Rumour has it that FSX likes high performance graphics with lots of graphics memory. I've recently seen a deal for an X1900XTX 512M card for $275ish after rebate, which is a very good price, and was wondering whether it has a noticable enough performance boost over a 7900 GT 256M (which I can get for around $50 cheaper than the X1900XTX).Will the extra 256M video ram make any difference in FSX performance, assuming max AA/AF settings?Acknowledging that the beta and demo has a fair share of graphical glitches, from both a performance and prettiness perspective, do nVidia cards or ATI cards handle the fledgling FSX better?GaryPS. I am on my second download of the FSX beta, after the first came in corrupt (thanks fileplanet :-mad) 27hrs to go until the next one comes in (90Kbps max download on my DSL).

I went from a 7800 GTX 256 to a 7900 GTX 512.To be quite honest I dont see that much of a difference.I am at the point now that I think its either:1. Very CPU hungry. I have a T2600 Intel Core Duo and almost all of the time one of the cores remains maxed out, while the other is at zero usage.2. Microsoft fixes that are not yet in place.I fly with all sliders maxed out and get over 30 FPS flying in rural areas, no blurries until you go a ways out.Im getting about 10 FPS around major airports with traffic and blurries occur immediatly.My FSX.exe is using up to 800MB of my 2GB of ram.

Hi Gary,I just made a video with FFRAPs showing a takeoff from KSEA from the wing view in the default 747 with FSX Beta 3. I'm running a 2.20 gigahertz AMD Athlon 64 with 2 GB of RAM with a GeForce 6800 256 MB Video Card with an ASUS A8V Deluxe Motherboard.It was the state of the art 2 years ago, but not anymore.Even with FFRAPs running (which tends to hit systems pretty hard) I'm getting very respectable frames at KSEA with sliders around the medium position.Coolest thing in FSX in my view is the wing flexing in the turbulence, that's why I shot the whole video from the wing view!Cheers,Bryan

Thanks for the replies guys. So FSX didn't perform much better with 512Mb VRAM versus 256Mb, and the "old" Nvidia 6800 is going OK if sliders are kept in a reasonable position. The quest for the holy graphics grail continues!Does anyone with a high end ATI card have any comment to offer? The X1900XTX is mighty tempting at $275...Gary

I'm on the FSX beta team and have a Sapphire X1900XTX 512MB. I have run all of the builds with both my X800XT w/256MB and the X1900. I can tell you that I get slightly better performance with the X1900, but I suspect mainly because of the ability to drive the higher resolution and AA/AF, with my 3.4 GHz single core CPU still being a bottleneck. Having said that, the FS team has said in the past that they will make use of all the VRAM available on the card, and my guess is that as add-ons get more complex and take advantage of the new texture resolutions, that more VRAM will come in handy. If you plan to buy a card now that you want to last for more than a year, I would go for the higher VRAM if you have a CPU that can drive the card. Otherwise, wait until the D3D10 cards ship next year.

Hi, very intrested in what driver you are using with your 7900 gtx ?thanks Tony

Perhaps more video RAM would be beneficial with future FSX addons, but it's interesting you note that there was only slightly better performance with X1900XT, which is a generation or two beyond your X800. Apart from with AA/AF that you state, does the X1900 outshine the X800 in any other area? In particular, does enabling high water detail have the same frame rate killing effect on both cards, or does the X1900 do a much better job?BTW, I am planning on an E6400 (with a target OC of 3.2HGz), so I should have plenty of CPU horsepower to go with whatever graphics card I choose.Gary