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....

Thanks for another example - You cant provide an example of what you say I said because you misquoted me as you are trying to do again = dishonestWhen it comes to what other members of this forum post and you dont understand or agree, you just attack with made up crap and its getting a little annoying.The card has more than just a 32 core increase going for it, go read up on it to find out why tech-sites where all suprised at its perfromance then you dont have to look so foolish.As for memory the topic was the I7-9xx and what 2000 speed provided,. you seemed to be the one with the problems

Uhmm fact of the matter is the bandwidth is determined by the CPU.... why would you buy 2000mhz ram when even the Sandy Bridge doesn't support those speeds.... waste of cash honestly. Just because the motherboard supports, it means nothing to FSX. And I'd be suspicous of buying anything not on the QVL.. even if it says 6-6-6 on it the fact that it didn't make it through Asus means it actually doesn't perform as advertised.

Since again I remind you that the topic was I7, though SandyBridge worx just fineMemeory is controlled by Unccore clock that controls the IMC as well as the L3 and I also reminded you that technicaly I7 dont even support 1600 speed but yet most everyone uses that, however since you bring up QVL..ASUS QVL support 2000 speed ram just fine, why wouldn't they? ASUS QVL list for P6X58D hereWhat was posted before in reply to your post that you still cant answer:

Well that is a very simple way of saying it but really only applies to old cpus like the Core 2.More accurately the I7 is controlled by the Uncore frequency (you can select the multi for this or let the mem profile do it). The Uncore frequency clocks the L3 cache and the IMC (which BTW then allows the QPI to be opened up as well) this is not just for the xtreme I7s like the 975 but also the retail 920s and up that have been unlocked for more than 18 months. Thats the whole beauty of the I7, the bandwidth is not wasted like it was on a core 2.Arn't you a bit paranoid with the whole frequency thing?The I7 does not technicaly support 1600 either :Hypnotized: so what are you trying to say??? (edited 1666)

Thats about as cuccint as I can make it for you my freind. Now what eles do you want to try to misquote me for?

Update...I found out that 8x Sparse Grid SS (I run 4x) is too heavy in a massive cloud situation but gives excellent IQ. Struggles with CTD's were resolved by disabling vSync.The external FPS limiter is best and results is the least CPU usage, lowest temps and no blurries.I had to use AffinityMask=7  (no core 3) to keep the temp of core 3 low.  On the 860 core 3 is next to the PCIE Interface and runs hot. This allows for a higher OC. (4.25ghz)Summary- system issues resolved + 580GTX = FSX fun.Cheersjja

The Zotac 580 GTX just arrived. I downloaded the driver, overclocked it to 850 on the core and fired it up. So far, it is magnificent! Does anyone know a way of changing the volts yet? MSI afterburner won't allow it.Kind regards,

The Zotac 580 GTX just arrived. I downloaded the driver, overclocked it to 850 on the core and fired it up. So far, it is magnificent! Does anyone know a way of changing the volts yet? MSI afterburner won't allow it.Kind regards,

Nvidia Inspector works. Went over 900 mhz then backed it down to 880 mhz at 1.113 volts. Runs like a well muscled, cool and quiet 480 GTX.Kind regards,

Nvidia Inspector works. Went over 900 mhz then backed it down to 880 mhz at 1.113 volts. Runs like a well muscled, cool and quiet 480 GTX.Kind regards,

Glad to see that you have joined the 580 club Stephen. I've settled on 841 core and 2060 mem no extra voltage.   Press on..jja

Out of curiosity, what kind of temps are you seeing under a load? Thanks for all of the previous input, very helpful

Out of curiosity, what kind of temps are you seeing under a load?   Thanks for all of the previous input, very helpful

Not sure if you were addressing Stephen but for my system the 580 throws heat like the 285 and stays in the 40's under load.  The vapor chamber cooling seems to work really well.jja 

Thanks for the reply, nice to hear that they are keeping the temps down. My 480gtx generated more heat than my case could get rid of

