BTW, this is a solid discussion over at the Org and a response by Andy Goldstein. Lotsa confusion here. Monitor resolution has only a minor impact on VRAM requirement. A 1080p monitor takes an 8MB frame buffer; 2560x1600 is twice that. Anti-aliasing multiplies the frame buffer requirement, but the lion's share of VRAM is taken up by textures, secondarily by objects and scenery mesh. Frame buffers are a distant third. If you're running out of VRAM the biggest and most effective step you can take is to turn on texture compression. (If you don't like how it looks, drop the texture res instead.) Perversely, a 2560x1600 monitor does load the GPU more. Not because of modest increase in VRAM requirement, but because all the pixel shaders have to be run for twice as many pixels. (A pixel shader is a program that X-Plane loads into the graphics card and is run for each pixel to compute lighting, reflections, etc. XP10 is all built on pixel shaders.) Once again, in fitting the graphics card to the load, VRAM is space, not speed. You may have put your money in the wrong place in going with the 4770k over a better video card. If you're only running a single copy of X-Plane on the machine, half the cores and all the hyperthreads in that i7 are going to waste. XP10 uses at most 2 cores in normal operation. The best bang for the buck in a cpu is single thread performance - get the fastest Core i5 you can find, and put the difference into the graphics card. No doubt you need a fast cpu to shovel all the objects and textures out to the graphics card. But the cpu knows from nothing about how many pixels there are on the display. All the pixel-dependent stuff (i.e., pixel count vs pixel shaders - lighting, shadows, haze, etc.) happens in the GPU.- Andy