I have my GTX670 already, purchased it a while back. Using a power meter i saw my average power usage in FSX going down from ~200W to ~130W during flight (same region, same airplane). Not only that but the 580 would heat up to around 70ºC and this one doesn't even reach 60ºC.

 

As far as performance goes, i DO notice a bit faster screen redraw but nothing that makes me jump and say "yay, it IS much better". No, it's just better or it's not worse than a 580 if you prefer.

 

Happy 670 owner ;)

I have my GTX670 already, purchased it a while back. Using a power meter i saw my average power usage in FSX going down from ~200W to ~130W during flight (same region, same airplane). Not only that but the 580 would heat up to around 70ºC and this one doesn't even reach 60ºC.

 

As far as performance goes, i DO notice a bit faster screen redraw but nothing that makes me jump and say "yay, it IS much better". No, it's just better or it's not worse than a 580 if you prefer.

 

Happy 670 owner ;)

 

Would you mind taking the FSMark11 benchmark?

This will really help us [in the hardware forum] decide whether the new Nvidia cards are worth the upgrade.

I see that both people who replied to my comments have the GTX 580...

 

I understand the skepticism from folks who paid a lot of money for a GTX 580 video card and then found out that a newer card which costs the same or less offers much better performance. This may not necessarily be the case with FSX performance, but with other games it has already been demonstrated.

 

I'm still using an old GTX 285, but my next purchase will definitely be a GTX 670, not a 580.

 

nah, it's not that dave.

I'm just curious because going from a 480 to a 580 I haven't really seen much of a perf boost, and both happen to sport 48 ROPS.

 

Would you mind running some quick test with 2x or 4xSGSS for us please?

Would you mind taking the FSMark11 benchmark?

This will really help us [in the hardware forum] decide whether the new Nvidia cards are worth the upgrade.

 

I would, but it requires the default 737 and i don't have it (deleted all default A/C). It also requires standard FSX scenery and my scenery is far from default, i have many terrain meshes and texture addons :)

32 ROPs vs 48 ROPs in the 480 & 580. ROPs are supposed to be there for crunching AA, and that's what I want in FSX, not so much for geometry.

<<expression removed by ADMIN - due to received complaint.>> *Please refrain from using questionable expressions/comments verging on the inappropriate*

Mind you I really have no idea if things work like that or not

 

Also even though it has twice the SP's a 580, the shader clock runs now at 1x the core clock, when the 500 series was 2x

 

GF100/GF110 has a bottleneck that prevents it from outputting more than 2 pixels per clock per SM. Since GF110 has only 16 SMs, it cannot output more than 32 pixels per clock. Therefore, 16 of its ROPs are essentially useless. Also, the 680 has 3x the SPs of the 580, not 2x.

GF100/GF110 has a bottleneck that prevents it from outputting more than 2 pixels per clock per SM. Since GF110 has only 16 SMs, it cannot output more than 32 pixels per clock. Therefore, 16 of its ROPs are essentially useless. Also, the 680 has 3x the SPs of the 580, not 2x.

 

You're right, it's a 3x factor in the SP count, not 2x. And I had no idea about that bug, thanks for the info. I want to clarify once again I have no idea weather the 600 series are better or worse in FSX either, and I appreciate the reports from you guys who own it.

Interesting that the 670 has a 320-bit bus; whereas the 680 has only a 256-bit bus. If I remember correctly, the width of the bus matters in FSX. Id be interested in others' thoughts on this issue.

 

RH

Interesting that the 670 has a 320-bit bus; whereas the 680 has only a 256-bit bus. If I remember correctly, the width of the bus matters in FSX. Id be interested in others' thoughts on this issue.

 

RH

 

Both the 670 & the 680 have a 256b memory bus Robbie.

The 580 has a 384b bus, but the memory clock is lower (2GHz vs 3GHz in the 600 series) so the theoretical bandwidth is virtually the same

You are correct sir! My error. I was looking at 570 specs.

 

RH

Once the 680's become available again, I am going to use the EVGA stepup program. I am extremely eager to see how the 680 performs. - We are decently confident that it performs equivalent to the 580 so I have nothing to loose.

I have my GTX670 already, purchased it a while back. Using a power meter i saw my average power usage in FSX going down from ~200W to ~130W during flight (same region, same airplane). Not only that but the 580 would heat up to around 70ºC and this one doesn't even reach 60ºC.

 

As far as performance goes, i DO notice a bit faster screen redraw but nothing that makes me jump and say "yay, it IS much better". No, it's just better or it's not worse than a 580 if you prefer.

 

Happy 670 owner ;)

 

Did you UPG to 670 from your 580?

if so you are what I am looking for...

could you tell us if you see any Performance degradation between the 580 and the 670?

I am asking this as even though the 670 has many more shader cores it is known that the Shader clock is much is much lower then the 580.

FSX tends to depend more on the shader clock then the shader cores.

could you comment on this please and tels us your finding?

it would be even more helpful the results with all your addon scenery, PMDG stuff if you got., etc.

 

P.S. I am less interested if there is a performance gain of the 670 vs the 580, but more if there is a performance degradation.

I am looking to get a new card and my debate is between 580 and 670 (power consumption, etc I don't care), all I care if there is any performance loss between the 580 and 670.

My GTX670 (KFA2 reference) will arrive tomorrow and it will be interesting to see how it compares against my AMD HD6950... in theory it should blow it away, esp. with multi layers of cloud, but we shall see. I really like the overall IQ of the AMD card, but I had issues outside of FSX with certain games and driver revisions, so I will be glad to see the back of it.

 

One thing I have missed these past ten months is nVidia Inspector and the control it offers; the relative lack of decent AA modes of the AMD card has been annoying at times, as has been the penalty of using more than 2X MSAA in some games... I just need to re-learn what nV has to offer.

There's no performance degradation from the 580 to the 670, none at all. There might be a slight improvement in cloud rendering as i don't have some weather render "hesitations" i used to have with the 580. I run my sim with adaptive VSync and framerate limited on the nVidia driver and even at heavy airports with the NGX's VC and heavy weather, my FSX is very smooth.

Thanks man for the response , very helpful it is.

There's no performance degradation from the 580 to the 670, none at all. There might be a slight improvement in cloud rendering as i don't have some weather render "hesitations" i used to have with the 580. I run my sim with adaptive VSync and framerate limited on the nVidia driver and even at heavy airports with the NGX's VC and heavy weather, my FSX is very smooth.

 

WHat inspector settings please Nuno?