The 660Ti outperforms the 580....

 

Just want to mention a post by Nick Needham, Ben, dated Sept 12th, 2012, talking about his Hardware Guide:

 

It's Cards listed as "GT" "GTX" WITH A "Ti" attached to model numbers: 460 560, 660, 760 (or lower)

 

as I said, its not a complete document and will be refined/edited as I get time. You would not want to run a 4.2+GHz proc with a GT or GTX 460, 560, 660 even without the 'Ti" attached, as for the 680...

 

Nvidia is playing with their model numbers by market strategy to make them look hotter than they are. A prime example is the 680.. this card in the past (if it were, in example, a 580 instead of a 680) would be in the same class as 560-570 max.. Their flagship card in the 600 series which would be equal in performance by model compare of the 400-500 series has not been released.

 

 

I hope thats clear.. Im not saying a 580 beats a 680, what I am saying is Nvidia has coded the card to make it look better than the series of the past in equal class.

 

A 680 is actually in the same 'Class' as

460-470

560-570

 

not a 480 or 580

 

its a marketing move

 

Their next single core high memory bandwidth card may be numbered 685 or they may move it to the 700 series model number which is the card that would be in the same 'class' as the 480/580 of the past.

 

It depends entirely upon the game. Some will be higher many will be lower - the 660 has much less memory bandwidth then the 580, and only 60% of the pixel fill rate. It's an "ok" card - but as an upgrade to the GTX 580 - then much better would be the 670. If the game depends upon bandwidth - like FSX - the 580 will be faster.

At best - this is a side-grade, Ben. The AA requirement of FSX will crush the Ti.

 

For once I agree with Nick.

Mmm yeah finally after getting my i7 overlocked to 4.4ghz I have gotten pretty good performance, previously when it was still 3.4ghz I had to cut autogen out completely to allow other settings to be maxed or near max.

 

Really what bothers me more are crashes that happen sometimes, thankfully rarely midflight but probably like 30% of times when I try to start my FSX end in a crash.

like FSX - the 580 will be faster.

At best - this is a side-grade, Ben. The AA requirement of FSX will crush the Ti.

 

Where are your numbers?

 

Here are some benchmarks I made. The 580 isn't better than the 660Ti. It amazes me that someone as brilliant as you would come out and put such false information on the forum. This has been proven time and time again that the new Kepler cards are faster than the 580.

 

I don't care about "mem bus" or any of the hypothetical nonsense. The performance is what counts Paul.

Mmm yeah finally after getting my i7 overlocked to 4.4ghz I have gotten pretty good performance, previously when it was still 3.4ghz I had to cut autogen out completely to allow other settings to be maxed or near max.

 

Really what bothers me more are crashes that happen sometimes, thankfully rarely midflight but probably like 30% of times when I try to start my FSX end in a crash.

Read this http://asn.aerosoft.com/?page_id=1997 only to understand CTD's. I don't tell you to run fsx at default fsx.cfg, but i agree about reasons and arguments for CTD.

This is the reason why i think that Word Not Allowed's Guide is excelent, becouse there is a very few balanced tweaks

.. I found almost zero difference between the two even after following your tweak guide. Is there something I did wrong?

 

don't care about "mem bus" or any of the hypothetical nonsense. The performance is what counts.

 

True, but then your system, Ben, with the SSD's, the 1866MHz C9 faster memory, a 4.9gig proc and a single-screen monitor - should have no issues in repeating any of those flights posted.

 

On top of this - with a superclocked 660Ti - if you say - more powerful than the 580 - then you should easily be able to see 30 in all of your pics - easily, and easily blow away any DX9 performance, because you're only driving a single monitor.

 

I'll also repeat, so that my words are not taken out of context - as you did - If the game depends upon bandwidth - like FSX - the 580 will be faster. It depends entirely upon the game and the use of AA. Some will be higher - many will be lower.

 

I've always regarded my system as being high-end, and it took a lot of fiddling to get it where it is now, but the difference DX10 made was a nice surprise - and the many successes of other simmers posting on the DX10 forum and other forums has also, quite frankly - astonished me.

I didn't expect that, but now, and more to the point - what also surprises me is that you, who has lots of FSX and pc build experience doesn't see any performance difference between DX9 and DX10.

