But vivek, you said in another thread you are going to run 3 screens right? Are you planning on using some to undock panels and stuff? or the idea is to run a higher resolution? You can't span the resolusution through 3 screens with a single nVidia card, you'll need a dual or a SLI setup (or an AI card with eyefinity)I'm not saying the GTX590 is a good choice, it's not, bit to run a 3xscreen resolution you'll need a second nVidia card in SLI

I won't be overclocking the CPU, as the overclocking ruined my last one, doesn't matter , i will at any cost get the K suffix series i7, my mind don't allow me get the lower model even if its worth.anyways, in the shop which I visited the AMD radeon HD 6970 was somewhere around 180 USD, I planned to get that one but the reviews told that nvidia graphics cards perform much better in FSX engine. is it true? or should I opt for 6970,maybe 6990 when released

I won't be overclocking the CPU, as the overclocking ruined my last one, doesn't matter , i will at any cost get the K suffix series i7, my mind don't allow me get the lower model even if its worth.

:(

anyways, in the shop which I visited the AMD radeon HD 6970 was somewhere around 180 USD, I planned to get that one but the reviews told that nvidia graphics cards perform much better in FSX engine. is it true? or should I opt for 6970,maybe 6990 when released

nVidia for FSX always. Anything over a GTX 460 is a waste of money IMO. Too bad there's no "K" version, not sure what you're going to do now :(

nVidia for FSX always. Anything over a GTX 460 is a waste of money IMO. Too bad there's no "K" version, not sure what you're going to do now :(

Might be true for FSX, but it's definitely not true if you play other games - there's an insanely clear difference between a 570 or 580 and a 460 in GPU limited games/apps. I think there's a good possibility MS Flight is going to take advantage of the GPU more too, which is a potential argument for getting a better card.To Prakhar,Don't get an Intel branded motherboard, try to get the Asus P8P67 Pro or Deluxe - the Intel branded ones are very basic as far as their features and won't have much in the way of overclocking support. I would get the i5 2500K instead of the i7 2600K unless you really need the Hyperthreading for something. That's the only tangible difference and most games/sims take no advantage of it at all.You're going to severely limit yourself if you won't overclock the Sandy Bridge CPU - the K models are specifically designed for it and they've made it very easy to do now. (it's basically two settings - CPU multiplier and CPU voltage, that's it) As long as you have good cooling (ie Corsair H70 or A70) and you keep your voltage under 1.4v, there is an absolutely minuscule danger in doing it. If you don't, you're seriously holding FSX performance back - this is the only way you'll get anywhere close to running the sim maxed the way you talked about.

Might be true for FSX, but it's definitely not true if you play other games - there's an insanely clear difference between a 570 or 580 and a 460 in GPU limited games/apps. I think there's a good possibility MS Flight is going to take advantage of the GPU more too, which is a potential argument for getting a better card.

I know Ryan, for other games faster GPU help, but even then, check back Prakhar's 1st post and his resolution :( would you honestly get a top of the line GPU to run 1280 X 1024 even for Crysis 2 or whatever? :(

I'm planning on getting a 2500k with the ASUS board. I'm also keeping my corsair dominator memory (6gb) and upgrading the hd (WD caviar). I'm using an 8800 oc gtx and don't plan to upgrade that til I see what ms flight is going to do

..., my mind don't allow me get the lower model even if its worth....

Its time you learnt how to change your mind.

Its time you learnt how to change your mind.

I LoL!

I don't see the value of a GTX580 for FSX. Never did, but after my upgrade from a GTX460 1GB to this OCed GTX480 I still can't run any higher IQ without a significant performance hit in bad weather. 8xS or 8xSQ it is.

