480 GTX vs. 580 GTX

[Guest 413X3]

I'm confused, I only see the backplate on the list. Is the free flow exhaust part of the backplate? Just received my card today, installed drivers and just starting to tweak FSX. So far around a 10 fps gain with all settings maxed, I guess in 5 years it will be possible to max out the sliders and get 30 fps around Orbx PNW lol

[SpiritFlyer 987]

David,The exhaust is right in front of you on the same page I linked, but here it is in particular. It is called GTX 400/500 Series High-Flow Bracket: EVGA ACCESSORIESSince the overclockable i7 came along, maximum frames and performance in ORBX or elsewhere is quite common, with the right equipment and tuning. Sorry you are having an FSX experience that is less so.Merry Christmas!

[flying_w 58]

Hi Stephen,A while ago your experience persuaded me to upgrade to a 470, and now you are doing the same for the 580. If I may ask because I probably overlooked it somewhere, which aircraft are you using and what is the weather situation during your tests? I noted your cloud sliders have somewhat conservative settings. Have you tried UsePools=0, or is it simply not necessary?ThanksSimon

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Hi Stephen,A while ago your experience persuaded me to upgrade to a 470, and now you are doing the same for the 580. If I may ask because I probably overlooked it somewhere, which aircraft are you using and what is the weather situation during your tests? I noted your cloud sliders have somewhat conservative settings. Have you tried UsePools=0, or is it simply not necessary?ThanksSimon

Hi Simon,Good to hear from you. I test the way I do for consistancy between runs with different hardware. I myself fly with Active sky and heavy clouds layers if that is what the real world weather is like. There can be cloud factors that slow down FSX, but only marginally. The 400/500 cards do not have much difficulty with that sort of thing no matter how thick it is, although I use lower detailed 1024 REX clouds.My test CFG file details are in post number 12 on this thread, so there you will see what settings and adjustments I make. However, I have since changed my rejectthreshhold to 98304 as this seems to work a wee bit better than any others on this machine at this time with this hardware. Different machines need different settings. There is advice about which one is best, good and bad, galore. Bufferpools settings and a few others are indeed the miracle tweaks when the right setting for a machine/software combination is found. No machine runs as good as it can with the original flawed and disfunctional original CFG file, no matter what it is. Those that maintain otherwise are just flat out wrong. I guess the idea is that if someone used FSX tweaks before in a lesser machine, they think that the new machine that runs faster has finally fixed the software. It hasn't because it can't. It may run faster, in between stutters, but FSX can not be fixed with just new machinery, but also needs proper adjustments and changes. But I am not in the FSX tweak business for I leave that up to others, but use what I find works. Hope this helps.Merry Christmas,

[jjjallen 37]

Bufferpools settings and a few others are indeed the miracle tweaks when the right setting for a machine/software combination is found. No machine runs as good as it can with the original flawed and disfunctional original CFG file, no matter what it is. Those that maintain otherwise are just flat out wrong. I guess the idea is that if someone used FSX tweaks before in a lesser machine, they think that the new machine that runs faster has finally fixed the software. It hasn't because it can't.

As much as this statement irks some simmers - it is true and I agree.Cheersjja

[CFIJose 5,485]

If someone thinks that they are going to buy the latest and greatest equipment and that FSX Acceleration is going to perform great without some major adjustments, they are sadly mistaken.The CFG, FSX, and even the computer have to be tweaked.Can you imagine trying to fly in the FSX world without using Inspector to enhance the graphics? I can't!

[ppo 67]

A New 580 GTX and FSX on DualCore:- had planned to upgrade to a new PC;- but not yet;- instead decided to go for the 580 GTX and see how it performs with a C2D 8500 at 4ghz;- first few hours were disappointing: FSX was performing much the same as with the previous GTX285;- something was wrong...;- Had taken great care in installing the card properly in the pci slot;- had reverted to the native win7 drivers for the video card;- yet it was not showing its true power (or so I thought);- decided (wisely) to sleep over it;- next morning, I had a plan: let FSX rebuild the CFG;- lo and behold now we're talking : lots of fps and fluidity (in the many saved test flights);- where does the mystery lie? ;- compared the 2 CFG files and of course the rebuilt CFG one had no tweaks;- in short: the answer was in NOT using the BP setting in the CFG. BP=0 was working very well with the 285 but not so with the 580!!!!!!!- Results are better than I had anticipated: Running max trees/buildings/fps locked ext/ the FPS does not go lower than 30 (even in Aerosoft Manhattan);- video driver is 263.09, OS Win7 64bit rest of the hardware in the sig.Conclusion: The 580 is worth it even combined with a C2D (as long as you are running at 4ghz+. Thought this could be helpful for some.PierreMerry Xmas fm Varennes

[RobbieHe 0]

Interesting post! So from what can be gathered, the old FSX being a CPU bound title was a myth? I hope so! I am running an i5 system at 4Ghz with a Nvidia 275 running at stock speeds. I have addons such as REX2, the UT series, Ground Environment, PMDG 747-400 and the usual suspects. So, from what I have read on this interesting series of posts with the excellent videocard reviews (Thank you SpiritFlyer!) is that by switching out my 275 for a new 580, I (and others like me) will be able to see substantial FPS performance and general performance improvements - Is that correct?Thanks!RH

