I was speaking from actually using all three of the cards mentioned in my setup. I find the the 8800GTS is faster in my machine. I use a single 24" monitor for display and a quad core extreme CPU.If you system Runs faster on the 8800 Ultra, then by all means use it. I could only find one link that would support my argument. But disregarding the numbers I can tell by the way the game itself reacts that the 8800GTS is the fastest of the three on my computer.Blackiehttp://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-...-X-SP2,785.html

>>I was speaking from actually using all three of the cards>mentioned in my setup. I find the the 8800GTS is faster in my>machine. I use a single 24" monitor for display and a quad>core extreme CPU.>>If you system Runs faster on the 8800 Ultra, then by all means>use it. I could only find one link that would support my>argument. But disregarding the numbers I can tell by the way>the game itself reacts that the 8800GTS is the fastest of the>three on my computer.>>Blackie>>http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-...-X-SP2,785.htmlHere's another Tom's HW test showing the Ultra & FSX. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia...80,1953-15.htmlEverytime Tom's runs a VC test using FSX as a benchmark, he gets different results across the same (or similar) cards. What drivers is he using, etc? I wouldn't put too much faith in Tom's HW for FSX recommendations.-jk

I agree that the numbers don't mean everything. But I found the fastest card by trial and error before I found numbers to confirm it. I believe the latest testson all resolutions is the one below. As I said before if I could find a faster card I would buy it. But is not the 8800 GTX 768 because I've already tried it. If it works for you, then by all means that's what you should use.Blackiehttp://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon...on,2007-18.html

Of course "fastest" begs the question "fastest what?" Once a user is at or beyond an 88/9800GT, FPS will not be effected by the vcard choice. Vcard performance then relates - only - to the visuals that can be achieved at whatever FPS the CPU can provide. This dynamic is unique to FS. Crysis, COD, etc need big vcards for increased FPS. Flight Sim does not.An 88/9800GT allows 100% FS visuals at resolutions up to 19x10. Nothing beyond that is needed for FS. Actually, I'm currently driving 2ea 40"ers at 19x10 without any visual or FPS cost with a 9800GTX+. My only real difference over the my previous GT is an 800Mhz GPU clock. Can't really tell a difference though.

He's running those cards on an unclocked X6800 (2.9GHZ) and 266MHz FSB which means there's no memory/NB optimizations either. That's not even close to how the bigger cards will run on 3.6+GHz.Doesn't suprise me a bit. And he's only using FPS as a performance comparison = Bogus results.-jk

You're wrong about my CPU. While it's not the fastest on earth it is respectable: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 Quad-Core Processor (3.00GHz, 4x2MB, 1333MHz FSB) I'm not sure why you choose not to believe me. I did the test with the three fastest cards I could get when I built my machine and the 8800GTS won by about 10% in speed. I have no reason to lie to anyone. I'm an old pilot that can't even get a medical anymore but I can still fly the old Taylorcraft some of the light stuff. I haven't lost my integrity in 70 years so I certainly wouldn't start by lying to anyone on this board about a game card. I enjoy fsx because it allows me to fly multiple engines that I cannot legally do in real life anymoreI am looking into a new machine but like many I'm waiting for significant CPU upgrades. And when that happens I'll buy the top three or four recommended Video cards and put them to the test. Then I'll keep the one that satisfies me the most. That's How I wound up with 8800GTS. You can have the last word because I'm through with the subject. Happy Flying.Blackie

>You're wrong about my CPU. While it's not the fastest on>earth it is respectable: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 Quad-Core>Processor >(3.00GHz, 4x2MB, 1333MHz FSB) >>I'm not sure why you choose not to believe me. I did the test>with the three fastest cards I could get when I built my>machine and the 8800GTS won by about 10% in speed. I have no>reason to lie to anyone. I'm an old pilot that can't even get>a medical anymore but I can still fly the old Taylorcraft some>of the light stuff. I haven't lost my integrity in 70 years so>I certainly wouldn't start by lying to anyone on this board>about a game card. I enjoy fsx because it allows me to fly>multiple engines that I cannot legally do in real life>anymore>>I am looking into a new machine but like many I'm waiting for>significant CPU upgrades. And when that happens I'll buy the>top three or four recommended Video cards and put them to the>test. Then I'll keep the one that satisfies me the most.>That's How I wound up with 8800GTS. You can have the last word>because I'm through with the subject. Happy Flying.>>Blackie:-eek Oh heavens Blackie, I wasn't talking about you! I meant Tom's Hardware! I was talking about what HE tested his cards on. I'm so sorry to make it sound like that. :( I didn't mean to offend you. And I didn't say I don't believe you. Gosh no! Please don't take my comments that way. And by the way that QX6850 is a fine cpu, no slug at all by any means. I believe the way I do because I've spent the last 2 years with FSX & researching & testing different parts and following up with questions. I have to stand behind this because I believe the experts-the ones that know as much if not more than the FS designers themselves. I've never been dissappointed. I'm really really sorry I offended you Blackie. Please forgive me. If it makes you feel any better, I'm not a real pilot-virtual only. -jk

No problem JK. I understand now how I misunderstood that You were talking about him. I don't really put a lot of stock in those kinds of tests either. I just googled for fast video cards and his website showed up. Have you heard of any newer version of Flight Simulator in the works? I kinda believe the next one may utilize Google earth but that's pure speculation on my part. By the way, no apology was necessary because I wasn't never offended. I just thought you guessed wrong about my CPU. But thanks for the heads up anyway.Blackie

Cool. FS11 will be out, word has it, end of 2010 or beginning 2011. We have to wait. I'm hoping & praying for full multicore support. :)-jk

>In FS, dollars spent does not equal performance. Beyond the>[email protected]/88GT/4G@800 the discussion looses its empirical basis>and any claim of +10% (FPS/texture-loading/clarity/etc)>improvements becomes the owner's subjective opinion. Could be,>but only those with a very keen eye can tell. Whatever it is,>it isn't much. Buyer beware. Thoughts of "idiot and "worst nightmare" an uninformed person or newbie could ever run across seem to ponder in my mind right nowthat

>Cool. FS11 will be out, word has it, end of 2010 or>beginning 2011. We have to wait. I'm hoping & praying for>full multicore support. :)>>-jk>Yes, but if history holds true, FS11 will run like a slide show and FSX will finally run smooth as hardware catches up.Ya just cannot win.

And as it will always be, but we can win. The prudent choices is (arguably) to wait for the 10X increase in hardware capability and leave those 100, 10% incremental build-outs to the well-healed hobbiest. Who can afford hundreds, even thousands of dollars for each of those 100, 10% increases? 10X from - any - quad will be 40 cores. Look for it in 2-3 years. Also, look for the software guys to have their end figured out by then.The strategy will always be to buy 10% below the best available at any moment. That last 10% of any current-gen is always ridiculously expensive. Until the 20th, that's still the [email protected]/[email protected]/DDR2-800 platform. We'll see what Nehalem brings. Relative to the improvements that have been available, ~ $1000 for just that (new) CPU/mobo/ram requirement may seem like an upgraders bargain. 30% for $1,000 might be a pretty good deal, relatively. With any luck, loads will go for it. We need for Intel to prosper.