Im getting a 1440p monitor and I know those resolutions hammer the GPU a bit so maybe I have to get a 780. I would like to know what you guys think of it first.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

hello 

i have posted a topic about the 780 and up to now everybody who upgraded to the 780 are giving me very positive feedback thats why i will be upgrading to it from my gtx 560ti . i would also like to add that if you buy a high end gpu you will not see a big increase in fps just by setting around in an airport .but you were facing bad weather you'll see an increase there because only at that time fsx will use your gpu to its full potential

 

just my 2 cents

Yes I noticed the other day overcast over Miami my fps were in the 14s. I then checked the gpu monitoring log and the load was like 99.9 during that time. My new 1440p monitor is arriving today, I'll give it a try with my current card first but its likely I will have to go 780 bound.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

i think the 780 is the best choice . cause once the 777 is out i will be flying in weather you cant even fly in . cause after all the 777 can handle pretty much anything  B)

Monitoring GPU usage is a poor way to measure the impact of the GPU on performance.

 

Personally I went from a GTX 460 1GB to a GTX 670 2GB and there was zero difference despite the huge jump in GPU performance available. At this point, FSX is entirely CPU-bound and no amount of added GPU power is going to help.

 

There was an article on AVSim posted recently as well that compared different cards in the 500 series:

http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/reviews/hardware/benchmarking-fsx-with-three-models-of-500-serie-r1592

Monitoring GPU usage is a poor way to measure the impact of the GPU on performance.

 

Personally I went from a GTX 460 1GB to a GTX 670 2GB and there was zero difference despite the huge jump in GPU performance available. At this point, FSX is entirely CPU-bound and no amount of added GPU power is going to help.

 

There was an article on AVSim posted recently as well that compared different cards in the 500 series:

http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/reviews/hardware/benchmarking-fsx-with-three-models-of-500-serie-r1592

Well Nick N. tells a completely different story in his FSX Bible. Just sayin'

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Monitoring GPU usage is a poor way to measure the impact of the GPU on performance.

 

Personally I went from a GTX 460 1GB to a GTX 670 2GB and there was zero difference despite the huge jump in GPU performance available. At this point, FSX is entirely CPU-bound and no amount of added GPU power is going to help.

 

There was an article on AVSim posted recently as well that compared different cards in the 500 series:

http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/reviews/hardware/benchmarking-fsx-with-three-models-of-500-serie-r1592

 

I went from a 470 to a 670 6 months back and I noticed a performance boost. Not so much in actual frame rates, but I could run the much higher resolutions with more scenery details turned up without it affecting my existing frame rate. But yes, CPU boost always gives a better overall result

Im getting a 1440p monitor and I know those resolutions hammer the GPU a bit so maybe I have to get a 780. I would like to know what you guys think of it first.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Excellent decision, Oscar! You'll never regret it, that's for sure.

Good idea go for it

There was an article on AVSim posted recently as well that compared different cards in the 500 series:

http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/reviews/hardware/benchmarking-fsx-with-three-models-of-500-serie-r1592

I'm not surprised he didn't see much difference between the different 500 series cards. He used the FSXmark07 benchmark. There's very little Wx in that benchmark. I also happen to have analyzed that benchmark a lot myself.

 

With any modern midrange GPU the first 4 minutes and a bit of that benchmark is completely CPU limited and turns in to being PCIe limited after that. No wonder the different 500 series GPUs doesn't make a difference.

 

Put in a lot of clouds and 2x or 4x SGSS through inspector thou, and all of a sudden the GPU will start to affect performance again.

 

 

Put in a lot of clouds and 2x or 4x SGSS through inspector thou, and all of a sudden the GPU will start to affect performance again

 

This 

in my case I had a evga  580gtx , and jumped to a 789gtx 3gig.

 

Performance - very little frame increase if any, but smoothness of the sim is remarkable better, so mnay of the microsttutters kind of go away, but not all. 

Also you can definitely improve your AA settings as well.,  and definitely can fly the sim with more clouds as well.

If you are in for  the long haul of fsx, go for the 780, you will not be disappointed.

I'm going to take the plunge once again and try the eVGA 780 3 Gb.  

 

I tried upgrading to the 660TI last year but I kept getting FSX.cfg errors and it would not rebuild.  I have an idea of what the problem might have been as I googled the error message be but I cannot confirm until the card is upgraded in the next couple of weeks.

I have a 2560x1080 (almost 1440) monitor and jumped from the 670 to the 780 and get great results. I don't really keep an eye on the FPS counter but overall fluidity in the VC increased dramatically in all situations (I use Track IR so it really does become noticeable when your panning is choppy). I am also now able to run 4xSGSS where I was running 2xSGSS on the 670. It is an expensive move but it was worth while for me!