February 18th 08, 05:10 AM
> Thank you for the perspective and info.
> I'm running a 2.8 ghz Pentium D dual core with 2 gig ram and the 7600GS
> card. The Windows Vista score is currently 4.3 and the resolution is
> 1650 x 1080. My sense of it ( despite the peanut gallery comments ) is
> that the Gigabyte fanless 8600GT would be an improvement. Currently
> this system is nearly silent and tremendously reliable.
Setting up FSX is complicated, and the article here claims the frame rate
can be capped by "Target Frame Rate".
The Target Frame Rate setting is shown here.
( http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=40850 )
In the Tomshardware chart, the more powerful video cards are all delivering
about the same frame rate. Could this be caused by "Target Frame Rate" ?
Or is it caused by running out of CPU power ?
More system examples here, and quoted frame rates.
> "Fishface" ?> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Wonderman wrote:
>>> Geez... Whats the average age on this board ? 8 ?
>> Well there's an exaggeration, to be sure. I think it's more like
>> FS X is very CPU intensive. What are your system specs and at what
>> resolution are you trying to run it?
>> From this chart:
>> ...you can see that the 8600GT would in fact be a decent upgrade in
>> this specific case, and you can also see how CPU limited the game
>> is, as the top GPUs don't perform significantly better at that
>> Click on the chart bars to get the system specs. It seems they used
>> an Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93 GHz. I have read that better
>> multithreading support has been added with the FS X Service Pack 1.