I'm starting to see lower fps and more stutters as denser autogen and addons like UT Europe are becoming more and more abundant, so I'm wavering about upgrading. I have a Dell XPS3 with a P4 3.4GHz HT, 1GB DDR2, SATA RAID0, and ATI X800 XT PCIe. After buying a large flat panel and jacking up my resolution to 1600x1200, I've been thinking about upgrading my graphics card to something like an ATI X1900 XTX or Nvidia 7900 GTX.I've read articles where the conclusions are that with a decent mid to high CPU (not top of the line) you can get benefit from an upgraded GPU and more/faster video memory. Is there enough difference between my X800 and the newer cards in FS9 to make it worth the $500-$600? Any thoughts on the timeless ATI vs Nvidia topic, with regards to the X1900 or GF7900?

I'm ready to pull the trigger on a new graphics card (X1900 or GF7900) but I'm just not sure if it's my CPU or graphics card that's holding me back. My CPU is a Pentium 4 550 Prescott (3.4 GHz) and since my FPS took a hit when I increased my display resolution to 1600x1200, I'm assuming that the video is the bottleneck. I also tend not to get bad stutters, just poor FPS in the low to mid teens when in something like the LDS767. Anyone have any suggestions as to how to isolate whether I'm hitting the wall on the CPU or the video card? I don't want to spend $500 needlessly now for a new video card. Thanks.

You should read this review before pulling the trigger. Makes your current GPU/CPU seem rather well balanced.Greg

So, I have a very very similar setup, and spent the last month or so going through the same agonizing decision. My decision was to wait until FSX comes out and then get a new CPU and VPU combo. All the evidence I've read and personally experienced is that CPU is by far the main restriction for me on FS9 - not because my CPU sucks but because the hardware just isn't used effectively as it is in other games. While I find it ridiculous I can scream through DOOM3 engine games with high framerates and resolutions but come grinding to a halt at a decent airport with high traffic and some clouds, with textures taking forever to load, I've learned to live with it and chock it up to bad code.Ragardless, its very clear to me after all this that my 100% CPU utilization is what holds me back.My only upgrade *might* be a high-speed drive for loading off textures...

So I thought and thought, and read and read, and even though most people (as you guys did) agree that FS9 is CPU bound, there were some who thought that a new card may help with higher resolutions and filtering. Since I run at 1600x1200, and wanted to try something without dropping $4K on a new machine (especially since my current one is only 16 months old).I bought another GB of DDR2 RAM (needed it for more than FS9) for a total of 2GB, and added a shiny new, albeit very expensive ($500) ATI X1900XTX 512MB. I think my electric bill just went up 10% a month. :DMY LESSON: A fool and his money quickly go separate ways. If it wasn't going to cost me almost $100 in shipping and restock fees to return the X1900, I would. I can turn up the AA and AF higher and the 512MB of VRAM helps with texture loading and reduces popping, but other than that, it's the same old 15-25 FPS depending on the plane and location, etc. It's truly unbelievable that with a P4 3.4 GHz CPU, DDR2 2GB RAM, RAID 0 array, etc., and a state of the art video board, all I can manage is a measly 25 FPS. Advice to others....Forget the video boards and forget Intel CPUs. Save up and buy a state of the art AMD based system with a decent (not top of the line) video board and you'll be happier. My current system is a DELL XPS, so the CPU can't be upgraded. I may just go ahead and build a new AMD system, now that I own the X1900. It sux to have too much money. :D

Whilst I wouldn't write off Intel CPUs quite as solidly as you do, I have definately come to the conclusion that anything more than the ATI X8x0 and nVidia 6800 series video cards is just wasted in FS. I mean, if I get the same FPS in complex scenarios whether I have no AA/AF or max AA/AF, then surely the video card is not being fully utilised and the CPU is carrying most of the show. Unfortunate that you had to experience financial pain to learn this lesson. FWIW, I have too to a certain extent. I often look over at my son's Athlon XP 3200 / Radeon 9800 punching out close to the same FS FPS and eye candy as three rigs I have built since, namely:Athlon 64 3800+ / 1G RAM / 6800GT @ UltraAthlon 64 3800+ / 1G RAM / X800XT AIW @ X850 XT+Notebook Pentium M 2.26GHz / 1G RAM / 6800goand think why did I bother for so much expense and so little gain. At least I can watch TV on my AIW and my lappy gives me mobile flight simming! :-lol Gary

What do you think the prognosis is for FSX? Any hope that using DX9 it may shift some of the burden to the VPU, so maybe in 8 months my investment won't be completely in vain?

Any hope that using DX9 it may shift some of the burden to the VPU, so maybe in 8 months my investment won't be completely in vain?Seems a very strong possibility. From reading info released by MSFS staff shifting some of the workload over to the VPU has been a major development point of the next sim.Greg

>What do you think the prognosis is for FSX? Any hope that>using DX9 it may shift some of the burden to the VPU, so maybe>in 8 months my investment won't be completely in vain?I think the move to much more offloading to a VPU comes with DX10 from what someone posted here, though I guess there will be some DX9 functionality in FSX.I think the wise upgrade path for anyone who is getting tolerable performance in FS9 is to wait til FSX comes along and then try to build a system that supports it well. Maybe there will be some DX10 hardware by then we hope. Get you wallet out!Noel

By the first time in my FS history, I could save money enough to build a good machine to run FS. Here in Brazil PC parts cost a lot, imagine the exchange and taxes...even buying at black market as I always do...Im running a AMD Athlon 64 3800 X2, 2 GB kingston memory, board asus A8SN SLI Premium and a powerfull ATI RADEON X1900XTX 512mb.I am at the same situation as our friend above is, with this powerfull machine I handle about 15-25 FPS... BUT Im running with full option on, AA6X Anisotropic 16X, everything full, high resolution clouds from Activie Sky 6, Trafego Brazil (Brazilian Airliners AI Traffic, this one sucks many FPS), high resolution Brazil ground mesh, realistic scenery and off course 3rd party aircraft. If I would run FS with no add-on...I would experience about 40 FPS at Los Angeles, with full display option on...as I

>I think the wise upgrade path for anyone who is getting>tolerable performance in FS9 is to wait til FSX comes along>and then try to build a system that supports it well. Maybe>there will be some DX10 hardware by then we hope. Get you>wallet out!Thats my plan, build a new PC when FSX comes out. See what sort of performance people are getting and get recommendations on hardware. I would like to buy now, but I know come the end of the year I will be able to get more computer for the same price. SO.. I wait..http://www.lemosnet.com/misc/gpilotsig.jpg

Me too. I will buy a new gaming notebook this time next year, configured to whatever has proven to make FSX tick!Gary