nothing in the performance of FSX changed. NOTHING.Other games, even Aquamark3 shows three times more frames than before (old card:ATI 9800XT 256meg. New one Gainward 7800GS 256 megs).It's a pity.What shall i do now ?? Even playing with the settings has no affect. it doesn't matter if i turn car traffic off, ai planes to 25% and all other settings med-low. I get 5 fps at the tokyo mission as the helicopter still stand at the airport.....HELP !!!!!!!!!!!

It has been mentioned a lot of the forums that the video card memory is important. I am not really sure why you would upgrade to another 256MB card. If you had gone to 512, there would have been a gain. But as far as I can see... for the most part, you only changed video card brands.duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

You upgraded from a 256MB to another 256MB?I would have recommended getting a 512MB card.(Maybe the gainward has better tech specs than the ATI, I dont know alot about GFX cards, but an increase in the DDR memory would have made a big difference I think)--Tibbz

WHat are your system specifications?

What is your machine spec?

I went from a 256 meg to a 512 and it made a difference. I agree-take it back and get a 512 meg one-fsx loves memmory.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

friends,i would have upgraded to a 512 mbyte card if i could catch one for my AGP DELL 8300 with P4 3,2 Gigs, 2 gigs ram and Win XP SP2 running.But i had no chance. So i decided to catch one 256 meg card to get in games better performance before i definatly will have no more chance to catch a AGP card. At this time i tried several dealers in germany but no one had a 512 meg card in the stores.........

FSX needs around 4+ GHz P4 power to start becoming playable. If you have been reading the forum, everyone got FR of upper teens and above is using either an OCed e6600 or an e6700. The e6700 at stock frequency (2.6GHz) delievers 4GHz P4 power, and it is easily OCed to 3GHz which produces 4.5GHz of P4 power. Even the e6600 (2.4GHz) can be OCed to 3.5GHz with a good cooler like the BigTyphon.

Can anyone quantify the performance gain from a 512mb graphics card rather than a 256mb? I fly with a 9800 pro 128mb. Memstatus says I never go above 200mb. Granted if I had a better card I might get to turn up more options and use more memory. Until now I was all set on replacing with a 7600gt 256mb. Would the slower 7600GS 512mb actually give me a better frame rate than the 7600? I'm agp, with a athlon 2000 xp so I think there is a finite line in upgrading graphics without upgrading the cpu (and I might be already there for all I know). That's why I'm not looking at 7800GS or X1950pro.

However, I haven't seen a 512MB video for AGP. I think the issue here is that a lot of people still have those AGP graphics cards. To move to a 512MB card, chances are, you might have to change the mother board and the processor which leads to memory as well. In the end, you end up getting a new machine.

Then take it back and wait until someone local to you does have a 512. Seriously, that was not an upgrade. Also... if you want the better of the Nvidia cards, get one from the 7900 series. They run faster then the 7800 series. GTX is their top label.duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

Are you guys kidding me?A 7800GS is over 2x more powerful at 'processing polygons' than a Radeon 9800 Pro.You could have a GPU with 1GB of RAM, but pair it with a slow GPU core clock and a low number of pixel pipe lines it would mean squat.What you are saying here (for example) is that a an X1600 Pro 512mb would perform better than an X1900XT 256mb simply based on the size of the installed memory! Not true......Incidenatlly, no (new) AGP card will ever ship with 512mb RAM.Your best bet is to stick with what you have. It's one of the top performers for the AGP slot, with only the newly announced Powercolor Radeon X1950 Pro that will be able to beat it.

Hey. Just saw your sign. What FR are you getting on FSX? Alos, what setting and which tweak are you using?

No longer using it and have gone back to FS9 until the dust settles, but beforehand I was getting low-mid teens in built up areas. No AI cars or boats and using only the autogen cfg tweak for no buildings and more trees. In more rural or smaller town / city areas it seemed to easily stay around 18-20 FSP with my frames locked at 20.I just don't have time for all this tweaking though. I only just got FS9 to run how I had dreamt it would with this new PC. I just don't have the time right now for all the attention FSX requires. If I want to fire up the PC and fly, FS9 is the way to go - at least for the next 6 months anyway.....

ATI offers a Radeon X1600 512 MB AGP. I was thinking of upgrading to that one.