Not at all seems like you haven't been reading around the forums have you...would someone back me up here

So if I start a thread that says you should trade up from a 285GTX to a 460 you would believe it? or Based on what - that the number 460 is bigger than 285?Or that Some cant tell the difference between a new install of drivers that came with the new card that just change all the settings that demand less performance from the previous card...and now everything is so much better..oh dear..Anyone can post things that are based on little real knowledge, and the false perception that a 460 is near or at the same level of a 480/470 in FSX is a good example of that.

Not at all seems like you haven't been reading around the forums have you...would someone back me up here

There are tons of reviews on Guru of 3D where I learned how efficient the new FERMI design is.+1Really - it is the best GPU that i ever owned.jja

So if I start a thread that says you should trade up from a 285GTX to a 460 you would believe it? or Based on what - that the number 460 is bigger than 285?Or that Some cant tell the difference between a new install of drivers that came with the new card that just change all the settings that demand less performance from the previous card...and now everything is so much better..oh dear..Anyone can post things that are based on little real knowledge, and the false perception that a 460 is near or at the same level of a 480/470 in FSX is a good example of that.

Ok you are missing something here, we all know 470s and 480s are more powerfull than 460s (nothing to do with the branding number pattern, though must admit I've been fooled by that in the past with the 465) but they are also a lot more inefficientAnyway, that's not the point, do you know FSX at all? seriuosly, ever heard of bottlenecks? do you realise that software performance is also software dependant?

Ok you are missing something here, we all know 470s and 480s are more powerfull than 460s (nothing to do with the branding number pattern, though must admit I've been fooled by that in the past with the 465) but they are also a lot more inefficientAnyway, that's not the point, do you know FSX at all? seriuosly, ever heard of bottlenecks? do you realise that software performance is also software dependant?

Are you serious? Ignorance is bliss I guess but there is No debate.The 460 in FSX is about the same as a 280/285GTX as well as most any other DX9/10 game period and would be a move sideways - other sources posted -->HEREThe only real move up would be a 480 - the 470 not so much.As far as bottlenecks go, your CPU is good @ 4Ghz but your slow memory is a problem on that system.Please do your research, better still actually own the cards like many of us who have that post actual info vs mythical info and then come back and post - ok?. thanks :Peace:

LOL I do little more than researching and testing, I wish I could flight sim at all :P.I actually have now some mushkin blackline 2000 CL7 that I got me just for the sake of testing as usual (pretty lame for a reason I know, but that's what I do)I used to run my dominators at those latencies just because memory speed makes no difference in almost any app out there. That is a fact. It happened to make a difference in FSX how much? do some research and then STFUPlease overclock and then downclock your 480 and let me know how it effects performance in FSX. If you really know anything about what a bottleneck is you'll have your answer, and you will stop posting pointless links to your own posts and useless reviews. remember: this is FSX this is FSX this is FSX this is FSX this is FSX this is FSX

Are you serious? Ignorance is bliss I guess but here is No debate.The 460 in FSX is the same as a 280/285GTX as well as most any other DX9/10 game period and would be a move sideways - I posted some other sources -->HEREThe only real move up would be a 470/480.As far as bottlenecks go, your CPU is good @ 4Ghz but your slow memory is a problem on that system.Please do your research, better still actually own the cards like many of us who have that post actual info vs mythical info and then come back and post - ok?. thanks :Peace:

LOL I do little more than researching and testing, I wish I could flight sim at all :P.I actually have now some mushkin blackline 2000 CL7 that I got me just for the sake of testing as usual (pretty lame for a reason I know, but that's what I do)I used to run my dominators at those latencies just because memory speed makes no difference in almost any app out there. That is a fact. It happened to make a difference in FSX how much? do some research and then STFUPlease overclock and then downclock your 480 and let me know how it effects performance in FSX. If you really know anything about what a bottleneck is you'll have your answer, and you will stop posting pointless links to your own posts and useless reviews. remember: this is FSX this is FSX this is FSX this is FSX this is FSX this is FSX

