Hi I currently have the computer below, and I want to upgrade it for better performance in FS9. I have a max budget of around $300. What can you guys recommend?AMD Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz Socket AM2MSI K9N NEO-F, nForce 550, Socket-AM2Corsair Value S. PC4200 DDR2 1024MB Kit w/two matched Value Select 512MBSeagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB SATA2 16MB 7200RPMGainward GeForce 7600GS 256MB Silent FX, PCI-Express,DDRII, "BP7600GS-256-TV-DVI"Hiper ATX 480W, 14dB, Type-R, 120mm Fan, 2xSATA, 20/24pinCheersJohan "Whats VNAV?!?!" Adolfsson

In all its a pretty good setup for fs9, what do you want when upgrading? Do you want more speed (CPU),more eyecandy (GPU), or faster loading (RAM) You could either go for a stronger CPU like the X2 5400+ (around $250), GPU (maybe a 8800 320mb, its abit more than $300, around 20/30 more but inturn you are futureproofed) or just add more RAM (OCZ, Corsair etc...) to made loading times less. However keep in mind if FSX is anywhere near your future suggest you wait and later on upgrade al together. If its not suggest you decide with either the CPU, RAM or GPU. My 2Yen, hope that helps ;)

Hi Johan and Davis, Just a couple of thoughts... Your RAM modules are likely single-ranked (banked or whatever somebody calls single-sided modules). Ergo, you're 'only' at 50% of your memory throughput capabilities. HST, FS9 isn't very RAM-critical IMO. Your GPU could be a bit 'narrow' if you'ere driving a big screen and resolution. Specially case you're using high AA/AF-settings, I'ld suggest lowering them. Perhaps try turning off energy-saving options (& Cool 'n Quiet) if you have a dedicated machine. I.e. by using the OS' power scheme 'Always on' and thus going 'Loud 'n Hot' :-) If 300$ is the limit, I'ld get another pair of 512MB modules, a new CPU and adjust the video card so it 'performs' your resolution in a satisfactory manner. FWIW, my AMD X2 4600 systems (an Ati and Geforce system each) eat FS9 for breakfast. GPUs are a 512MB X1950pro and GF7950 (driving a 1680x res). Although FS9 doesn't make much use of multiple cores, the OS and system drivers do. Hope this adds to thoughts and kind regards Jaap Davis, 4.7GHz! Wow! I know who will (hopefully!) be advising me once a system upgrade becomes imminent. :-)

Thanks for the replies :) Davis, I have no plan of upgrading to FSX anytime soon and I plan to buy a totally new computer then and that is at least 1 year away for the moment.Jaap, will check my AA/AF and the energy-saving options.What I want is a smoother ride, dosen't really need a good looking sim :) I get stutters if I fly to a heavy scenery like Heathrow PRO and Cloud9 sceneries etc and would like these to go away as much as I can for $300 :(I found these two components: AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ 2.6GHz Socket AM2 2MB, BOXEDCorsair Value S. PC4200 DDR2 1024MB Kit w/two matched Value Select 512MBThey are roughly 3000 SEK (around $300).Is it worth to do this upgrade?CheersJohan "Whats VNAV?!?!" Adolfsson

Hi Johan, all I can say is you'll quickly not want to miss your twin-cores again! :-) The additional RAM would preferably be identical to the ones you already have. Besides many other possibilities, stutters for example occur when FS' fiber-system overloads or if your harddrive wouldn't be up to the task. Luckily, the latter can be excluded - unless it's running PIO-mode! :-) In general, it's hard to tell without an idea of the software/other hardware you use. Most importantly, what's your resolution and screen-type? More than one? That IS what 3D-gaming is all about. ;-) Good luck and kind regards Jaap

Hi again Jaap.I use Windows XP Professional and have a seperate partition for FS9. The screen specs are 1280x1024 and a "21 CRT Samsung SyncMaster 1100p and use windowed mode for FS9.Other than that I have no programs that take up alot of resources and I defrag my harddrive quite often with O&O Defrag.CheersJohan "Whats VNAV?!?!" Adolfsson

Hi Johan, one thing which could help combatting stutters is merging your seperate partition with your OS' partition again. This in order to avoid unnecessary HD-head travel between the individual parts. FWIW, a couple of OS functions are calculated in relation to the partition's free space. Therefore, it's never a bad idea to have a lot of free space. ;-) I don't know whether newer versions of O&O defrag keep the O&O background service active (older versions did). Just another item to verify if you don't want to be interrupted every 60 or 120s. If you aren't sure what's interrupting you and would like to know more, SysInternals software like RegMon or FileMon can be very helpful. In case, only log the errors. A nice little perf increase comes from setting your RAM to 1T in the mainboard bios (delta perf vs 2T = ca 8%). I'm aware the first item might be a bit disappointing and labourious, Johan, but a potential decrease of stutters could (and should) be the reward. :-) Kind regards Jaap