Weather is a very specific intensive FSX situation, and not likely to be GPU limited, even at high AA settings.Clear weather flying with lots of 3D geometry, and high resolution textures may be a completely different story.Whether a higher number of shader cores and more Vram is going to be of use depends entirely on what scenery / aircraft addons you use.This would probably explain why people bother with purchasing a GTX580.With the GTX480 deprecated, and a stock 580 running cooler and at comparable speeds the 580 is a good choice of card IMO. A GTX 570 perhaps if you are on a budget. A GTX480 is only available in the EOL bin (admittedly probably on special) in my neck of the woods.If you are running high autogen, screen resolutions, HD repaints on detailed scenery it will most certainly make a difference.What is interesting is how varied people's experiences are, and this (once again) I suspect relates to the scenery you use. Strange how didactic answers never seem to work when there is so much variety in the way the sim is used.The SLI question is also an intersting one ... never tried it ... largely due to very negative reports of GTX285 SLI setups having worse performance, even at high screen resolutions.Also FWIW ... I use 5040 x 1050 (3 spanned monitors) plus a tablet on a single Nvidia card .... it is possible .. but it requires a TripleHead2Go.

All I can say is, look at my sig, and note that I run all settings on high (other than car traffic and AI since I fly online most of the time) and with FPS_Limiter, get no less than 20 FPS. Even flying the Duke around Manhattan X.

Weather is a very specific intensive FSX situation, and not likely to be GPU limited, even at high AA settings.Clear weather flying with lots of 3D geometry, and high resolution textures may be a completely different story.Whether a higher number of shader cores and more Vram is going to be of use depends entirely on what scenery / aircraft addons you use.This would probably explain why people bother with purchasing a GTX580.With the GTX480 deprecated, and a stock 580 running cooler and at comparable speeds the 580 is a good choice of card IMO. A GTX 570 perhaps if you are on a budget. A GTX480 is only available in the EOL bin (admittedly probably on special) in my neck of the woods.If you are running high autogen, screen resolutions, HD repaints on detailed scenery it will most certainly make a difference.What is interesting is how varied people's experiences are, and this (once again) I suspect relates to the scenery you use. Strange how didactic answers never seem to work when there is so much variety in the way the sim is used.The SLI question is also an intersting one ... never tried it ... largely due to very negative reports of GTX285 SLI setups having worse performance, even at high screen resolutions.Also FWIW ... I use 5040 x 1050 (3 spanned monitors) plus a tablet on a single Nvidia card .... it is possible .. but it requires a TripleHead2Go.

You got it all wrong man :blush:It's a very well known thing that high levels of AA + clouds will bring any GPU to it's knees. Try 16xS or 4x Sparse Grid Transparency Antialiasing and compare performance in clear skies vs overcast. Give the GPU a slight overclock and you will see the imediate impact: it's the GPU, not the CPU that chokes under such conditions. Of course overclocking the GPU doesn't completely overcome the massive perf hit, so you are necessarily back to 8xSAG and scenery are 100% a CPU thing, and ask yourself a question, if you get good performance running such a large resolution on a single card, what is left that could degrade performance of your GPU? filters. Just try it and you will see what I'm talking about. I have had 5 different GPU's and 3 different CPU's so I think I know what I'm talking about.There's so many people with 500$ videocards running FSX at 8xS or 8xSQ when you can do that with a GTX460 and frame rate is exactly the same... (and yes, even a Sandy Bridge @ 5GHz is still the bottleneck in FSX at those AA levels)

Just re-reading your previous post, your reasoning is this?:The GPU is the bottleneck, but a faster GPU makes no difference. (!?)Admittedly if you are running a GTX 480 at 800, you are hardly running a GTX480! (and our friend here is nervous about overclocking his 2500K!) At 800, I'd imagine you will be getting performance similar to a GTX580, with significant effort to keep things cool.So why run your card at 800? If it makes no difference you should be running your card at standard clock, and preventing an early "upgrade"!

... Give the GPU a slight overclock and you will see the imediate impact: it's the GPU, not the CPU that chokes under such conditions. ...

