limiting, it would simply cap performance at some level. Yet these higher clocks helped. The 256bit interface does not cap anything. Additionally, if this memory interface was really a performance factor, the 512bit interface with the 2X0GTs cards would provide a boost. It doesn't. Therefore, the Ultra/GTX 384bit interface is not a factor that requires consideration.The 8800Ultra/GTX is simply a slower 128 shader Vcard with an extra 256M of Vmemory. Its 384 bit memory interface is irrelevant to any 128 shader Vcard's performance. The extra 256Ms of Vmemory may outweigh the significantly slower GPU clock, but I really doubt it. For instance, in FS(X) there's just no way my Q6600 at 3.6 is going to match a QXXX at 4.2 no matter how much ram I run (or how fast I run it).

>Now consider the reasoningthe reasoning is flawed and has no engineering behind it, only unqualified tests and unqualified assumptionscanceled postnot worth it Instead you can argue with him...=======================================In terms of what parts of these specs are more critical for FSX, at least 3 of these are critical:

And as always, a participant is invited to utilize their own ability to reasonably consider, or substitute their own for another's.

I can give you the boring technical reasons which come with the aspirin bottle but none of those mean a hill of beans unless I am a truly qualified engineer in the application for which the hardware is being applied. I would also have to extrapolate in reasoning because I do not have all the tech information about the application for which my statements can be supported, but, rest assured I bet I can get nail a few of them, perhaps not.regardlessWithout that inside tech information even what I say can be argued.. and you are certainly not qualified to make any assumptions around the application or the hardware.Therefore I did what any good engineer would do under such circumstances and instead of wasting mine and everyone else

>DJT, thank you for checking with your friend on the dual>monitor w/280. It would be nice to move guages, etc to the>other monitor while flying and not have to close them.Jerel,My friend from iRacing just responded to my question about the GTX 280 and multiple monitors

Thanks for the confirmation djt01.. notedI do think the 280 although a hot bugger is a good card and with further driver development, like the 4870x2, will probably show greater potential with a bit more timeI have gotten wind of some things that may crop up around the xmas and new year time period so one of the reasons I tend to suggest those who are already running at the very least a decent card should perhaps consider waiting is to see how the 280 and 4870 may fair with a bit more time and to see what may be coming up that might just make them both a second choice and drop the 768 384bit cards as FSX players forever. Right now the best bang for cost to performance in FSX is the 768MB 384bit 8800 with the 280 taking the crown with recent driver updates but at a cost.If one has the cash and wants to spend now with the expectation to play more than FSX I would suggest the 280 but I have seen some fairly good info about the 4870x2 doing quite well with high AA in Crysis and other games.. for the price, its no slouch.If who ever gets your Ultra off Ebay is a FSX player they will not be dissapointed

>Right now the best bang for cost to performance in FSX is the 768MB>384bit 8800 with the 280 taking the crown with recent driver>updates but at a cost.>If who ever gets your Ultra off Ebay is a FSX player they will>not be dissapointedI agree Nick. One thing that comes to mind about the 8800 GTX and Ultra is how long they stayed on top as far as the best performers. I bought my first 8800 GTX in November of 2006 and nothing could match its performance until the Ultra came out in July of 2007. The Ultra lasted me until this summer when I grabbed the GTX 280. LOL, that goes down as a record for me as far as hanging on to one video card. As far as what the fourth quarter will bring from Nvidia, I think it

There will be growing pains with Nehalem just like there are with any other platform or change I am sureAs I have said in the past the primary problem is the application, not the platform. The design of FSX did not take into proper consideration memory and cache opt nor threading correctly even with the SP's so raw horsepower changes and the removal of hardware bottlenecks are what FSX needs over anything else.By poor design FSX quite literally attacks the memory system and it places the user at the mercy of Moore

>Here's the standard Q box. It'll run its quad at 3.6Ghz. The>E8XXX duals will run at 4.0. For FS, the trade is 10%>additional FPS (the rig OPosted) vs better scenery loading (Q>box) . . . but that's all. There will be No additional>differences in FS.>>http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWi...tNumber=7159746>>>The cooler suggested is the best available and works fine. No>need for water. Arctic Silver is good CPU goop, and DDR2 v 3>is just marketing. The 8800GT is all FS can use.>>Run Vista 64, put both FSX and FS9 on the boot drive. Defrag>with a modern defragger. Go FLy, >>Way < $1000.> Sam,The Thermalright 120 has not been available at NewEgg for quite some time now. Do you know if there is a problem? I know you loved this cooler.Thanks,Donoops....just saw the other post with the same question, sorry.

I bought my flight sim machine. I went with the X48, E8600, GTX 280 setup. AVADirect was kind enough to put it in their showroom forum.http://www.avadirect.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=530I also purchased two Samsung 2693HM LCD's so this should be an interesting FS9 and FSX setup. I have never worked with multiple monitors but hope I can put something together functional without diving into the triplehead2go just yet.Also picked up the saitek yoke, extra throttle quadrant and CH pedals. Does anyone use the included software with these devices or configure them manually? I searched and read a few topics here and it seem manual config is the best way to go.Many thanks to all who responded to this thread and gave me some guidance. Happy simming.

Hey Sam,Why do you recommend FS9 and FSX in the boot drive?I was going to dedicate a HD to Flight Sim, including programs, aircraft, scenery etc.Is there an advantage to having the programs on the boot drive?Thanks,Don>Here's the standard Q box. It'll run its quad at 3.6Ghz. The>E8XXX duals will run at 4.0. For FS, the trade is 10%>additional FPS (the rig OPosted) vs better scenery loading (Q>box) . . . but that's all. There will be No additional>differences in FS.>>http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWi...tNumber=7159746>>>The cooler suggested is the best available and works fine. No>need for water. Arctic Silver is good CPU goop, and DDR2 v 3>is just marketing. The 8800GT is all FS can use.>>Run Vista 64, put both FSX and FS9 on the boot drive. Defrag>with a modern defragger. Go FLy, >>Way < $1000.>

No advantage, it's just for simplicity. There's no performance advantage to having either on a second drive. Modern defraggers can keep both 9 and X at the outer edge of a single HD for optimum performance. If it's a space issue, it's not going to hurt anything to put it (or them) on a second drive. But if a user just wants to run these sims on the same computer, there is no advantage.