Well I guess here's the question then, since I seem to be getting opposing views... What actual increase in frames can / should I expect from upgrading from the 4870x2 to either a 5850 or GTX 260-285? I ask because if I am to believe Brett, I really would be throwing away my money for a new number attached to my card, but according to you, spending the money will net me some sort of measurable benefit. If there really isn't going to be a measurable gain, and I mean at least 10-20 fps in heavy scenery areas (I'm currently running at about 10-15), then I really don't see a reason to drop the extra money into a card, but, if there will be a real gain, then maybe its worthwhile...

Treb,This is just *my* opinion, so I don't speak for others.I think the question you should be asking yourself is... Are those current 10-20 FPS smooth and consistent? Are they enough for *YOU* to be happy with?If so... Then, no. I don't think you should upgrade.If the answer is no, they are not smooth or consistent... Then I think you should upgrade because not only will you *probably* see an increase in performance, but perhaps a more consistent number of frames per second that should make controlling the sim (control input and feedback) more responsive, too. Even though high FPS are not required in a civilian flight sim like FSX, you still want enough frames per second so the input does not "lag", or fall behind what is happening on screen. Everyone will have their own standard for what they are willing to accept, so this is why this is entirely up to you to decide.Technically, 30 FPS is the bare minimum for full motion video on a CRT, TFT or LCD. 60 FPS is ideal, but this is not a reality in FSX, yet, relatively speaking. Normally, 24 FPS (film) would be fine... Except electronic rendering devices do not have motion blur -- real motion blur, not simulated motion blur certain games mimic -- And it is this real life motion blur that smooths out the image and keeps it consistent when you are watching a movie. Thus, why a lower number of consistent frames are needed in film vs. an electronically rendered application like a video game.So, once again, if your 10-20 FPS is consistently smooth and you can control the sim adequately... Then you should not upgrade.However...What I think would really help the most is if you over clock your processor.I know this is something you probably don't want to hear. But FSX needs raw CPU speed. Not processing power... Like multicores... But pure speed. The faster the better for the reasons I went into in previous posts.If you can get your quad core up to at least, 3.2 GHz, I will go out on a limb and guarantee you WILL see a significant increase in your frames per second and most definitely a smoother simming experience as a bonus. Remember, the official FSX site lists a recommended speed of 3.6 GHz. They are talking about a single core Pentium chip, but this recommendation is not far from the truth across the board as most of us already know. So, again, if you over clock your processor and buy either a 5800 series ATI cad, or switch to Nvidia... I think you will see significant performance and consistency improvements in FSX that will justify the expense, IMO. Nick N has done official tests that state the 4800 series cards have an inherent flaw with FSX and MSFS in general. Namely, 3D clouds bring the sim to its knees performance-wise. I experienced this for several years before I switched to Nvidia, so I agree 110% with Nick N's observations and statements regarding ATI vs. Nvidia. Others report the exact opposite, but I would say the average users experience... Including your current performance... Is closer to mine and Nick N's statement about ATI and MSFS.The other thing you should consider is... What other games do you play besides the outdated MSFS?I saw an increase in all of my games across the board when I upgraded to a GTX 260 SP 216, from my 4850.We are talking titles like Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Mirror's Edge, Counter-Strike Source, etc. Graphically rich and intensive games that I can play with all features turned to max and still get above 30 FPS (Crysis) and well above 60 FPS (CS:S; Mirror's Edge; etc).This is another important thing to consider if MSFS is not the only game you play on a regular basis.

