Too bad we don´t have him over here anymore, cause there´s too much guessing and fiddling-hoopla going on here IMO...

I think this topic has come up a few times over the last couple months and perhaps it's best to address it head on... not that I have any answers. There's certainly lots of good technical information on those forums and I would agree that perhaps things have been a little watered down over here. While NickN and other hardware gurus may be familiar with specifications and their effect on FSX, I think the AVSIM hardware forum has just been on a different track. Think of it as a performance vs specification approach or perhaps empirical vs rational method.Specification, for example, would dictate that the 580 is hands down a better GPU for FSX than the 560. And I have no doubt it is! Performance, on the other hand, may show that there is too little gain to warrant the extra $250 - at least for someone on a budget. I can't speak from personal experience however, nor am I a "guru".The FSXMark11 benchmark is a good example of the performance/empirical approach the AVSIM hardware forum has been on. It's basically there to say let's drop our preconceived notions regarding FSX and hardware and see what actually performs through hands-on experimentation. It's a cool idea and while it's not without its flaws, I think it's a huge contribution. I should point out that NickN did give a pretty good argument for why the results may be inaccurate. I guess the point is that it's just one side of the coin. It only shows relative performance and it doesn't really explain why one piece of hardware performs better than another. The fact is that it would be great to have a technically competent guru around to not only explain the why, but to also improve the benchmark to avoid inherent flaws.In the meantime, I want to be clear that neither I nor anybody else around here to my knowledge would claim the title of "hardware guru" - certainly not in the way NickN has come to be recognized. I come to these forums to give and receive advice fully knowing that nobody else is a self-proclaimed "guru". Honestly, I'm just happy to hear your thoughts whether you're a hardware pro or not. Your advice, my advice, and NickN's advice does not have to agree. More importantly, I will not judge nor be judged for any advice and recommendations you or I give. But I may disagree of course and you're obviously welcome to as well. In other words, this post is my cop out !Oh and just to be clear, this post wasn't intended to be controversial or argumentative or anything like that. More so just philosophical.

What, Corey, you´re not your hardware guru? To whom did I listen during my upgrade? You are definitely one of the most experienced guys down here in the hardware section. Thumbs up!And about our approach to hardware and performance I have to say it´s just the right thing to do it. Why do I need a GTX 580, which is, as you siad, the best card arround, when a GTX 560 or my GTX 260 can do it with no maior performance loss? I don´t wanna buy something for much more money when a not that expensive card can do it similarly. There´s no need to have the fastest and newest parts build in, it´s the combination of parts which give the pc its power. Just the best card arround won´t guaranty that it´s working fluently. So our approach is just right and we should keep it this way.Just my 2 cents.

Great post Corey

CoreyGreat post.IMHO the ultra technical approach may not be the the best in terms of bang for your buck or satisfaction. There's a lot of talk about balanced systems, ie mobo, ram, cpu, psu, graphics card, cooling etc but all the recommendations that I have seen just seem to say buy the biggest and fastest and then make it even faster with overclocking. Have we really progressed in terms of speed performance and reliability from the Pentium P4 and early duo/quad core systems that FSX might have been tested on?I think that there are too many variables to be able to actually state what is the best system or settings that you need for FSX. The forums are full of pleas for help to fix ctd's, stutters, blurries, low frame rates, etc and many of these are from simmers with high end specs. I used to have a list that contained nearly a 100 variables when considering a system that would run FSX, and how you would build a 'balanced' system from that lot is beyond me.I have asked may times how you quantify by having low cas latency RAM, fastest video card processor etc you will see FSX really "fly", but the stock answer is always its the 'balance'. If that is the case it is the first time in history that the end has justified the means. Unfortunately we have no quantitative measurement on what happens when we run FSX and the myriads of add-ons now available.To me the best approach is the commonsense approach and I think that you get that here, because of the wide variety of experrise available, rather than just visiting some of the forums where the technogurus hold court.Great post - thought provoking. PeterH

Corey, well said.IMO, we are just normal people trying to help other normal people to reach their destination. That doesn't necessarily make us gurus.Besides, that term... guru. It's a different perspective for everyone. While you or me or anyone else here is potentially for someone else a guru, for some other person he is not.Here's a little story: I work in a electronics-store, and I had a customer approach me with a problem of not being able to install her printerProblem: XP, HP printer, while installing, requesting some file, unknown error blah blah...Solution: saw that printer asks for SP3 file, searched for it, found ServicePack folder in Windows, found missing file, driver installed. Printer working.Reaction: "I should have my statue built on the square in front of our shop".Now, I wouldn't call myself a guru for this one, but for her, I was an uber-guru. For most of people here, no even one-percentile-guru. See what I mean?People should stop ranging themselves into a ladder, but rather sit at a table, order a beer and discuss things! Yay!! :Big Grin:PS. One thing I don't like about NickN, is how he looks at AVSIM... and writes about it "There is no emotion or censorship behind my locking this thread.. if you guys want to play "I know better" or "I have a different opinion" do it at AVSIM, not here."

