I am currently running FS9.1 on a Dell 8400 (P4 3.2 GHz, 2 GByte RAM, ATI X800 XL, Sound Blaster card) system.I run FS9.1 with Active Camera, FSGenesis Mesh, Ground Environment, AS6.5, Ultimate Traffic with World of AI planes where available, and Ultimate Terrain. I also have airports from Flight Scenery, Fly Tampa, and Cloud 9 as well as the PMDG 737NG with FS2Crew. My FS9 settings are maxxed out except for AI (80%), no ground shadows, and I've removed the default.xml from the autogen folder. The reason I'm thinking of upgrading (or maybe getting some other help from you fine folks) is that sitting at KSEA in the default Cessna 172 in VC mode on a clear day with 50 vis, my framerates vary continuously from near 24 fps to as low as 12 fps. It seems as though the dips in FPS are periodic. These problems are even worse when I fly into a complex airport or use the PMDG jet. Given other forums threads I've read, I should be able to get much higher (and much more stable) framerates shouldn't I? I have optimized my XP installation so that all non-essential processes are off. I use FSAutoStart to shut down any other programs. I use AVG for my anitvirus which has a small foot print. My 3dMark05 score is 4100. So my quesions are as follows: 1) Can I get better performance out of my current hardware rig? and 2) Would it be advantageous to upgrade to the X1950 Pro? I am not buying a new system for another year when next gen DX10 cards are out and I fly mostly in FS9. I'd really like to be able to max out all sliders (well, at least have ground shadows) and have stable performance in FS9 before I even consider FSX.Thanks,Joshua

Joshua- don't let the FPS demons grab you. If your FS runs smoothly to the eye- rejoice! It's not FPS but how you perceive QUALITY of the image. Your performance figures sound terrific- but then I'm comparing them to my "Smithsonian" class AMD 1.8 system. I'm very happy with 14-24 FPS,- steady/no stutters - surprisingly quite flyable right down to 5 FPS on occasion at a major airport- at night,UT & landing lights on!The DIFFERENCE is that I'm running TRIPLE Views on 3 monitors. Because my view of the world is 180

>>The reason I'm thinking of upgrading (or maybe getting some>other help from you fine folks) is that sitting at KSEA in the>default Cessna 172 in VC mode on a clear day with 50 vis, my>framerates vary continuously from near 24 fps to as low as 12>fps. It seems as though the dips in FPS are periodic. These>problems are even worse when I fly into a complex airport or>use the PMDG jet. Given other forums threads I've read, I>should be able to get much higher (and much more stable)>framerates shouldn't I? >Yes, you should.My old system (a P4 1.8 ghz with 512 ram and a GeForce2 card) could get 8-15 fps rock steady in FS9.And you have a MUCH faster cpu than that. A 3.2 ghz P4 should blast through FS9. My present computer is a 3700+ which roughly corresponds to a top-end P4, and it gets 25 to 40 fps (I lock at 40) in the sim.It's good to not be a frame rate junkie as Alex notes. However, in FS9 it is less possible, because that sim is not quite as smooth at 15 fps (your low end fps).>I have optimized my XP installation so that all non-essential>processes are off. I use FSAutoStart to shut down any other>programs. I use AVG for my anitvirus which has a small foot>print. My 3dMark05 score is 4100. >FSAutoStart gave me worse results for some reason, so I quit using it. Instead, I read up on Windows Services and turned off or disabled services myself using the built-in MMC (Microsoft Management Console) that's built into windows.>So my quesions are as follows: 1) Can I get better performance>out of my current hardware rig? and 2) Would it be>advantageous to upgrade to the X1950 Pro? >I am not familiar with ATI graphics cards, but I think the X800XL or whatever the one is that you have, is not the highest end of cards any more. However, I think it is probably well-matched with your generation of cpu.If it is indeed well-matched, then it won't give you much bonus to go to a newer gfx card.Since you can build a computer that is 6 or 7 times faster than your P4 3.2, right now, for $400, I think it is something to consider.If you keep your monitor, hard drive(s), keyb and mouse, $400 will take you into 40+ fps land in FS9. $600 will take you into FSX territory.>I am not buying a new system for another year when next gen>DX10 cards are out and I fly mostly in FS9. The next gen DX10 cards will be out before the end of this year.But if you must wait, you must wait.On your system, you SHOULD be getting steady 25-35 fps even with the PDMG 737 loaded up.I really wonder what a wipe of your hard drive would do, and complete reinstall of OS and FS9 would do for you. Possibly amazing results.>I'd really like>to be able to max out all sliders (well, at least have ground>shadows) and have stable performance in FS9 before I even>consider FSX.>The computer I built in Jan 2006 (specs in signature) is based around a cpu that is today, worth about $50. yes ***50 us dollars***.And it runs FS9 with add-ons at 25-40 fps, usually closer to 40 fps. 25 being complex aircraft add-on in heavy ActiveSky weather at busy airport with lots of AI.I don't own any Cloud9 or FlyTampa airports so I'm sure that would knock it down a little more.Your 3.2 ghz rig should be capable of more than 15 fps in that situation I would think. Since others have told you the same thing, I feel pretty confident about saying that. :)RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Just curious what manner of PC would be "6 or 7 times faster" than this guy's P4 3.2?Bruceb