Hi All,Last year I bought an HD4870X2 in a fit of impulse control specifically for FSX before realizing that it just couldn't really keep up with FSX in heavy scenery areas. I'm looking to upgrade to a new generation card in order to finally fix that mistake, but I have a price limit of ~$300, so I can't shoot straight for the top of the line stuff like the 5870 or GTX285, so I really need some help, direction, and advice to find the best replacement. There are a few musts:1) It has to be able to get smooth frame rates FSX in heavy scenery areas (Mega Airport Frankfurt / Heathrow), in weather (REX HD clouds), with complex add-on aircraft (Level-D / PMDG). I say smooth because it is possible to get lower frames and still get smooth performance out of FSX, but I guess I'm looking for a minimum of 18-24 in the above conditions.2) It has to have at least the same all around performance for other games as my HD4870X2, so I should still be able to get a consistent 50-100 frames out of games like EVE, Silent Hunter IV, and R6:Vegas.3) To meet the first two requirements, it can't require any overclocking.EDIT: Last thing is that it has to be new, I'm not interested in buying used tech here...Is there anything out there right now that will fit the bill? I thought I would go for a 5850, but I guess there are mixed reviews, and I really want to be sure about this this time around so I don't end up throwing good money after bad to fix the problem.Thanks,Greg

Just adding some things that haven't been said, ATI vs Nvidia. Lets talk Apples and Oranges, why? Because thats what we have sometimes when comparring different cards. Both ATI and Nvidia have been playing back and forth on Anisotropic filtering that effects FS type of games in a big way. Angle independent anisotropic texture filtering has been around for a long time, since the days of the Nvidia TI4xx cards, and then ATI came out with the 9800 series which blew away the NV card, however the ATI cards did not multi angle independant aniso very well, and they did not AASA in a way that included alpha channels. Result? poor image quality when you are flying at defferent angles to the textured terrain. However the performance numbers earned ATI more respect than the lack of image Q and in many a review it was seldom ever pointed out. When was the last time you saw a good review that took that into consideration? Latter gen NV cards followed ATI's lead if you will, as they too started to play that game. And so we have now, ATI's latest card are in fact doing 16x angle independent anisotropic texture filtering very well and the performance penalty in a game like FSX is there so the performance numbers are not going to look like what you may hope. Personaly I would rather have the quality visuals over the poor filtering or lack thereof. If you want to compare card vs card then you need to make sure you have all filtering even or at least compare with performance vs quality in mind. my 2 cents.....Wait for Fermi to come out in a few months if you can, prices will drop on a lot of stuff. I bought the BFG 285GTX past spring at BBuy for just $285 and its a decent card...for now.

Treb,I know this is something you probably don't want to hear. But FSX needs raw CPU speed. Not processing power... Like multicores... But pure speed. The faster the better for the reasons I went into in previous posts.

JA MAN! - 4.2ghz, 2 core (sans hyperthreading) with a GTX 285 and fast SSD should do it.jja

I just built a new system and have the Nvidia 285gtx and am completely happy with it. Rest of the system is i7, raptor drive etc. Works very good.Dave

Cryo,I don't really think the "multicore" thing in the Nvidia drivers is doing much. That was a pretty recent addition to the Nvidia driver (summer 2008) and from what I've read on tech sites the performance gain is negligible. Disable it with nHancer and check for yourself. FSX is so CPU limited that something like that shouldn't even matter - the setting is designed for Crysis and the Source engine games etc. Those engines actually send multiple rendering threads to the GPU, FSX as far as I know does not. (it's multicore aware as far as the *CPU* goes)I've had a pretty equal number of driver problems with both types of cards, I really don't think the idea that Nvidia has a better driver team is accurate either. I do wish ATI's team would fix some of the issues I've brought up to them with FSX (forced AF not working, seams in GDI+ 2D displays, etc) but I think they've ignored it because the market is so small compared to mainstream games, not because they aren't capable of doing it. I've had similar problems with Nvidia cards, (AA not working, weird issues with certain AA modes where you'd see a frozen image of the panel in the bottom half of the screen etc).I just upgraded my machine two days ago and I kept the 4870 out of my old one - I'm waiting to see what Nvidia comes up with in March to counter the Radeon 5 series. The 4870 does not perform badly - I just flew our J41 for about 2 hours and never saw below 25FPS or so at 1920X1200, even in thick REX2 clouds. On my old system it would have slowed to a crawl - that's soley the i7, it has to be because I'm still using the same video card.

