THE graphics card for FSX

[darem 106]

Given that money is no matter in this case:

Which card would you buy for a machine that runs FSX and nothing but FSX, runs it under Vista 64 and on 3360x1050?

Would it be the 280 from NVidia with 2GB RAM? Would it be the ATI 4870 X2 with the same amount of RAM?

I don't think about having two cards in the box - I just want high visual quality and stable framerates.

My question is because I am not really happy with my 4850 1GB. While it is very good in displaying landscape and autogen, it sucks when it comes to dense clouds.

[warbird861 0]

I've heard it's general problem with ATI cards, so I would go with the Nvidia one.

[Guest Dag]

Hi,

I replaced my twin 8800GTX with a single cheap HD4870 and I have more stable FPS and better image quality with the last mentioned (ATI).

[d0mokun 0]

There's no problem with the 4870x2, plus it's a far better card than the 280.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Given that money is no matter in this case:

Which card would you buy for a machine that runs FSX and nothing but FSX, runs it under Vista 64 and on 3360x1050?

Would it be the 280 from NVidia with 2GB RAM? Would it be the ATI 4870 X2 with the same amount of RAM?

I don't think about having two cards in the box - I just want high visual quality and stable framerates.

My question is because I am not really happy with my 4850 1GB. While it is very good in displaying landscape and autogen, it sucks when it comes to dense clouds.

Any card in the $125 to $250 range is perfect for FSX. Spending a lot more simply makes very little sense for FSX as it is basically CPU limited and not GPU limited. If I would replace my 8800 GTS at this moment I would most likely go for a Radeon HD 4870, but there is no reason to do so as I would most likely not gain anything, not in frames nor in looks.

Keep in mind the old adagium for FS:

- The CPU determines how many FPS you get

- The GPU determines how good they look.

[darem 106]

Any card in the $125 to $250 range is perfect for FSX. Spending a lot more simply makes very little sense for FSX as it is basically CPU limited and not GPU limited. If I would replace my 8800 GTS at this moment I would most likely go for a Radeon HD 4870, but there is no reason to do so as I would most likely not gain anything, not in frames nor in looks.

The thing that slows me down is the rendition of clouds. Clear sky: 40fps. Overcast: 18fps. So there ARE things where the GPU is the limit, not the CPU. Same goes for water.

Another indicator that I am GPU-limited with my 4850 for the visual settings I have is that the amount of autogen doesn't really impact framerates.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

The thing that slows me down is the rendition of clouds. Clear sky: 40fps. Overcast: 18fps. So there ARE things where the GPU is the limit, not the CPU. Same goes for water.

Another indicator that I am GPU-limited with my 4850 for the visual settings I have is that the amount of autogen doesn't really impact framerates.

On water I can understand it (loads of reflections on the higher settings to handle), but on a 4850 system we got here we simply see very small differences between no cloud and overcast. Nothing over 15% difference, nothing unexpected as simply more stuff is being drawn. I can still advise the 4850 as superb value for money.

[darem 106]

Hm. Vienna LOWW, standing with stock 172 on runway, 3360x1050, quite everything maxed (AI traffic 30%, water low 2.0) - no clouds: av. FPS: 30.4, overcast: 23.5.

My goal would be to have those 30fps (which actually range between 40fps over rural parts and 20fps over big cities) under every weather condition.

The 4850 just doesn't do that - when I fly into clouds, it might actually drop as low as 12 fps...

[warbird861 0]

Are you sure it's your graphic card that's choking when you fly in clouds?

[darem 106]

Are you sure it's your graphic card that's choking when you fly in clouds?

No, but it seems logical. First of all, I know from the net that ATI isn't really a winner when it comes to clouds in FSX. Second, the matter gets worse if you raise AA from 2x to 4x - something that doesn't happen when clouds are off. Even with my resolution, I can go to 6x AA without significant framerate drops. Once I turn on clouds: kaboom. For me, this means that it's not a CPU problem, it's a GPU problem.

I had a 8800GTX before. It was slower overall, but didn't show the behaviour with clouds I am now experiencing.

[Guest pao]

No, but it seems logical. First of all, I know from the net that ATI isn't really a winner when it comes to clouds in FSX. Second, the matter gets worse if you raise AA from 2x to 4x - something that doesn't happen when clouds are off. Even with my resolution, I can go to 6x AA without significant framerate drops. Once I turn on clouds: kaboom. For me, this means that it's not a CPU problem, it's a GPU problem.