 

Edit - I found Nick's Video Card Guide a few moments ago:- here it is:

 

A few basics before buying a video card

 

1. Dual core/card video adapters will NOT improve FSX and can even make FSX run worse. Purchase a single core video card(s) even if you intend to use SLi.

 

Example: GTX 590 = Bad for FSX

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130630

SLi is a different subject that I will briefly address later

 

2. A professional 3D modelers video adapter such as Quadro will NOT run FSX better than the standard game market video cards.

Example: Quadro 6000 = waste of money

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133347

 

3. Selecting the right video adapter is just as important to FSX as selecting the right processor.

 

4. Video memory for single monitor systems should be at least 1.28-1.5GB. Very high video memory cards (2GB+) will not make any difference in a single monitor FSX system but DO make a difference with multi-monitor setups.

 

There is nothing else to say about #1 and #2.

 

#3: As I mentioned in the processor section above, when shopping for the video adapter the goal is to match the CPU ability and planned clock speed to the video card. This is not hard to do if ask yourself a simple question with respect to the selected CPU and desired CPU speed...

 

Will my processor be a running at or higher than 4.0GHz with 4-6 cores or more?

 

If the answer is 'YES' then you need the 'top-dog' single core video adapter

Examples; GTX 580, GTX 685, GTX 785

 

If the answer is NO then what is considered a "mid-range" adapter for FSX

Examples: GTX 570, GTX 670, 680, GTX 770

 

Remember.. if you are not going to clock that modern Intel processor and are going to pair it with the mid-range card you must take what you can get in FSX. Even the top-dog systems out there can struggle with heavy payware scenery and aircraft so the unclocked CPU with mid-range adapter will struggle far more!

 

Examples of cards you to AVOID and are considered 'budget' and 'low-end' for FSX..

 

Cards listed as "GT" "GTX" WITH A "Ti" attached to model numbers: 460 560, 660, 760 (or lower)

NOTE: Can the above "Ti" budget cards be used? YES! But do not expect the same results as the better video cards listed and you will be searching for ways to fix everything from persistent blurry textures to stutters unless you are willing to seriously dial back the scenery and weather. If you add in a very complex aircraft that will force further restrictions.

Can you can purchase a i3/i5 processor and pair it with one of those budget cards? Absolutely! But do not expect anywhere near the same result as the person who bought the right hardware. Even if you overclock it all, there is no tweak on the planet that is going to make that cheap hardware perform close to or the same as the right products.

OK?

 

In any event - no - I don't know what you did wrong. You need to post your fsx.cfg and NI screenshot, so that we can take a look, and see if we can identify any potential problems.

 

It's also not a pissing contest, Ben. I don't care if you drive a Ford or a Ferrari.

 

All the Best,

 

pj

Then you need to get 2400 mem thats a 20% increase, a 660ti and add another 10 or 20%, run in DX10 good for another 10 or 20%, delid a 3770K good for 5 or so, Defragg HDD good for another 10 or so. Heck im up to 80% increase in performance, according to some recently. Whats the problem?

Heck im up to 80% increase in performance, according to some recently. Whats the problem?

 

:lol: I don't think it would be that much rofl...

 

 

In any event - no - I don't know what you did wrong. You need to post your fsx.cfg and NI screenshot, so that we can take a look, and see if we can identify any potential problems.

 

After supper, I'll upload a screenie! :smile:

To address a few things I've read:

DX10 - Hate it. At least its preview mode. FSX is terrible in displaying it with many sceneries and hundreds of planes aren't compatible. I'm fine with DX9, since that was what FSX was designed to operate from.

 

Computer systems - A capable system is an absolute MUST. It must have a capable graphics card with plenty of video memory (i recommend 2+ GB if you run many games or graphics software items at once), a good processor (Intel i7 is the best I know to go with) with plenty of GHz (FSX + GHz = Happy FSX. I would say at least 2 - 4 for acceptable performance on some systems, but the more the merrier ) and a lot of tweaks to the CFG to get really well peformance like on YouTube videos we've all been so jealous of. Systems that are good in capabilities are cheaper than many think; I recently ordered a new machine (Alienware M14x) and have seen many people play FSX on it. Good GT 650M on that, great performance for the low price of $1400 USD with minimal customizaton. When I first started with FSX (and little computer knowledge) I called Dell for a new computer and made the mistake of not knowing just what I needed. I learned from that. Paid $2000 USD for a computer with (get this) a GT 420M, which is barely capable of running FS2004 at max settings and getting 30 FPS (which should be easy considering today's systems).

