I've got to ask as I'm considering replacing my 4870x2 with either the GTX 285 or this new one from ATI... what are the exact framerate improvements that you see for both FS9 and FSX? I'm currently getting 9-18 fps in a busy area with moderate traffic and some clouds in FSX and 15-25 fps with a complex area, max traffic, and decent cloud coverage in FS9.With selling the 4870x2, I can expect the difference to cost me about $150-$200 for either card, so I'm really only going to do it if I can get snot smooth graphics in all conditions in FS9 and at the very least get a smooth 20-30 fps in FSX. Can you tell me if these circumstances are there?Thanks,Greg

I'd only consider 2 cards to be honesta cheap 4890 (and then overclock it :) - mine will do 995 core)or a 5850

I'd only consider 2 cards to be honesta cheap 4890 (and then overclock it :) - mine will do 995 core)or a 5850

thought I'd try and catch out my 4890 with various levels of clouds and or AA - and couldn't. Standard FSX installation - 3.55 Q6600, overclocked 4890.4x "narrow-tent" FSAA (12x equiv), AAA on @ Quality, and AF on at 16x @ 1900x1200 resoltuion,screenshots saved as PNGsClouds set to "ULTRA" and 80 miles 3d distance - some the weather was set to major storm, others "foggy"location - New Yorkhttp://www.mark-buckley.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fsx-ati-1.pnghttp://www.mark-buckley.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fsx-ati-2.pnghttp://www.mark-buckley.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fsx-ati-3.pnghttp://www.mark-buckley.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fsx-ati-4.png

4x "narrow-tent" FSAA (12x equiv), AAA on @ Quality, and AF on at 16x @ 1900x1200 resoltuion,screenshots saved as PNGsClouds set to "ULTRA" and 80 miles 3d distance - some the weather was set to major storm, others "foggy"location - New York

Another picture with heavy cumulus clouds over NY. Hardware: see my sig.nHancer 2.5.5 8x AA combined AF 16x, nVIDIA drivers 191.04 (beta).Click on the image to view a higher resolution (1920 x 1200)

Another picture with heavy cumulus clouds over NY. Hardware: see my sig.nHancer 2.5.5 8x AA combined AF 16x, nVIDIA drivers 191.04 (beta).Click on the image to view a higher resolution (1920 x 1200)

nice frame rates :)that said your I7 4 gig is quite a bit quicker than my Q6600 :) would love to justify the upgrade to an I7 - just can't atm

nice frame rates :)that said your I7 4 gig is quite a bit quicker than my Q6600 :) would love to justify the upgrade to an I7 - just can't atm

I'm sorry but don't trust my fps!!!I'm flying over NY, but have set autogen and scenery complexity to ZERO. No AI traffic, cars and boats. No moving vehicles on airports.If I fly at a low altitude and with sparse clouds and with dense autogen and scenery complexity at max I would gess that I get an average of 20-25 fps.I could do another, real, test. At what altitude did you fly? Autogen and AI settings? How thick was your cumulus layer?

I'm sorry but don't trust my fps!!!I'm flying over NY, but have set autogen and scenery complexity to ZERO. No AI traffic, cars and boats. No moving vehicles on airports.If I fly at a low altitude and with sparse clouds and with dense autogen and scenery complexity at max I would gess that I get an average of 20-25 fps.I could do another, real, test. At what altitude did you fly? Autogen and AI settings? How thick was your cumulus layer?

aha - not sure on altitude probably about 10k feet, scenery and autogen were both on "dense", clouds were set to Ultra, 80 miles viewing range, airlines 20%, mesh 19m/1m

Here is a true picture taken over NY flying low at 240Kts.Autogen at dense. No AI traffic (vehicles at 10%, ships at 30% and other boats at 25%)Water at 2.x Low.UTX and GEX and REX 1024 clouds.

Here is a true picture taken over NY flying low at 240Kts.Autogen at dense. No AI traffic (vehicles at 10%, ships at 30% and other boats at 25%)Water at 2.x Low.UTX and GEX and REX 1024 clouds.

great screenie Ulf - I do wish I had an I7 .. .may be next month .... just goes to show the GTX285 is a great card for FSX - but I think people would be surprised to hear tha tI think the 4890 is as wel ... and the "problems" are unfounded (now anyway) - and for

great screenie Ulf - I do wish I had an I7 .. .may be next month .... just goes to show the GTX285 is a great card for FSX - but I think people would be surprised to hear tha tI think the 4890 is as wel ... and the "problems" are unfounded (now anyway) - and for

I guess then that part of my problem is the fact that I still try to shoehorn in the best GFX possible and then tweak the frames up from there... Over NY I get 13fps under the following circumstances:All autogen set to VERY DENSEOther graphics settings setup according to this threadREX clouds set to 4096UTX installed with traffic set to 50%UT USA XAnd flying a CLS aircraftSo my thinking is that part of the problem is the fact that I don't want to compromise on visual quality by cutting down on some of those settings just to get better frames. That being said, if you cut down too many settings, you end up with a little nicer looking FS9, so, having both of them, I don't want them to be the same sim... if that makes any sense?