You have it a bit back-wards - your memory-subsystem performance is important for a good balance at high O/C, on the other hand overclocking a 480, 470 460 285 etc has very little effect in FSX.It is all too obvious about your knowledge about FSX/hardware - it is what it is and I will leave at that.Take care.

your memory-subsystem performance is important for a good balance at high O/C

?and what makes you think ridiculously low latencies are needed to have a "balanced" system? do you even know how much those figures effect memory band width and how much does band width effect performance?Do you realise that different programs require different memory capabilities? It's really cool to know that CL7 is better than CL8, isn't it? big props then

overclocking a 480, 470 460 285 etc has very little effect in FSX

no sir, not little, NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER, because the CPU is bottlenecking the system and that renders any sort of GPU upgrade completely uselesstry it yourself and report back please

?and what makes you think ridiculously low latencies are needed to have a "balanced" system? do you even know how much those figures effect memory band width and how much does band width effect performance?Do you realise that different programs require different memory capabilities? It's really cool to know that CL7 is better than CL8, isn't it? big props thenno sir, not little, NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER, because the CPU is bottlenecking the system and that renders any sort of GPU upgrade completely uselesstry it yourself and report back please

If that is the case then why do you keep reccomending to simmers on this forum to go out and purchase a new video card (and the wrong one) ? :Whistle:I'm sorry if your CPU is such a bottleneck for you, Forget CL8, CL7 with tight timings might be ok @ 2000, but @ 1600 you should be running CL6 and if you cant tell the difference then the rest of your post are really starting to make more sense now :Hypnotized: You have something seriously wrong with your system if you see no effect in upgrading your ram and GPU, perhaps you dont run with many addons, or highres textures, maybe too low of a screen res with little to no AA or AF filtering - but all those things take a good toll on the GPU and is why and when you need the muscle.Run FSX with Fraps, load and test with a canned flight and load your results into a spreadsheet ...test...test..test and you will learne and expand your knowledge. You haven't done that yet or else you wouldn't have posted what you have.:Loser: Best regards

I posted some of my findings on another forum some time ago when I benchmarked my ZOTAC 480 AMP! card:

Hi all!I installed the ZOTAC GTX 480 AMP! card today. This card is factory OC:ed to 756MHz and equipped with a custom cooler. I previously used a XFX GTX 285 Card factory OC:ed to 690MHz.Comparison with CPU OC:ed to 4.1GHzFPS increase with FSX: None (0.1%)3DMark06: 20% performance increaseWith the GTX 285 card I had graphical artifacts (spikes and flashing textures) when using FPS unlimited. These problems are gone with the GTX 480. The flight experience is overall much more smooth and fluid with the 480.Comparison with CPU at 2.4GhzFPS increase with FSX: 8%3DMark06: 6% performance increaseThis is odd. Maybe the CPU benchmarking in 3DMark06 have a very strong impact on the score. As with running my CPU at 4.1GHz FSX will run a lot smoother and without any artifacts with the 480 card. My conclusion is that using a 480 card will increase perfomance in FSX even if you use a i7 CPU at lower clock speeds. But be aware that my benchmarking was done in FSX with three simple test flights.TempsThe ZOTAC AMP! card comes with a custom cooler. Temps measured with an ambient temp at 23C.Idle: 38COCCT GPU test: 81C (no noticable noice from the fan)FSX: 51CConsThe card is wide and will occopy three slots and might block other slots and connectors on your mobo. The card blocked two SATA ports on my P6T Deluxe mobo. I have to find some left and right angle SATA cables.My personal conclusionThe upgrade from GTX 285 OC:ed at 690MHz to a GTX 480 OC:ed at 756MHz isn't worth while if your'e short of money. But if you have the money to spend the upgrade will give you a smoother and better flight experience. I'm satisfied with my upgrade.