I understand why NickN can be cut and dry sometimes and how he can get fed up with some peoples.If you ask for his advise on something he will gladly give it to you but if you challenge him (and there is nothing wrong with that) you better have the proof to support your claim cause if your claim is Hocus Pocus he will call you on it.@ petehayes, balance is good that's for sure, I can't see myself dropping a Ferrari V12 in my Chrysler 300C (my bottleneck will be the transmission and the axel) but I see peoples building new rigs with a 2600K @ 4.8GHz dropping their old GTX 285 in it..... :Black Eye: or it's like peoples buying a mobo capable of taking Rams rated at 2200MHz but they will use Rams at 1600MHz?? You better buy a board that can use Rams rated at 1600MHz and use its full potential.To me the balance come in pair with the money you can spend on a rig, balancing a new rig with hardware for $2,000.00 will not be the same as balancing a new rig with $10,000.00.

I understand why NickN can be cut and dry sometimes and how he can get fed up with some peoples.If you ask for his advise on something he will gladly give it to you but if you challenge him (and there is nothing wrong with that) you better have the proof to support your claim cause if your claim is Hocus Pocus he will call you on it.@ petehayes, balance is good that's for sure, I can't see myself dropping a Ferrari V12 in my Chrysler 300C (my bottleneck will be the transmission and the axel) but I see peoples building new rigs with a 2600K @ 4.8GHz dropping their old GTX 285 in it..... :Black Eye: or it's like peoples buying a mobo capable of taking Rams rated at 2200MHz but they will use Rams at 1600MHz?? You better buy a board that can use Rams rated at 1600MHz and use its full potential.To me the balance come in pair with the money you can spend on a rig, balancing a new rig with hardware for $2,000.00 will not be the same as balancing a new rig with $10,000.00.

balance... the same old story. Balanced for what? It depends on what software you run so yes, a GTX280 can be overkill paired with a 2600K if all you're going to run something not related to graphics for example. Same for RAM. For most games RAM speed doesn't matter at all.Sounds like "signature balance" to me

I see peoples building new rigs with a 2600K @ 4.8GHz dropping their old GTX 285 in it..... :Black Eye:

Hey now, don't be hating on the GTS 250! ...OK, actually it sucks, but I'm too stubborn to drop the cash on a new GPU when I know Kepler is coming out in... erm... 6 months. But I suppose the same could be said for Sandy Bridge E and Ivy Bridge.

Nice post Corey.

Hey now, don't be hating on the GTS 250! ...OK, actually it sucks, but I'm too stubborn to drop the cash on a new GPU when I know Kepler is coming out in... erm... 6 months. But I suppose the same could be said for Sandy Bridge E and Ivy Bridge.

I did not mean to say that in a bad way but you know that your bottleneck IS your GPU right now, I feel the same way as my bottleneck is my GTX 480, I also want to wait for the Kepler but the same thing will happen again, we will have to wait another 6 > 8 months after the Kepler release to have the overclocked top of the line one.So it's another year or so before we can see it, in the mean time I'm looking at this one (keep in mind I'm playing other games) http://forum.avsim.net/topic/336802-holy-crap-did-you-see-this-card/ all bets are off on the price.... $950.00?

EDIT: Think I missed the point of the post. Let me try again.Now that I've read the rest of the post HE has made over there, I must say... Wow!!! Who peed in his Corn Flakes?! Nick's gone from some what arrogant but sensible to down right high-handed and unrealistic.Obviously this community doesn't have the technical prowess he deserves to be surrounded by. With that in mind, the requirements for the benchmark should be pretty darn strict with a way of verifying everything is set up properly (screen shots of system setup, timings, sim settings, etc).

Another great post Corey.I am not sure that I agree with what NickN is saying about benchmarking. The FPS results at the top of the table with similar systems seem quite close to me.We could prove or disprove his point by adjusting our systems to the same O/C, memory and GPU settings and see how close our results are matched. I suspect we would be within a frame or two of each other. With respect to his comments about what is actually being rendered, maybe a screen shot taken at the end or beginning of the test would suffice?PS: Get a 580. You know you deserve it.

Yeah, he´s a bit grumpy overthere!But if it´s true that he´s a multimillionaire, a retired engineer who built the spaceshuttle, worked for Boeing etc., then I can understand his somewhat arrogant attitude...Competent, high IQ, rich people are arrogant, don´t you know that?

I don't mind Nick being assertive or even harsh to prove a point. I'd still rather have him here contributing but I can see how he would not want to go back to the same old topics again. I'm not sure he's aware many of those threads are gone after the Avsim hack, that's a shameAnyway, about the Fraps based benchmarks, they are what they are. FSMark11 is about framerates. My RAM benchmark was about stutters, and both seem to yield consistent results in what they're intended to do. If the priority system is slowing down texture or AG loading keeping the frame rate & stuttering (almost) constant, or if the scenario of the test needs to be different is another story, but for what they are meant, those benchmarks results look solid to me. If Fraps is interfering with FSX while monitoring, it is definitely doing it in a very deterministic way.If someone comes asking for advice on an upgrade looking to improve something in particular like FPS or smoothness, I would say those benchmarks should be a good way to help find out what helps where and how much.

Even though there have certainly been some generous contributions from many here, I ALSO attribute my success to sheer determination and new hardware.The most expensive hardware doesn't always do the job well and it might not be financially worth it. That said, my new RevoDrive added about 5 fps, some badly needed space, and renders sharper images than when I was using my 120gig SSD for FSX. Expensive? Yes! But, worth it for me.BTW, if it wasn't for the people, all of you, on this forum, I would have given up on FSX a long time ago.