Well, looks like my Radeon 9800Pro has bit the dust.I am looking for the best board to get for my AMD64 3400+ system. 8x AGP is all that is available on the mother board.I don't want to over-buy for this system, since cpu plays such an important role, but I do want to get something with enough power to be appropriate.Did I make mayself clear, or just confuse things with that statement. LOLAnyway, any suggestions?Thanks,Wilson

I replaced my old Radeon 9800Pro with a Gefore 6600GT about a month ago and I am VERY happy with the performance. With your CPU (I have a 3200+) you should be very happy with that board.Hope this helps.

May I ask which motherboard you have and with which chipset ?George DorkofikisAthens, Greecehttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.png

>>With your CPU (I have a 3200+) you should be very happy with that board.<< Sorry to contradict, but going for a 6600GT from a 9800pro almost certainly is a downgrade (reg. FS). 128-bit vs 256-bit to name one detail. Following are links to a site which specifies technical differences: Nvidia: http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?locat...&var1=88&var2=1Ati: http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?locat...&var1=88&var2=0Frankly, I'm perplexed to see how often the 'display adapter question' is asked without a mention of the what it will connect to --> the display (or resolution)... Nothing personal, Wilson, just a general observation. :-) Besides, sometimes, I'm even more perplexed to see replies without knowledge of such details. It makes a difference whether somebody is connecting to 800x600 or 1600x1200... Hope the links work, good luck and kind regards Jaap

Thanks for all of the responses.George, I am using a GigaByte GA-K8N Pro with nForce 3 150 chipset.Jaap, I am showing my ignorance here. I didn't realize that there was a board-to-board variance depending on resolution. Obviously, I knew that fps will vary, depending on resolution. I assumed that if "Board A" gave better fps than "Board B" at 800x600, it would also give better fps at 1600x1200. I bet that's why a lot of others also don't mention the resolution. I learned something today. I fly at 1280x1024x32 with a ViewSonic A90f+.Let me state it a different way. Is a Radeon X850 XT overkill for my system? Would a less expensive video card give me 95% of the performance, since I have to use AGP? I don't need "bleeding edge", but it would be nice to improve performance since I have to replace the existing board.Wilson

Howdy,I don't think a Radeon X850 XT would be overkill for your system depending on what all games you run. If you only run FS2004 it might be. But if you run Battlefield 2 then it wouldn't be. Anyway, if you like the sound of that card then I say go for it. If you want something that will give you 95%(or perhaps slightly less than 95%) of the performance of it for a lot less dough, then check out a Radeon X800 XL. It's one of the best 'bang for the buck' cards around imo.Cheers and good luck,OneTinSoldier

Hi Wilson, as I mentioned --> nothing personal, just a very general observation... :-) I apologize if I made you feel ignorant or so. It wasn't my intention at all. Anyway, if you do the maths you'll quickly realize, what seems a rather subtile difference can be pretty major. A resolution of 1024x768 is roughly 750,000 pixels. 1280x1024 is ca 1,300,000 and hence almost double the amount. Etc, etc. I second OneTin's proposal regarding the best bang-for-buck. At that level, the only differences probably are the clock speeds of the individual adapters. You might also want to look at the 256MB X800GTO if they're available for AGP? Concerning your question about performance levels (the 95% question), I believe the answer is 'not really'. The differences will likely be much larger when i.e. comparing 128-bit/128MB with 256-bit/256MB cards @ high resolutions. FWIW, I once compared a 9600pro and a 9800pro on 2 identical P4 setups (feels like ages ago! hehe). @ 1024x, both systems performed absoulutely identically. @ 1280, the 9800 outperformed the 9600 by roughly 40%. So another conclusion is, if you don't use relatively high resolutions (in case you would have had a XGA projector), a high end card will not make any difference. Taylor the GPU to the display in use and you'll be fine. In some cases this approach could allow investing into other crucial components. Perhaps only include a thought about what you might connect during the lifetime of the component? Hope this adds to thoughts, Wilson. I wish you heaps of fun and good luck with your new display adapter. Kind regards Jaap

Jaap:No offense taken. Your comment about the 9600pro vs 9800pro explains why you brought it up. Quite frankly, I am surprised that the 9600pro would perform equally at 1024x. That information is good to know.I just found a Radeon X850 Pro AGP for $268 delivered. The X800 GDDR3 was only $38 cheaper, delivered. I believe that I may just go ahead and get the X850.I really appreciate all of the input, guys.Wilson

Wilson, Where for 268? I'm looking at one also and that's a great price.Clayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

Clay:http://www.futurepowerpc.com/scripts/detai...435712&REFID=PGWilson

Hi Wilson, thanks for the feedback and you're welcome. Since a replacement 9800pro is getting hard to find, the X850pro seems an excellent choice. About 6 months ago, I went from a 9800pro to a X800pro. Although I couldn't say I saw a noticeable framerate increase, I did notice 'the lows' were far less. My guess is, this is mainly due to the 256MBs of card memory (and this could be terribly mistaken). I hope and I'm curious whether you'll end up seeing similar results? Have fun and kind regards Jaap You too Clay... In case... :-) PS, the shop you're getting it from mentions 'upto 16 pipelines'. AFAIK and w/o checking Rojakpot's listings, it 'only' has 12 pipelines.