Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ashepherd316

gtx 580 vs gtx 680 with an i7 2700k

Recommended Posts

there is no comparison for fsx though has anyone done any tests i have the gtx 580 was just wandering if it was worth upgrading to gtx 680


Alexander Shepherd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we did some tests when 680 came out, and they showed that it is no better than 580 in FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no comparison for fsx though has anyone done any tests i have the gtx 580 was just wandering if it was worth upgrading to gtx 680

 

No


Howard
P3Dv4, Asus Z170-A MB, i7-6700 Skylake @ 4.5ghz, Asus GTX1080ti 11Gb GPU, 16gb RAM@3200Mhz, SSD/1Tb+P3D.v4.4, SSD/500Gb+OS, Western Digital 1Tb HD + Storage, Ocz 750 PSU, Philips BDM4350UC 43" 4K IPS, 2 x 17" Dell @ 1920x1200. PFC Yoke, Warthog throttle system, Saitek combat pedals, Saitek switch and radio panels, VRinsight Boeing 2 MCP.



Banner_FS2Crew_Supporter.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we did some tests when 680 came out, and they showed that it is no better than 580 in FSX.

 

The 680 has a clear lead over the 580 in heavy clouds.

 

Also, as monitors have more pixels in the future, GPUs are going to need to catch up. I think it is best that he go for the 680.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 680 has a clear lead over the 580 in heavy clouds.

 

Also, as monitors have more pixels in the future, GPUs are going to need to catch up. I think it is best that he go for the 680.

 

Be so kind as to point me to where is this stated? I went briefly through the thread only...

 

I did a test with another user between mine and his card, in a heavy cloud situation with all same settings and we found no evidence of any lead of the 680.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will post a comparison with my 580 once I get my 660Ti. That should clear things up since everything else will be exactly the same. My attempt at a GPU benchmark, while seems to suggerst that SGSS is shader bound, is not really conclusive at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, thanks Dario. Looking forward to some conclusive results!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be so kind as to point me to where is this stated? I went briefly through the thread only...

 

I did a test with another user between mine and his card, in a heavy cloud situation with all same settings and we found no evidence of any lead of the 680.

 

Did you test using Darios benchmark with the innitial FSmark11 settings?

 

My attempt at a GPU benchmark, while seems to suggerst that SGSS is shader bound, is not really conclusive at all

 

Is it inconclusive Dario?

 

I looked through the thread again and so far we have tests with GTX470, GTX580 GTX670 and GTX680 using the innitial FSXmark11 settings during the benchmark. They all point to one thing. Exellent scaling with shaders (GFLOPS).

 

We just have Bens result with another GTX580 as the odd one out. I just asked if his result were done with the innitial FSXmark11 settings. If he used the settings you posted later with the minimal sliders the result is more understandable.

 

hello just wandering what graphics card is better with an i7 2700k cpu a gtx 580 or gtx 680 thanks

 

 

The GTX680 handles SGSS in clouds a lot better than GTX580 @1920x1080 in certain scenarios.

What resolution and what AA settings is it to be used with?

I can't say how it works in 2560*1440 (78% more pixels) as the GTX680 has less ROPs (or Pixel fillrate) and this is normally starting to get important when the resolution goes upp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it inconclusive Dario?

 

I don't really know. I still fear it might be the the ROP's or something, but yeah, truth is it all seems to point to the shaders.

Once the prices settle, I'll be getting a 660Ti and then I'll know for sure, I'm ready to play the guinea pig on this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so basically we still can't max out fsx at places like heathrow and hong kong.

 

It may take 50 years before there's a computer capable of running FSX completely maxed out, including water, ALL traffic (ground vehicles, road traffic, airliners, GA), bloom, scenery, AG....

It cracks me up when I see someone post he's getting 60FPS with all sliders to the right in KSEA or similar in the VC of the NGX and stuff like that.

 

Who cares anyway, there's no need for maxed sliders. bloom sucks, reflections on the water are very unrealistic and 100% MyTraffic or UT2 is far too crowded at those big hubs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its alright if you use a programme to control the ai traffic like ai smooth or ai separation i do prefer the settings maxed out myself hopefully the next graphics cards and cpus will help if it does take 50 years i cant see them making a better flight sim in that time lol.


Alexander Shepherd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think until the time the hardware catches up with "fully maxed FSX at 60fps in every situation", FSX won't be compatible with that hardware nor OS any more. You really think that in 50 years we will have same computational structure? I don't think we will...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...