Right now, I am using an ATI 9800 Pro. It is a great card, but when I turn up AA and AF settings, my framerates drop way down. Is there a card on the market right now that will substantially improve my performance with AA and AF in FS9, with practically no hit in framerate performance? What are your suggestions? Is there a sweetspot in performance where throwing more money at a card does very little in helping improve performance? I'll take speed over IQ.RHAMD 3800+ (2.4)1Gb DDR SDRAM80Gb HD (8mg cache)

I just pulled my ATI 9800 Pro and installed a BFG GeForce 7600 GS OC 512mb and it really shines over the old 9800. And less than half of what I paid for the ATI a few years ago :-)FS9 looks and runs like never before...Little tip though...if you go with other than ATI card, do yourself a favor and UNinstall any and all drivers AND software that might have come with your ATI when you bought it.I had some that were not made by ATI but supplied as OEM type programs that I forgot came with the 9800 and now I have one that now says "can't find ATI hardware" so XP will not UNinstall the application.

I upgraded my RAM to 2Gb and a new GeForce 7600 GS, 512Mb. My CPU is an Athlon 1800 XP.I found something very interesting after running the upgrade.FSX - really no improvements in FPS over the 512Mb/GeForce 4200 w 8agp, 128Mb. This leads me to believe I am CPU speed limited.X-Plane - FPS jumped dramatically (30 to 60FPS). The entire X-Plane program is now running in RAM versus RAM/Disk RAM. Exiting X-Plane is now immediate vice a slow motion retreat.The above are my observations between the two flight simulators and are not meant to support or denegrate either program.W. Sieffert

How about in FS9?RH

Sorry, don't have FS9 running on this computer any longer.W. Sieffert

RobbieIf you like the ATi Radeon Pro's then why not try the new Radeon x1950Pro???I hear it is available in both PCIe and AGP versions. With 256MB DDR3 RAM, 36 pipelines, 2 x DVI out and a price tag of only US$199 it's a great buy. It also runs on an 80nm process rather than 90nm as with its predecessors (X1900, X1800 etc), therefore runs cooler and even uses less juice too.I have decided to buy one myself, and am just waiting for a delayed PC system to arrive before I do.Do you plan to upgrade any other components soon? Just wondering how you are fixed with your motherboard/CPU in relation to GPU.Good luck.Scratch1964

I'll do either AGP or PCI Express. I'll probably go for a PCI Express version. Do you think there is an advantage of 512MB over the 256MB versions in FS9 for AA and AF?RH

RobbiePerhaps a slight advantage with AA & AF, depending on screen resolutions. Personally I would opt for a 256MB PCI-e version and then upgrade again when DX10 has settled in.I think the X1950 offers very good AA & AF properties. Initial reports say it's a great value for money card. It even takes advantage of the new improved crossfire that is now almost identical to Nvidia's SLi. In other words no need for a dedicated master card and no external cable required either!Personally I don't believe paying out for an X1950XTX or 7950GTX is money well spent given that FS9 and DX9 are nearing virtual retirement, so to speak. You may see better FPS with these, but unless you plan to use a very large display then I don't think the bang is equal to the extra buck.Ssratch1964

Thanks for the reply! I plan on going no higher than 1600x1200. I am not planning on switching to FSX. I am interested in FS9 performance. I am just tired of chasing hardware and want to enjoy flight simming for once. So, with FS9 at 1600x1200x32 with AA and AF maxed, do you still recommend the 256 version over the 512 version? Or, is there another card, given that I would like to stick to FS9?Thanks in advance!Robbie