Hi folks, just thought i would report back in with my end results. One of my biggest issues was trying to tweak settings for everything, something i soon realised wasn't going to work since i am using different addons in different locations, the answer in the end was using the ORBX FSX-GO utility which enabled me to tweak each location depending on the addon being used in this area. Simply click the area i want to fly and FSX-GO will place the correct tweaks into the CFG and launch FSX with these settings...great utility. I was also able to gain valuable extra frames in the heaviest areas by removing ENB Series and using the PMDG 747-8i instead of the 747-400x. Anyone using the PMDG 747-400x should consider using the 747-8i as it appears to be a better optimized aircraft that will give you a valuable extra 5fps in the heaviest situations. The differences are only cosmetic, flying from what i can tell is exactly the same.My final outcome is fantastic visuals in every area i fly with frame rates that never drop below 25fps in PMDG virtual cockpit in the most built up areas and for the most part between 30-45fps, slight jumps are still there only in certain situations but overall it is very smooth and looks amazing. The main tweaks that are changed by FSX-GO depending on the location are Autogen Density from Dense to Extremely Dense and some Autogen Building and Trees tweaks. Internal framelock in the end works best for me at 45fps allowing it to run wild but capping it from going too silly, I don't know if i will ever know why 30 isn't good for me, oh well :-)Some of the best visuals i get are using REX 2.0 with Fly Tampa Hong Kong addon. For those who are after an addon as detailed as Manhattan X with much much better performance, in fact everything set to max in FSX and within the addon at 45fps, then this is worth checking out, a visually great addon with amazing performance, it makes me wonder why Manhattan X is so demanding after seeing this. If you are interested in seeing some screenshots i have uploaded some here > : ScreenshotsIts been quite a grueling task getting everything running smoothly in every situation but i am finally ready to hand this system over to my father who is going to get quite a pleasant shock after playing FS9 for years with no addons. Thanks to all on the AVSIM forum for sharing your valuable knowledge, it has certainly helped me get to where i am now.Lets hope that Microsoft optimize Microsoft Flight a little better with modern hardware so it won't be such a task getting things perfect, we can only hope :-)Cheers :-)Dave

Hi folks, just thought i would report back in with my end results. One of my biggest issues was trying to tweak settings for everything, something i soon realised wasn't going to work since i am using different addons in different locations, the answer in the end was using the ORBX FSX-GO utility which enabled me to tweak each location depending on the addon being used in this area. Simply click the area i want to fly and FSX-GO will place the correct tweaks into the CFG and launch FSX with these settings...great utility. I was also able to gain valuable extra frames in the heaviest areas by removing ENB Series and using the PMDG 747-8i instead of the 747-400x. Anyone using the PMDG 747-400x should consider using the 747-8i as it appears to be a better optimized aircraft that will give you a valuable extra 5fps in the heaviest situations. The differences are only cosmetic, flying from what i can tell is exactly the same.My final outcome is fantastic visuals in every area i fly with frame rates that never drop below 25fps in PMDG virtual cockpit in the most built up areas and for the most part between 30-45fps, slight jumps are still there only in certain situations but overall it is very smooth and looks amazing. The main tweaks that are changed by FSX-GO depending on the location are Autogen Density from Dense to Extremely Dense and some Autogen Building and Trees tweaks. Internal framelock in the end works best for me at 45fps allowing it to run wild but capping it from going too silly, I don't know if i will ever know why 30 isn't good for me, oh well :-)Some of the best visuals i get are using REX 2.0 with Fly Tampa Hong Kong addon. For those who are after an addon as detailed as Manhattan X with much much better performance, in fact everything set to max in FSX and within the addon at 45fps, then this is worth checking out, a visually great addon with amazing performance, it makes me wonder why Manhattan X is so demanding after seeing this. If you are interested in seeing some screenshots i have uploaded some here > :  ScreenshotsIts been quite a grueling task getting everything running smoothly in every situation but i am finally ready to hand this system over to my father who is going to get quite a pleasant shock after playing FS9 for years with no addons. Thanks to all on the AVSIM forum for sharing your valuable knowledge, it has certainly helped me get to where i am now.Lets hope that Microsoft optimize Microsoft Flight a little better with modern hardware so it won't be such a task getting things perfect, we can only hope :-)Cheers :-)Dave

