Hi.I'm running FS9 on a lowish end computer - AMD Athlon XP2000+, 789 RAM, and GeForce MX440 which I think is 64MB. I've got no complaints about this system in fine weather - I usually get about 24fps with scenery sliders at maximum - but it can't handle bad weather at all. I wonder if the weakest point is the graphics card, and I notice that there are a couple of cheap 256MB ones on the market - the Sapphire Radeon 9550 and 9250, and the XFX Geforce 6200A. Does anyone know (a) if any of these cards would improve my system, and (:( which one is better?Thanks in advance,haegri.

Hi Haegri,Well how you get 24fps with max settings is beyond me looking at the setup.. :-eek That wont go with the PMDG47 though. :-p.. Anyway your happy so :-) .. Ok you say it runs smooth enough id say for you atleast your cpu is fine (though youd benefit from an upgrade). You definatly should upgrade your GPU, a 440 is really down the ladder and really NOT a gaming card... Issues you need to take into consideration is that when you upgrade your GPU couple of things come into mind, what monitorsize do you use, you have AGP so fairly limited choises (without also upgrading CPU) and you need to remember that since you have a lowend CPU you dont want to create a bottleneck CPU <=> GPU. My opinion look at a 6200 or 6600. Anything over would 1. be overkill and likely create a bottleneck.ps. upgrading ram will also increase perf. very beneficially

Hi wayupthere, thanks for the info.I'm probably being misleading here - it's only the sliders on the right hand side of the scenery tab - scenery complexity and autogen density - that are at max. The others are about half way. (Turning on the Transform and Lighting checkbox in the hardware tab improved my performance a lot - before I discovered this I could only turn the right hand sliders to about half way as well.) On the weather tab, on the other hand, they're all about min and still struggling, and for most planes I turn the VC quality to low. Also, of course, some planes - although only a few - kill this dead. For example, the 2004 version of my favourite Renegade 270 slowed it down a lot until I re-wrote the panel.cfg (can't remember now exactly what the problem was). Aeroplane Heaven fighters used to kill it dead until I discovered that this was due to them having the panel background and gauges in separate windows - combine them into one window and there's no problem. I don't have any complex payware addons, partly because I'm not really into modern airliners and partly because I reckon there's a fair chance my machine wouldn't run them. I can run the iFly 747 easily enough - but only the no-vc, no cabin version, whereas other VC planes (Milton Shupe's, for example) run easily. Etc.I get the bottleneck thing, thanks, and I wasn't intending to spend a lot on a graphics card for a computer this old anyway. I use a 17" CRT monitor.Any ideas on the Sapphire Radeon 9550 and 9250 as compared to the XFX Geforce 6200A, as they're all about the same price and I've read good reports about the Sapphires?Thanks,haegri.AMD Athlon XP2000+789MB RAMGeForce MX44017" CRT Monitor

Hi Haegri,Alright, well Sapphires are ok, I've used a few a long time ago without any issues though am mostly using BFG's nowadays. As far as those GPU's.9250 vs. 6200 ==> 6200 winshttp://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=303&card2=1929550 vs. 6200 ==> 6200 winshttp://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=80&card2=192So if those are the cards you are looking at, based on bench results, and price comparison, I'd go for the 6200 better perfor. at the same price range..Hope that helps you on your way.

>hope that helps you on your way.Sure does (see, I can write American too!) especially the comparison website. Judging by the number of votes, looks like a lot more people use the 6200.BFGs - Big Friendly Giants??? Or was it the huge gun in Doom 1? :-)haegri.

Haegri, I don't know if this is helpful, but I happen to use an older AthlonXP 3200+ that came with onboard sound and graphics. A few months ago I installed a new Radeon 9600XT (256MB version) which was a huge improvement for around $60. It runs FS9 beautifully, and when I use the overclocking software that Sapphire provided, I can now run FSX more than adequately with medium-high sliders. (Be sure to completely uninstall any previous graphics drivers before you install a new card.) However, I also upgraded my system RAM to 1 GB, and on the advice of a friend I disabled the onboard sound and installed a cheap sound card. BIG improvement in FS performance! My current system will keep me happy until I consider purchasing a DX10 system some time next year. I'm guessing you live in Europe, so my final suggestion may not apply. But here in the US, you can buy a complete Athlon64 3500+ system (including monitor) for under $350. If this is a possibility for you, it should actually produce better FS performance than doing the upgrades that are needed to your existing system. As Davis Takanawa has already mentioned, FS likes a fast CPU and plenty of RAM. If you're at all considering FSX, be sure to purchase a card with Shader 2.0 support and DX9. The Radeon 9600XT has it, but I'm not sure about the others. Good luck!

Hi. Thanks for the advice. I hadn't considered a new computer but I'll look into it - don't really know if the huge price difference between computers in US and UK still holds, but the price you quoted sounds very cheap by UK standards.Thanks,haegri.