He spends 75% of his FSX-time tweaking so that's OK :( :(

Thanks David , many useful post,Could you please give me a chance to compare our FPS in some other heavy sceneries? (I know it seems 480 provides more smooth instead of FPS) but let me test please.So if possible , select some(2 or 3 is enough :( ) sceneries that your FPS is below 22 , please help me to experience exact position , (time , weather, alt. , ....) , I think PMDG 747X external or VC view is good choice also one shot for each position can help more.I know this will take your time but it really help to arrive at a conclusion. :( RegardsBob

Yes, no problem Bob.I'll do that later today or tomorrow

He spends 75% of his FSX-time tweaking so that's OK :( :(

Is you remark supposed to be interesting or funny? :(

My acid-test benchmark is taking off from FSDT's JFK rwy 13R in the RealAir Duke (stormy wx), turning left over the airport to a heading of ~340 towards downtown NYC, then flying to and landing at ImagineSim's KLGA. With my 285GTX I saw frame rate excursions into the single digits, with average frame rates of ~12-15fps, and choppy, not smooth at all. Same flight with the 480 is locked at 25 fps with occasional drops to the high teens--and it's smooth. I consider that a significant increase in performance.The 480 is on an i7-975 @ 4.4GHz, 6GB CAS 6 RAM, and FSX on a 160GB Intel Solid State Disk.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

My acid-test benchmark is taking off from FSDT's JFK rwy 13R in the RealAir Duke (stormy wx), turning left over the airport to a heading of ~340 towards downtown NYC, then flying to and landing at ImagineSim's KLGA. With my 285GTX I saw frame rate excursions into the single digits, with average frame rates of ~12-15fps, and choppy, not smooth at all. Same flight with the 480 is locked at 25 fps with occasional drops to the high teens--and it's smooth. I consider that a significant increase in performance.The 480 is on an i7-975 @ 4.4GHz, 6GB CAS 6 RAM, and FSX on a 160GB Intel Solid State Disk.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Am coming late to this thread, but for what it's worth, I've seen similar improvements going from an EVGA GTX 280 SSC to an EVGA GTX 480 SC. Have been able to move autogen up 1-2 notches in all situations, while maintaining frames and increasing smoothness. Am keeping water at 2x low and cloud draw distance at 60 miles. Everything else max or close to it. Air traffic at 40 percent, roads at 8 percent, water traffic at 30 percent. Full system specs below. Hope this helps.Alan

Thanks for your report Bob!

Thanks Alan, appreciate your input!

Hi David,Too bad you don't see the same improvement so many else do and sure seems you tried it all and have a clean and optimized computer.Wish I could try the card for a week but I can't since breaking the seal means I can't return the card should I want to. What I can do during this week is trying to decide if I should keep it by reading all input and comments from you guys.

My acid-test benchmark is taking off from FSDT's JFK rwy 13R in the RealAir Duke (stormy wx), turning left over the airport to a heading of ~340 towards downtown NYC, then flying to and landing at ImagineSim's KLGA. With my 285GTX I saw frame rate excursions into the single digits, with average frame rates of ~12-15fps, and choppy, not smooth at all. Same flight with the 480 is locked at 25 fps with occasional drops to the high teens--and it's smooth. I consider that a significant increase in performance.The 480 is on an i7-975 @ 4.4GHz, 6GB CAS 6 RAM, and FSX on a 160GB Intel Solid State Disk.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

That's what I mean. For many who don't have the add-ons, they have no idea of what this card can really do. I'm seeing fps doubled in many sceneries, with 32as.I would say that's a significant increase in performance! I'll post some pics this afternoon.

Guys , as I requested from David please if possible post some shots on heavy sceneries that your CPU/VGA under load but please choose scenarios that others (285 owners like me) able to create the same situations.(your aircraft , exact location [shift+Z] , time , weather , with or without GEX/UTX and

Some fresh news!Until now I've been flying in PNW or in the region of YBBN with light GAs or the 744.With the results we 've seen.This evening I've tried a flight in the Swiss Alps (Flylogic Switzerland X) and over Hawa

I agree!Drivers will mature and make the card even better. However, the CPU is still very important, especially in certain dense areas and certain airplanes.

That's interesting news David and great you now maybe will be able to enjoy the 480 card at least in some situations. As for the VGA memory you might remember I brought that question up a couple of posts ago but someone said VGA memory could have nothing to do with it. What I still find a bit strange with all this is how I new GFX card can do much of an improvement when I see my current GFX card isn't even near fully utilized from a VGA memory nor GPU perspective.

That's interesting news David and great you now maybe will be able to enjoy the 480 card at least in some situations. As for the VGA memory you might remember I brought that question up a couple of posts ago but someone said VGA memory could have nothing to do with it. What I still find a bit strange with all this is how I new GFX card can do much of an improvement when I see my current GFX card isn't even near fully utilized from a VGA memory nor GPU perspective.

I find these results quite odd too - not that I don't believe what people state - but I would have for a start expected "add-ons" to be more CPU intensive sure - but GPU intensive ? can't see why ? given that as previous poster said the GPU is not anywhere near maxed out - and addons don't tend to do anything different graphically (processing wise) - as they are restricted by what the engine can do ?surely the only time there would be a noticeable difference would be at very high resolutions with lots and lots of AA ? in which case a newer GPU such as the 480 may well make a difference ?in most FSX "GPU" benchmarks, on the same rings, on review sites - the results are normally very similar from card to card - showing its pretty much not limited by the GPU ?just my 2ps worthplacebo effects maybe ?If I realy thought that if I spent

Buckster,lol......Nobody ever said a thing about doubling their framerates with a 400 series card nor did they say it was possible and the benefits a 400 series card brings to FSX are hardly a placebo.I know how a 400 series card can transform FSX when matched with the right hardware because I own one. You on the other hand can speculate. That's my 2Ps worth. :( Regards,Bob

Buckster,lol......Nobody ever said a thing about doubling their framerates with a 400 series card nor did they say it was possible and the benefits a 400 series card brings to FSX are hardly a placebo.I know how a 400 series card can transform FSX when matched with the right hardware because I own one. You on the other hand can speculate. That's my 2Ps worth. :( Regards,Bob

Bob,agreed and I'm not trying to troll - just trying to see how a game that isn't GPU dependant (unless at high reslutions with lots of AA) can benefit in a cutting edge graphics carda separate poster - in #38 reckoned a doubling in frame rates with some sceneries .....re me speculating - you are quite correct, but also you can also argue that someone that has just spent