Guys,I've been doing some reading around this forum on GPU's during the last few days trying to gather some info. The GTX-580 has received some very good reviews for fsx. I recently upgraded from the GTX-460 to the GTX-560 Ti. My performance has not increased, and in fact may be a little worse. This isn't backed by data, just that gut feeling you get. Needless to say, I'm considering selling the card and upgrading again. Do you guys think given my system below, I would see significant performance improvement going to the 570 or 580? I run two Dell 2007 WFP monitors at 1680 resolution. In other news, I plan to tweak my OC this weekend by turning off HT and pushing the multiplier. Thanks,Dave

Guys,I've been doing some reading around this forum on GPU's during the last few days trying to gather some info. The GTX-580 has received some very good reviews for fsx. I recently upgraded from the GTX-460 to the GTX-560 Ti. My performance has not increased, and in fact may be a little worse. This isn't backed by data, just that gut feeling you get. Needless to say, I'm considering selling the card and upgrading again. Do you guys think given my system below, I would see significant performance improvement going to the 570 or 580? I run two Dell 2007 WFP monitors at 1680 resolution. In other news, I plan to tweak my OC this weekend by turning off HT and pushing the multiplier. Thanks,Dave

I'm not sure if going from a GTX 560 to a GTX 580 is going to make a big difference if you have less than 3.8Ghz OC in your CPU... In my case my CPU is OC to 4.5Ghz and I went from an OC HD5870 to an amazing GTX 580 and it was like going from hell to heaven and beyond... FPS increased like crazy... I'm even able to do aerobatics with 25+ FPS at Heatrow using 100% UT2 traffic, UK2000 scenery and flying Acclaim-Classics P-51D... All that is not possible by using stock fsx.cfg... you'll need lots of hours to test differents settings and see what works for you... For example... I tried a fsx.cfg that I saw in a post and it gave me around 15 to 20 FPS with a lot of pauses and struttering in the same flight described before... then I decided to make my own fsx.cfg and I'm getting an excellent performance... You'll also need an external FPS limiter... the magic number is 30FPS... It will eliminate any graphic anomalies and will give you smooth FPS... And also you'll need to tweak your Nvidia Inspector settings... So... as you may see... Is not only the CPU & GPU... is a lot of other things that make your FSX better (not just hardware)...Dexter

I'm actually at 4.6Ghz right now. Going to push farther this weekend. I ran Bojote's tool for FSX. I didn't actually manually tweak the cfg file. My main question is knowing I have a processor that will get to near 5GHZ, is if it is worth it to upgrade to the 570 or 580.

I'm actually at 4.6Ghz right now. Going to push farther this weekend. I ran Bojote's tool for FSX. I didn't actually manually tweak the cfg file. My main question is knowing I have a processor that will get to near 5GHZ, is if it is worth it to upgrade to the 570 or 580.

In that case I'll say yes... GTX 580Dexter

I saw some early reports from Spirit Flyer (Stephen) that his overclocked 580 (900 Mhz or even better) made a significant change for him (from a 480). Unfortunately, we all are stuck with trying hardware and sometimes finding that it didn't help much because of some other hard-to-find weak link (hardware or CFG tweak or disk performance) in our system. I personally am hoping that a 570 with a little overclocking would be close enough to a 580 but who really knows. Sometimes the high end video cards will only help if you are using a very high monitor resolution like 1920x1080 or more. Good luck!

I agree. I've found that over my simming years graphics cards have been real tough to call. Seems when I've been prepared to be impressed I've ended up dissapointed, and vice versa. I was thrilled going from the 8800GTS to the GTX 460, but not thrilled going from the 460 to the 560ti.

I just killed my 3 days new Asus ENGTX 460 TOP 1 Gb.1.062 Volts was apparently too much for the poor thing!Dusted off my dented and scratched XFX 9600 GT aka The Alpha Dog, turned it up to:745 / 1035 / 1870- and it performs about the same as the 460...GPU is not terribly important for FSX.Wasn´t it Mathijs Kok from Aerosoft who argued that a HD4670 was good enough for FSX?BTW, CPU i5 2500k @ 4.6 Ghz

I just killed my 3 days new Asus ENGTX 460 TOP 1 Gb.1.062 Volts was apparently too much for the poor thing!Dusted off my dented and scratched XFX 9600 GT aka The Alpha Dog, turned it up to:745 / 1035 / 1870- and it performs about the same as the 460...GPU is not terribly important for FSX.Wasn´t it Mathijs Kok from Aerosoft who argued that a HD4670 was good enough for FSX?BTW, CPU i5 2500k @ 4.6 Ghz

Sometimes. It depends upon resolution and other factors like AA. I can tell the difference in smoothness from my GTX 285 to the 580. I can also see a little bit of speed increase, but the real deal is running 1920X1280 and multisampled AA. If that isn't a goal, like with at least a 26-inch monitor, maybe not worth $500.

Hmmm... Nvidia cheated us with the 400 series:" - unfortunately Nvidia changed their AA method whereby 8xS in the past delivered the IQ of 16xS today.. they did it because they know 99% of their customers would never notice and it made those new cores look so much better in benchmarks.. in other words the 400+ series although better cores was partially a SCAM in performace by reducing AA quality" http://www.simforums...topic38651.htmlI´ll keep my faithful Old Alpha Dog and wait for a new Nvidia series later this year!