ATI 5870 or NVIDIA 470/480

[themose 11]

Hi guys,Now I know this must be a tired topic, but I'm after the most upto date views on which GPU gets FSX flowing nicely.The cards I have in mind are the Fermi 470/480 GPU's and the ATI (Asus) 5870.The problem I have is that although Nvidia cards are supposed to perform slightly better with FSX, the idea of spnding a fortune on a card that runs very hot and draws far more power than it's ATI rival has me stumped. A lot of reviews also claim the 5870 also has better frame rates in most other games. The ATI is also

[dazz 69]

IMO your main concern should be your CPU. Unfortunately you would need to get a new board too. None of those cards will help cause your CPU is gonna bottleneck the system, and the 4xx or the 58xx will be barely used anyway

[themose 11]

Thanks for the reply Dazz, but I might have misled a bit with my signiture.The graphics card is to go with a new system I have planned for July time which is centered around and overclocked i7 930Fractal design Define R2 Case I7 930 - Corsair H50 cooler.Asus P6X58D-E X58 or the new EVGA x58 FTW3 when released.6GB Corsair Dominator C7XFX 650W Modular PSUGPU - ?????Cheers

[PingPong 60]

I have one machine with a triple-head setup and 2 5870s in Crossfire, and another with the GTX 480, unless you want a widescreen display I would recommend against the ATI cards, the visual quality is simply not up to par with Nvidia, also the cards drop frames terribly in dense clouds and autogen. Nvidia makes the best cards for an FSX machine, if you want to do other things then obviously the story is a little different.

[dazz 69]

Oh, that's a whole different story hehe. Nice setup. Why not a 920 instead? it's the same chip anyway, and the extra multiplier is not worth those extra 60$.Another option is to get a 860. You'd save money both in the mobo & the ram, and you don't need triple channel for FSXPersonally I would go with nvidia too (if you don't plan to play any opther games, as mentioned above). Actually I decided not to upgrade my gtx260 to the 4xx series because I've read that FSX is CPU bound in a way that I suspect it would make no difference. If you decide to go with a 4xx it would be cool if you could test both the 4xx and the 8800 in your i7 rig and tell us what you see :)

Thanks for the reply Dazz, but I might have misled a bit with my signiture.The graphics card is to go with a new system I have planned for July time which is centered around and overclocked i7 930Fractal design Define R2 Case I7 930 - Corsair H50 cooler.Asus P6X58D-E X58 or the new EVGA x58 FTW3 when released.6GB Corsair Dominator C7XFX 650W Modular PSUGPU - ?????Cheers

[Clutch Cargo 387]

Sorry, going off topic here, but Dazz how do you like your Phenom CPU? Holding up well in FSX? Any feedback you can give me would be most helpful like FPS, where you fly, what you fly, how you fly. What did you pay for it? Do you use it for FS9 also?Thx, sorry guys - back to the issue at hand.

[themose 11]

Good point on the 930 Dazz, I suppose It would help buying the 920 to suppliment some cash for the GPU :)

[dazz 69]

Sure, no problem Clutch. I fly almost exclusively PMDG. Normal autogen since more than that looks really bad IMO. It's just plain ridiculous sometimes the amount of trees you can find in urban areas. GEX, UTX, REX2, ASE, and the PMDG JS41 in uk2000 heathrow, I get some 15-20 fps, so it can run FSX with no problems. But mi CPU (300

[Twitchstick 0]

To the OP, I'm glad you started this post since I'm in the same boat as you. I'm looking to upgrade my video card soon and I'm not sure which route to go. I play FSX and other games quite frequently. I know the 5870 is a great card for less money and less heat/power then the new GTX 480.

[Scott434 12]

... I decided not to upgrade my gtx260 to the 4xx series because I've read that FSX is CPU bound in a way that I suspect it would make no difference ...

This might be misleading. If your cpu is limited (a bottleneck in the first place) then there will be mimimal gains between graphic cards. However, with a i7 at 4+ ghz and fast ram you WILL most definately see a major difference in terms of fps and smoothness.There is a very good post by SpiritFlyer doing a comparison of the GTX275, 470 and 480 in this "Video Cards and Drivers" section.Personally, I moved from a 275 to a 480 and it is a night and day difference. I will be installing the lastest WHQL 271.21 drivers (out today) and will post some quantifying results.

[dazz 69]

The fact that the I7 is faster doesn't mean that it's not the bottleneck in those systems coupled with 200 series cards as well. I've never had I7 or 4xx so I have not much to say based on my own experience. That's why I keep asking what sort of performance can you see in say Heathrow, taxiing in the VC of your PMDG 744X, with 75% traffic (UT2 or MyTrafic 5.3 preferably) & normal autogen, both with the 275 & the 480 so I can compare :(

This might be misleading. If your cpu is limited (a bottleneck in the first place) then there will be mimimal gains between graphic cards. However, with a i7 at 4+ ghz and fast ram you WILL most definately see a major difference in terms of fps and smoothness.There is a very good post by SpiritFlyer doing a comparison of the GTX275, 470 and 480 in this "Video Cards and Drivers" section.Personally, I moved from a 275 to a 480 and it is a night and day difference. I will be installing the lastest WHQL 271.21 drivers (out today) and will post some quantifying results.

