I have a question regarding multi monitor operations within FSX and what the best video card will be for this type of operation. I currently have a three monitor setup that I use while I fly. My primary monitor is a Hanns.G 28” at 1920 x 1200 resolution. I run FSX in a windowed mode on this screen. Flanking the primary monitor are two ASUS 19” monitors running at 1440 x 900 resolutions. These are used for displaying programs outside FSX as well as other undocked windows that are dragged over and positioned as needed (such as FMC, INS, flight engineers panels, etc.). The primary monitor and one of the secondary monitors are currently running off an Nvidia 280GTX card. The final monitor is running on an Nvidia 9800GT card. I am looking to upgrade to a more modern card and was thinking about a 580GTX. The question is should I go with a 1.5 GB or 3.0 GB version – or something completely different. The rest of my system is an i7 920 @ 3.2, 12GB DDR3 1600 8-8-8, Win 7 Ultimate x64, 1200 watt PSU, Drives - 60GB SSD (Windows), 120GB SSD (FSX),with standard drives for everything else. I have already completed all the usual fixes (Bjote’s tuning, etc.) and sliders are set conservatively with very little to no AI traffic. I fly a lot of top end add-ons and enhanced scenery. When I am operating in an airport environment (especially EGLL) with FSL’s Concorde-X or PMDG aircraft and ASE, my FPS can take a real hit. (Low teens and upper singles are not uncommon depending on how many windows are open at the airport or on approach – mid to upper teens on a good day.) Airborne, I can usually get 20 – 30 FPS. A hit to the FPS is definitely noticed when I start opening additional windows within FSX. I know I could stand to over clock the CPU some more, but OC’ing is not my strength. And upgrading to a 2600k is a little more cost than I can swing right now. What is my best option graphics card wise to help out with how I typically fly? Would the 3GB card help handle the multi monitor setup easier, or could I save the money and stick with a 1.5GB, 570, or some other card? Thanks for any help and suggestions.

1.5GB is plenty. The 3GB is only really useful if you are running Triple Head 2 Go or resolutions higher than 1920x1080. I'd recommend using the 580 for the FSX flights, and using the 280 for the 2 secondary monitors. This allows the 580 to control only FSX graphics, it doesn't have to dedicate some resources to running the other 2 monitors. You could also go for a 570. The performance difference between the 2 cards isn't that noticeable in FSX

Okay, thanks for the information. That is kind of what I was expecting to hear, but sometimes you can't beat the experiences other people have been having. Thanks again.

NGX is right.For what you want a GTX580 1.5Tb is more than enough. My setup contains of 3 monitors running in 5040x1050 as one wide outside view. Before today I had a GTX470 with 1280mb and sometimes with very detailed (photo)scenery I got microstutters while having good framerates.I had to go back to 4320x900 to be able to use Water 2x without microstutters. Today I spoiled myself with a Gigabyte GTX580 SOC 1.5Tb and no longer those microstutters.Had I choosen a GTX570 I probably had choosen a 2048 mb version, but as the GTX580 is faster all data in the memory will be out faster too and 1.5Tb is more than enough.

NGX is right.For what you want a GTX580 1.5Tb is more than enough. My setup contains of 3 monitors running in 5040x1050 as one wide outside view. Before today I had a GTX470 with 1280mb and sometimes with very detailed (photo)scenery I got microstutters while having good framerates.I had to go back to 4320x900 to be able to use Water 2x without microstutters. Today I spoiled myself with a Gigabyte GTX580 SOC 1.5Tb and no longer those microstutters.Had I choosen a GTX570 I probably had choosen a 2048 mb version, but as the GTX580 is faster all data in the memory will be out faster too and 1.5Tb is more than enough.

Just so you know, that 580 isn't the fastest. The Asus Matrix is

NGX is right.For what you want a GTX580 1.5Tb is more than enough. My setup contains of 3 monitors running in 5040x1050 as one wide outside view. Before today I had a GTX470 with 1280mb and sometimes with very detailed (photo)scenery I got microstutters while having good framerates.I had to go back to 4320x900 to be able to use Water 2x without microstutters. Today I spoiled myself with a Gigabyte GTX580 SOC 1.5Tb and no longer those microstutters.Had I choosen a GTX570 I probably had choosen a 2048 mb version, but as the GTX580 is faster all data in the memory will be out faster too and 1.5Tb is more than enough.