Thanks for the update Dave.  You had us worried there for a while. Glad that you have everything running sweet!jja

Dave, You had freebird77 and others working this stuttering that happened with the 580 but not with the 470 AND also that the framerates with the 580 and 470 appeared to you to be identical. While I realize that you are tired of the whole thing and certainly have no intention to reinstall your 470, many of us would like to know just what your final experience was - other than you are running with "an internal frame lock of 40-45 with vsync on and raising Texture Bandwidth Mult to 60". Are you saying the the 580 is somehow now a better card or not OR are you saying that you had to trick it to be as good as the 470 by using the above quoted settings. The FSX world wants to know whether they can get the amazing results that Stephen is getting or the barely equal, frustrating, tricky settings world that you seemed to have. Obviously, every hardware system is different but it sure would help the rest of us to try to know ahead of time which experience we might expect. We also are interested to know if your CPU/MEM/Mobo etc was part of the trouble - even though your first comments were that the 470 was actually better(at least stutter free wise) than the 580 after simply installing one after the other. Any comments?Another Dave

r4nk: that's the ticket! Studying the behavior of the addons is key. I'd buy FSX-GO, but I'd rather do that on my own anyways usually just taking worst case scenerio for origin, destination, and aircraft. There really is no reason not to get 30-50 frames, but most people overload/choke their cpu, even when they're completely aware of the limitations of the software.

r4nk: that's the ticket! Studying the behavior of the addons is key. I'd buy FSX-GO, but I'd rather do that on my own anyways usually just taking worst case scenerio for origin, destination, and aircraft. There really is no reason not to get 30-50 frames, but most people overload/choke their cpu, even when they're completely aware of the limitations of the software.

And what would you suggest not to choke the CPU then? running FSX with little to no scenery?

This is where I get confused.I have a gtx 480. I think it's a great card. I would like better performance when I fly jets into congested areas with full scenery complexity, AG, and bad weather.Let's be honest. If I upgrade from my gtx 480 to a gtx 580, am I really going to see 10 fps higher in the above scenerio?If someone can show me a 10 fps increase from a gtx 480 to gtx 580 when flying in the above scenerio, I will order a gtx 580 today. But, I honestly feel that my CPU is still the limitation.Right now the sim is smooth, but in the teens when flying in Manhattan X, using the LDS 767, and flying into KJFK in bad weather. I really would like to see higher frames without disabling car traffic or lower AI to 25%.

This is where I get confused.I have a gtx 480. I think it's a great card. I would like better performance when I fly jets into congested areas with full scenery complexity, AG, and bad weather.Let's be honest. If I upgrade from my gtx 480 to a gtx 580, am I really going to see 10 fps higher in the above scenerio?If someone can show me a 10 fps increase from a gtx 480 to gtx 580 when flying in the above scenerio, I will order a gtx 580 today. But, I honestly feel that my CPU is still the limitation.Right now the sim is smooth, but in the teens when flying in Manhattan X, using the LDS 767, and flying into KJFK in bad weather. I really would like to see higher frames without disabling car traffic or lower AI to 25%.

You can figure it out yourself.If you get the same performance with your 480 at stock and with it overclocked, you're clearly CPU limited.If those low frames only happen in bad weather, it could be that you are running more antialiasing than your 480 can handle. What level of antialiasing are you running? You can also try lowering that and see if things look better. If they do, then a 580 could definitely help you improve performance.How much I don't know and only those who have had both cards can help you with that. I doubt it will be 10+ FPS but I could be wrong