I have just begun using FSX with SP2. I have a system built around an Intel 8400, 4 GB of RAM, and Windows XP. I recently overclocked the CPU to 4Ghz with underwhelming results. Yes, there seems to be a few FPS increase but not much.I have my videocard settings at 1600x1200. My videocard is a couple of years old and is a Nvidia 8800 GTS 320Mb. My question is, to what degree is my videocard holding my CPU back in terms of overall performance? Can it properly handle the 4Ghz info thrown at it from the CPU?If it is holding me back, what do you suggest I upgrade to in terms of the best bang for the buck for performance (framerates, smoothness...). What kind of performance improvement could I (or others in my situation) expect?Thanks,RH

I have just begun using FSX with SP2. I have a system built around an Intel 8400, 4 GB of RAM, and Windows XP. I recently overclocked the CPU to 4Ghz with underwhelming results. Yes, there seems to be a few FPS increase but not much.I have my videocard settings at 1600x1200. My videocard is a couple of years old and is a Nvidia 8800 GTS 320Mb. My question is, to what degree is my videocard holding my CPU back in terms of overall performance? Can it properly handle the 4Ghz info thrown at it from the CPU?If it is holding me back, what do you suggest I upgrade to in terms of the best bang for the buck for performance (framerates, smoothness...). What kind of performance improvement could I (or others in my situation) expect?Thanks,RH

You should listen to the FSBreak interview of Mathijs Kok HERE. If you don't feel like listening to an 1+ hour interview, Mathijs said that FS has better performance with low-end video cards. It means your FS would not perform better if you upgrade your video card for a more recent one. It sounds strange, but Mathijs is the main project manager at Aerosoft, I think he knows what he is talking about...I think he's right, but I would be more than glad to have your opinion about this.Eric

For raw FPS it's hard to beat your 8400 @ 4GHz. But as you know, there is alot more to it than that. I think a 512MB card is standard for FSX.Kind of a strange claim about lesser GPUs. My performance went up when I moved to my GTX 260. Bob

It's all about system balance, which I would hope is what Mathijs was getting at. Robbie you need more than a 320mb vid card for your machine. You need at least 512 on the card.My FS machine specs are in my sig...it's a similar cpu to yours...and I am very happy with my sys performance...I run a 768 mb video card, and DDR3 system mem.

I have just begun using FSX with SP2. I have a system built around an Intel 8400, 4 GB of RAM, and Windows XP. I recently overclocked the CPU to 4Ghz with underwhelming results. Yes, there seems to be a few FPS increase but not much.

I meant to ask you...what is your multiplier and bus you are running to get yours to 4.0 ghz? 445 x 9?Also what voltage are your running on the cpu? Memory?

I am using the ASUS P5Q and at 445x9. I am not sure about the voltage. I just upped the bus speed, and it took. I think I have it on auto for the voltage, so the MB just ups the voltage automatically -- or so I think.Can there really be that much difference between a 384Mb and a 512Mb card since I only run my resolution at 1600x1200? How else will moving up to a 512Mb card help?thanks,RH

IIRC on the 8800 series the 320/640 have a slightly different set up than the 512/1024 and I understand the 1024 doesn't really add anything for FSX over the 512.scott s..

IIRC on the 8800 series the 320/640 have a slightly different set up than the 512/1024 and I understand the 1024 doesn't really add anything for FSX over the 512.scott s..

Multiple monitors will make you see a difference. :( The more the merrier, right?

IIRC on the 8800 series the 320/640 have a slightly different set up than the 512/1024 and I understand the 1024 doesn't really add anything for FSX over the 512.scott s..

How about between 320 and 512Mb, any difference? If so, what sort of difference?Thanks,RH

The 512 is the g92 65nm chip the 320/640/gtx are the original 8800 90 nm chip. Yes there is a limit to how much textures you could possibly use in FSX, but there is no limit to how much anti-aliasing you can apply... so generally a lot of video ram gets used up on things that you don't even see are there. :)

With my 320Mb card, I don't have problems with anti-aliasing. Things look pretty smooth to me.In summary then, adding a newer card (newer that my 8800 GTS 320 90mm running at 1600x1200) is not holding my overclocked system back, even though the overclock (e8400 CPU to 4Ghz ASUS P5Q and at 445x9) is giving me underwhelming results. Yes, there seems to be a few FPS increase but not much.Thanks

I dunno.. the way Mathijs presented it you have to be careful. I think what he means is if you have a q6600 chip the Nvidia 285 might not work any better than a single 8800. Which also follows along with the long standing tradition that SLI doesn't work in FSX. .. However if you upgrade your CPU to an i7 you can get a GPU to match or if your like me finally get SLI working the same way it does in FS9. Honestly I always felt they kind of made FS10 with the xbox in mind... which already has QPI technology from day one.

With my 320Mb card, I don't have problems with anti-aliasing. Things look pretty smooth to me.In summary then, adding a newer card (newer that my 8800 GTS 320 90mm running at 1600x1200) is not holding my overclocked system back, even though the overclock (e8400 CPU to 4Ghz ASUS P5Q and at 445x9) is giving me underwhelming results. Yes, there seems to be a few FPS increase but not much.Thanks

On the contrary...in my experience, if you are at or near 4.0 ghz on our cpus (I have an E8500), you are going to want more than an 8800GTS/320. *but* I am not saying it is worth it to do this, however. You can only do so much with DDR2, a high-spec 1.5 year old cpu, mated to an average/high average-spec gpu.At best (add 8800GTX/768 or 8800GT/512, DDR3 memory) you are still only going to get "a few fps increase but not much", as you put it. IMO, probably not worth it unless you find one cheap.

On the contrary...in my experience, if you are at or near 4.0 ghz on our cpus (I have an E8500), you are going to want more than an 8800GTS/320. *but* I am not saying it is worth it to do this, however. You can only do so much with DDR2, a high-spec 1.5 year old cpu, mated to an average/high average-spec gpu.At best (add 8800GTX/768 or 8800GT/512, DDR3 memory) you are still only going to get "a few fps increase but not much", as you put it. IMO, probably not worth it unless you find one cheap.

How about the 250GTS 512 Mb?

How about the 250GTS 512 Mb?

That is a value line of the 200 series (the same series with GTX260/280 etc.). It is cut down from the 260/280 just like your 8800GTS is a cut down version of my 8800GTX card.I have no experience with that card, but looking at its specs, it certainly outclasses your existing card in core clock (513 vs. 738 mhz), streams (96 vs. 128), and mem (320 vs. 512).The real question remains though, how much would that help FS, and is it worth the $150 one of those cards cost.FSX is more impressed by vidcard memory size than outright speed of the gpu, and that comes from the old Program Manager at ACES. Honestly I'd like to pit my 8800GTX/768 up against one of those GTS250's in FSX. I think the 250 would win, since it has a faster core clock, and is 2 generations ahead in the chip, even though the 250 is inferior in bandwidth and mem size.

For me they're all just 8800/g92 chips. I wouldn't call them new generation unless they have a drastic change in what they can do per clock cycle... I also take issue with the memory bandwidth numbers, given they are measured using the shader processors instead of the raster ops they're practically meaningless. Kind of like QPI yes I have twice the bandwidth, but only a small percent of my programs are purely memory ops :)