XFX ATI 4890 @ 1000MHz vs. BFG GTX 285 @ 702MHz. Both cards are overclocked by the factory, not by me.Catalyst drivers version 9.60.Forceware drivers version 185.85.Clean installation of Win7RC and FSX, no add ons, all figures are FPS measured by FRAPS in benchmark mode (and tabulated in Excel to identify the median and mode) on a 160 second recorded flight over Manhattan in a Bell helicopter with absurdly high settings (see Mike's earlier post) including light bloom, ground scenery shadows, water 2.x high, all traffic at 35%, resolution at 1920x1020 and so on, and with FSX controlling AA and AF:Fair weather:ATI 4890: 14 minimum, 19.65625 average, 27 maximum, 19 median, 18 mode. GTX 285: 12 minimum, 20.15 average, 27 maximum, 21 median, 22 mode. Gray and rainy:ATI 4890: 13 minimum, 15.01875 average, 20 maximum, 15 median, 15 mode.GTX 285: 9 minimum, 14.10625 average, 20 maximum, 14 median, 15 mode.Other relevant hardware: i7 975 @ 4410MHz, 6GB RAM @ 1866MHz 7-7-7-18 N1.Other observations: - at these unrealistically high settings, there was very serious stuttering with both cards: FSX was not really playable, despite the seemingly respectable FRAPS results;- the 4890 was not unduly hammered by the clouds in these tests, but it did suffer noticeably compared with the GTX when I tried my usual test flight into Heathrow in bad weather with 15 layers of clouds generated by ASA. EDIT: actually this is unfair: I had forgotten to reset my settings when I made this flight: in fact the ATI held its own;- the image quality of both cards is high; the ATI's images are somehow a little softer-edged. That is not a criticism: I quite like it;- when I let the driver take over control of AA and AF from the application (using nHancer for the GTX and Catalyst for the ATI) the GTX pulled ahead somewhat in terms of crispness and performance compared with the ATI; - both cards gave really excellent results at more sensible settings (ie, without light bloom and ground scenery shadows and with water at high 1.x): with framerates locked at 30fps, both seldom came below 29fps on the same Manhattan recorded flight, even with scenery complexity set to extremely dense and autogen set to very dense. The GTX did ever-so-slightly better in terms of smoothness, to my eyes;- overall, my sense is that with insignificant differences, these cards are on a par in terms of image quality and performance;- HOWEVER: the XFX ATI is badly let down by the loud noise it makes. It would be an exaggeration to say that it sounds like a vacuum cleaner, but it really does sound a bit like a hairdryer. By contrast, the BFG GTX is very unintrusive and barely audible over the case fans. Apparently the Sapphire version of the ATI runs more quietly. But the XFX ATI's noise is too much for me so personally I am sticking with the GTX 285 for now.Tim

Thanks for the info! Great job! :(

Interesting findings. Thanks for sharing them!

Thanks from me too, I have a buying decision to make soon!May I ask, DX9 or DX10?RegardsSimon

Excellent report, Tim :(

Thanks from me too, I have a buying decision to make soon!May I ask, DX9 or DX10?RegardsSimon

All DX9.Tim

I'm guessing the latest SP from Microsoft for FSX, right? Or Acceleration.

I wonder what the results would be with nVidia's 182.xx driver.

or ATIs 9.7don't think either will make much difference :)I'm just pleased with my 4890 I get better performance for same visuals vs my previous 8800GTX

I wonder what the results would be with nVidia's 182.xx driver.

Love to see them compared with reasonable settings that produce a 30fps average and little stuttering, also with a 4650 included since Aerosoft claimed its the best for FSX :)