[Scott434 12]

Oh, that's a whole different story hehe. Nice setup. Why not a 920 instead? it's the same chip anyway, and the extra multiplier is not worth those extra 60$.Another option is to get a 860. You'd save money both in the mobo & the ram, and you don't need triple channel for FSXPersonally I would go with nvidia too (if you don't plan to play any opther games, as mentioned above). Actually I decided not to upgrade my gtx260 to the 4xx series because I've read that FSX is CPU bound in a way that I suspect it would make no difference. If you decide to go with a 4xx it would be cool if you could test both the 4xx and the 8800 in your i7 rig and tell us what you see :)

The fact that the I7 is faster doesn't mean that it's not the bottleneck in those systems coupled with 200 series cards as well. I've never had I7 or 4xx so I have not much to say based on my own experience. That's why I keep asking what sort of performance can you see in say Heathrow, taxiing in the VC of your PMDG 744X, with 75% traffic (UT2 or MyTrafic 5.3 preferably) & normal autogen, both with the 275 & the 480 so I can compare :(

I am not saying that the i7 is not a bottleneck. In fact it is. My gtx275 showed a load of approx 50% while the 480 is coming in at load of 30% (rough numbers). Showing what we all know is that FSX is cpu limitied.I am saying however, that your statement "Actually I decided not to upgrade my gtx260 to the 4xx series because I've read that FSX is CPU bound in a way that I suspect it would make no difference." is not accurate.For example, using the SAME processor at the SAME speed and simply moving from a gtx275 to a gtx480, I see a significant increase in fps and smoothness. Also, some of the tweaks of late allow the cpu bottleneck to be reduced "somewhat" thereby allowing the gpu to be unleashed "somewhat".I will post some numbers later tonight/tomorrow with the latest WHQL 215.21 drivers. In the meantime, using your scenario above, which is very similar to mine, I am seeing 30-35 fps (Windowed mode!) in the pmdg747x with REX2 with 4096 textures landing at KSFO with a ton of traffic all around. The smoothness with the HD textures is truely incredible.

[dazz 69]

My statement is perfectly accurate since I'm only guessing that the upgrade is not going to help cause actually I have no clue if it will or not hehe. Now seriously, I'm just trying to figure out, just like many others here, what's my best bet so thanks for those numbers there, i'll try that flight now but I know my frames will be nowhere near yours. That's tested with the 480 right? How's that compared to the 275 may I ask?

[Scott434 12]

My statement is perfectly accurate since I'm only guessing that the upgrade is not going to help cause actually I have no clue if it will or not hehe. Now seriously, I'm just trying to figure out, just like many others here, what's my best bet so thanks for those numbers there, i'll try that flight now but I know my frames will be nowhere near yours. That's tested with the 480 right? How's that compared to the 275 may I ask?

I would safely say that the 480 is 10-15 fps faster with everything else equal. AND, I am running increased TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096 and a higher TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT. I mis-quoted higher numbers earlier (I was at 4.3 ghz oc and full screen not windowed). REX2 with TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096 is very very pleasing. I use MegaSenaryEarth photo scenary and the visuals are very very impressive.Landing at KFSO at dusk (sunsets, water reflections etc), with lots of traffic, pmdg 747 in the VC, sliders high (normal autogen since I use photoscenary), full windowed, atc maxed (have to wait long times to respond), I am comfortably at approx 20-25 fps average most of the time. I do see it dip down to 10-15 just before touchdown but this is a short period of time and you are concentrating on driving anyway. It is smoothness NOT FPS! Other people have said this and I am finding out that it is true. FSX is EXTREMELY smooth even at low fps numbers with these new drivers. In fact, I now fly with NO FPS display and don't worry about it. I can't tell the difference.The 275oc I had was faster than the 260 (tried that but have no numbers). The 480 is much faster and much smoother. I have a feeling that the 480 is overkill for FSX and a 470 is likely the best nvidia choice for FSX right now.

[dazz 69]

But Scott, I also have REX2 (TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096), same normal autogen and lots of traffic and that's more or less the same I can see on final and taxiing at KSFO. Looks to me those fermis start to shine aloft, away from busy airports, and then my frames are 25-40 anyway, which I can live with. I agree FSX is quite smooth even at 17-20 frames, but anything below 15 feels awfull to me. Of course if it happens for just a couple of seconds then it's no big deal at all.But then again, please don't get me wrong, I have no reason to not believe that there's a smoothness leap at the same frames with the new cards & drivers, but I really think I should just come to terms with this performance crap and just fly. After all nothing keeps us from flying to smaller airports, or even better, in IVAO / VATSIM where ingame traffic is disabled and frames are always 20+Thanks so much for the feedback, very much appreciated