I posted this topic some time ago but lost track of the responses, and I am once again on the fence on this one. I have the space for it, but I'm concerned for high-end situations how much I can expect in the way of performance hit over my current screen, at 1680 x 1050. I keep AA at 8xS, 16x AF, clouds maxed, traffic 8%, autogen between normal and dense when running complex aircraft.My system stats are in my sig, and I will most likely stay w/ this system at least another year. I wouldn't want to have to sustain more than maybe 10% impact on frames + image quality/texture update rate, freedom from stutters, etc.Thanks in advance,Noel

My experience is that the resolution has very little impact on the performance. The big overhead in FSX is to draw each camera/view, but how "large" it is doesn't really matter that much, and modern hardware is optimized to handle higher resolutions. I get basically no change in framerate when switching from 1920x1024 to 5900x1024 (nvidia surround 5760x1024 with bezel management, and it was the same with Eyefinity).

Not much of a change on my rig,First 2 are at 1680. I have Nvidia settings maxed out,except for pre-rendered frames at zero. And FSX settings on max,except for road vehicles at 20%, autogen at dense, and water at low 2X. My UT2 is 100% at Imagine Simulations VHHH with PMDG MD11.

Good Day,Have been running FSX on my 26in ViewSonic at 1920x1200 for the last three years..... Dropped it back to several lower settings to see if I could gain some performance, found that it made no noticable difference..... JayDub

Nada - there's not a big enough difference in the quantity of pixels that need to be displayed and 'massaged', Noel. In my case - I can go to 1280x1024 minimum to a max of 3840x1024 - that's a huge number, and that makes a very noticeable difference, but I run a 580 and 4.4 gig proc, and can always achieve 30fps almost everywhere. The GPU is not oc'd, and it's very likely your 280 will manage it.

Most of the respondents to your question have higher end GPUs than yours, so it is not surprising that the consensus was that raising the resolution would not lower frame rate. In my case, I'm running 2560 x 1600 on a 30 inch Dell. And like the others, I see llittle effect on frames. But I am now running a GTX570, upgraded from a GTX285. With the older card there was some performance loss at the high resolution using 8xS AA and I found it better to run at lower AA.Cheers,Noel.

This is correct. If you have a 580 you wont see any noticible difference . With a 280, you will! Careful what one reads here!

Well, seems like the 280 could be a factor. Some benchmarks on another title, with similar settings:Call of Pripyat - EnthusiastUltra Settings, Tessellation on(1920x1080, 4xMSAA, SSAO)Score in fps Go 579: 47.50 280: 18.50Almost triple the performance! This won't be the same in FSX, but I wonder. I guess I'd better wait til someone w/ a 280 chimes in, I hope!

Hi Noel; Check this one out - it's very new, but inexpensive:-http://techgage.com/article/nvidia_geforce_gtx_550_ti_review/

Hi Noel; Check this one out - it's very new, but inexpensive:-http://techgage.com/article/nvidia_geforce_gtx_550_ti_review/

I don't know Paul, check out the comparison. I'm thinking FSX will function optimally w/ a GPU solution that balances memory bandwidth and timing especially favorably for FSX in particular. I guess you're saying this low cost solution could improve perf on a 1920 x 1200 screen. Are you thinking a specific component in the 550 Ti will solve an inherent limitation w/ the 280GTX?Model GeForce GTX 550 Ti/280GT Core MHz900/602 Shader MHz1800/1296 Mem MHz4100/1107 Memory1Gb/1gb Bus Width192-bit/512-bit Cores192/240

Thanks very much for the info. I run a 285 (with i7-920 overclocked)and have been considering an upgrade to a top 5xx series. I run at 1920x1200 and would like to upgrade to a 30" monitor (using a 24" now) so it seems the performance increase would be worth it.