Due to very bad FS2004 performance on my current computer (PIV3Ghz, MSI 865PE NEO2 PFISR, 1024MB DDR Corsair Valueselect (2X512), ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB, Maxtor 120GB ATA Harddisk 7200rpm, Maxtor 200GB SATA Harddisk 7200rpm) I am thinking about upgrading.I have got a system like this in mind:Antec Sonata II 450WattASUS A8N-SLIAMD Box Athlon 64 3800+ Venice (S939)Current Corsair Memory (2X512)Asus 256Mb EN7800GT PCI-ESamsung 250Gb SATA II 8MbWhat do you guys think about a configuration like this? My "problem" is that I am a bit scared to upgrade. Not sure if FS2004 will run that better with AA en AF enabled. I know that Vista and FSX will be released this year. Dual Core and SLI seems not being supported in FSX, DirectX10 will. All graphic cards at the moment are DirectX9 compatible. Will the EN7800GT be 'useless' when DirectX10 compatible games (and FSX) come.Maybe waiting is better (or not?) but I really need better performance. Holiday Season 2006 is still a long time to go :)

It seems clear from all available info that FSX will run on DX9. Whether there is a DX10 mode or upgrade is probably too early to tell. It probably depends on when the API set for DX10 is locked so that the FSX team can depend on it not changing.You might be mistaken on your dual-core/SLi comments. At least on the Vista platform, I think we will find that these might have some performance benefits, even in a DX9 environment.I wonder if your Corsair memories are going to be up to the task? Might want to look at 2x1Gb dual channel performance sticks.scott s..

Hi, what do you mean by 'very bad performance?' The CPU itself would give you a boost (specially in dense areas), OTOH, the machine you have also seems pretty good. I agree that the holiday season 2006 still is a loooong time to go. :-) There's an interesting thread in the main FS-forum right now concerning performance. Here's the link: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...03466&mode=fullHope this adds to thoughts for now, good luck and kind regards Jaap PS, it would be helpful if you indicated your display and resolution too. It makes a difference whether you render 1024x768 or 1280x1024 (aka 750k vs. 1.3 million pixels).

I think that is quite good parts except the Asus 7800 GT is not very good. Runs hot from all I have heard. Would get Evga, XFX if possible because good warrantys.As for RAM go for 2x1 Gigabyte. Unless you plan to upgrade your computer soon again for FSX. Many games benefits from 2x1 Gb nowadays and there is a big chance FSX will as well.But it does depend if you want to upgrade again for playing FSX or not. Dual core one thing is for sure mine overclocks like a champ. Already up at 2,7 gig on air and I am not seeing the limit yet on my Opteron :D

FS2004 is running on 1280x1024, 4AA and 8AF. 3D clouds hit frames to 7fps. When no clouds in sight (2D clouds enabled) 22 seems to be the maximum frames on my machine (PMDG 747 2D cockpit, 3D cockpit disabled). During approaches on even a default airport frames fall back to 10.When I disable AA and AF performance increase to 18fps with 3D clouds. 3DMark scores are normal so I am pretty sure that my system is to weak.Right I will look for 2GB (2x1GB) Corsair memory instead of using my current memory. I will also have a look for the XFX graphic card instead of the Asus (it is even 13 euro cheaper :-)) Hopefully it is not useless when DirectX10 hits the market.Thanks for the replies so far.

If you buy a 7800 card, you will want probably more than a 450 watt power supply. You *might* get by with it, but it might not in high-load situations.Rhett

Though 7800 cards draw much less power than the 6800 series. Depending on which one but the 7800 GT draw ton less than the 6800 GT for example.