:Peace:

I posted some of my findings on another forum some time ago when I benchmarked my ZOTAC 480 AMP! card::Peace:

Finally some sanity...What exactly I found was much better minimum frames and as you say that results in a much smoother flight. Going from a 285GTX to anything less than an 480 is no upgrade and to me a complete waste.Best regards

IMO sanity hasn't much do to with our different findings Our systems are often different and we run different back ground services and such. We use different FS add-ons and use different FS display settings. Some use nVIDIA Inspector to setup up combined AA and others use the nVIDIA CP. When we benchmark graphics card it's fun to share our findings, but I guess we will come to different conclusions and thats OK :Peace:

If that is the case then why do you keep reccomending to simmers on this forum to go out and purchase a new video card (and the wrong one) ? :Whistle:I'm sorry if your CPU is such a bottleneck for you, Forget CL8, CL7 with tight timings might be ok @ 2000, but @ 1600 you should be running CL6 and if you cant tell the difference then the rest of your post are really starting to make more sense now :Hypnotized: You have something seriously wrong with your system if you see no effect in upgrading your ram and GPU, perhaps you dont run with many addons, or highres textures, maybe too low of a screen res with little to no AA or AF filtering - but all those things take a good toll on the GPU and is why and when you need the muscle.Run FSX with Fraps, load and test with a canned flight and load your results into a spreadsheet ...test...test..test and you will learne and expand your knowledge. You haven't done that yet or else you wouldn't have posted what you have.:Loser: Best regards

Thanks for the tips, I'll double-check my settings to make sure I'm running my tests on max settings. This is how it looks like at the moment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWIuTP_A6IQMind sharing your spreadsheets with your tests? I'm particularly interested in those where you can see:

the average FPS much higher

crack pipe down please, NOW!

I agree with Dazz There are many results in the forums. But anyway what I think is it isn't a big difference but the thing is how much are you williing to pay for a small improvement, it doesn't make sense to some

Sorry, no crack here. Prefer read wine or a nice Scotch.Seems there is trouble with your copy and pasting as you misquoted me.For the sake of others who care to know the difference before they throw cash at a card that really is most likely a step sideways depending of course on where you are currently (I already said it offers bang for the buck in certain situations):What I said was "much better -->minimum frames" as in when you are running ORBX, or a nice DTeam AP with lots of add-on traffic sitting in a nice PMDG etc running with High density AG and other settings on High and with a Mild-high LOD adjustment (6.5-8, the weak 460 will choke here and there, (gee what are those min frame numbers? if you dont bother to check, you dont know) where as the 480 rarely drops out in the same way, not even close. What does that mean? It means Smoother flight! :)(see Ulfb, Nick, Bejote's and others comments for further insight).Best regards

There's is no problem with my copy & paste, my quote to your post where you said the 480 averages higher frames is there for everyone to see (post #12) Too bad you can't edit that anymore huh?Check this out:

Keep your 275, no 400 series performs any better than your card in FSX. My former 5770 and 260 performed exactly the same than my current 460.FSX is CPU limited with any of those cards, and that of course includes the 470 and 480. I remember when Bojote switched to a 480 from a 280 and reported "not a single extra frame". I've seen many others post the same resultsAs Luckyman said, you may be able to achieve a bit better IQ, meaning you will be able to run 8xS FSAA with a 460, but the difference is hardly noticiable and if you can already run 8x FSAA a fermi is really no use for you unless you play other games

I'm not recomending the 460 to anyone with a 200 card if it's a 260 or better. find a post of mine where I do, please, and I'll help you with the quoting you seem to be struggling with.If you think it's worth the money to get a 480 for better minimum frames in certain situations, that's fine, it's all down to everyone's particular expectations, but have you tested any 460 to be so sure the minimums are that much better with the 480? Just asking now, no sarcasm, seriously