December 1, 201213 yr What a weird question... GTX680, but not the 4GB version, rather 2GB, since FSX will *never* use the 2GB, and then get the FTW version, and clock the hell out of it. That is the best card for FSX you can get. 2GB clocks way better than 4GB version. Word Not Allowed is right, go with his suggestion :drinks:
December 1, 201213 yr If you are running very high resolutions you may want to consider 4Gb. I sometimes had graphics memory problems with the 1.5Gb GTX580. Maybe 2Gb on the 680 will be okay but I wasn't prepared to risk it. I've had no problems with 4Gb. Regards Howard H D Isaacs
December 1, 201213 yr Sorry 4gb version as I do not believe in overclocking not worth the risk in my experience no bang for the buck just troubles 4gb is the way to go imo. Rich Sennett
December 1, 201213 yr Mr. Word Not Allowed great site you have thanks for that buddy may have a few questions once I get my new super rig setup Rich Sennett
December 1, 201213 yr Commercial Member What a weird question... GTX680, but not the 4GB version, rather 2GB, since FSX will *never* use the 2GB, and then get the FTW version, and clock the hell out of it. That is the best card for FSX you can get. 2GB clocks way better than 4GB version. +1 - Since SLI is a no-go for FSX the 680 2gig is the logical choice. Cheers jja Jim Allen[email protected]SkyPilot Software home of FSXAssist / P3DAssist
December 2, 201213 yr What a weird question... GTX680, but not the 4GB version, rather 2GB, since FSX will *never* use the 2GB, and then get the FTW version, and clock the hell out of it. That is the best card for FSX you can get. 2GB clocks way better than 4GB version. +1 Just bought a 660ti will test it out tonight Yay! :biggrin: Word Not Allowed is right, go with his suggestion :drinks: +1
December 2, 201213 yr I think you'll be happy with the 660ti. I have everything maxed out and get around 30 FPS in the PMDG 737NGX. I also run Battlefield 3 at Ultra settings and get 60 FPS. It will take some tweaking but its worth it! Make sure you use Nvidia Inspector to get the most out of the 660ti. My max GPU utilization in FSX is 78% and 1.2 of the 2 GB VRAM being used.
December 2, 201213 yr Maybe it is about the sheer power of the card, not the RAM. I would only wonder how the 680 with 1.5GB would perform. I still firmly believe that FSX isn't using the GB, but rather that 580 is too weak to cope with BP=0 (I guess you are running it?) and high resolutions with high AA. And 680 simply on the CPU side does it way better. Hi Word Not Allowed I think my problem was memory specific. I sometimes used to get 'out of graphics memory' messages and CTD's . It would be interesting to hear from others using the 2Gb 680 at reolutions of say 3600 x 1920 in high scenery density areas. On a more general note I would say that performance compared with the 580 SLI set up is quite similar except I can run 2xSGSS all of the time. Regards Howard H D Isaacs
December 2, 201213 yr This is why I got the gigabyte 660ti OC edition -- Close to 680 performance I've mostly maxed out all my settings in FSX with 2x supersampling, its locked to 30 FPS and very smooth in the air, but not much change in big airports such as Brisbane (orbx)-- still in the single digits (maybe because its evening and I have a million night lights on? ; just goes to show not much difference when you're surrounded by that much polygons. Flying around Brisbane Airport. Running at 1080p. Nvidia 660Ti. REX Essential Plus, SweetFSX, OPUS weather. Soarbywire - Avionics Engineering
December 2, 201213 yr (maybe because its evening and I have a million night lights on? ; just goes to show not much difference when you're surrounded by that much polygons. That is our trusty 'ole FSX loading everything to the CPU! :biggrin:
December 2, 201213 yr I think the absolute beast would be a GTX 680. Although many say a GTX 670 is not worse except with high AA. Even then there's barely a difference. Arjen Vandervelde
December 2, 201213 yr I think the absolute beast would be a GTX 680. Although many say a GTX 670 is not worse except with high AA. Even then there's barely a difference. +1 on the 670 also, i have the 670m with 3gb of memory in my laptop and it's amazing in fsx and other sims.
December 2, 201213 yr Yeah I have the Asus GTX 670 (vanilla) and it's doing great. When overclocked to 1058 MHz (GTX 680 speed), there's barely any difference in FSX. And we also know the shader units do little to none to FSX. I can even remember reading the GTX 680 was averagely 0.5 FPS faster than the GTX 670 in FSX with 8xSS + 2xSGSS, only with 3 monitors the GTX 680 was 3 FPS faster. Dunno exactly about even higher AA levels, but who'd run those anyway? Barely a visual improvement and above all will create stutters, both cards won't run it that well anyway. So if you have one 1080p monitor, get the GTX 670. This is why I got the gigabyte 660ti OC edition -- That's great, but overclocking is also something you can do yourself. I saved myself 25 euros (yes I'm low on money as a 17 year old), and overclocked my Asus GTX 670 manually to 1100 MHz. Little to no difference in FSX but in other games there's is a noticeable difference of around 5 FPS more where I previously got 60. For example in iRacing I normally get 120 FPS and with the overclock I get 128. In rFactor 2 I went from 70 to 76 FPS. Arjen Vandervelde
December 3, 201213 yr Question: I just looked on Amazon tonight and the older GeForce 580 costs $599, and the newer, faster GeForce 680 2 mgbte card costs only $469. Why is that? I currently have the 580. Stan
December 3, 201213 yr That is our trusty 'ole FSX loading everything to the CPU! :biggrin: Autogen taxes the CPU so I might move it down a notch. How about water? Soarbywire - Avionics Engineering
Create an account or sign in to comment