Can anyone point me to information concerning video card vs. cpu?What I'm looking for is an explanation of what is the max video processing I can use with my 1.3G Athlon. For example, if I get a Ti 4400, am I going beyond the ability of my cpu to keep up? Is it a waste of money?Conversely, if I buy the Ti 4400, would I see a net gain if I also replaced my cpu with a faster one?Any help on an explanation of this relationship would be appreciated.Wilson

Take a look at this link--it should help you:http://www.fsgateway.com/tips_read.asp?id=135-John

A fast video card will definitely help...the 1.3 is fast enough. The worst part of your system by far is it's slowest piece...the hard drive. To get the most framerates, it has to be as fast and current as the rest of the system, or those parts just wait on the data from the HD. I upgraded to an Ultra ATA133 system and it's a very noticable jump.

I guess there has to be a first time for everything. But I've never seen anyone recommend a faster HDD to improve a framerate. How, exactly, does the HDD speed relate to framerates? If you mean faster scenery and texture load times I agree. But framerates? I don't think so.TripNorthwood 2.2a at 2.72Ghz Abit TH7II-R512MB Samsung 40ns PC800Gainward GF4 64MB Ti4200 295/57029.42's DX8.1 WinXP ProInwin case / Enermax 431W PSU3DMark2001SE = 11911http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4001228

>Can anyone point me to information concerning video card vs. >cpu? >>What I'm looking for is an explanation of what is the max >video processing I can use with my 1.3G Athlon. For >example, if I get a Ti 4400, am I going beyond the ability >of my cpu to keep up? Is it a waste of money? >>Conversely, if I buy the Ti 4400, would I see a net gain if >I also replaced my cpu with a faster one? >>Any help on an explanation of this relationship would be >appreciated. >>Wilson I would recommend as a minimum getting a GF3TI card but it better be at a real low price as you can pickup GF4TI 4200 for $150 or less. While it is true that Fs2k2 video card performance is exponential with CPU speed your 1.3Ghz machine will feed a TI4200 just fine on the other hand dishing out some $350 or so on a TI4600 would be overkill, as far as the TI4400 goes just bear in mind that most TI4200 will easily run near or at TI4400 speeds.Later,

"But framerates? I don't think so"True or untrue, depending on how you define framerates. Drive access can cause a momentary drop in fps, and that's entirely dependent on the speed of the drive. DMA helps reduce this a bit, but the cpu is still using some cycles to process I/O requests. Better that the comment had used the phrase "average framerate".... Using that phrase, a faster HD will improve the average fps... But I feel with today's current drives, the difference would be negligible unless someone has a lot of swap file activity going on in the background. I have a slower drive by today's standards, and a P3/800, and have never seen drive access chop more than 1-2 fps at a given instant, unless the swap file is used (and I don't let that happen)....-John

Yep. I agree John. That was what I was trying to get at with the texture and scenery load comment. Good clarification.Trip Northwood 2.2a at 2.72Ghz Abit TH7II-R512MB Samsung 40ns PC800Gainward GF4 64MB Ti4200 295/57029.42's DX8.1 WinXP ProInwin case / Enermax 431W PSU3DMark2001SE = 11911http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4001228

Thanks for all of the feedback.Sounds like it would be reasonable to upgrade to the Ti4400 from my current Geforce Ultra without having to replace the Athlon.Wilson