Cryo,I don't really think the "multicore" thing in the Nvidia drivers is doing much. That was a pretty recent addition to the Nvidia driver (summer 2008) and from what I've read on tech sites the performance gain is negligible. Disable it with nHancer and check for yourself. FSX is so CPU limited that something like that shouldn't even matter - the setting is designed for Crysis and the Source engine games etc. Those engines actually send multiple rendering threads to the GPU, FSX as far as I know does not. (it's multicore aware as far as the *CPU* goes)...snip

Agree, However if you want to run forced filtering of FSAA and 16xAniso at high rez or multi panel then multi GPU really helps.Have to disagree about driver support though, Nvidia are much better orginized for driver support be it professional or retail/ game, the support is there and the drivers come out more often and quicker from NV all though of late ATI is doing a better job now compared with past few years.Waiting for Fermi as well.Cheers!

I'm gonna put part of this discussion to bed right now (at least in relation to my machine...). For kicks, I just set my motherboard bios AI-Overclock setting up to "Crazy" and let it handle the rest. I know any "real" overclocker doesn't use stuff like that, but 1) I'm not a "real" overclocker, and 2) it gives me an almost instant way to test if the boost has any effect rather than going through hours and hours of research to find the right overclock settings. The result was a new processor speed of 3.51GHz (~700MHz boost), at least according to the diagnostic utilities which I have available to me. I then went into FSX to test if there was a difference... The test is at KJFK in the daytime, with REX HD clouds, UTX traffic, the default 747 in VC view looking out the left window at the terminal structures, and both tests took place within 10 mins of each other. Without the overclock in place, I got a fairly stable 10.3 FPS with this test, dropping down to 9.8 FPS when panning the camera. With the overclock in place, I got a whopping 11.2 FPS in the same situation, with the same ~1 FPS drop when panning. 700MHz bought me 1 FPS extra, and I wasn't even using a complex aircraft here. I can only imagine that 3.6GHz or even 3.8GHz might add another 2-4 FPS, but that kind of gain is not worth the added risk to my hardware, the possible system instability, or the reduced lifespan of my CPU.Now, like I said, this is not a pro overclock, so there may be other improvements, but I'll say this: The only way I'd be able to justify that sort of change to my system is if the same test could produce a reliable 20+ FPS, something I just doubt will happen considering the results of this test. As such, the question is really now, will a graphics card of either the 5800 variety or the GTX 200 variety, fix my FPS problem, or am I just SOL? If the answer is "no without an overclock" then I think this discussion is pretty much done... if the answer is yes though, well I still need to figure out what I want to do. Thanks,GregPS: Sorry if I sound cynical, but trying to make FSX work on my machine always makes me want to call up MS and scream at them for releasing such a craptastic train wreck of a simulator... Yes its great, but to have to buy $100's of dollars worth of better equipment just to sit on the runway with smooth FPS is just plain ridiculous...

PS: Sorry if I sound cynical, but trying to make FSX work on my machine always makes me want to call up MS and scream at them for releasing such a craptastic train wreck of a simulator... Yes its great, but to have to buy $100's of dollars worth of better equipment just to sit on the runway with smooth FPS is just plain ridiculous...

It doesn't do to bad for a piece of software that models the entire world.jja

It doesn't do to bad for a piece of software that models the entire world.jja

No offense, but by that logic google earth should be running an the same horrible frame rates, maybe even worse because its web based...The thing is that I built this computer specifically for FSX. Every component was the best that I could afford at the time, and in many cases were the most highly recommended choice. Even the 4870x2 was winning side-by-side FSX comparisons to the GTX 260 at the time. The whole rig cost me over $2200 and I built it myself. By all rights it should eat FSX alive, not be brought to its knees by a couple of clouds, a few planes, and some buildings...Also, I don't have these troubles with FS9, even with 60 GB of add-on planes and scenery in play. This is also a program that models the entire world, yet somehow it doesn't cause the troubles that its successor does. Now understandably, it is the new version with greatly improved graphics, which is why I'm even considering spending more money on hardware at this point, but, having said that, the jump from FS9 to FSX has caused more problems than any other jump between MSFS versions since I've been playing. Problems that should have been properly addressed in SP2 at least, but they really weren't.But enough complaining because I still want to know what I should do about a video card (or not) rather than have this devolve into an "I hate FSX" thread...