I had a 8800GTX before. It was slower overall, but didn't show the behaviour with clouds I am now experiencing.

What you say actually scares me..... I used to have a Intel Dual Core E6700 (i think it was 2660 Ghz) with 4GB DDR2ram and the first Nvidia 8800GTX 756MB (that was almost 2 years ago).... at that time, I felt I wasn't getting the best for FSX with fps averaging 10-15 fps in some situation like a captainsim 757 virtual cockpit....... For some reason I had to get rid of that computer and shift to an Intel Dual Core iMac 2.4 Ghz equipped with 2Ghz ram and an ATI Radeon 2600HD 256MB...... using windows XP with bootcamp (which means Windows is runing on its own and not in parrallel with Mac OSX) I can't run FSX and had to revert to FS2004 which runs very smooth (20 fps over big airports with 80% AI traffic from Mytraffic...)

I have now the possibility to buy a PC again and I am willing to get a DELL thinking after 2 years that current machines would give great fps..... I can't afford the DELL top end at 4000 EUR (same thing 2 years ago when I had to get my PC to an assembler cause the DELL version of the Intel E6700 with 8800GTX was also more than 3000 EUR) and was thinking of the new Studio XPS with i7 940 with the ATI 4850... I have noticed that the video card DELL offers in its package has 512MB and when I see that your config has a 1MB ATI 4850 and you're saying that you only gets 10 fps on some occasion it really scares me.........

[jules 0]

Hi Darem,

Been reading your

[Snave 466]

Ah! the old `lull them into a false sense of security` answer!

But I do agree, wholeheartedly...

[Frank Nicolas 0]

Any card in the $125 to $250 range is perfect for FSX. Spending a lot more simply makes very little sense for FSX as it is basically CPU limited and not GPU limited. If I would replace my 8800 GTS at this moment I would most likely go for a Radeon HD 4870, but there is no reason to do so as I would most likely not gain anything, not in frames nor in looks.

Keep in mind the old adagium for FS:

- The CPU determines how many FPS you get

- The GPU determines how good they look.

Actually, if you want to get good Anti Aliasing, your GPU becomes the problem. So I would really get a tri-SLI configuration Nvidia 280GTX or GX2 rather than an HD 4870. I experienced a lot of problems with ATi and I never experienced any problems with my really low end 8500GT.

[Sikpupi 0]

So I would really get a tri-SLI configuration Nvidia 280GTX or GX2

No offense but that's an insane suggestion, a single GTX260 (pref 216 core) is more than enough for FSX.

[Snave 466]

FSX architecture cannot take full advantage of SLI. This is known, verified, understood.

So where does your recommendation for Tri-SLI come from? A vacant space between someones ears, probably. Cite sources, please. Preferably ACES or someone with a degree of technical competence as far as the MSFS product range is concerned.

Otherwise, I agree with Sikpupi. A powerful single card is preferable to two (or more) less powerful cards operating in concert.

[Bruce Hamilton 97]

The thing that slows me down is the rendition of clouds. Clear sky: 40fps. Overcast: 18fps.

Have you tried locking the target frame rate? The human eye can't see anything faster than 18 or 20, so capping it will free up some CPU power for other things... like rendering clouds.

[solareagle 0]

It's been known for some time that ATI cards perform much slow than nvidia cards in FSX, despite placing the bottlneck squarly on the CPU. I wouldn't beleive such a performance delta could be possible with a CPU bound application were it not for the many benchmarks showing this. Must have something to with ATI's architecture or driver structure.

As to the suggestion a Tri-SLI setup is what you need, I couldn't disagree more. I use a single GTX-260 core 216 my self, which runs FSX at 1600x1200 with 8xSQ Supersample AA. Really the only way you can possibly bring about a bottleneck on the GPU is to force supersampling via nHancer, which is so performance intensive there's very few game that can use it, and 2x2 is really the only mode you can use. The 8xSQ setting uses 2x2 supersampling, which renders internally at twice the resolution both ways, so in my case that 3200x2400, then downsamples to 1600x1200 and applies the standard 4x multisampling on top of that. 4x4 supersample would be rendering interanally at 6400x4800, so as you can imagine it's not really useable. Perhaps on Tri-SLI.

If I were buying a card for FSX I would get a GTX-260 if budget minded, or a GTX-280 if money isn't a concern, but keep in mind a better CPU is the way to increase you framerate. A better GPU will only help you run higher levels of AA and a higher resolution if you're not already using your monitors highest.

[solareagle 0]

The human eye can't see anything faster than 18 or 20.

