sqrt(-1)

Just imagine what it would have been like had the internet and hundreds of worldwide 24/7 news outlets existed when the 747 was initially released. Every new aircraft, particularly one as radically different in design and construction as the 787, is going to have its teething problems.

Almost as long as I have... During that time and countless machines built and troubleshot, I learned that the specs alone don't tell you enough.

Per these reviews, it looks pretty good. The V2 is definitely better than the first version of the TX750.

Whatever you say, boss...

It might have been funny had no one been hurt in the accident, but now it simply shows a lack of respect for those injured and lost.

Try to get the GTX 660 TI with 3GB VRAM. X-Plane 10 likes all the VRAM it can get. Also, be sure the power supply provides as stable and ripple-free current as possible. Not all 750W power supplies are alike. A "cheap" one will eventually cost you more with hardware failures elsewhere in the system.

Appears unrelated to the battery issue.

Much better. If you intend to get a GTX 660, be sure it's a 660Ti. The difference is worth it!

Who is selling a machine like that these days?

Put another way, you don't get the distorted display of wide view angles if you spread the viewport across networked machines, as was asked here.

That's the longest log file I have ever seen without anything having run yet... First thing I would do is move all the plugins, add-on aircraft and add-on custom scenery to directories outside of X-Plane. This way nothing needs to be deleted. Then test X-Plane in totally default configuration. If it starts and runs okay, then slowly add plugins one by one until something fails, then add-on aircraft, then scenery (you have over 1200 custom scenery entries). A possible shortcut to the above: If your situation happened after a recent addition, remove it. See if that changes anything.

Looks like this will be the perfect aircraft to do some recreational flying. It's quick enough to stay aloft, yet slow enough to enjoy some beautiful scenery. *credit card ready*

You are probably speaking with a deeper voice now...

I'm sure you will enjoy X-Plane with the new rig!

They look good!

Fair enough. I'm curious to see the performance of the 780 on X-Plane. It will, however, need to be fed by a strong CPU as it is a "baby" Titan.

From Cameron: 1) That's shocking. I used a specific case study in sim to compare my two cards. In the same scenario, the 2GB gave me between 19 and 26 fps. The 4GB, on the other hand, shot into the 45-60 range. Of course, this meant I was exhausting my VRAM on the 2GB since the boards and chips are pretty much the same. So long as you're not really exhausting that, your performance between the two should be pretty similar (is SOC higher speed than classified?). 2) For some people, you're right...the 780 is a no brainer. That said, I would hesitate against a 4GB card for my situation (bandwidth means squat if I'm exhausting mem!), and to MOST people it's going to be about bang for buck. With the Titan, 780, and 680 all being out now, the 680 no doubt is a great bang for dollars spent. The performance is fantastic. 1) When I did my test in X-Plane, I first figured out how to configure the rendering settings to fully saturate the 2GB card. Then I applied the same settings to both cards. Out of the box, the SOC is clocked higher not only on the GPU, but the VRAM as well. For certain sceneries, I can run extreme texture resolution with objects and roads maxed out. In others, 2GB won't be enough, but 3GB, as provided on the 780, would get it done...for me. 2) I agree that bang for the buck, the 680 wins. Hands down. But for quite a bit less money than a Titan, the 780 is only about 8% slower. As I mentioned in my previous post, I'll try to find the tests that demonstrate both the fact that a 680 with 4GB is actually choked by memory bandwidth at high screen resolutions and that 3GB VRAM at higher bandwidth would be a better solution.

From Cameron: In some instances the 680 in 4GB form may be better (I have this card after upgrading from the 2GB version...HUGE difference for the settings I run). The 780 is no slouch, and also why I mentioned it. You really can't go wrong with either card! I currently have both versions of the 680 now in two different machines. (Gigabyte GTX 680 SOC 2GB and EVGA GTX 680 Classified 4GB) All else being equal, the 2GB card gives me consistently better framerates. Agreed on not going wrong with either one, but if you take into account the significant increase in memory bus bandwidth on the 780, it would be really difficult for me to pick the 680 again, even with the 1GB extra VRAM. Nvidia must have realized choking down the memory bus from the 580 to the 680 wasn't such a great idea, especially with larger VRAM capacities. I'll try to locate the test I found for you that illustrates this.

That's because, per thread, the 4770K and even the 3770K have higher performance than either the 3930K or 3970X.

This is because Haswell-E will have DDR4 RAM (as opposed to DDR3) and have a new chipset called X99.

Haswell-E will be a form of Socket 2011 but the pin configuration will be different. It will not be interchangeable with current Socket 2011 CPUs.

I'd take the 3GB GTX 780 over the 4GB GTX 680 because it's about 30% quicker.

Wow! Just WOW!

The only source I'll pay attention to is this.

What, specifically, have you seen?