I remember way back in FS2002 days - that a forum poster used to claim that you could work out whether your Fsim was bound by the CPU or GPU. I think it went something like this. You lowered your screen resolution way down to say 640x480 (something that your GPU could easily handle) and took a reading of your FPS. This FPS rate is largely therefore determined by the CPU . Then you start increasing your screen resolution until you start to lose FPS . At this point the rate then starts to be determined by the GPU.I think that there is more to it than this . For example , I know my old Geforce 4 TI4200 doesn't like AA and AF very much and also doesn't like cumulus clouds. Over at Toms Hardware , there is a set of graphs that show that an ATI X800 set to 4XAA and 8xAF gives about 5 times the FPS for the same setting on my old Geforce 4 - BUT that is using a Pentium 3200. I only have an AMD 2400. Now - trying to determine whether an upgrade of the GPU from a TI4200 to an X800 will give me any more frames - especially when there are clouds about , I have lowered my screen resolution to 600x800 ( down from my usual 1280x1024) and can't say that I can see much difference in FPS - but that was for no clouds in the sky.So - what do you think? AMD 2400 with a new 256 meg X800 (replacing a TI4200 with 128 meg) - will it be worth doing for $200 AUD Barry

I've used anything from an FX5200, GF3 Ti 200, 9800 Pro, 6800 GT and X800XT with FS9. My experience reveals that in the complex scenes where you really want to boost yout FPS, that FS is so CPU bound that graphics card makes hardly any difference. The only exception to this is when AA / AF comes into play, as the FX5200 and GF3 Ti 200 both struggled when these settings are turned up. From the 9800 Pro onwards, I have found neglible difference in worst-case FPS in FS9 between using no AA/Af to max AA/AF. Sure your max FPS will go through the roof the more fancier your graphics card, but that doesn't do anything for those heavy weather approaches into airports like EGLL with max autogen and max AI traffic. To answer your specific question, and assuming we are just talking FS9 here not FSX, then the upgrade to X800 would be worth it for the AA / AF performance improvements you would see. But I'd also say that a 9800 Pro would do nearly as well with this game in the cloudy situations that you speak of, and should save you a few bux versus an X800.Gary

>I've used anything from an FX5200, GF3 Ti 200, 9800 Pro, 6800>GT and X800XT with FS9. My experience reveals that in the>complex scenes where you really want to boost yout FPS, that>FS is so CPU bound that graphics card makes hardly any>difference. >>The only exception to this is when AA / AF comes into play, as>the FX5200 and GF3 Ti 200 both struggled when these settings>are turned up. From the 9800 Pro onwards, I have found>neglible difference in worst-case FPS in FS9 between using no>AA/Af to max AA/AF. Sure your max FPS will go through the>roof the more fancier your graphics card, but that doesn't do>anything for those heavy weather approaches into airports like>EGLL with max autogen and max AI traffic. >>To answer your specific question, and assuming we are just>talking FS9 here not FSX, then the upgrade to X800 would be>worth it for the AA / AF performance improvements you would>see. But I'd also say that a 9800 Pro would do nearly as well>with this game in the cloudy situations that you speak of, and>should save you a few bux versus an X800.>>GaryI know we are talking specifically about FS9 here, but over the run, the X800 is going to be well worth the extra dollars. While the 9800 has a legacy as a great card, there are some important differences to note (This is comparing the newer and better 9800XT and the X800XT):9800XT:-Core clock: 412MHz-Mem clock: 730MHz-Pixel Pipelines: 8-Fill Rate: 2.8 billion pixels per secondX800XT:-Core clock: 500MHz-Mem clock: 1000MHz-Pixel Pipelines: 16-Fill Rate: 8.0 billion pixels per secondBesides just being a faster card, those last two points are the ones that are going to make the long haul difference as games are becoming more and more shader intensive.

A lot depends on the resolution you need and the amount of AA/AF. I was using an X800XT 256MB with a P4 3.4HT CPU, and it was fine @ 1280x960x32 with 6xAA/16XAF using my old 19" CRT. I upgraded to a 21" flat panel with a 1600x1200 native resolution, and even with only 2xAA/8xAF, the X800 struggled to keep up. I upgraded the video card to an X1900, and although slightly overkill, I can crank the AA/AF up to max, and it can drive my flat panel with no problems at all. In my case, it was not the CPU, but rather the GPU that became the bottleneck. It all depends on your specific system and usage.