Hi folks,I still have an AGP slot on my MB and expect to stick with it for another 2 years (expect to retire it in 2007).Even though my faithfull 9700 Pro/128 is still doing reasonably well I was wondering whether I would get any visible benefits by switching to the Radeon

Hi,What resolution and what AA/AF settings are you using right now? What frame rates do you get? The reason I ask is that the lower the resolution you're using, the less difference you will see by upgrading your card.In general, I'd advise against getting a new AGP card at this point because it's a dying standard. Also, FS9 tends to scale more with CPU and so a video card upgrade may not help your frame rates much.Having said that, you seem to have made up your mind (may I ask why is that?) not to upgrade for another two years (which is a long time in computing) so any upgrade is better than nothing.If you can, could you please give us more context about your thinking here so we can better advise you?Thanks,Edwin

>What resolution and what AA/AF settings are you using right>now? What frame rates do you get? I am using 1600x1200 4AA/8AF. Frames generally locked at 22. I get high teens or around 20 fps on new sceneries (Overland's JAP series RJTT and RJAA) with 100% commercial traffic.------------------------------------------------------------------>Having said that, you seem to have made up your mind (may I>ask why is that?) not to upgrade for another two years (which>is a long time in computing) so any upgrade is better than>nothing.I bought a new rig 3 months ago. The only thing I carried over was my ATI 9700 Pro. I figure 2 years is reasonable for a PC life span.-------------------------------------------------------------------Looking at the specs of the Radeon

Wow, that's quite amazing you're keeping very decent frame rates at such high resolution! I suppose it reinforces the notion that FS9 performance is much more dependent on CPU than GPU. If that's the case, then it's quite unlikely you will see any major differences (in FS9) with a new video card. On other 3D applications (pretty much any game other than FS9), performance will improve dramatically with a new video card but if you use your system solely for FS9, then you can stick with the 9700 Pro.(Scratch, if you're reading this post, this is yet another good example of how good ATI used to be! If only its current products had come out earlier and at a lower price point!)There is no real-world performance difference between AGP and PCI Express. You're absolutely right there. The only "problem" is that the video card community decided to go with PCIe instead of AGP so AGP has become a dying standard.Edwin

Where the X850XT will come nicely into play is if you like to use FSAA & AF @ 1600x1200 res.In this scenerio the X850XT will most certainly give you a nice boost in performance. (At the very least you'll be able to turn up the eyecandy without adversly affecting your framerate).I've had a 9700Pro, AIW-9800Pro, & X800XT in recent years & with little question the biggest performance jump was in moving from the 9800 to the X800XT.

I have a couple of major reasons for thinking about the upgrade:1. Clouds. I am still running at 60 % density. I would like to improve on that without getting all the stuttering when in a heavy cloud layer. I read somewhere that setting them to 100% density will also get rid of the impostors.2. Photoreal scenery. I have the VFR France Paris base pack. No matter what AI traffic density or locked FPS or TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT= setting I use they simply do not get loaded unless you fly in a hot-air balloon or press the pause button for 3 to 5 seconds. Adding clouds to this scenery makes it almost completely blurry.Last of all, I would like to enable v-sync. Getting tired of the texture tearing.Does this make sense ?

You could always get the X850XT from a reputable retailer with a good return policy. That way if you find it doesn't give you the added performance your're looking for, then simply return it.Somehow I think you'll end up keeping it though :)

Well, I bit the bullet. It was listed at CAD$599. Then they decided to slash the price to CAD$299. (Future Shop)You guys were right regarding the FS9 performance. Frame rate mildly better. But the eye candy is much better. 100% cloud density - Vsync enabled. The picture looks much crisper now. Still have to be careful with the amount of AI - as expected.A different story in LOMAC. Double frame rates. Still have to try it with Age of Empires - the only other thing I play.----------------------------------------------------------------------As an aside what values are you folks using for :TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT= ?TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS= ?TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS= ?TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS= ?Thanks

WOW! Could you post your fs9.cfg file. I have a similar set up P4 3.4 1GB RAM and the 9700 Pro and at times, (KIAD) my fr will drop into the low teens. Are you you using the OmegaDrivers or the Catalyst? >>What resolution and what AA/AF settings are you using right>>now? What frame rates do you get? > >I am using 1600x1200 4AA/8AF. Frames generally locked at 22. I>get high teens or around 20 fps on new sceneries (Overland's>JAP series RJTT and RJAA) with 100% commercial traffic.>------------------------------------------------------------------>>Having said that, you seem to have made up your mind (may I>>ask why is that?) not to upgrade for another two years>(which>>is a long time in computing) so any upgrade is better than>>nothing.>>I bought a new rig 3 months ago. The only thing I carried over>was my ATI 9700 Pro. I figure 2 years is reasonable for a PC>life span.>------------------------------------------------------------------->>Looking at the specs of the Radeon

Using the Catalysts.I think 2GB vs 1 GB increases fluidity but the actual PEAK FPS is slightly reduced. I will go for fluidity :-)Yes, SF KIAD is not very frame-rate friendly. You are getting similar FPS to what I had with the 9700 PRO. But the JAP3/4 series RJAA and RJTT are much more FPS-friendly. Thanks