Which on of these display cards?

[PHo17]

I am updating my computer to better fit FSX demands.

I did put into the order a Geforce GTX 560 Ti card, but my supplier said that it is temporarily out of stock (perhaps wait for some weeks). He suggested a Geforce GTX 660 card as replacement (about the same price).

What do you say quys? Which one is better for FSX?

GTX 560 TI (1 GB) or GTX 660 (2GB)

or

either of the ones above compared to

GTX 660 TI (2GB) (an option which would cost some more)

Is there a remarcable difference of noise too?


Thanks

Pekka

[stansdds]

If you a running a 64 bit version of Windows, then I'd definitely go for the 2GB GTX660 card. If you are stuck with a 32 bit version of Windows, then I'd stick with a 1GB video card. That's my spin.

[Chris Sykes]

you would be happy with the 560ti, a few FSX i know are using it, i myself am on 2x 560ti 2GB versions... Im sure i read on a forum post on FSX setup and tweeks that the 660ti isnt worth the money for FSX?

What i would ask though is whats your budget and what else do you play or intend to play?

[TheGrunt]

If on tight budget I'd go with GTX660, if you can spare few bucks more then 660ti. Main reason is that 660 is generally significantly faster than 560ti and has lower power consumption, which usually translates to less noise (depends on cooler of course). Also, I wouldn't underestimate the larger vram of 660-series as it really matters in performance when large textures, higher resolution and AA are used, although 560ti's theoretical pixel rate is somewhat higher and should offer better performance with higher resolutions or AA (but that doesn't seem to relate very well in real life tests as true pixel rate depends on several factors). Facti is that I could easily fill my earlier GTX480 1.5GB video memory when using FSX/P3D, so I really don't mind having 2GB. It is true that larger video memory may lead more eslily to OOMs with FSX DX9 as vram needs to be copied to system memory and it also consumes more VAS (not in 1:1 ratio though): the more you have VRAM the more is also the VAS and system memory usage and thus larger possibility to OOM. I've been using 2GB GTX670 for a good while and I haven't experienced any more OOMs with Prepar3D compared to 1.5GB GTX480 (Prepar3D is even more sensitive than FSX to OOMs due the Shader 3 code). In fact, I can't remember when I had one, so it isn't really a problem for me even though I have heavy scenery, weather and aircraft addons. I have 64-bit OS and as said before, with 32-bit situation is considerably worse as there is practically 1GB less memory and VAS for FSX to run (3GB available for process).

I can't see any reason why to get 560ti over 660 series unless for a very low price. 660 series card is even more better choice, if you are playing other games too. Thumb rule is 660 is 20-30% faster than 560ti and 660ti is 10-20% faster than 660. There are bunch of reviews on the internet to compare the performace in different synthetic benchmarks and in games.

[Odie]

I run an nVidia card now on my gaming machine, but Harleyman of SOH had recommended using an ATI card as he felt that it performed
better with FSX. Now my nVidia card runs anything I throw at it, so just something for the discussion. Don't know about price-wise between
a similar ATI card and the nVidia you were looking at.

[PHo17]

you would be happy with the 560ti, a few FSX i know are using it, i myself am on 2x 560ti 2GB versions... Im sure i read on a forum post on FSX setup and tweeks that the 660ti isnt worth the money for FSX?

What i would ask though is whats your budget and what else do you play or intend to play?

Flight sims are the only games I play (mostly FSX). So the only thing that matters is how it works there. I have now an older AMD (ATI) card and even that seems to do quite well. Just this CPU definetelly isn't enough. GTX680 is far out of my budget, when I invest on fast CPU.

I remember reading years ago that the video card isn't the most important part of FSX running well. I am running a Windows 64 bit system already and stick to that naturally.

Pekka

[TheGrunt]

I remember reading years ago that the video card isn't the most important part of FSX running well. I am running a Windows 64 bit system already and stick to that naturally.

This is a bit fallacy IMO and it is not that balck or white. Even though FSX is easily and mostly limited by CPU due to it's incredibly archaic coding, it does't mean that you don't get better results with fast GPU. AA and AF are calculated on GPU and texture fill-rate performance, memory amount and bandwidth means that you can handle larger and more textures faster (like heavy weather with REX HD textures).

Edit: and other modern flight sims aren't nearly as CPU dependant than FSX. For example DCS series and Rise of Flight do take advantage of better GPUs far better than FSX. FSX is cursed by its legacy code which derives from FS98!

[DarrenL]

If you are looking at and comparing cards have a look here - http://www.hwcompare.com/

You can compare Nvidia vs Nvidia, Nvidia vs ATI and ATI vs ATI. Gives you an idea of power consumption (if you need a better PSU) and other graphic features.

Eg, GTX560Ti vs GTX660 - http://www.hwcompare.com/13325/gefor...force-gtx-660/

660 better in all graphic areas whilst using 30w less.

[Kiwikat]

Get the 660 Ti. It brought my 4 year old rig back to life. It made a monumental difference in FSX.