 

Like I said, discuss what you will here, but FSX is constantly asking for better hardware as add-ons become more refined (*cough* PMDG *cough cough* )

FSX is rubbish. Plain and simple. I can only hope we live to see a truly worthy platform emerge. Perhaps if MS had focused more on the quality of their product and less on cheating more of the masses with their marketing hype.

 

I've been with MSFS since FS2 and I can assure you that FSX is not rubbish. The only rubbish that you mention are your very own words, based on lack of intelligence due to a lack of knowledge of that which you so proudly sprout forth. A very good platform has emerged and if you had been involved with FS as long as I have, you would accept that.

 

That's my rant for now and I will add that I am a natural complainer so no need to point it out thanks.

 

Nothing wrong with being a natural complainer, as long as you know what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

 

 

The 660Ti outperforms the 580....

 

Technically he's right. It is a mid range card for this generation. But a darn good one.

I've been with MSFS since FS2 and I can assure you that FSX is not rubbish. The only rubbish that you mention are your very own words, based on lack of intelligence due to a lack of knowledge of that which you so proudly sprout forth. A very good platform has emerged and if you had been involved with FS as long as I have, you would accept that.

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with being a natural complainer, as long as you know what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

 

LOL dude you just made my day! Your post is quite personal and frankly insulting so I'm not going to respond in kind. All I'll say is - I HAVE EYES! Yes indeed I do, and what I see on my screen when I run FSX greatly displeases me a lot of the time. It requires so much messing around and tinkering with to run half-way decently on even the best systems today. So yes, I say it is a rubbish platform and the sooner we have something better the happier we will all be. It could have been great, the potential was right there. But in it's current form it isn't and no amount of so-called "intelligent" arguments is going to persuade me otherwise. After all, I've experienced it first-hand. Apparently this isn't enough to know what I'm talking about. Oh and if you think it's because I have a lousy PC, check my profile.

Say what you like, I don't mind

 

OK. I hope we have lots of snow this winter.

Back in the late 60's, we were able to put men on the moon using computers as powerful as a digital wristwatch. I believe it's all about efficient and optimized coding, which FSX has clearly shown does not have either one. Imagine how FSX would run like if it used XPlane's OpenGL framework?

 

*Dons flame-suit*

LOL dude you just made my day! Your post is quite personal and frankly insulting so I'm not going to respond in kind. All I'll say is - I HAVE EYES! Yes indeed I do, and what I see on my screen when I run FSX greatly displeases me a lot of the time. It requires so much messing around and tinkering with to run half-way decently on even the best systems today. So yes, I say it is a rubbish platform and the sooner we have something better the happier we will all be. It could have been great, the potential was right there. But in it's current form it isn't and no amount of so-called "intelligent" arguments is going to persuade me otherwise. After all, I've experienced it first-hand. Apparently this isn't enough to know what I'm talking about. Oh and if you think it's because I have a lousy PC, check my profile.

 

Have you tried XP10 (serious, not sarcastic question)?

 

After reading your initial post I was going to suggest you get out more but I liked your closing statement so I didn't

Have you tried XP10 (serious, not sarcastic question)?

 

After reading your initial post I was going to suggest you get out more but I liked your closing statement so I didn't

 

Lol all good, I definitely would like to try XPlane 10 at some point. I'm keeping a close eye on it's development as I think it has heaps to offer, I'd just like to wait until there are a few more addons available and preferably when it's 64 bit capable as well so we can finally get past the memory limitations we are currently encountering. But yea I think it has heaps of promise =). Certainly a lot more than FSX does. I'm also keeping an eye on P3D and will be installing 1.4 in the not-to-distant future - hoping 64bit is on the cards with 2.0 as well. After all, why have all the fancy DX11 graphics capabilities if you are limited in how detailed you can make the scene in the first place?