OK, I am thinking very hard about an upgrade to my GTX580. Under normal circumstances it's not something I would consider, albeit FSX being very much CPU bound. However, I have heard from a few guys (including Ben Cap)  who have said unequivically that there are some improvements to be had, mainly in AA and heavy cloud scenarios. The latter being what interests me the most, as I find even my 580 sometimes struggles with intensive addons and 8/8 cloud. However, I just wanted to ask those who have more knowledge in the hardware area, whether my current Asus P8Z68-V MB will be compatible. It shows as having PCI Express 2.0 slots but I am concerned about the memory and whether there may be anything else I need to consider? Advice, as always, appreciated, thanks fellas.

Perhaps consider the GTX670 which is much cheaper and not that much of a difference performance-wise.  I did notice quite an improvement (more than I expecied) going from GTX570 to GTX670.....i wouldn't say so much in frames but the texture loading (when switching views....not the inital fsx scenery loading) was greatly improved.

 

And yes, it should work on your MB.

I have just recently made that move: upgrade to gtx680 (from gtx580).

I would not worry much about the PCI Ex 2 vs 3; I use the P8Z68V-PRO

Look closely at the physical size of the GTX and your PC case, it has implications. The GTX680 will probably sit over some of your SATA connectors. That is not an issue in itself if you don't access your SATA connectors regularly!

The Power supply is likely a non issue also because you had the GTX580.

The video driver is something to look at: on my 580 the driver v285 we working fine, but of course they will not work on the 680 ( I haven't tried it though). Drivers compatible with the 680 start in the 300 series.

Also a consideration, is the fsx.cfg file. You have a few options there. I personally did not want to create a new one so I installed the card after having previously installed a gtx680 video driver. I then started up FSX exited and deleted the 580 lines. And everything worked fine.

The other option of course is to let FSX rebuild the cfg file and then tweak accordingly.

"Tweak accordingly" should be taken with a grain of salt. The 680 is a different beast, that is a fact. I have just had the card 2 days ago so the tweaking could be different from the 580.

Right now, I am testing with the original fsx.cfg tweaked around the 580. Actually the only tweak linked to the video card is the Usepools=0. I am still using it. Further tests will determine if I keep it or not.

The present video drivers are 306.97 whql from Asus web site.

The 680 is the Asus gtx680-dc2t-2gd5-gt. That is also something you might have a look at, this particular card is just a few dollars more than the regular 680 and offers better performance overall (memory overclock and head dissipation).

Conclusion: so far so good. I am not going to give you FPS references because they are so questionable.

But I will tell you: it does make a difference. One big visual result is that there does not seem to be visual artifacts anymore in heavy sceneries. There were a few when driving the 580 with usepools=0 in heavy sceneries.

Again, the 680 is a different beast and will need to be tuned accordingly. For me that is where the fun begins.

I have already found differences in Nvidia inspector settings which I'm still testing, but suffice it to say that the results are positive.

Pierre

Thanks a bunch fellas, appreciated. Pierre, thanks so much for such a concise reply. One of the main reasons for an upgrade would be to alleviate the kind of artifacts you described in heavy cloud situations. While I do not expect any frames increase I think it would help overall and help with the 2560x1600 diplay I run too.

 

 

Upgraded to a 680 from a 580 a month ago just out of curiosity. Waste of time and money. Performance and any anomalies with the 580 were the same with 680. I may plan on using three monitors in the future so probably not a total waste.

Upgraded to a 680 from a 580 a month ago just out of curiosity. Waste of time and money. Performance and any anomalies with the 580 were the same with 680. I may plan on using three monitors in the future so probably not a total waste.

 

Hmm, that's also what I've heard.... a right conundrum...

Heavy FSX cloud cover is what really hammers the GPU.  A good question to have answered would be if SLI 580s could provide the raw power to address this cloud cover problem.  I don't think that any currently existing single GPU setup will handle this well (Titan perhaps?).

I thought FSX didn't recognise SLI?

On the cloud issue, it seems clear to me that the 680 delivers better performance in clouds.

I have used Word Not Allowed's cloud test with the 580 and the 680.

 

One other thing: I want to emphasize that you buy a new video card (680 vs 580) which uses a different architecture and you add that to a complex dynamic environment like FSX, don't expect plug and play configuration and tuning. It is plug and play in as far as the hardware is concerned but for the software part it is a different ball game.

So what is new:

GPU boost, Adaptive VSync.(which if I understand well have been designed to reduce stutter and image tearing)

 

How do you apply your Nvidia Inspector settings with those features that were not present with the 580?

 

It will take time to test out all of the possibilities and so what else is new? Nowadays everything is complex.

 

Just my 2cents (Canadian)

I thought FSX didn't recognise SLI?

 

That is why it would be a good question to have answered.  I've read that SLI improves FSX AA performance, and AA is what kills performance in heavy cloud cover.  Without AA enabled I've seen a huge FPS boost running with heavy cloud cover, though everything else looks like crap.  Now if someone running SLI could chime in on this...

Saying upgrading a GTX580 to a 680 with no perf gain is like saying "when I upgraded from a 25Mbs line to 1Gbs, my internet speeds still remained the same". 

 

I find it truly perplexing that some people make baseless and nonfactual assumptions upon their own "testing" or rather just a mere observation. 

 

Let the numbers speak for themselves. (I feel like I've posted this at least 5 times now.... <_< )

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/379449-gpumark-an-fsx-gpu-benchmark/page-2

Hey Howard I'll sell ya my GTX680.....dying to get my hands on a Titan!!!

Saying upgrading a GTX580 to a 680 with no perf gain is like saying "when I upgraded from a 25Mbs line to 1Gbs, my internet speeds still remained the same". 

 

I find it truly perplexing that some people make baseless and nonfactual assumptions upon their own "testing" or rather just a mere observation. 

 

Let the numbers speak for themselves. (I feel like I've posted this at least 5 times now.... <_< )

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/379449-gpumark-an-fsx-gpu-benchmark/page-2

Its how I see it fying 60+ hrs a week. Really dont care about benchmarking as they do not have MY hardware and MY addons. Besides, they claim a few MAYBE extra frames here and there. Been reading them for 20 yrs and never put much faith in the.There is in REALITY no difference in performance. now a Titan would be different, which I plan on trying. Just a case of bigger is better?? Im also using Word Not Allowed's latest performance test for reference also. 580,680 and Titan. Which is REALITY using FSX.

I'm interested in knowing how is the performance using AI at 25% with (My Traffic Pro or similar add-on) at complex airports and does a gtx 680 help improve performance when using night lighting like ORBX lighting or Experience X.

 

I have a feeling I might be waiting a while. I'm prepared to upgrade both CPU and GPU if someone can confirm performance worthiness.

I switched from a GTX 580 to a GTX 680 Classified with 4 GB of VRAM.  I have the same monitor as you and I found that performance is better.  Now there is a catch:  I use Prepar3D, which when support for DX-11 come out will (and this is my opinion) really use the card.  The Titan is just brute force and the gain does not justify the price in my view.  FSX is such a bad/old code giving it more h/w can only do so much.  That's just my 2cents.