I would love if someone could test a GTX 580 vs a GTX 680 on the same system, so not two different CPUs. I think Word Not Allowed's results don't say much because it's tested on two different CPU's. At the moment I'm holding off on the GTX 680 because I wanna know if it's a downgrade or not. I know it won't increase much, but I also play other (racing) simulators/games so if it's not a downgrade in FSX I'm gonna buy it.

http://www.simforums.com/forums/i2700k-performs-better-than-an-i7-3930_topic41770.html

http://www.simforums...topic41770.html

 

And what exactly does this tell about the GTX 580 vs GTX 680 performance? I think his problem is caused by LGA 2011 and not his videocard.

When was the last time you had to update a motherboard driver to make a graphics card work better? Never I bet.

 

If you read closely you will see he says the 580 works better than the 680 does on the same rig, that performance difference isn't due to the motherboard or CPU, I don't even think the quad channel memory problem he was having was a factor either. It may, just may be due to the immature GPU drivers but I personally doubt it.

 

The 680 is a completely different design to any previous NV GPU. I am sure you understand or a least know that AMD/ATI suck in FSX, what makes you think Nvidia can all of a sudden make a chip with the exact same design philosophy as ATI's that works as well or better in FSX.

 

FSX needs fast CPU clocks (pure horsepower) to perform well, the same is true for the graphics core clock. With the 680 NV just drastically cut the core clocks but increased the number of cores, very much like the CPU makers did when they realised they had hit a wall as far as speeds (Ghz) were going and we know how much FSX benefited from those extra CPU cores don't we, not a lot, it doesn't scale very well at all beyond 2 or 3 cores, except at loading time.

I think Word Not Allowed's results don't say much because it's tested on two different CPU's.

 

That doesn't matter that much. Expectance was that 680 might become 20-30% faster than 580, which it won't be, no matter what SB CPU is used.

Especially tests in clouds have nothing to do with the CPU. They are purely GPU stuff. Especially concerning that the scenery is very very light.

 

When was the last time you had to update a motherboard driver to make a graphics card work better? Never I bet.

 

Me? Like... a month ago? And checked yesterday?

That doesn't matter that much. Expectance was that 680 might become 20-30% faster than 580, which it won't be, no matter what SB CPU is used.

Especially tests in clouds have nothing to do with the CPU. They are purely GPU stuff. Especially concerning that the scenery is very very light.

 

 

 

Me? Like... a month ago? And checked yesterday?

 

You misunderstood Word Not Allowed, it was more of a rhetorical question about the motherboard driver update, you don't update motherboard drivers to improve performance of a graphics card (generally speaking) unless they made a serious cock up with the board and that will usually result in a recall, not a driver update, unless of course its an integrated CPUGPU, yuck.

Ah. Apparently :)

 

I only read the first sentance. I am at work, so at times I only read parts of posts :)

But I do generally update mobo drivers when new ones are out.

Anyone knows if the GTX680 can be used with 3 displays as 1 wide view ( 3D accelerated ) , like a TH2Go / Infinity can do with FSX ?

Anyone knows if the GTX680 can be used with 3 displays as 1 wide view ( 3D accelerated ) , like a TH2Go / Infinity can do with FSX ?

 

Yes it can, it explains this in the spec's on the Nvidia website, its the first reference design NVidia card to ever offer this.

The next question will ofcoarse be : what will give more fps : 1x GTX 680 + TH2Go.

Or. 1x GTX 680 + GTX 470 in Nvidia Surround mode.

 

Anyone knows ?

You dont need triple head if you get a 680, you can connect 3 screens in Nvidia surround, and if you wish you can add one more monitor as something they call an accesory monitor to display something other than what is on the 3 surround monitors.

 

Edit: i beleive you will have to get an active display port adapter for one of the screens though if none of your monitors support displayport natively.

I see a lot of comparison values and opinions. I'm trying the last 30 minutes to find a post where someone states that "DX9 in FSX will saturate your PCI BUS" but couldn't find it yet. So, I have 'stuck' in PCI 2.0 vs PCI 3.0 bandwidth effect on FSX

Much too early to be making assumptions about this card.

 

If I recall correctly, when the Fermi 480 was released. Early adopters as myself were having issues with it. My 285 was outperforming it in FSX. Poor performance and crashes in both XP 64 AND Win 7 64. It took over three months for a decent driver release to run FSX without a hitch. You can thank Nick N for that as he "unofficially" worked closely with people he knows at Nvidia to smooth out the issues encountered with FSX and Fermi.

 

As a reminder, the 580 is ALSO Fermi, and as such no serious problems were encountered with FSX during it's release, given that drivers had already matured for the Fermi architecture. So it's too early to come to a conclusion regarding Kepler without giving time for drivers to mature.

 

Although, I don't see a huge revelation in FSX performance, there is no reason for Kepler not to at least be on par with a 580 pending device driver maturity. Some people who have compared the two, have already reported as such, and some have found degraded performance. I say wait for drivers.....

 

We know that FSX is CPU hungry. Not to get off topic, but after three years of running a 920 @ 4ghz, I finally got around to tweaking the bios, and hit a wall at 4.4. I saw a VERY noticeable difference in performance/smoothness. Even though, I am now in the process of building a new FSX rig, flying the PMDG 737 NGX with my older i7 920/GTX/TH2GO@5040X1050/GTX 480, is finally a joy. Just some very few microstutters in the PMDG 737's VC. All the default jets are smooth as silk with a barely noticeable VC microstutter in heavy clouds and weather. My FSX settings are as per Nick N's recommendations- I'm sure most of you know them from the simforums NickN guides.

 

I know a lot of us have dedicated FSX rigs, and if that's the only thing you are using it for, then stick with the 480/580 if that's what you have. Occasionally, I DO run other graphically intensive apps from time to time, so I don't want to be limited by older tech. I have a 680 superclocked, bought just yesterday, sitting in the box for my new S/B build. I may just throw it into my 920 rig tonight to see for myself what's what.

I have a 680 superclocked, bought just yesterday, sitting in the box for my new S/B build. I may just throw it into my 920 rig tonight to see for myself what's what.

 

PLEASE it would be so awesome if you can make a comparison for us!

PLEASE it would be so awesome if you can make a comparison for us!

 

I will report back late this evening for sure.