I have two totally separate computer systems in my office, both with FSX installed. Both updated Sp2.
But for unknown reasons, the graphics appear significantly more true to life visually speaking on the much older system and it baffles me. I'm hoping someone can explain because the system with the $200+ graphics card does not look as good as the computer with the $40 graphics card.
For example, the sim on System 2 looks brighter and the field of depth look much more realistic. Mountains in the distance look more realistic. I can post some comparisons unless someone has a suggestion off the bat.
It makes absolutely no sense that my older system with far less capable hardware is producing a better VISUAL graphics experience (except that the new hardware is faster and smoother)
Am I using the correct latest driver?
Nvidia Driver ID = 441.66 / 26.21.14.4166
System 1
ROG Strix X470 Gaming MoBo, Ryzen 7 2700X CPU, PNY Geforce 1060 GTX 6GB GPU, 16GB Gskil 3200 DDR4 RAM
System 2
Foxconn A78AX Socket AM3 - AMD 770 (8 years old MoBo), Nvidia Quadro 2000 GPU, AMD Athlon 64 X2 2500Mhz CPU, 4 GB DDR2 RAM
The graphics display visually speaking (not the frame rate) is far more pleasing to the eye and more realistic on System 2. I fully expected the 1060 to be far better in all aspects. That said, isn't it the CPU and not the GPU that's rendering the graphics in FSX ?
However, system 1 can sustain a frame Rate of 35 FPS, while System 2 can only achieve a Frame Rate of 27 FPS
Did I just buy the wrong brand? Is it well known that the PNY GeForce 1060 GTX is not as capable as others? Is the Athlon 64 X2 CPU better at rendering graphics than the Ryzen 7 2700X CPU ?
I'm at a loss.