It doesn't do to bad for a piece of software that models the entire world.jja

No offense, but by that logic google earth should be running an the same horrible frame rates, maybe even worse because its web based...The thing is that I built this computer specifically for FSX. Every component was the best that I could afford at the time, and in many cases were the most highly recommended choice. Even the 4870x2 was winning side-by-side FSX comparisons to the GTX 260 at the time. The whole rig cost me over $2200 and I built it myself. By all rights it should eat FSX alive, not be brought to its knees by a couple of clouds, a few planes, and some buildings...Also, I don't have these troubles with FS9, even with 60 GB of add-on planes and scenery in play. This is also a program that models the entire world, yet somehow it doesn't cause the troubles that its successor does. Now understandably, it is the new version with greatly improved graphics, which is why I'm even considering spending more money on hardware at this point, but, having said that, the jump from FS9 to FSX has caused more problems than any other jump between MSFS versions since I've been playing. Problems that should have been properly addressed in SP2 at least, but they really weren't.But enough complaining because I still want to know what I should do about a video card (or not) rather than have this devolve into an "I hate FSX" thread...

Sorry for the odd double reply... I'm posting from my blackberry and for some reason it did that and its not letting me edit it out again.

I've never tried AI over-clocking, but from what I have learned.. is that if that AI has to slow the RAM down simply for the sake of what it thinks will be stability.. the RAM becomes a bottle-neck. The reason I suspect this (an o-clocking expert can correct me), is that 3.51 is an odd speed. Normal, proportional (RAM too) clocking yeilded nice, even numbers for me, with a Q9550 (3.4 , 3.6 , 3.8 )... A jump to something over 3.4 should have yielded a dramatic improvement.As for the Google-Earth comparison.. it's not calculating and creating a virtual world from the perspective of an ever-changing vantage point.. all the while computing that vantage point to behave like an aircraft, and display either that aircraft, or all of it's ever-changing gauges... It's displaying a world from static images.That aside, I appreciate your frustration and sarcasm.. but I have to point out that we're nearly 4 years into FSX..

Yes its great, but to have to buy $100's of dollars worth of better equipment just to sit on the runway with smooth FPS is just plain ridiculous...

That FSX requires $100s (or $1,000s), is well known, and it's a choice. We don't have to try to run it. If your budget and clocking skills don't avail you near 4.0Ghz speeds, and a cutting-edge video-card.. you're gonna hit a few walls. Even a $4,000 budget and a knack for pushing hardware to its limit won't let you run FSX flat-out. If that's from over-agressive coding, or sloppy coding, or both; doesn't matter. It is what it is. A person still chasing FSX performance while cutting budget corners can't growl at Microsoft... This is known territory.. venture at your own risk, and expense.If someone approached me today, asking what it would cost to run FSX... I'd say.. $2,000 will make it functional.. $3,000 make it useful ... $4,500 to go.. "ooooh ahhhhhh".. That's really not that expensive.. I remember spending $4,000 (1995 dollars) for a gaming computer.. today that would be ~$7,000..LOL :(

I have a 9550 at 3.6 using ASUS software and have great performance with a EVGA (1792) 275GTX that is OC'ed using software as well. With FPS limiter and Nhancer I get excellent performance with everything cranked all the way up with complex addons. No risk at all to hardware when done with manufacturer's software. See my specs. Just do it.Stephen

Ryan,Thanks for the additional information. I am always open to learning new things from professional developers like yourself.I still believe Nvidia is better for MSFS in general. To how much of a degree might be up for debate, though.Treb,The 4870x2 is a problematic card. Period.Even in mainstream games, I've read it has a lot of problems like most dual card solutions do. Dual cards are not "normal". They are not SLI. SLI (or Cross-Fire) is a standard whereas putting two GPUs chips on ONE board is not a standard practice in comparison. As a result, they often don't perform like they should. In a lot of mainstream games, users have complained of poor performance in general because drivers and the games architecture aren't designed for dual card solutions. They are designed for SIL / Cross-fire, however.So, while I am not claiming your card is the sole reason for your low FSX performance, I think based on what you've posted it *is* a big part of it, and with a proper (manual) overclock of your CPU, you should see some significant performance increases.

