Non-existent: ??

GeForce GTX 685 (GK110) Features 4GB 512-bit Memory, 25% Faster than GTX 680. http://videocardz.co...b-512bit-memory

 

I didn't say buy it now but wait until it was released and if you look at the specs for a 680 they are closer (where it matters) to a 570/560 than a 580! This post by one of the most respected experts in the business: http://www.simforums.com/forums/search_results_posts.asp?SearchID=20120521171340&KW=gtx+680

 

Btw I was expressing an opinion rather than a statement of fact. Your response would have been better: "Don't wait for the 685, it will never happen and the guru's are wrong again, or words to that effect." An opinion is just that!! :Peace:

pH

Non-existent: ??

GeForce GTX 685 (GK110) Features 4GB 512-bit Memory, 25% Faster than GTX 680. http://videocardz.co...b-512bit-memory

 

Unfortunately quoting a rumor mill does not make the card exist. There is no GTX 685.

 

GK110 has finally been announced by NV at GTC and is known as a Tesla K20 GPU which will be available Q4. It is designed for HPC's (super computers) and won't be a GPU for your home PC.

 

So GK110 based Tesla's won't be out until Q4 then consumer GeForce editions won't follow until Q1-2 2013. Following NV's typical release schedule it would be a 7XX card. NV has no reason to release a top end card at this time or for months until the 8XXX cards are released by AMD.

 

I didn't say buy it now but wait until it was released and if you look at the specs for a 680 they are closer (where it matters) to a 570/560 than a 580! This post by one of the most respected experts in the business: http://www.simforums...1340&KW=gtx 680

 

Btw I was expressing an opinion rather than a statement of fact. Your response would have been better: "Don't wait for the 685, it will never happen and the guru's are wrong again, or words to that effect." An opinion is just that!! :Peace:

pH

 

I know the respected expert you referenced. It is obvious from his posts over the last few weeks that he is wrong and he has never used a GTX600 series card.

 

Benches have shown the 680 is equal to the 580 in FPS and that was based on early drivers.

 

I just was mainly mentioning concerns over your post recommending someone wait for a card that doesn't exist or referencing "guru's" that are obviously way wrong. It was clear your post was an opinion but many people come here looking for clear guidance on new hardware.

John

It was noy my intention to spread any rumors. I had seen several references to the 685 and genuinely believed it was to be. If I was wrong then I apologise. Further, I would ask the OP to disregard my remarks which according to you are incorrect.

 

What really appalled me was your negative demeaning attack on my post.

This type of negativity is prevalent on these forums and it something that I would like to see ceased.

All you had to do was to post YOUR own opinion it didn't need an attack on mine to make your point.

Shame on you.

The expert I was referring to has I believe (hope this is not a rumor) has worked closely with nVidia over a period of time.

Now, I would like you to put your money where your mouth is and go to the simforums and post the comments you made above wrt to the post I referenced.

Can you do that?

pH

Hi guys,

 

I just put a 680 4g in and ditched my 590. I run 3 X 30in screens in NV surround and I have not changed any settings since doing Costa's tweak.

 

Surprisingly the 680 has produced a lot of stutters and dropped the FPS down a bit. It maybe because the drivers are a little premature for the 680. I have only tried the 301.24 drivers for both cards so I might try the original 680 drivers.

 

I tried the new card because I've read that the SLI side of the 590 can impair FSX.

 

At this stage the 680 compared to the 590 is a step down

 

 

IM

I just put a 680 4g in and ditched my 590

 

That's exactly what I was hoping to do. I'm sorry to hear it didn't improve the situation. On an interesting and related note, I discovered last night that the new NVidia drivers allow you to use one GPU of the 590 exclusively for antialliasing, and the other to drive the monitor. When I enabled this I saw a tremendous leap in FPS. I was in heavy weather at Imaginesim's KIAD, with all traffic/cars/vehicles maxed (default), in a heavy thunderstorm. I got 12-13 fps before this setting, and 20-21 after. Might be worth a try if you go back to the 590.

GK110 is not yet the basis for any consumer products, nor will it be until at least Q4 when NV launches the Tesla K20 SKU. There is not likely to be a GTX 685. It is far more likely that NV will launch GK110 consumer parts as Geforce GTX 7xx series due to the expected performance increase (and cost).

I have one of these 670 4GB cards on pre-order for when they come out in a couple of weeks, I use multi-monitor with high AA/AF and textures outside of FSX and want the 4GB VRAM to give this some legs for the future, for the $489 it will cost I think is is a decent deal for a 4GB card, especially since I saw the 680 4GB retailing at $629 and the 3GB 580s are still $500+.

 

Once it comes out in a few weeks and I get it in my hot little hands I will do a FSXMark2011 like I did with my previous 5870 and now current 560Ti/448, so hopefully will add to the FSX data if nothing else.

 

Worst case if this disappoints I will use the EVGA stepup to go to a 685 if it ever comes out.

In reference to the OP's Q.

 

On my old PC (Core 2 Duo) I went from a GTX8800 (that had 752? MB VRAM) to a GTX560 2GB card and I noticed something interesting. I have 2 X 24" Dell monitors (2 X 1980 X 1200)

 

My GTX8800 worked ok in places like Princess Juliana (Fly Tampa) etc and when I fly to some crowded places like Fly Tampa Hong Kong or other airports I had lots scenery addons... I used to run into trouble. Textures don't load on buildings and even in my VC panel...all greyed out or just freeze.

