Hi folks back again after a few more days of tests.nothing I did would remove the stutters with everything turned completely down, vsync on and locked between 20-30fps but i have had a success of sorts. One thing i noticed was that different frame locks produced different stutter patterns.In the end an internal frame lock of 40-45 with vsync on and raising Texture Bandwidth Mult to 60 has almost perfect flight.I am now able to fly with all settings maxed out with very smooth results, don't ask me why my frame lock needs to be 15fps higher than everyone else to get rid of the stutters but it seems to work.The only issue is this works with no addons just fine, once i add the heavy stuff from previous tests i know my frame rates will drop between 20-30 so it will be back to the drawing board to find the right frame lock and TBM. What i can do though is use ORBX's FSX-GO utility to load different settings into the CFG for different flights depending on whether i am flying over FTX scenery or not.QUESTION: does anyone know if the relationship between vsync, frame lock and TBM is upset by using a different monitor with the same refresh rate but a different response time? I am testing my fathers system on my Apple Display but the final setup will be with his Dell 24". I'm thinking of taking the system to a friends work where he has a Dell 24" and testing there to be 100% sure.Thanks again all for your support, I have learnt a great deal the past couple of weeks, i will keep you posted with the next results once i fire up all the eye candy.cheersDavePS: also another quick question, does anyone else get crazy jerking in instant replay using LOCKED spot? its unbearable even though my flight is smooth. Only work around i have found that is the FS Recorder Module which is dead smooth but not quite as convenient. It will do, i was just wondering if anyone else has found this also.  Advanatge of FS Recorder is you have the replay saved in data format, not video, to play again in FSX at anytime.  Downside is if you didnt start a record you cant use it to instant replay as with default FSX replay.

Dave - something I found out recently is that using vSync at the driver is much smoother (and more stable) than using the ForceFullScreen VSync option in the FSX.cfg. Actually it causes CTDs on my system.  Try your testing without it.BTW I'm using Bojote's SwapWaitTimeout =2 tweak.jja

Dave - something I found out recently is that using vSync at the driver is much smoother (and more stable) than using the ForceFullScreen VSync option in the FSX.cfg. Actually it causes CTDs on my system. Try your testing without it.BTW I'm using Bojote's SwapWaitTimeout =2 tweak.jja

He has been trying without it. Vsync has never been in the cfg by default, its not a menu option and he has let FSX rebuild the cfg several times without adding tweaks, are you sure you have tried FSX without all those tweaks yet?

He has been trying without it. Vsync has never been in the cfg by default, its not a menu option and he has let FSX rebuild the cfg several times without adding tweaks, are you sure you have tried FSX without all those tweaks yet?

I've been running without vSync for several hours(with a much higher OC 4.25ghz) and no CTD's  I ran FSX for a long time without it and now after using vsync for a while,  going without it the smoothness is very apparent.  And for using a raw FSX.cfg - that is just to  horrible to think of!   :rolleyes:jja

And for using a raw FSX.cfg - that is just to horrible to think of! :rolleyes:jja

And just now you found out that the FSX.cfg hack of vsync is not as good as driver controlled vsync? I would be wondering what else isn't working up to the levels your hardware can provide in that system. What maybe more horrible than your tweaked cfg is a hacked cfg mess based on old hardware tweaks that may or may not work or be needed with what you have now. :Nerd: Best to retest from a basic untweaked cfg and rebuiding from there when adding performance upgrades such as these (580GTX).Cheers!

I have a 980x @ 4.4 with twin GTX 580s for nvidia surround and a whole ton of tweaks, and I like you didn't experience a big change in performance. I actually noticed the GPU usage is lower than the 480s I had before.In fact the only advantage is the nice cool cards. Before with twin 480 my PC would blast hot air out the back end and I was leery of running it for too long.

So everyone got pretty much the same result as the 480... just out of curiousity.. those who bought it .. which part of the identicial 3 billion transititors confused you into thinking there was extra hardware accelleration in the new chip?