Apparently (most recent post) it does make a difference.Another solution for our nervous friend would be to get a 5xx series card, gently factory overclocked. He could overclock a GTX4xx series card (as you have done) -- but I doubt he'd feel comfortable with this.Personally for $200 difference, I'd go for the cooler, warrantied out of the box solution.Perhaps it's my eyes, I have to run 16x, or 16Q or my eyes start to hurt! So many different needs we all have!@Mike: A GTX570 is a great card too, and in many ways better value for FSX.

Just re-reading your previous post, your reasoning is this?:The GPU is the bottleneck, but a faster GPU makes no difference. (!?)

Yes, that's more or less my reasoning: the GPU is the bottleneck in clouds and high AA levels (with 4xSS even large amounts of AG will make your FPS plummet), and the GPU and it's overclock makes a difference in that scenario obviously, but not enough to handle anything over 8xS / 8xSQ without a significant performance hit, hence my comment: if you are forced to run low AA, you might as well save your money and get a GTX460 or 560.

Admittedly if you are running a GTX 480 at 800, you are hardly running a GTX480! (and our friend here is nervous about overclocking his 2500K!) At 800, I'd imagine you will be getting performance similar to a GTX580, with significant effort to keep things cool.So why run your card at 800? If it makes no difference you should be running your card at standard clock, and preventing an early "upgrade"!Apparently (most recent post) it does make a difference.Another solution for our nervous friend would be to get a 5xx series card, gently factory overclocked. He could overclock a GTX4xx series card (as you have done) -- but I doubt he'd feel comfortable with this.Personally for $200 difference, I'd go for the cooler, warrantied out of the box solution.Perhaps it's my eyes, I have to run 16x, or 16Q or my eyes start to hurt! So many different needs we all have!@Mike: A GTX570 is a great card too, and in many ways better value for FSX.

I never recomended getting a GTX480. I just got me one because it's dirt cheap here right now. It goes for 245€ (compared to 350€ for a similar performer like the GTX570) and it has the best air cooling available in any GTX480 in the market. It's still a power hungry SOB, and I agree any GF104 equiped card is a better option. I just love upgrading, overclocking and testing new parts, that's it. But I never recommend something just because I got me one. I say get a GTX460 that is no different internally to a 5xx series in terms of power consumption since it uses the same GF104 chipset, and save those 200$By the way, it's 860MHz not 800 that I'm running, and temps are perfectly fine with this W3 thingy. I even modded the card's BIOS (it's really easy with the right tools) to unlock the voltage and I can even get it stable at 900MHzI'm not sure what those 16x and 16Q modes do right now (I can see they are CSAA modes) but I'm willing to bet they either don't look so good, or that your performance will be far from ideal in bad weather no matter what GPU you have

I've tested both the 560ti and the 580 on my 5.0 to 5.4 (depending on the kinda of mood I'm in) Sandy Bridge. If it's all 'bout FSX, playing at 1650x1080 with maximum settings with the goal of perfect smoothness throughout, then there's nothing the 580 can do that the 560 can't. NOTHING! On the ground at Flightbeam's SFO with stupid settings, like 16xx AA and 4096 cloud textures, will net you exactly 12 fps with either card. If you're flying the MD11 at 10,000 Ft. with 4096 clouds you might get 50 fps with the GTX 580 vs 45 fps with the 560ti. But guess what? If your stuff is dialed-in then there's not going to be any difference in smoothness. After all, smooth is smooth, right? Just to expand on this a lil further, with 1024 cloud texture and 8s AA you're not going to see any difference in FPS anywhere in the sim. None! So tell me where the value is with the 580gtx vs the 560ti, if used exclusively for FSX? Playing other games? I'd take the 570. .......Use the $250 difference between the 560 and 580 and take your loved-one for a night out on the town.Ken Carlin

Perhaps it's my eyes, I have to run 16x, or 16Q or my eyes start to hurt! So many different needs we all have!

I just tested this... I assume you are setting this from the nVidia control panel right?You really need to take a close look at this, those modes are TERRIBLE, even a 10 year old VGA could handle that. 16 > 8 doesn't mean that 16xQ is better than 8xS.