7 replies to this topic

[dwf2008]

When it comes to buying a video card, which is more important video memory size or the number of cuda cores? I recently became aware of the GTX-770 series which has fewer cuda cores but more memory than the GTX-670. So how do they stack up for FSX use? Actually, I have a range of options including:

GTX-660Ti
GTX-670
GTX-680
GTX-760
GTX-770

but my purchase has been deferred because of confusion over where to find the best bang for the buck. And then once a GPU is chosen which card with all the various options for turbo, super clock, etc. My priorities are:

Most bang for the buck
Reliability
Single now but eventually 2 or maybe 3 monitors
Good scenery rendering

My system is an i7 3770k standard clock
Win8
8 gig ram

Any advice here? Anyone care to sort the above list best to worst?

Thanks

[jcrouse55]

You have them pretty well listed from the top down. The 660ti being the weakest and on down. The best way for you to get the best out of your system is to overclock that 3770k to its potential has FSX loves clock speed. Then go with a GTX 680 as that is a great marriage with the 3770k overclocked and multiple monitors dowm the road.

[dwf2008]

How would you rate the 760 vs the 680 since the 760 is $100 cheaper and is it worth the extra bucks for 4 gig vs 2gig ?
Thanks

Edited by dwf2008, 28 October 2013 - 01:08 PM.

[jcrouse55]

The 680 is better than the 760. 2gb is fine for FSX, 4gb might come in handy with 3 monitors.

[dwf2008]

How about the 770 vs the 680?

[_TW_]

The 770 is the exact same card as the 680, it just runs on a higher clock frequency.

[dwf2008]

TW - That is interesting. And it's a bit cheaper too! Think that's the one to buy. Now, 2 gig vs 4 gig?

[_TW_]

If you're going to really go for 3 monitors I would suggest the 4GB version.  For one or two monitors, the 2GB version would suffice.