As a non-biased non AMD/Nvidia fan, my experience going back and forth 8800GT->4870->5870->5870CF->GTX560 is actually the reverse that AMD seems to focus on tuning drivers for benchmarks of the newer FPS and driving games like Dirt3 and doesn't even bother tuning drivers for some of the older sims (FSX, IL2, CliffofDover, rFactor1) that still run better on same generation Nvidia cards.

AMD has even admitted as much that for FSX they don't bother keeping up with Shader2.0 support and so cloudy skies bring even the 7970 to it's knees and that is the reason most hardcore FSX users are Nvidia users.

Now that both support 3 monitor on a single card, NVidia's performance on older sims compared to the 7970's performance on FSX is a competitive advantage and the reason I didn't jump on the 7970 and am waiting to see what Nvidia brings to the table this year or if the AMD 8xxx cards finally manage to do well on older sims just by brute force performance despite AMD not spending time to tune for it.

Not picking sides, I think both the 7950/7970 and 680 cards are great pieces of hardware, but saying Nvidia just focuses on FPSes is the reverse of what I've experienced and read from fellow sim enthusiasts on forums (SimHQ, AVSIM, iRacing, ISIForums etc).

I respect your point of view and find some agreement with the facts you state. AMD has directly stated that, as part of their policy, they do not always modify drivers for games no longer being supported by a given developer. So, for example, if FSX is not being supported by Microsoft (with patches and/or updates), then AMD no longer feels compelled to provide driver updates for it.

I would make the case that, to a degree, the facts could be interpreted to mean that AMD is less interested in FPS (they don't constantly update drivers for old games) and Nvidia is more interested in FPS (they do update and use "the way its meant to be played" to keep their FPS higher than AMD).

A company has to "spend its resources" in the most effective way. AMD has stated it chooses to spend its resources to advance the overall state of GPU art (including FPS, compute, video processing, etc in balanced combination). It also, for a few years now, has made "releasing new technology on schedule" a priority -- that is, they say they do the best they can in a given time frame; rather than set "too high a goal" and release late (which is what they used to do years ago -- and Nvidia still does). For example, Nvidia seems to set the high goal of beating AMD at FPS and releases late, if necessary, to meet that goal -- but, if they are months late, are we really comparing apples to apples (rhetorically).

Philosophically speaking, for some customers, the AMD way is "right". For other customers, the Nvidia way is "right". I like the AMD approach, but don't think Nvidia fans and non-fan users are wrong. There is no "right or wrong", I think. The key is to have all the info and make one's own decisions according to one's own criteria.

Nice thing about this site is that we can provide and discuss the info, rationally

Ah good insight Allen, I didn't know the AMD focus on GPU not just for games but also for other purposes, I guess that helps explain their stance on support of older games, they'd rather focus limited resources on moving the art forward, unfortunately as a simmer who plays lots of older games or new games that still seem to be Dx9 or Dx10, their stance hurts me compared to the competition. It is pretty obvious that for the last 2-3 generations Nvidia has been waiting to see what AMD comes out and then is late to the market and just tries to beat the AMD product, sort of a Microsoft wait and then just meet/beat the competition on price approach which I am not a fan of. So traditionally I would be a fan of the AMD approach but when it comes to what I buy for my sim enjoyment I just have to go with an unbiased look at what the bang/buck delivers for my needs.

So yeah I definitely agree we all have our own different priorities and must make our own decisions based on what we use the GPU for, and like you I really love the fact that on this subforum we are able to benefit from the knowledgeable discussion and various points of view without the typical echo chamber or fanboyism fights of some other tech forums

Sooo, the simple question I have is:
Should I trade up my new EVGA GTX 580 to the current GTX 680 or wait 2 more months for a newer 680 version? (I have 90 days to trade up - until the end of May.)


WC

FSX's engine is not exactly correctly written, as Prepar3d has none of the slow downs involving clouds using the same engine updated by Lockheed.

I do remember when FSX Came out, it was Advertised as a "Plays best on Geforce/nVidia" title.

I have a few titles that have "Plays best on Radeon Graphics" logos/splashes during bootup, that played awesome on my older ATI Cards, but slowly chugged along on my 8800GTS.

Wheeeeee

Just like the little pig on the road luge in the Geico commercial....

Measuring FPS is just like two little boys in a locker room talking about which one of them has the 12 inch dongle and not knowing the difference between 6 inches and 6.25 inches; less the 12 inches they are claiming.

FPS is limited by your monitor and loads of other stuff. Anyone that claims they can genuinely tell the difference in FPS in a game without the frame counter turned on is a bleeding idiot. I just want cards that work properly without being overclocked and over priced.

A wrong guess here could cost you money -- so, I don't want to guess for you

Rumor is that the updated GTX680 is more likely in late Summer or Fall. I should be based on the GK110 chip (not the GK104 chip used in the 680). If it works like Nvidia wants, it will be very special. If AMD sticks to its schedule, it will release the HD8xxx late this year. That also should be very special.

If the rumors are true, then that will be too late for you to "trade up".

I guess it boils down to how much cash credit you get for trading up and how much fun it is to own the latest and greatest. Owning the latest is definitely fun. Now that I've waited so long to make up my mind on HD7970, its no longer the "latest" -- or, at least, I don't have to wait much longer for an upclocked HD7980 (or whatever they call it). So, I'm waiting. For an Nvidia owner or fan, the math is different

I agree

P.S. I am an AMD fan (for those who are newer here). So, I'll wait for the AMD card that does the job. But, I agree that Nvidia and AMD FPS are so close at each price point, that there is no egregiously wrong brand choice for the majority of consumers.

You have the luxury to wait a little. I'd see if the 4GB cards are out soon (April?). If they don't make it in time, you could upgrade before the time is up.

I can agree FSX is well known to be legacy and have it's gfx problems, but I found the same thing with XPlane10 which just came out a few months ago, with my 5870s crossfire on or off <20FPS, with my GTX560 (which is supposed to be not that much better than a 6950 which was not much better than 5870) 50-60FPS... found the same thing with CliffsOfDover, rFactor2, both are <1year old.

I'm not meaning to bash AMD, but just making a point on the context of the discussion about whether AMD or Nvidia spend effort toward tuning drivers and cards towards FPS versus games versus other stuff, I personally found from my experience that AMD runs things like BF3 and Dirt3 terrific, but older or not as popular titles not as well, especially sims, although iRacing is one where AMD works really great.

Of course I am still hoping that AMD's performance gains over Nvidia brute force the difference in driver tuning for different titles, especially for the 8xxx generation, but so far it hasn't yet, that's what makes 2012 so fun, watching to see what the competition from both manufacturers benefits us consumers