This is a myth and totally untrue. Every gamer knows you need over 60fps for the smoothest gameplay. Many gamers consider anything less than 45fps to be "unplayable" on games with fast action. A flight sim can get away with 25fps and still look good, though that's not to say higher framerates aren't an improvement. Personally I like mine over 35fps with FSX, otherwise it can get too choppy, though 35fps is too low for a smooth experience with most shooters. There is a wealth of information out there on this subject. The human eye can actually tell the difference up to and over 200fps.

If this is to be debated I'll post links, though a google search dispells this myth. The comment that film cameras roll at 24fps always comes up, but you have to understand they capture motion blur, while games do not as they are a series of static images.

[darem 106]

Have you tried locking the target frame rate? The human eye can't see anything faster than 18 or 20, so capping it will free up some CPU power for other things... like rendering clouds.

Yes, I thought about capping, since it made my experience smoother with the 8800GTX.

However, with the ATI, when I lock at 22, framerates don't average at 22, but at 14. Unlimited framerates give me 40 for the same situation.

ATI is a strange breed, indeed *g*.

And, oh, human eyes can discern more than 20 frames a second. This gets obvious when you turn your head with a TrackIR. 25fps is good if you look in a straight line, it's awkward when you move

[limp 29]

I have a 8800 GTS right now and was looking into a 9800GTX with 1 gb of ram. I'm changing my 22 inch screen for a 24 this X-mas... The choice is quite difficult to make, but I think I'll wait January before changing

I'll wait to see peoples replies after they try out their X-mas gifts..

[howboi 0]

What you say actually scares me..... I used to have a Intel Dual Core E6700 (i think it was 2660 Ghz) with 4GB DDR2ram and the first Nvidia 8800GTX 756MB (that was almost 2 years ago).... at that time, I felt I wasn't getting the best for FSX with fps averaging 10-15 fps in some situation like a captainsim 757 virtual cockpit....... For some reason I had to get rid of that computer and shift to an Intel Dual Core iMac 2.4 Ghz equipped with 2Ghz ram and an ATI Radeon 2600HD 256MB...... using windows XP with bootcamp (which means Windows is runing on its own and not in parrallel with Mac OSX) I can't run FSX and had to revert to FS2004 which runs very smooth (20 fps over big airports with 80% AI traffic from Mytraffic...)

I have now the possibility to buy a PC again and I am willing to get a DELL thinking after 2 years that current machines would give great fps..... I can't afford the DELL top end at 4000 EUR (same thing 2 years ago when I had to get my PC to an assembler cause the DELL version of the Intel E6700 with 8800GTX was also more than 3000 EUR) and was thinking of the new Studio XPS with i7 940 with the ATI 4850... I have noticed that the video card DELL offers in its package has 512MB and when I see that your config has a 1MB ATI 4850 and you're saying that you only gets 10 fps on some occasion it really scares me.........

Hello, just a word of caution on Dell computer performance, especially the XPS series, which are advertised as "gaming" computers. I purchased an XPS 630i in May, and found out too late that the PCI-E slots (two of them), are both locked at 8-lanes instead of the usual 16-lanes. I am using an 8800 GT Nvidia card in the 630i, and believe I am noticing a lack of FSX performance and other graphics issues. I looked at the specs on the higher-end Dell XPS 730x, and noticed that the spec page says "three X16 graphic cards slots," but if you click on the "10" link, you will see a configuration of 16X16X4 or 16X8X8 on the three graphics slots. Check the specs on any Dell carefully if you're looking for performance. And, by the way, replacing a Dell motherboard with an Asus or EVGA is not an easy task.

My old Dell Dimension 4700 with 4 GB, 2.8 GHZ P4 processor, full 16 lanes of PCI-E, and a 8800 GTS will outperform my 630i in certain FSX situations. And renders clouds beautifully.

I purchased a GTX-280 recently, and was unable to connect the second power supply plug, with eight connectors, even though my power supply is rated 750 watts. The cards with the eight-pin connectors are so new, a new market has opened on adapters for six-pin to eight, just for these cards. I'm currently waiting for my 8-pin adapter to arrive from Ebay. Another thing to consider.

Good luck. Howard

[limp 29]

Hi all,

So what do you say ? Since I'm getting a high res screen (1920*1200), should I go with a :

ASUS Extreme NGTX260/HTDP PCIe 896 MB

or

GAINWARD HD4870 PCIe Golden Sample 1 GB

??

What do you think ?

Cheers,

Tom