Synopsis: what do I spend $250 or less on to make FS-X go faster?I am running FS-X on a Dell 8400 with 1Gb RAM. It has a rather unusual video card - an ATI 800SE with 128Mb RAM. It's very difficult to find info on this card as it seems to be a Dell-OEM-only variant of the 800 series of cards. What I (think I) know about it is that it has a 400 mHz core clock and (unusually) a 256 bit memory bus.When I bought this system a couple years ago, my original intent was to immediately replace that card with something like a (then new-tech) GeForce 6600 or similar, but I found that I got quite acceptable performance in FS9, WoW, and FPS games such as FEAR and the most recent flavour of DOOM. I've done research at various times since then but have always come to the conclusion that I'd have to buy one of the seriously expensive, power-sucking, heat-generating high-end cards to significantly better what I have. I have not done that since I don't think I've ever spent more than about $225 on a video card (because at some level I am ultimately a cheap b*****d 8^) ).Now that I'm running FS-X and of course finding that it's challenging my system, I'm wondering if there's anything economical that I could do to get 5 or 10 more FPS out of the thing. So I think I have three choices:- new vid card, which I haven't identified yet- another gig of RAM- do nothing and just live with it, which is "acceptable" but not greatI have watched Task Manager's memory usage over the last couple days while running FS-X, and it definitely gets up in the 800-900Mb RAM usage, but so far I have not seen it go higher than 1 gig.The thing I wonder about the most is whether I am indeed hobbled by the 128Mb of video RAM on the ATI card. I very nearly sprang for a 512mb GeForce 7600GS? card (I think that's what it was) on Black Friday, but again bailed since it seemed to not be much above what the 800SE has, and plus it only had a 128 bit memory bus.Then again, I keep reading that FS-X is processor- and not video card-bound, so would even more video RAM make a diff?BTW for what it's worth, from what I've heard about Windows Vista, I will avoid it for as long as I can get away with it, DX10 or not. I'm just not interested in spending a bunch of $ on a new-tech (e.g. hybrid hard drive, etc.) system that will probably still be groaning just running the OS, let alone FS-X. So I am trying to get a couple-three more years of life out of this 2004-vintage PC.Thanks for any input,Dave Blevins

Thinking wider than just FSX, the RAM will improve things greatly. I would add mroe RAM before the card, but accept that both need to be updated to get FSX to run even vaguely `well` - and that's a relative expression!Allcott

I went through an upgrade of both RAM and video card. Each had a different result.The upgrade of RAM from 1 GB to 2 GB resulted in slightly higher frame rates and, more importantly, much smoother display using the same settings as before the RAM upgrade. However, I was unable to increase the texture sizes (Global Texture size) without a degradation of performance to the same level as before the RAM upgrade.I then upgraded my video card from a 6600GT 128MB to a 7600GS 512MB. With the settings at the same place as before the RAM upgrade, I did not notice much in the way of performance improvement over what the RAM upgrade provided. However, I was now able to increase the texture sizes and get a much sharper display without a degradation in performance.My intention now is to enjoy what I have and then buy a completly new system next year, once the DX10/Vista stuff settles out.As always, YMMV.Regards,...jim

Jim, Same here. There's no need to be a DX10 guinea pig and pay through the nose for the privilege. Just changing enough to be able to stay in the game for now seems like a good policy!Allcott

Well, I went ahead and spent quite a bit more than $250 and upgraded both RAM and vid card, with less than stellar results (which is kind of what I suspected I'd get, but it was worth a try). I added 1gb of dual channel RAM, and an eVGA 7950GT XO 512Mb vid card. The main positive benefit I've seen is that some dialogs (e.g. Display options, Control options)come up much more quickly. I *think* I'm also seeing some very minor improvements in smoothness and framerate, but I haven't yet flown it enough to really tell. What just occurred to me is that I haven't yet paid attention to the ground "blurries" that I was seeing before. I was hoping that quadrupling the vid card's memory would at least make this better; I need to go take a look at that when time permits.thanks for input folks,dB.

Hello,I updated only muy Videocard from ATI RADEON 1600XT 256MB to ATI RADEON 1900XT 512MB, Improvement is +25% Framerate, ability to maximize all Videocard Features (AA, AF etc...), faster loading of Scenery and Flights and much less stuttering on change of Views. Focus should be set to 512MB Video-Memory and not to the highest GPU if it has only 256 MB. Very important may be for you that High-end Videocards need an additional 12V Power-Supply and produce more Noise. If you don't have a Power Supply with additional 12V-Connector but your new Card needs it then you'll have to buy it additionally (>60 EUR).Since still reported on other Posts a RAM-Update from 1GB to 1,5 GB will increase the Framerate (at AVSIM reported experience differs from "only less stutter" to "have my Framerate increased for 25%), I think the Truth will be inner this Boundarys. More than 1,5 GB will not speed-up FSX but will give the Ability of running additional Applications with less swapping Memory between RAM and HD by switching between the Application. Others also reported Framerate Increasements by Usage of More than 2GB of RAM. But this is always critized massive by most of the other competent Posters (seems to belong more to the mystic Threads). I use the Free Tool MemStat to Measure Consumption of RAM and Video-RAM on Runtime of FSX in various Situations. What I can say is that FSX never uses more than 840 MB System-RAM and never more than 460 MB of Video-RAM. But usual my Video-RAM often exedes not much more than 250MB RAM (always depending on complexity of Autogen, Scenery and View Mode as I.E. Virtual Cockpit). So summarized I would say maybe(?) +15..20% Framerate for 2 GB and a little more Comfort for more than one Appication opened per Time. But you can also analyse you Windows Installation (avoid unnecessary Autostarts, Clean yor Registry for unused Componentes, Do you really need this pretty Highres-Desctop Picture? etc...) for more Comfort.A thirt part that can be updated is the CPU. Refering to the other Posters a CPU Update will also be worth to increase the Framerate (CPU-Freyuency seems to have direct Effect to the Framerate). But dont go into the Trap to update to a Low-Performance Dualcore with less Frequency for one of the Cores than for your actual CPU. FSX will only take Benefit from the second Core for maximum 0..20% (only Scenery Pre-load Tasks). So the unique Core Speed rulez here over theoretical summarized Performance of Dual-Core Systems. So better try to update to a Singelcore with high CPU Frequency if you get it for a lower Price than an Dual-core system with equal Frequency for one Single-Core.Summarized over all of these Alternatives it may be too expensive for you to buy more than one of them (like for me). But there is an additional way to increase your Framerate for 20..30% without spending any Money and without lowering the Settings-Sliders of your FSX. You can Tweak your System by Down-grading your Textures from 1024x1024 Pixel to 512x512 Pixel (yo will not recognize this usally in Fight Heights above 100ft) and by otimizing Some Settings in the FSX-Configuration File.Partial you can download the tweaked Textures from AVSIM, other Tips and Files you'll find here:http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41For me Tweaking brought nearly 25% more Framerates w/o HW-Update increased to nearly 30% after HW Update (partial tweaked only for Usage of 512 MB of Videocard) with additional 25% Framerate for the new Videocard itself. So my System runs now with roughly 50% more Framerate. Previos I measured 8..15 Frames with some Peaks up to 18 Frames in the default Area from FS-Startup. Now I can measure 12...22 Frames with some Peaks of up to 28 Frames only by Installing of Tweaks and Replacement of the Video-Card.Always happy landings, Heinz-Werner