Saw this today.  Expensive.  But imagine what it could do for FSX!

 

http://gizmodo.com/this-is-the-fastest-gpu-ever-made-892491394

 

Stan

 

Not much I guess, unless you put a 6GHz CPU on the same motherboard :lol:

Look up in Sim Forums, NickN is putting together his most definitive (and his last, or so he claims) guide for FSX hardware.

 

Very interesting read, specially his bit about FSx Developers.

Top grade GPU is a waste on FSX:  FSX was never coded to properly leverage the GPU.  FSX doesn't even fully utilize my "outdated" GTX470.

Yep, FSX relies more on the CPU than the GPU.  An uber fast, multi-core CPU does more for FSX than an uber fast graphics card.

Wrong.

Sorry. But a CPU while very important, a GPU is just as good.

 

The GPU is visuals. AA/AF. rendering textures, and the speed and clarity of them.

 

I noticed a huge difference when switching GPUs. Textures loaded faster, could keep up at lower altitudes easier. Clarity and crispness also were effected.

 

A good GPU is also needed for FSX.

 

 

Sent from my Apple communications device.

FSX utilizes my gtx 560 OC more in DX10 mode, less stutters, slightly better fps. But i would never consider a beast of a graphic card for use in FSX, it is a waste of money and technology.

That is unless of course you do other things than FSX.

 

For me, my GPU works alongside my CPU very well. I also play Arma2 and BF3. So all that helps.

 

You don't see much FPS, but you see more smooth of flights, as she doesn't get bogged down. Agree though, that you need a good CPU though to push it. Otherwise, as with any game or program out, you will have a bottleneck.

 

 

Sent from my Apple communications device.

That GPU would be useless for games, it's optimised for 3D asset creation. The drivers would be awful for any game, let alone FSX. 

-Alex

Wrong.

Sorry. But a CPU while very important, a GPU is just as good.

 

The GPU is visuals. AA/AF. rendering textures, and the speed and clarity of them.

 

I noticed a huge difference when switching GPUs. Textures loaded faster, could keep up at lower altitudes easier. Clarity and crispness also were effected.

 

A good GPU is also needed for FSX.

 

 

Sent from my Apple communications device.

Well ofcourse it does something, but if you have even a decent card now which gets you good AA, an upgrade to a monster GPU will do absolutely nothing for FSX. My GPU is not 100% working, but my CPU is. A GPU can't make up graphics on it's own, it needs to be fed by the CPU.

 

 

an upgrade to a monster GPU will do absolutely nothing for FSX.

 

Yep.

I have a 4.7ghz cpu with a GTX680 - buying a monster card like that would do absolutely NOTHING for me in FSX/P3D. The GPU has never been the bottleneck in FSX. At some point you have to look at the cost vs benefits of your upgrade.

 

Vic

assuming people only run money into rigs made for FSX. i forget that sometimes, as I do other things too.

I have a 4.7ghz cpu with a GTX680 - buying a monster card like that would do absolutely NOTHING for me in FSX/P3D. The GPU has never been the bottleneck in FSX. At some point you have to look at the cost vs benefits of your upgrade.

 

Vic

 

680 IS a "Monster" as well, or are you saying you would be fine with going back to a 480 or 285GTX? You know that is not the case.

 

However as others have already pointed out this is for Cad precision, 3D creation workstation, wont have drivers for games etc, but if it did, yeah up the IQ and res for 4K Displays!.

 

And the high res displays are coming, many just announced and more on the way.

For someone who takes this hobby seriously, GPU is very important. There is no "overkill" for fsx! 

 

There are situations where you can get same fps with 560ti, 680 and higher. But there are situations where you can get 30fps(or more)difference. So, please stop telling me that GPU is not important!