Robbie,It's a close call!If you really plan to stick only to FS9 and have no future plans, as yet for FSX then you may as well buy a quality DX9 card that will last. The good news is that prices have fallen across the board for DX9 compatible cards.For me, it is hard to recommend a card I have not yet bought. I have heard very, very good press reports for the X1950 Pro from all around, and I do believe that it would easily handle any FS9 scenario with ease given the 36 shaders.At 1600x1200x32 you may gain an extra 5-8% with a 512MB GPU over an identical 256MB card. Of course FS9 is so heavily reliant on a good CPU, and will not yield the same extra performance gain as other more GPU orientated games out there on a 512MB card. I would think perhaps there are two questions you may want to ask yourself...1) will you be playing any other games at all besides FS9? 2) how much do you really want to spend?There are some Powercolor 512MB X1950 Pro cards on the market but they are $30-$40 more than the 256MB equivalent.As to your query regarding the level above which you will see no extra visual gain for your money then I don't think it is necessary to buy anything more than an X1950 Pro. All you will gain is an extra few FPS, and nothing more. There are some very good Nvidia cards around for a similar price too. It all depends on whether you prefer ATi or Nvidia texturing.If you really are that concerned about AA & AF then perhaps it is worth the additional $40 to get that extra 5% or so.Good luck!Scratch1964

Thank you Scratch1964, for your responses! You have provided some great information.RH

I forgot to mention that FS9 is the only game I play.RH

Robbie"Thank you Scratch1964, for your responses! You have provided some great information"It's a pleasure. Love to talk graphics. We all want the very same thing on these boards....'The best possible image quality for the lowest possible outlay.' It helps to share opinions with others.Although I also use Train Simulator (I love the scenery aspect) and one or two other simulation games, like yourself, I do not play anything like Far Cry, Half Life, Doom 3, Quake 4, UT, etc, etc.... I think for a person that enjoys these kind of mega GPU intensive games ten an investment in a Radeon X1950XTX or Geforce 7950GX2 is perhaps warranteed, but with the way that the FS9 engine works it draws a higher proportion of CPU power by comparison. Therefore I believe, above all else, that it is more important to invest heavily in a fast and capable CPU than it is to spend hundreds of dollars on a the top of the range GPU card. FS9 is still a brilliant piece of software and although I want to get into FSX as well, I believe there are at least another 18 months af top quality game play to be had from FS9. Perhaps the best news of all is that whilst many $200-$250 cards will display FS9 very well indeed, these have fallen dramatically in price this past 12 months. Clearly anyone wishing to run FSX at the same level of quality will need to be loking at either an 8800GTX or, upon arrival an ATi R600 equivalent. These will cost much, much more and will have months before they settle in. We don't even have DX10 at our disposal yet either!I'd say that between now and January are perhaps the best months of all to really enjoy FS9. Geforce 7 series and Radeon X1900s have fallen in price and so to are 20 and 21 inch screens. The savings to be had are fantastic.The only other thing you might want to look at is your CPU. Forgive my ignorance if you hgave already posted the details but I cannot remember you saying which CPU you have running FS9. I only ask as many lab tests have reported bottlenenked GPU performance with an X1900 Pro with even an AMD AM2 dual core CPU. Just a thoughtScratch1964

Hi guys, FS9 (IMHO) ideally gets; 2GBs of RAM, @ >/= 1280x --> 256MB GPUs. Personally, I'd get a faster HD too. So, 1GB RAM = 110 Euro, ca. 80 Euro for a new HD and X Euro for a 256MB GPU. Ca 400 Euro should make you a happy man, Robbie. :-) I can max almost everything out with such a config and FS9. Hope you're doing well. Kind regards Jaap

Hey Jaap! How you doin?I was thinking myself about Robbie's other hardware components, especially the CPU. Do you think the X1950PRO will be well suited to his requirements? Does Robbie, or anyone else reading for that matter, need to spend over and above an X1950Pro for FS9?A faster HDD was one of my considerations when I recently built a new set up based on a Conroe E6700. I opted for a 320GB Barracuda SATA II @ 300GB/s transfer rate. I am still considering either a 74GB or 150GB WD Raptor, but felt I would be better to put the money into faster RAM and CPU at the outset.I wonder if Robbie has come to a decision yet?Scratch1964