Hi Jaap, will check these things that you wrote above! :) I don't have really have a problem with stutters.Back to the upgrade, do you think it's worth to spend the money on the RAM and CPU?CheersJohan "Whats VNAV?!?!" Adolfsson

Hi Johan, although there's no guarantee you'll achieve what you might hope to achieve, I think you'll like the effect of a second core. So, yes to that part. The RAM bit makes sense because you'ld be using the full memory bandwidth of your system. IMHO, 2GB isn't unreasonable either for FS9. OTOH, FS9 doesn't seem to discriminate between single/dual-channel RAM or when it's running at half the possible bandwidth. IMHO, 1280x and greater resolutions prefer to see 256-bit or greater GPUs. Your current adapter is a 128-bitter (with plenty of VRAM to run a single external view). Frankly, apart from the CPU, I wouldn't dare to call whether it makes more sense to go for more RAM or a better GPU? As you know, ingame performance always depends on the weekest link - which in return depends on very specific software requirements... If you download MemStatus v.2.50, you'll see FS9 running on a single display hardly ever consumes more than 160MB VGA. The additonal GB of mem will increase memory usage by a couple of hundred MB (900-990MB instead of 6-700). Case you're weary, maybe you could go step by step (i.e. the CPU first)? I doubt you'ld want to return it! :-) Again, hope this adds to thoughts and kind regards to Oellandia :-) Jaap

Just let me know when Jaap, ill help u out with what i can ;)

Hi again Jaap :) I have to say thanks for all the help that you have given me through these replies! :DBeen thinking alot about the upgrade the last day and I might also go for a new GPU if I get my old CPU and GPU sold for a reasonable price.I looked at the "Asus GeForce 7950GT 512MB GDDR3, HDCP" it dosen't cost a fortune. Maybe you could guide me in the jungle of GPU as well? :( CheersJohan "Whats VNAV?!?!" Adolfsson

Hi Johan, >>The GPU jungle...<< Arrgghh, so true! :-) I think I've got the 7950 you mentioned, if, it's a VeeCee10 in a cloak!! :-) An 'unabsolute' answer I'ld dare give re GPUs: My sole app which easily exceeds 256MB of VRAM is FSX. Single FS9-views should do very well on 256MB adapters. Personally, for FS9 - I don't have gadgets like 3D-Glasses, Matrox TripleThing or other items which require Geforces - plus with what you mentioned about your display config, I would pick a 256MB HIS 1950pro IceQ3. Provided, FSX is never going to see your current config and you aren' going to connect something to the 2nd out. ;-) OTOH, case you already exceed 200MB (VGA) with MemStatus now, it might be wiser to opt for a 512MB card straight away? Hard to tell without seeing it. AIM, if you like FS' max texture quality settings (1024x textures), FSX.0 easily produces 380-400MB VGA where FS9 seldomly exceeds 160. I'm uncertain but confident (pls correct me if mistaken), one has to double these numbers if a GPU is 'driving' two resolutions, resp., one has to devide the GPU-memory by two if both VGA-ports are being used. Apart from old Matrox drivers (in the good ol' G550 days), I haven't seen drivers in which users could allocate specific memory amounts through particular VGA-channels. Combing everything, I'm certain a display/resolution DOWNGRADE is the cheapest, most POWERFUL upgrade most of us could perform..! :-) You and I would probably make some money by downgrading our resolutions. Consider it! :-) Finally, when you see series of cards, perhaps compare the memory speeds? That's usually the perf difference between them. My Geforce7950 (and maybe the one you're looking at) for example, clocks lower than others of the same series. You get what you pay for. I guess that rule will hardly ever change in IT. As usual, I hope this adds to thoughts, kind regards Jaap

Hi Davissan, many thanks for your kind offer, I'll certainly take you up on it. Be prepared! :-) My time will probably come when 2GB modules are widely available at affordable prices. Q3? You might remember the thread a while ago? I'm currently losing my 10% overclock to compensate for the minus 8% (4 modules = 2T). That definitely doesn't qualify as a glorious overclock!?! It's cute at most! :-) And a joke compared to your 4.7GHz! So, Davis, if you could kindly start helping me by sending your CPU! :-) :-) Thanks a bundle in advance! :-) Kind regards Jaap

Hi once again Jaap! Amazing how much time you take with your responses, I really read them with intrest, and appreciate it as well :)I will give a lower resolution a try and will check the usage MemStatus. I've also looked at some other cards in the 2000-3000 SEK range (

Konbanwa Jaap :)Yeah i remember that thread hehe, and yeah thats a kitty cute OC :(Hmmm can i send the CPU...yeah.... will I no :(.. Hehe, in anycase by the time the RAM prices become affordable again ill help you out.On a side note, have you heard about the Core2 sucessor thats in the pipeline: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070...ger-caches.htmlHave a nice day/night :)