Where to Send Your Old Video Cards.........

[Yassy]

True word, Roto!
But two won't fit in my case anyway.
Seriously considering dropping the dough on that vidcard soon, though...

[Hammer]

Hammer, would you consider upgrading a GTX285 to a 580?
I can run DCS quite comfortably, but I do have some slowdowns now and then, especially with TIR in precision mode.
But at the same time I believe DCS is quite easy on your video hardware and RAM and CPU plus harddisk bandwidth might make more of a difference... ?

Sorry Yassy, I am a bit late with my comment ... 476th forums are updating so rapidly that I am just missing the posts.

Yes, I would consider updating, but ... check your PSU (PowerSupply) and your computer cabinet for available space. My GTX580 occupies 3 slots and that is quite a lot, especially if you have additional video card installed in your computer like I have.

[Yassy]

My PSU is 750Watts with dual rail power. So that should be ok.
The available space in my case might be a problem though. I am not sure if I can plug a card which takes 3 spaces instead of 2.
I have a external soundcard as well (same as you, so it seems!) which is right under the vidcard... :S

Otherwise I think I will wait altogether until I buy a complete new computer, next year or so.

[Big Daddy]

A good videocard isn't the deal with dcs. It's al about cpu clockspeed. Quadcore is not fully supported so higher clock higher fps. And be aware that a human brain can only see max 22fps all above that isn't any difference. If you're also playing games like battlefield, a gtx 560 or above is your best pick. That gtx680 is new, so its better to wait price drops. Or wait untill Nvidia comes with a new High end card. 680 is a 'medium end' card after all:P And i agree with hammer Nvidia is the best brand in videocard land now a days. The drivers, the design, the support, the performance. Yes ati has good specs, but in my opinion its crap.

EDIT: and don't forget the game engine. That low fps on senaki when there are many players has to do with engine.

[Joyride]

A good videocard isn't the deal with dcs. It's al about cpu clockspeed. Quadcore is not fully supported so higher clock higher fps. And be aware that a human brain can only see max 22fps all above that isn't any difference. If you're also playing games like battlefield, a gtx 560 or above is your best pick. That gtx680 is new, so its better to wait price drops. Or wait untill Nvidia comes with a new High end card. 680 is a 'medium end' card after all:P And i agree with hammer Nvidia is the best brand in videocard land now a days. The drivers, the design, the support, the performance. Yes ati has good specs, but in my opinion its crap.

EDIT: and don't forget the game engine. That low fps on senaki when there are many players has to do with engine.

The difference between 22 fps and 60 fps is very noticeable to me, but it's thanks to track IR. At 22 fps, it's just not as smooth panning around. Not bad, but trust me, below around 25 fps I am usually hitting my frame rate counter to know what "going wrong" because I can tell its getting a little choppy! When you are up at 22,000' with nothing going on it's amazing how smooth the view is panning around vs. 22 fps on the ramp at a busy airfield.

[Eddie]

A good videocard isn't the deal with dcs. It's al about cpu clockspeed.

Not true. CPU is very important yes, but it isn't "all about clockspeed". The GPU is just as important when it comes to high and stable FPS, especially when it comes to MP where your system doesn't have the AI to worry about and there are more high poly objects (client aircraft).

The GPU will become more and more important in DCS, there are already many improvements to the graphics engine and GPU utilization being worked on.

And be aware that a human brain can only see max 22fps all above that isn't any difference. If you're also playing games like battlefield, a gtx 560 or above is your best pick.

That is again, not true at all. While 20-30 FPS is acceptable for most, you can indeed tell the difference between 20 and 40.

Peak FPS is not important however, what is important is a stable FPS. It's far better to have a system than can maintain 20 fps, than one the jumps between 20 and 60 depending on what you are looking at.

And low FPS at Senaki is nothing to do with the "game engine" either. I have no issues at Senaki at all, in fact the FPS at Senaki is no different to anywhere else providing your system is fast enough.

[Yassy]

The 680 is less of a power hog than the 580, I read. With only a couple of 10s of euros difference in pricing.
Also, the 680 fits in 2 slots rather than three of the 580.
I think I would go for a 680 instead of a 580, but I am not sure what Daddy means with it being a 'mid-range' card.

And the age-old discussion about wether Ati is better or NVidia will never come to a conclusion. You have fans of both.
I swear by NVidia though. Tried a (good) card of ATi once, but the drivers gave me headaches. Especially the Catalyst AI function.
NVidias have been rock solid for me every time, from the 90s till now.

[Hammer]

If the money is no object then the choice is obvious.
As for nVIDIA or ATI... If you are satisfied with nVIDIA then stick with it.
Beside that you might need your old GTX250 as your second video card ... and mixing the drivers is asking for trouble.

[Yassy]

Tsk tsk.. I do not use a 'lowly' GTX250, mind you!
I have a rather decent GTX285 which, in all earnesty, performs quite respectable, even today.
BF3 and DCS are my main choices of entertainment and the card performs very well on both titles with MED/HIGH detail settings.

So, the purchase of the GTX680 would be one by heart, rather than by mind.
Darn you guys for showing off here.

[Baxter]

..................Ouch