Well, the 1.5 is what I was planning on, but sometimes is best to see what everyone else is experiencing. Thanks for the info.

Just so you know, that 580 isn't the fastest. The Asus Matrix is

Which one are you preferring to :Asus Matrix GTX580 or Asus Matrix 5870? Here a topic about the GTX480 beating the Matrix 5870 : http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123904 Here a topic about the Gigabyte GTX580 SOC vs Asus GTX580 Matrix (Nv version ) : http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=2110&pageID=10982As you can see the Gigabite version is faster.... I am very happy with the card and am beginning to think about upgrading everything else too : 2600K ( 4.8-5.0 Ghz ), Asus z68 mobo (because of EUFI ) , Kingston HyperX T1 2133 8Gb or GeIL 2400 8Gb ( prepared for more bandwith if MS Flight or AS Flight Simulator might support this )

Did you actually read the review or did you just look at the pictures? For every test, they had to set the SOC to the extreme setting, overclocking the card further, to beat the stock Matrix. They never said anything about overclocking the matrix.

No power circuit issues here. No re-overclocking.So left or right the Gigabite is faster. Bottomline is that the GTX580 is a top graphics card and the way to go with a multimonitor setup.Even a basic GTX580 is already a great card. As far for me : I simply wanted the fastets I could find and now I am running at stable 900mhz GPU / 1800 Shder / 4600 memory.For benchmarking I might even go up to 950, because there is allmost no heat extra compared to stock settings.And with the oc I even did not cranck up the power. My experiences compared to the Zotac GTX470 I had running at AMP settings are very positive.Now I can do my favorite landing at Rw 18R Schiphol Amsterdam coming from Gathwick.Before I had some microstutters because of the combo NL2000v4 photoscenery / AS Schiphol X and my settings of 5040x1050, but now I can do my approach really smooth and I even crancked up the AA. So my advice for multimonitor is GTX580 and 1.5Tb is more than enough. Now let it be and let us have some fun.

Left or right the gigabyte is NOT faster. In order for it to be faster, you have to overclock it even further to be faster than a stock matrix. Stock vs stock, matrix wins, 10% vs 10% OC, matrix wins etc. It's not fair to compare 1 card with an overclock (pas factory OC) and the other at stock.

Left or right the gigabyte is NOT faster. In order for it to be faster, you have to overclock it even further to be faster than a stock matrix. Stock vs stock, matrix wins, 10% vs 10% OC, matrix wins etc. It's not fair to compare 1 card with an overclock (pas factory OC) and the other at stock.

Don't know where you have read that.These benchmarktests where done out of the box, without extra oc. 3D Mark : Gb 1% faster under Performance and 9% faster under Xtrme settingsMetro 2033 : Gb 7% fasterLost Plant : Gb 3% fasterSTALKER : Gb 15% faster The Matrix is factory clocked at 815 and the SOC at 855.What would you have expected ? Quote :One thing to note is that while the Matrix GTX 580 Platinum has a lot of overclocking headroom, it does come out of the box with a 816 MHz core clock, which means at default settings, it may yield lower results than some of the competition Enough said...

Quote: The GIGABYTE card is about 1% faster here under the Performance setting and 9% faster under the Extreme setting.Meaning to get to beat the Matrix, you have to use their tool to overclock it further. Enough said.

Quote: The GIGABYTE card is about 1% faster here under the Performance setting and 9% faster under the Extreme setting. Meaning to get to beat the Matrix, you have to use their tool to overclock it further. Enough said.

Let me try explain it : those Performance settings/Extreme settings are the settings you choose in the game itself not in the graphics card options.So the SOC is with game settings to Performance 1% faster and with Game settings to Extreme 9% faster than the Matrix using the same Game settings......