Replacing a GTX560ti by a GTX750ti; worth it?

[ReneB 3]

Hello all,

 

I have read that another member (Bernie5) is pleased with this replacement, but unlike his situation, my GTX 560ti is still very much alive. I'm just looking for an upgrade (possibly better performance) of my equipment until buying a new PC in a few years time. The GTX 750ti is very affordable, gives me 1Gb extra memory and presumably newer technology. Any advice on whether this is indeed a good move would be very much appreciated.

 

Kind regards,

René

 

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Replacing a "60" drive by a "50" drive is not going to give you better performance..

 

The nvidia "50" series is an entry level video card, hence the lower price.

 

50 = entry level

60 = mid level

70 = performance level

80 = extreme performance

[SoarPics 0]

Bert is spot on.  You can compare the performance here: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88&pgno=7

 

In particular look at the Memory Bandwidth and Texture Fill Rate.

 

Greg

[fppilot 4,335]

Your system and mine are almost identical.  How many watts is your power supply?  How old is your system?  If it cost you $450 or better for a 770 and you find you also need to upgrade your power supply then you could be looking at $600.  That might be steep for the performance increment you might gain with FSX or P3D.  I am holding off until I need to replace my system.  By then the prices may also have come down.

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Get 760 gtx if need to stay under $300 its not like 770 or 780 but it does the job at 1080p and one monitor.  The trickle down effect gpu products is how I do my upgrade.  $500 graphic card is not a option with my income and 760 gtx will do me well till 2016 then all get something like 780 gtx at 760 gtx price at that time. With gpu get what you pay for and 770 and 780 is gonna outdo a 760 of course, but rather buy those ga planes than have 780 gtx have nothing new to fly. 

[ReneB 3]

Thanks for the replies! For the time being I will stay put.

 

Kind regards,

René

[Christopher Low 5,324]

With Nvidia cards, I never consider anything with a suffix lower than "60".

[spilok 1,132]

Yes. Yes. Yes.  It's worth it.

 

Stan

[shashikasaragodu 0]

I am a newby here, installed X-plane 10 last week on my 64 bit Ubuntu 14.04 with 8 gb ram, 3.1g intel core i5 with GeForce GT 610 DDR3 graphics card. after going through reviews on my graphics card realised that the 600 series nvidia cards will not fit to my needs. Xplane runs well in sceneries without much details, while in custom sceneries like EGLL frame rate drops as lower as 8fps. i am thinking of upgrading my GT600 card, somewhere in a review it was written that DDR 3 is not meant for games rather it is meant for display purpose.

will i get better results with DDR5 1gb graphics cards?or should i go for DDR5 2 gb cards?any suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

[User72 28]

I suppose it depend largely on your budget tbh, X-Plane will eat cards for breakfast however it should never be a choice of 1Gig card against 2. 2 is a minimum requirement as I see it, as X-Plane can consume more than 2 on the card I have, so I doubt very much that a 1Gig card would make a dent. Is that a K series i5? If it is I'd definitely overclock to see big gains.

[John Morris 3]

I too have just made a huge move up from what I thought was a perfectly good card... The GT530, but on actuality turned out to be a bottleneck. So I did some research and came up with the following combo that works best with my Asus motherboard, i7 chipset, 16 gb memory... The EVGA GTX750TI and a new 600w power supply. The new card requires a 400 W and so I found a Thunderlake 600 on sale

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Your call.. but for an i7, I would go to a 760 or 770..

[hangar 658]

Funny...just picked up an MSI GTX770 to replace my 560Ti. At $319 minus $60 gift card credit it was irresistable at $259!...gonna stick it in my 2600k Sandy Bridge.

 

Dunno how much difference it'll make in FSX (not counting on much) but for everything else this should have me covered for at least the next few years until I build a new system.

[Robert McDonald 167]

I am a newby here, installed X-plane 10 last week on my 64 bit Ubuntu 14.04 with 8 gb ram, 3.1g intel core i5 with GeForce GT 610 DDR3 graphics card. after going through reviews on my graphics card realised that the 600 series nvidia cards will not fit to my needs. Xplane runs well in sceneries without much details, while in custom sceneries like EGLL frame rate drops as lower as 8fps. i am thinking of upgrading my GT600 card, somewhere in a review it was written that DDR 3 is not meant for games rather it is meant for display purpose.

will i get better results with DDR5 1gb graphics cards?or should i go for DDR5 2 gb cards?any suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

 

First, I realize it's a question of your finances and what you can invest in a graphics card.  That said, if you are flying XPlane, my strong suggestion for rock bottom VRAM on a GPU is 3GB, but 4GB is truly what I believe is the sweet spot for XPLANE.  Note, VRAM is a non-issue for FSX or P3D.  But if you are going for the high end, you will reap huge rewards with the GAMER 4GB GTX770 card by Msi.  You have to shop around for it, but I got a pair of them from the Rainforest website (AMA***.COM) for around $399 apiece.  Also, your SYSTEM ram is equally important if you are flying 64-bit XPlane, long range plan 32GB as "ideal", 16GB as reasonable and 8GB as MINIMUM ram.

 

XPlane 10.4 will allegedly carry a new fix for the blurry at high altitude when looking out the the horizon line.  XPlane developers have written this fix will occur by loading more scenery tiles at farther distances, which will be SYSTEM RAM (not VIDEO RAM) dependent.  This fix will NOT appear in 10.3 (source:  Austin Meyer email to me on the subject), and I'm speculating hopefully that it may appear in 10.4, but there is nothing official.

 

For today, the VIDEO CARD is VERY important in XPlane, much less so in FSX and P3D, both of which are 32-bit programs.  1 or 2 GB of VRAM, bluntly, is simply not going to be a crowd-pleaser in XPlane as it exists today.  The extra ram on the video card is used to display scenery and textures.  Reason?  XPlane is written for DIRECTX 11, FSX is not.  P3D can use modern video cards much better than FSX however.  

 

Finally, I've done FAR FAR less tweaking in XPlane than I ever did in FSX.  When I determined that some folks were advocating tweaking settings in P3D v 2.2x, I hustled out the back door and am firmly in the XPlane camp.

 

Hope this helps.

[Christopher Low 5,324]

Graphics cards are hideously expensive these days. The longer I can keep my 1GB GTX 560Ti, the better.