[Guest 413X3]

Yes I would imagine so... the i5 isn't an i7 but at 4ghz that's a nice speed. My i7 950 is running stock until I have the guts to overclock

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Interesting post! So from what can be gathered, the old FSX being a CPU bound title was a myth? I hope so! I am running an i5 system at 4Ghz with a Nvidia 275 running at stock speeds. I have addons such as REX2, the UT series, Ground Environment, PMDG 747-400 and the usual suspects. So, from what I have read on this interesting series of posts with the excellent videocard reviews (Thank you SpiritFlyer!) is that by switching out my 275 for a new 580, I (and others like me) will be able to see substantial FPS performance and general performance improvements - Is that correct?Thanks!RH

Hi Robbie,FSX needs a fast CPU, no more and no less than it needs fast ram, a fast drive, and a fast CPU. They are all wired together so one can not make up for the deficiency in another. A well match system is fast, stable and smooth. Providing your CPU, RAM, drives and PSU can feed it and keep up, the 580 GTX will rock your world. As in all cases though, performance of any computer will rise to the lowest common denominator. Equal attention is required for each.I advise you to use a rejectthreshold version that works, highmemfix=1 and various other adjustments and you will be happy. As you can see from the test, the 275 GTX was overshadowed by both the Nvidia 400 and the 500 series:I hope this helps.Merry Christmas,

[dazz 69]

Interesting post! So from what can be gathered, the old FSX being a CPU bound title was a myth? I hope so! I am running an i5 system at 4Ghz with a Nvidia 275 running at stock speeds. I have addons such as REX2, the UT series, Ground Environment, PMDG 747-400 and the usual suspects. So, from what I have read on this interesting series of posts with the excellent videocard reviews (Thank you SpiritFlyer!) is that by switching out my 275 for a new 580, I (and others like me) will be able to see substantial FPS performance and general performance improvements - Is that correct?Thanks!RH

All this tests were obviously not made under CPU limited conditions. Don't expect any GPU to help overcome the FSX limitations you will face in busy airports and complex airliners in the VC because that's just never going to happen. It's a matter of personal taste and flying style. If 80 FPS vs 50 aloft makes a difference for you go ahead and get the best GPU in the market. If on the other hand you are looking to improve performance in busy airports with complex scenery where frames are typicaly low, the 580 (even though it's an awesome card) will deceive you big time

[Guest 413X3]

So do you need 4ghz to have stable and higher frames in complex scenery where frames are typically low? I'm seeing 10-20 fps with bad weather and tons of clouds and rain/snow even with my 580. So is it my i7 950 that's running at a stock clock speed?

[dazz 69]

So do you need 4ghz to have stable and higher frames in complex scenery where frames are typically low? I'm seeing 10-20 fps with bad weather and tons of clouds and rain/snow even with my 580. So is it my i7 950 that's running at a stock clock speed?

It's not like you need 4GHz but the higher your CPU clock speed the better. simple as that.

[RobbieHe 0]

All this tests were obviously not made under CPU limited conditions. Don't expect any GPU to help overcome the FSX limitations you will face in busy airports and complex airliners in the VC because that's just never going to happen. It's a matter of personal taste and flying style. If 80 FPS vs 50 aloft makes a difference for you go ahead and get the best GPU in the market. If on the other hand you are looking to improve performance in busy airports with complex scenery where frames are typicaly low, the 580 (even though it's an awesome card) will deceive you big time

Well, around complex airports is the only place where I have frame-rate issues. My i5 @ 3.0Ghz performs exactly like an i7 @ 3.0Ghz, so leaving in my 275 makes perfect sence because the 580 is not going to help with framerates where I need them to increase - so I guess the answer to my original question is that the FSX was - and continues to be - for the most part - CPU bound.Thanks,RH

[Scott434 12]

Well, around complex airports is the only place where I have frame-rate issues. My i5 @ 3.0Ghz performs exactly like an i7 @ 3.0Ghz, so leaving in my 275 makes perfect sence because the 580 is not going to help with framerates where I need them to increase - so I guess the answer to my original question is that the FSX was - and continues to be - for the most part - CPU bound.Thanks, RH

RobbieHe, It might be a good idea to rethink your conclusion regarding "leaving in my 275". In fact you will see a large overall improvement in FSX overall (fps, image quality and fluidity). A good thing to do is to read posts where the poster has firsthand experience with the hardware.

All this tests were obviously not made under CPU limited conditions. Don't expect any GPU to help overcome the FSX limitations you will face in busy airports and complex airliners in the VC because that's just never going to happen. It's a matter of personal taste and flying style. If 80 FPS vs 50 aloft makes a difference for you go ahead and get the best GPU in the market. If on the other hand you are looking to improve performance in busy airports with complex scenery where frames are typicaly low, the 580 (even though it's an awesome card) will deceive you big time

Dazz, did you ever own a 580 and test it first hand and find out any facts that contradict what SpiritFlyer has presented? Are you saying that FPS is the only measurement that counts and that in CPU limited conditions, increased levels of AA, fluidity etc. are not important and are not worth it? What SpiritFlyer and many others have found/shown, is that there is large overall performance increase in FSX going to the 580. I am concerned that your comments about "[being] deceived big time" might mislead other to think otherwise.