Go tell Phil Taylor his calculations are wrong! :-)Cheers,- jahman.

Theoretical numbers are all fine and dandy, but I asked for *testing*. If you don't *test* the theory, you haven't proven anything.

There is no such thing as a 990x, Intel is moving into its Sandy Bridge CPUs. As for a 980x, a 950 @ 4GHz plus a GTX570 is adequate to run FSX at NEARLY max settings, but does require tweaking.

990X?990X ships first quarter of 2011.It will come clocked at 3.46GHz and a 3.73GHz Turbo clock @ $1000 - How well will it O/C compared to 980X? For >FSX the GPU hierarchy from NV is:580 GTX - This is the card to own - Tons of filtering options that it can handle- wont choke no matter what BP you want to use - quiet with good temps480 GTX - Has more power over the 570 but it sucks for noise and temps - pass on this570 GTX - Think Big brother to 470 - best HP bargain card still is the 470 if you can find them as the prices are so low, next up is the 570470 GTX - " "460/560 - crippled cards - for FSX no better than a 285 GTX but good all around cheap GPU

I thought the GTX 570 was on par with the 480, but the 570 had better cooling and was quieter. Reviews I have read all say that the 570 performs better than the 480 in majority of benchmarks, but the 480 beats it in some benchmarks too. So really the 570 is big brother to the 480. And 480 is below the 570 in hierarchy.

I thought the GTX 570 was on par with the 480, but the 570 had better cooling and was quieter. Reviews I have read all say that the 570 performs better than the 480 in majority of benchmarks, but the 480 beats it in some benchmarks too. So really the 570 is big brother to the 480. And 480 is below the 570 in hierarchy.

The 570 performs roughly equivocal to the 480, except when memory bandwidth or frame buffer limitations come into play. Then the 480 wins. That being said, I recently purchased a 570 and have clocked it to 875/1750/4400, at which point it performs approximately equal to (or better) than a 580, excepting again for memory bandwidth and frame buffer limitations.

So taking into account the lower price, better cooling and lower volume of the card surely the 570 is above the 480.

So taking into account the lower price, better cooling and lower volume of the card surely the 570 is above the 480.

I believe so, hence my purchase.

Theoretical numbers are all fine and dandy, but I asked for *testing*. If you don't *test* the theory, you haven't proven anything.

There's not really anything to test when a theoretical calculation (done by the Program Manager of FSX, no less) places an upper bound on performance. An upper bound is just that: All a test can show is how much lower real-life performance can be, but performance will never be higher. So the "if you don't *test* the theory, you haven't proven anything" mantra doesn't apply in this case. But you are welcome to analyze PT's calculations and share the results with us should you believe them to be wrong :-)Cheers,- jahman.

There's not really anything to test when a theoretical calculation (done by the Program Manager of FSX, no less) places an upper bound on performance. An upper bound is just that: All a test can show is how much lower real-life performance can be, but performance will never be higher. So the "if you don't *test* the theory, you haven't proven anything" mantra doesn't apply in this case. But you are welcome to analyze PT's calculations and share the results with us should you believe them to be wrong :-)Cheers,- jahman.

Guess you're not familiar with science. If you don't test your theory, it's just a theory. Besides, PT's word is not gospel.

i see there is a 8 core sandy bridge processor coming out in q3 2011 do you think 8 cores will make a difference

No. Once again, FSX relies on sheer Clock speed. So unless this 8-core can be overclocked to 6GHz + on air, then it isn't going to be any different from the new quad sandy bridges. Only difference may be slight, which is the ability to offload texture loading onto other cores, meaning you could really spread texture loading out across more cores, which may benefit in very heavy areas, but nothing significant. What FSX really needs is a quad core that can OC to amazing levels on air.

so i might aswell just wait for ms flight i really hope they dont make the same mistake i bought fsx 3 years ago and have only played it once i still play fs9 but the graphics are so bad on it we need something new

so i might aswell just wait for ms flight

Correct.

Guess you're not familiar with science. If you don't test your theory, it's just a theory. Besides, PT's word is not gospel.

You're the one not familiar with science, because you fail to discern when you need to test a theory and when you don't. In the case of autogen, you know the object counts from the fsx.cfg, you know the object vertex counts, the data type sizes and the frame rate. You also know the PCIe bandwidth available, so you know "a priori" what the maximum number of autogen objects you can render. So argue Phil Taylor's reasoning (he explains it in his blog), but please stop repeating that a test is needed when its clearly not.For your own educational benefit go visit the "a priori" page on Wikipedia so you can learn that "a priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience". If you still disagree, you are welcome to argue the roots of epistemology with my dog.Cheers,- jahman.

You're the one not familiar with science, because you fail to discern when you need to test a theory and when you don't. In the case of autogen, you know the object counts from the fsx.cfg, you know the object vertex counts, the data type sizes and the frame rate. You also know the PCIe bandwidth available, so you know "a priori" what the maximum number of autogen objects you can render. So argue Phil Taylor's reasoning (he explains it in his blog), but please stop repeating that a test is needed when its clearly not.For your own educational benefit go visit the "a priori" page on Wikipedia so you can learn that "a priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience". If you still disagree, you are welcome to argue the roots of epistemology with my dog.Cheers,- jahman.

The very principle upon which science itself is based, you disregard. If you state an hypothesis, you cannot prove it without testing it. Say whatever other pseudo-intellectual condescending diatribe you like, you have no leg to stand on here.

Just fly Xplane :Black Eye: hahaha