Well I will wait and see. I have been benchmarking the GTX 480 with a series of tests and applications. When the 580 GTX arrives, perhaps tomorrow, I will rerun them all and see what the numbers say. Kind regards,

Spirit: I look forward to your results... but I'm asking in general.. where's the rationale to fork over another $500... Will a 1-2% increase in performance be justified or bearly noticable?

Spirit: I look forward to your results... but I'm asking in general.. where's the rationale to fork over another $500... Will a 1-2% increase in performance be justified or bearly noticable?

Who came up with a 1 or 2 percent rendering variation? I have not seen any comparative benchmarks for FSX established for the 580 GTX yet. Any answer or evaluation would just be pure speculation on my part until the comparative performance of the hardware is documented by it being methodically and objectively tested and analysed in FSX under controlled circumstances with varying conditions and settings. For the most part I have just finished benchmarking the 480 GTX a few minutes ago, and indeed, it is still an impressive superfast videocard for FSX. Now I await the arrival of the 580 GTX from Newegg for the work to continue in order to see exactly what is what. It should be here in the next day or two. It may, or may not reveal decisive results. I think it just might, if well utilized. We'll see.Kind regards,

So everyone got pretty much the same result as the 480... just out of curiousity.. those who bought it .. which part of the identicial 3 billion transititors confused you into thinking there was extra hardware accelleration in the new chip?

I am not entirely sure what this question means, but I bought it because it has more shader cores unlocked. And I couldn't stand the blast furnace effect of the GTX 480(espescially two).Oh yeah, and it overclocks higher.On the flip side, it runs Wings of prey a lot better.

So everyone got pretty much the same result as the 480... just out of curiousity.. those who bought it .. which part of the identicial 3 billion transititors confused you into thinking there was extra hardware accelleration in the new chip?

Sadly this has turned into the newb forum.

Who came up with a 1 or 2 percent rendering variation? I have not seen any comparative benchmarks for FSX established for the 580 GTX yet. Any answer or evaluation would just be pure speculation on my part until the comparative performance of the hardware is documented by it being methodically and objectively tested and analysed in FSX under controlled circumstances with varying conditions and settings. For the most part I have just finished benchmarking the 480 GTX a few minutes ago, and indeed, it is still an impressive superfast videocard for FSX. Now I await the arrival of the 580 GTX from Newegg for the work to continue in order to see exactly what is what. It should be here in the next day or two. It may, or may not reveal decisive results. I think it just might, if well utilized. We'll see.Kind regards,

Just remember that it is all about perception.  My perception is that the 580 makes FSX run at its best and has increased my enjoyment of it 10x.  Yes really.jja 

firebird77: It's a simple question you are right... but at the end of the day no one seems to validate your original estimate of a 10% improvement in FSX...even with the extra cores used for texturing I don't see how that scales..

firebird77: It's a simple question you are right... but at the end of the day no one seems to validate your original estimate of a 10% improvement in FSX...even with the extra cores used for texturing I don't see how that scales..

Vereray,I dont quite understand why you post the stuff you do, I have enjoyed some of your input in some threads but then some of your post seem to be a bit on the troll side, you dont own the hardware but seem to always offer negative advice about it that like in the memory thread is based on inaccurate info that >if you had actual first-hand knowledge of you probably would not be spreading.As for the quote above please show me where I said that as I believe you are misquoting me. I usually keep estimates to myself, however I do bench the ell out of hardware of all kinds and try to base what I have to say on the results of that.As for the transistor count of 3billion on each GPU being the determining factor those comments show that you are also misinformed about what the differenses are between a 480 and 580 and how that bears on FSX and its probably accurate to say that you have never owned either GPU.

firebird77: it's a simple question...why would you pay $500 dollars for the exact same card. And if you have an issue with the Qualified Vendor's List that Asus and EVGA provide write them.... as far as I'm concerned I will continue to folllow their advice not yours. And it's obvious you have no clue how RAM works given that you don't know where the clock source is even coming from... you said it's not the CPU. You couldn't be more wrong. Ontop of that it's clear you don't understand caching.See I generally ignore you, you tend to write long messages without any technical substance... just some bad "intuition". The only honest answer I've gotten so far is one person wanting the extra 32 cores....