 

With the GTX560 2GB, I turned on the VRAM usage display (Thanks to Dazz) and flew around Hongkong (Fly Tampa scenery)..and the VRAM was hovering around 750-830MB and I am not running into trouble with textures being greyed out and then freezing using the GTX560. So I can see I was hitting the limits of the VRAM using the GTX8800. I still get the Grey textures but atleast it doesn't freeze on me or make me quit FSX. Not sure what controls that Grey textures thingi

 

So I get the impression, that I cannot run out of VRAM. I have to have enough VRAM.

 

Originally I had the understanding that if the system runs out off VRAM, it would use the regular RAM like a virtual memory for the video card). That functionality doesn't exist or its simply broken/or ineffective.

 

In my new setup that I am working on.. Do I need 2GB or 4GB video card? I do intend to add one more 24" so that is 3 X 24" and a possible touch screen as a fourth monitor.

 

I am thinking 2GB Video card should be sufficient for single monitor setup.. and it maybe enough for three monitor setup even. But If I can help it, I would go for 4GB VRAM Video card

 

BTW the GPU usage was hovering around 50%.

 

So the decision to go for a 2 GB or 4GB card can be decided by turning on the VRAM usage in the Inspector and seeing how much VRAM is being consumed in your setup.

 

Manny

Is there a tool to see how much of the Vram is being used at anytime?

 

I use an older Nvidia inspector for that: until version 1.9.5.9 the "usage" is indicated, sadly now it's replaced with "interface".

Of course you have to run FSX in windowed mode to see it.

You still find the older version if you google.

 

 

In FSX my (slightly overclocked) GTX 570 uses around 550 Mb of the 1.28 GB available with a GPU load of around 50%.

 

In the X-Plane demo or in aeroflyFS it uses almost the full 1.28 GB but with less GPU load.

I use an older Nvidia inspector for that: until version 1.9.5.9 the "usage" is indicated, sadly now it's replaced with "interface".

Of course you have to run FSX in windowed mode to see it.

You still find the older version if you google.

 

 

In FSX my (slightly overclocked) GTX 570 uses around 550 Mb of the 1.28 GB available with a GPU load of around 50%.

 

In the X-Plane demo or in aeroflyFS it uses almost the full 1.28 GB but with less GPU load.

 

click on the Sensor Monitoring button in the top left corner of the GUI, that should open the graphs. By default the VRAM usage graph is disabled, so right click anywhere in the graph, and tick Monitors -> Memory usage

I received my EVGA GTX 670 SC 4GB and have posted FSXMark11 results in that thread here:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329116-fsxmark11/page__st__425#entry2387391

 

Overall as a single monitor upgrade from my 560Ti/448/1.2GB, it makes FSX feel much smoother and makes those <30 FPS situations much smoother and flyable, and where in the past in certain situations I would see VRAM max out, now I see that the VRAM in use climb to 1.4GB-1.5GB.

 

In the future for triple monitor I think the 4GB VRAM will definitely come into play, which is why I got it.

I received my EVGA GTX 670 SC 4GB and have posted FSXMark11 results in that thread here:

http://forum.avsim.n...25#entry2387391

 

Overall as a single monitor upgrade from my 560Ti/448/1.2GB, it makes FSX feel much smoother and makes those <30 FPS situations much smoother and flyable, and where in the past in certain situations I would see VRAM max out, now I see that the VRAM in use climb to 1.4GB-1.5GB.

 

In the future for triple monitor I think the 4GB VRAM will definitely come into play, which is why I got it.

 

LOL, what the hell are you doing that takes up so much VRAM John? I rarely see it hit 1GB, and I run 4xSGSS.

Do you use AA_MODE_METHOD_SUPERVCAA_64X_4V12 maybe?

LOL, what the hell are you doing that takes up so much VRAM John? I rarely see it hit 1GB, and I run 4xSGSS.

Do you use AA_MODE_METHOD_SUPERVCAA_64X_4V12 maybe?

 

Hehe I don't think I am doing anything unusual, config per Word Not Allowed's recent recommendations plus:

AA mode: 8xS [Combined:1x2 SS + 4 MS]

AA Supersampling: 2x Sparse Grid Supersampling

TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096

LOD_RADIUS=4.500000

REX Clouds 2048

high cloud density

1920x1080 resolution

 

But I do fly mostly in Orbx PNW/S43/W16with real weather (often overcast or rainy) and usually I fly the Carenado C90, Baytower RV7, RealAir Legacy so I'm likely using lots of high resolution textures.

 

Other than that I don't think I'm doing anything unusual :D

I rarely see it hit 1GB

 

With my 580, I've never seen mine pass 800MB. I run 2xSGSS only if I am flying in less dense scenery etc. Most of the time I am down at 8xS.

Yep part of the reason I made the jump up from the 560/1.2GB to the 670/4GB is so I am free to run the high AA and textures conditions that I normally fly in, glad to finally be able to do that without running out of VRAM... I realize most FSX'ers don't use those settings and like to fly in better weather conditions but I love flying in the realistic weather we have here in the PNW, even if that makes VFR challenging.

 

I'm just glad to be able to have bought a 670/4GB card that can do this for $484, which is much cheaper than the 580/3GB I considered last year before settling on the 560 temporarily.