Alex and Rhett,Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I don't think I stated my problem clearly. I'm not getting smooth framerates. The framerates jump around from as high as 25 to as low as 12 within seconds. This causes a feeling of jerkiness when flying. The PMDG bird is almost unuseable when flying into an airport like KLAX or even FlyTampa's KTPA. I had thought I should get much better, smoother performance with my rig. I've started rolling back ATI display drivers. I think I've seen folks mention the 7.1 set is ideal for XP. That is my next move. I'll also try disabling non-essential processes from the windows console instead of using FSAutoStart. Hopefully the rolling back display drivers will get me back to smooth performance that I once had.What got me thinking about buying a $120 X1950 Pro card was that Mitch has been all beside himself since he upgraded to the that card. So, I was wondering if the X1950 Pro card (especially for such a cheap price) would help me get smooth performance even in the PMDG bird (like Mitch mentions). What do you all think?Thanks,Joshua

>Just curious what manner of PC would be "6 or 7 times faster">than this guy's P4 3.2?>>BrucebYes Bruceb, I would wonder too. There is currently no PC that could come close to 6-7x of this P4 3.2 . . . unless you have fully multithreaded, multicore friendly software & OS to go on the highest end multicore machine, probably overclocked. Unfortunately our beloved FS does not fit this description.

> I'm not getting smooth framerates. The framerates jump around from as high as 25 to as low as 12 within seconds. This causes a feeling of jerkiness when flying. The PMDG bird is almost unuseable when flying into an airport like KLAX or even FlyTampa's KTPA. >What got me thinking about buying a $120 X1950 Pro card was>that Mitch has been all beside himself since he upgraded to>the that card. So, I was wondering if the X1950 Pro card>(especially for such a cheap price) would help me get smooth>performance even in the PMDG bird (like Mitch mentions). What>do you all think? >Thanks,>Joshua>Hey Joshua, we almost have an identical system so I thought I'd chime in with my perspective. I am wondering if you have your framerate locked? If not, try it and that should help some with the wild swings in fr's. Otherwise, like me, it seems your CPU is holding you back, so IMHO drivers and even a new card isn't going to change much in the way of FR's, just make things a little prettier when all is loaded. ;-)I've decided to upgrade to a new "interim rig" with an E6750 Core2, new P35 MB, Seagate 7200.10 HD etc and will port over my x800xt for the time being. I plan to assemble tommorow and install both FSX and FS9. Though I won't be using a complex addon plane like yours, it should be a pretty good comparison for you. BTW, this new "upgrade" rig will cost me about $375 when all is said and done, so you might want to wait before spending the $120-150 on an aging x1950 graphics board that will never even be DX10 compliant and won't serve much for the future. I'll post back with differences I encounter.Regards, KendallDell 8400 3.2 GHZ H.T.3GB 533 DDR2X800XT 256MB/Catalyst driver - 7.1's6x AA/16x HQ A/FDiamond Xtreme/Logitech X-530'sDual Monitor: Dell 2405/1905CH Yoke/Pedals - Saitek Throttle

Re upgrading to X1950 Pro from X800 XL for FS9 - no way, your low end FPS will be no better.Gary

Kendall,Thanks for the input. Please let me know how your upgrade goes. I'm really interested in seeing how your X800XT does with a new mobo and processor. I did note though the X800XT has a much faster clock than the X800XL; so, there may be differences there as well.Anyway, updating the drivers did significantly impact performance. I went back to the ATI 7.1 drivers and my frame rate fluctuations have gone. I can now sit in the default Cessna 172 in moderate clouds at KSEA with full traffic and get a steady 26-29 fps. This is more like how I remember the system working. I still can't turn on ground shadows or fly the PMDG without the frame rates fluctuating wildly. So, Gary, I think you are right in that I am CPU limited now with the new drivers. By the way, I do have framerates locked to 30 (although I'm going to settle it down to 24 as that is smooth enough for me).I'm still interested in understanding how Mitch got such better performance moving from a X800XT to a X1950 Pro, but am deciding against such an upgrade based on the good info I've received from everyone. Thanks again,Joshua

Save your money! I just upgraded from an X850XT Platinum to a X1950Pro and it did nothing for me. Can't see any improvement at all in FSX.

Well come on guys, I was speaking off-the-cuff, I could have said 10x, and my point remains: ...that a $400-$600 box these days is "a lot" faster than a P4 3.2. The benchmarks are out there between various cpu's.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Actually, I was wondering if it improved your FS9 experience? I didn't figure it would do much for FSX, but wanted something that would make my PMDG bird flyable in FS9 (and get ground shadows). So, have you tried your new X1950Pro card with FS9?Also, did you try the ATI 6.8 drivers for your new card? The X1950 has specialized set of drivers; otherwise, it runs poorly. You can find the information on ATI's website (if you already haven't).Thanks,Joshua

FS9 is even less dependant on GPU performance than FSX, so I wouldn't expect a rave review for improvement with that title.Gary

Thanks for that clarification - I'm am going through this PC upgrade business myself at the moment and I was wondering if I had missed something.Bruceb

Joshua - The conventional wisdom here is/was that the 7.1 drivers are the ones to use for this card. I am not very technically oriented, but I did try some others and it seemed to me that the 7.1 set is the way to go. I have not used FS9 much, but will try it again and let you know. Bruce