NZFF

In trying to improve my FSX overall experience............
My system is as follows:
Motherboard: Gigabyte Z68M-D2H
Windows 7 (x64) service pack 1
3.40 gigahertz Intel i7-2600K
Memory: 8176 (2x4gig) and awaiting new memory Corsair DOMINATOR PLATINUM 8gb (2 X 4gb) DDR3
Graphics Card - GeForce GTX 660
Samsung SyncMaster 23.1"
NOW HERE IS MY QUESTION.........
Would upgrading to a GeForce 760 Card make much of a difference - and if so in what areas????
As always, appreciate the knowledge of the forum feedback
Thank you

The amount of Graphic cards I have gone through, and the cost , today's card are so different at cost with the generation change, I now use the GTX 750 TI , I cant give you the difference of operation performance from the previous GTX 480 -$870NZ dollar card to a now $380 card but the cheaper appears to show a more vibrant view ... your 600 series I don't know or had a chance to compare .... truly I'm not sure if it would be worth the change unless the card is playing up.

Here you go.

http://www.hwcompare.com/14801/geforce-gtx...eforce-gtx-760/

rocky289 wrote:

QUOTE (rocky289 @ Aug 22 2014,10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here you go.

I really hate these performance programs .. I have never seen the tech peoples run a high density Microsoft FSX or previous FS , how can you measure running with a different style level base game rather a flight simulator ? , these have always hit the HI usage in graphic use.

Thanks Guys for your input...
Tend to agree with Ian that those Video Card producers don't appear to provide any comparisons for Flight Sim products (regardless of which ones).
The Guide does help a little I suppose.
Will hold off for a while
Many thanks again

Barrington wrote:

QUOTE (Barrington @ Aug 23 2014,3:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tend to agree with Ian that those Video Card producers don't appear to provide any comparisons for Flight Sim products (regardless of which ones).
The Guide does help a little I suppose.

I was astonished with the compare of a GTX295 - GTX480 - and now the current GTX750 which is comparable or if not better than the 480 , that card was known to get very hot , hence the reason it probably blew up like the 295 , ... Id stick with your current card , look above $1500+850+400... lotta money for a graphics - good thing the price has really come down .

Ian Warren wrote:

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Aug 22 2014,7:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I really hate these performance programs .. I have never seen the tech peoples run a high density Microsoft FSX or previous FS , how can you measure running with a different style level base game rather a flight simulator ? , these have always hit the HI usage in graphic use.

Too right, cobber
If you need a computer to tell you the difference between one card and another, then it can't be a visible difference, so you've wasted your money.
All versions of MSFS are very CPU-intensive. What the sim software really does is figure out what the next screen should look like, given all the inputs; if it can do that more than 24 times per second you should see a nice smoothly flowing display. The graphics card (GPU) can only paint your screen with whatever the CPU sends it, it won't make the CPU run any quicker...so there is not much point having a GPU that can paint 1000 screens/min if the CPU can't keep up the supply of data the GPU needs to do that.

Please don't start me on those cooling systems with graphics capability, which draw so much power you need a cooling system with graphics capability (and a 1200W PSU to feed them!)

The only time I was forced to change from my lovely, smooth, FS 2004... (I hate using the term "FS9", 'cos that's not what it says on the box!)...to my FSX, was when my trusty Dell Tower computer with its Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 HHz, and its low power requirements nVidia 9500GT Graphics card, finally gave up the ghost on me, resulting in me having to purchase a complete Advent* tower computer with its fast i7 processor, (£600 the lot!)..spec below....suitable to run FSX flat-out!
Otherwise the ancient Pentium 4, 2.8, did the job admirably, and smoothly, for FS 2004!
(Note: If you've got an old Computer, FS 2004 runs beautifully...trust me!).

That is the time that it finally proved to me that FSX really does require a super-fast, central processor, to get acceptable results!

(FS 2004 was/is OK with older stuff!)

FSX works wonders...smoothly!.... with a Super-Fast central processor...JOY!.... ...!

Paul...enjoying BOTH FS 2004...and FSX!... ...!

* ....600 English Pounds..special offer.... and a big kiss from the sales lady.....>>> http://www.adventcomputers.co.uk/product/a...3415-desktop-pc