I've never tried AI over-clocking, but from what I have learned.. is that if that AI has to slow the RAM down simply for the sake of what it thinks will be stability.. the RAM becomes a bottle-neck. The reason I suspect this (an o-clocking expert can correct me), is that 3.51 is an odd speed. Normal, proportional (RAM too) clocking yeilded nice, even numbers for me, with a Q9550 (3.4 , 3.6 , 3.8 )... A jump to something over 3.4 should have yielded a dramatic improvement.If someone approached me today, asking what it would cost to run FSX... I'd say.. $2,000 will make it functional.. $3,000 make it useful ... $4,500 to go.. "ooooh ahhhhhh".. That's really not that expensive.. I remember spending $4,000 (1995 dollars) for a gaming computer.. today that would be ~$7,000..LOL :(

As to the first part of that.. and I'm speaking from common sense, not actual knowledge, I have a lot of trouble believing that ASUS would provide a tool which is supposed to take the guesswork out of overclocking only to have it "rob peter to pay paul," so to speak. I don't think the software engineers there are such slouches that they would put a useless tool into their product which doesn't do any good, and then have it be a selling point. It is probably not as good as a skilled overclocker executing a manual overclock, but I can't believe that anyone at ASUS would even bother to put a tool into their BIOS that simply pumps up the processor speed for looks and not function...When you are talking about how much a computer should cost, you have to understand that the majority of people (including myself) who will be buying a computer any time soon or in the recent past will not have $4000 to spend. The fact that FSX requires such an expenditure (I agree with your statement there, btw) means that ACES really targeted the people with money and basically said to the rest of us: "you can have your new toy when you either make more money, or when its been out long enough for the hardware to surpass it, most likely when its already an old game..." The simple fact that SP2 / Acceleration came out after it had become apparent that the CPU manufacturers were going the route of multi-core rather than heavy duty single core and ACES didn't even make an attempt to alter the coding to work better on these CPU's simply drives the point home.

Ryan,Thanks for the additional information. I am always open to learning new things from professional developers like yourself.I still believe Nvidia is better for MSFS in general. To how much of a degree might be up for debate, though.Treb,The 4870x2 is a problematic card. Period.Even in mainstream games, I've read it has a lot of problems like most dual card solutions do. Dual cards are not "normal". They are not SLI. SLI (or Cross-Fire) is a standard whereas putting two GPUs chips on ONE board is not a standard practice in comparison. As a result, they often don't perform like they should. In a lot of mainstream games, users have complained of poor performance in general because drivers and the games architecture aren't designed for dual card solutions. They are designed for SIL / Cross-fire, however.So, while I am not claiming your card is the sole reason for your low FSX performance, I think based on what you've posted it *is* a big part of it, and with a proper (manual) overclock of your CPU, you should see some significant performance increases.

I've just spent the last 3 hours reading through a "beginner" level overclocking guide and the conclusion I've come to is this... if there isn't a straightforward, relatively simple way to implement the clock, I'm not touching it. Even at beginner level, they are throwing complex math at me, and pointing out that if you forget even 1 or two 2 non-related settings, you can kill your video card or memory chips. I am a relatively smart person, and I'm sure if I spent several days / weeks reading up on it, I might be able to do something good, but I just don't have the time or energy at this point, especially the 10's of hours of testing that are needed at each step of the way. Simply put, if overclocking is so easy, give me an easy way to do it and I might think about it.Ultimately, if I can't run FSX without clocking my machine and I clocking my machine just doesn't appeal to me because of the risk involved and the number of little variables that can really screw things up, I just won't play FSX. I may be angry about it, but there isn't a person on the planet other than maybe my wife who will really give it a second thought and, as much of a shame as that may be in my mind, its the way it is. I still think that a video card may have an effect here, but I can't justify spending a penny on a new one if there is a possibility that its not going to do me any good, which means that I can't be sure I would get any benefit from a card without first testing the game with an overclock that I'm not going do. Frustrating, upsetting, and pretty much what I get for wanting to play a game that is essentially broken for me and never going to get fixed from the developer's end...