Hi all.I was hoping some of you guys might be able to advise me on upgrading my FS PC. First, some background. I've just done a full reinstall of XP Home and FS9.1 as a consequence of reduced perfomance in graphics. The rig is under powered to begin with (see specs below). The average FPS is 10, the video card does not allow for water reflections and I'm unable to use heavy weather conditions due to the impact on frame rates. However, more recently FS began to freeze during start up and in top-down slew mode with large areas of ground flashing black. Also noticed a speckling of white pixels and distorted image in the XP 'Welcome' interface when switching on the PC. So, I got a new hard drive and started from scratch. However, the graphics problems have not gone away and I'm thinking that the video card may have got a bit hot over the summer here in Australia. Here's the important specs:Intel Pentium 4, 1.9 Ghz;Via P4XBS Main Borad;1250 Mhz RAM;N Video 64M Geforce 2 MX-400 Video Card.Can anyone therefore provide me some advice on options for an upgrade? Can I start with a new video card or do I need a larger CPU? If I go with the card upgrade, what one should I purchase?All input appreciated.Cheers,Matthew.

Have I phrased the question poorly?

No, you haven't phrased it poorly. (You do know, that you can do a search and find lots of threads on this exact topic.)I will say what I say to everyone upgrading: if what you have right now is running FS pretty well, then wait to upgrade. But if what you have is not running FS very well, then it might be a good idea to do an upgrade now.Your system is about what I used to have (P4 1.8, Geforce2 with 64 megs, 512 ram, etc.). I could run about like you--no heavy weather, and no special effects like water, etc. My fps were usually a little better than what you're getting. At any rate, I was DUE for an upgrade. hehe.The keys for you are, Intel or AMD, and, dual-core vs. single core.The future is clearly going to dual-core, and with new BIOS'ed motherboards dual-core is becoming quite mainstream. Cost of dual-core is still imo at a premium, which means, again imo, that a really fast cheap single core (like an AMD 3700+ for $200) is a fine fs cpu, and will be fine for FSX as well. The cheapest dual core AMD cpu is the 3800+, and it is now at about $290. Dual-core won't give you any more raw frames in FS, but it will help if you do other things at the same time. Also there is some indication from Microsoft's FS Insider website that some of the FSX calcs may well be offloaded to another core on a dual-core'd cpu so that is interesting...Keep in mind this: build your sys with an eye towards FSX. What we do know is that FSX will ship as a 32-bit, DirectX9 app. So build accordingly. DirectX10 video cards are not out yet, and probably won't be for 7-8 months at least, so that's out-of-the-question for us right now.Now, if you want SPECIFIC hardware recommendations, ask away. :)I was speaking in generalities.Rhett

Hi, Il'd say it depends most on your screen resolution. If you're trying to do 1280x, I could imagine your in trouble... :-) Rgds Jaap

Unfortunately, due to the age of your current computer parts, it won't be as simple as adding a new CPU, or changing videocard.If you wish to get a more powerful CPU, you'll need a new motherboard. You will also need new RAM. You could upgrade your videocard, however, with the CPU speed most mid range models would cause a bottleneck.

Hi fellas.Thanks for the replies. I've been fishing around for hardware information on the some of the threads but it's very difficult to make sense of the debates. I appreciate that performce issues can be specific to the rig, but the threads are often unresolved debates full of conjecture and petty accusation, which leaves me lost. Yes, I appreciate that we should have an eye on FS10. Ideally, I'd like to think in terms of high res display. At the moment FS runs at 800x600x16. I was running it at 800x600x32 prior to the reinstall.So, initially am I right in concluding the following:(1), there's no way I can get improved performance from upgrading the video card using the rest of the existing hardware; (2), if my video card 'is' dicky then I can only realistically replace it with an equivilant model; and(3), that it's pointless upgrading the video card because I'm going to need a dual-core CPU for FS10?There's few questions that follow from this, but I'll leave that for my next reply.Thanks again. Cheers,Matthew.

Hi Matthew, thanks for mentioning your resolution. There should be a couple of 50$ GPU-options without having to replace everything. Just avoid gear with shared memory, turbo cache and all those things which sound too good to be true. SEs and LEs are also often cut in half normal editions. At 800x600 almost any adapter will do. If you go for a Geforce, a 5200 or better should be ok. If you go for a Radeon, a 9600 would be my first pick. Both are available for around 50$. Don't know what that is in Oz-$? :-) Good luck and kind regards Jaap

Ta Jaap. Looks like I'll go for the Geforce 5200 for the moment. I'll have to deal with FS10 compatable hardware next year.Cheers,Matthew.

No worries, mate. Below is a link to a GPU listing for Geforces (and at the bottom of this page you can find a link to the same in Ati). Although it probably won't make a huge difference @ 800x, perhaps try to avoid the 64-bit 5200SE. Have fun, good luck and kind regards Jaap http://www.rojakpot.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88&pgno=1Pls note, this page is slow sometimes... :-)

Thanks again Jaap. Just as a matter of curiosity, if I wanted to run FS9 at a higher resolution, say 1024x768x32, or 1152x864x32, whould a more powerful card be better - that is, will I get resonable performance (no lower than 10 FPS) at a higher res? Higher res with this rig has always meant poorer frames.Cheers,Matthew.

Hey Jep.Works a treat. The 5200's a huge improvement in performance. Thanks again for the tip mate. Best thing in hardware I've ever done.Cheers,Matthew.