Hi folks, I have a trusty AthlonXP 1500 with 1GB RAM (running Windows 2000). Unfortunately, attached to it is a pathetic little GeForce3 with 64MB RAM (albeit overclocked). I want to upgrade my graphics card. I am hearing great things about the various Radeon cards. I can get a Radeon 9600 pretty inexpensively around here, but I don't understand what the differences are between the various types of Radeon 9600s. Also, does the performance increase between a Radeon 9600 with 256MB RAM and a Radeon 9800 with 128MB RAM justify the price difference? Will I even be able to enjoy the benefits of this card with my system? Primarily, I want better texture loading, crisper textures and better antialiasing, all of which are pretty bad on my current setup. Any and all help appreciated. :-waveMisha

Anything with an "SE" is junk. It usually means that the graphics processor is crippled by not having it's full bandwith enabled. A standard 9600 or 9800 with no additional suffix is not crippled, but is not being run at it's optimum speed. A "Pro" model has the same processor as a standard one, but running a a higher speed. This is usually where your best performace/price tradeoff is. An XT runs at an even higher speed, but costs more because it the manufacturer has to use better quality memory to run at the higher speeds. I personally can't justify the increase in price.With current games, 256 megs vs 128 shows no improvement in performance. On some brands, the 256 version is actually worse because they use less expensive memory and run it at slower speeds just to get the marketing value of saying they have 256 megs of memory.I think that your best bet is a 9800 Pro 128. They're right around $200 right now, compared to $130 for a 9600 Pro. I think that the 9600 Pro with your system would provide marginal performance, and if you ever decided to upgrade the rest of your system, you'd be stuck with a card that was behind the curve. FYI, with the system in my signature, I get a steady 30 frames in a rural area, and 15 frames on final to KSEA with Ultimate Traffic at 100% density.Dan

Dan, thanks for the info. The suffixes are beginning to make sense. Not sure if I want to spend EUR200 right now. Is the 9800 processor that much faster than the 9600? Does the memory really make that little difference, esp. if I'm flying in places like busy airports where lots of textures need to be loaded?Misha

Misha - I agree with most everything Dan has said (he's done his homework), except the final recommendation :-) . For the objectives you've stated, I'd go with a 128MB 9600 Pro. I've been lucky enough to have tried both a 128MB 9600 Pro and a 128 MB 9800 Pro in this machine and can honestly say that the framerate and grahics rendering is the same in all but the most demanding circumstances. In fact, the only really noticeable difference is with multiple layers of clouds. That's where the 9600 starts to bog down a bit (the 9800 hardly notices the clouds.) With FS200x it's still the CPU that's going to determine the absolute framerate and neither yours nor mine is fast enough to outpace the 9600 Pro in most cases. But, on the other hand (there is always one of those), if you regularly use many complex add-ons or intend to upgrade the machine soon, the 9800 may be the better choice. But, for 90% of the cases, I think the 9600 Pro will work just fine DougNorthwood 2.2a at 2.508Ghz (Intel HSF)Abit TH7II-R512MB Samsung 40ns PC800Radeon 9800 Pro (128MB)Cat. 4.2's DX9b WinXP Pro5 WD HDD's (20GB, 60GB, 120GB, 120GB, 120GB)Plextor 708ASony DDU-1621Inwin case / Enermax 431W PSU

Doug, Thanks for your input. I'm still unclear though on whether 256 MB will make a difference. With my current system, texture loading and reloading and blurring is the biggest cause of performance degradation. My graphics card in particular does not like water effects, I've noticed. Essentially, I can use Aerosoft's Manhattan with FSMeteo weather and full AI and still get 10 fps locked but there will be serious texture loading stutters and blurry textures. This is the main thing I want to eliminate. The price difference for the memory on the 9600s I have seen around here is a mere EUR30 between 128 and 256. Will this make a difference?Misha

here are a couple of links that may help.http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/2003...38-nv36-40.htmlhttp://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/2003...n9600xt-24.htmlKurt M

I don't believe the 256MB card will show any performance gain. Everything I've ever read in the subject, including a couple of reviews from folks who've tried both, indicates that there is no difference at all. But, if you do decide to go for the 256MB please do take heed of Dan's advice and verify the type and speed of the memory used. Many 256MB cards do, indeed, use slower memory to keep the cost down and the performance in such cases may, as Dan points out, be worse that the 128MB card with top-quality chips.Doug

>Misha ->> I agree with most everything Dan has said (he's done his>homework), except the final recommendation :-) . For the>objectives you've stated, I'd go with a 128MB 9600 Pro. I've>been lucky enough to have tried both a 128MB 9600 Pro and a>128 MB 9800 Pro in this machine and can honestly say that the>framerate and grahics rendering is the same in all but the>most demanding circumstances. What needs to be asked here is what resolution, AA, and AF settings are you using? I'd certainly accept that there would not be large differences in framerate while operating at 1024X768 or maybe even 1280X960 with AA and AF minimized. Personally, I run at 1400X1050, AA and AF maxed. I get a slight drop in performance runninh at 1600X1200, and my monitor will only refresh at 60HZ at that resolution.Dan

Hi Misha,You wrote: "With my current system, texture loading and reloading and blurring is the biggest cause of performance degradation."Much of this is due to more than just your present video card. Your CPU, motherboard Front Side Bus, and memory speed has alot to do with your slow texture loading and blurring. The system simply can't shove the required data through fast enough.Purchasing one of the above discussed video cards certainly will help the situation, but don't expect any miracles. By placing either the 9600 or 9800 (Pro of XT... 128 or 256MB) cards in your present system you will in essence have a great video card waiting for a system fast enough to keep up with it. You should really consider upgrading your entire system.I do so on a slow and gradual schedule. CPU one month, and then faster memory a month or two later. Then maybe a new video card, etc. So if you do buy one of the aforementioned cards, I hope you are able to upgrade your other components soon to take advantage of it.Good luck,

I'm going to second the 9800 Pro recommendation, and pitch in my own personal experience with a 9600 AIW Pro (faster core & memory than the standard 9600 Pro).On my Barton 2800+ @2153MHz setup w/1GB RAM & my Radeon @ 450/742 (conservative settings) I run FS9 pretty much maxed out and with 2xAA/8xAF @ 1024x768 with nary a hiccup. FS looks and runs great on my system. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a 9800 Pro or an R420 (when it's out) but my 9600 AIW Pro does the job and it does it well.-Max

Hi all, Thanks for all the advice. I decided to go for a 9600 XT 128MB. The 9800 pro was out of my price range and I got a good deal for this card. I can now run the sim with better frames in lower density scenery and at least equivalent frames in high density scenery but without stutters, no blurring, no texture reloading, higher settings and better resolution. I was quite amazed at the difference. It's like a whole new simming experience. And I haven't even started tweaking. I'm a very happy camper. :-)Misha