Dear fellow simmers:I have a meager Dell Dimension5100 with 3.2Ghz CPU with HT, 2gb RAM, stock NVIDIA6800 PCI express with 256 memory running WinXP Pro. I have had FS2004 for about 2 years now and looking to upgrade my graphic card. Due to my PC limitation, the fastest card that can be sensibly mounted in my machine is either Nvidia 7900GS or 7950GT as per Dell support forum. So here are the following questions I hope I my get inputs from experienced flight simmers:1) Will I need 512 RAM on my graphic or would 256 suffice?2) Would it even make sense to upgrade my graphic card i.e. would I notice a jump in performance? I have a limited budget and would only upgrade if it makes sense especially with my old PC. I do not plan to migrate to FSX or Vista nor upgrade to a more powerful PC anytime soon. I want to be able to enjoy FS2004 with the current PC for at least the next few years.Thank you in advance for all your help.My present FS2004 add-ons: Active Sky 6.5, Ground Environment Pro, Ultimate Terrain, FSBuild, PMDG 737, Wilco 737, Level-D 767, DF Bonanza, Digital Aviation Dornier and Cheyenne, Fly Tampa ksfo, ksan, ksea, Cloud9 KLAX and KDCA, and Flight Scenery KPDXHenry

IMHO, if you're staying with FS2004 then 256 will suffice. More is always better but it depends on the cost differential as to whether or not it would be worth it.VicQ6600 G0 CPU 2.4 o/c 3.6Evga 680i A1 with P30 BIOS 2G XP2-8500 DDR2 1066FSB Mushkin 996535 RAM 5-5-4-12-2T320G 7200 HD partitioned for XP/Vista/Programs 2 - 74G Raptors in RAID0 500G 7200 HD for backup SATA DVD burner Evga 8800GTS 640 PCIx Kandalf LCS case w/ built in liquid cooling 850W Thermaltake power supplyVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

>1) Will I need 512 RAM on my graphic or would 256 suffice?256MB is plenty for FS9.>2) Would it even make sense to upgrade my graphic card i.e.>would I notice a jump in performance? In my experience of going from a GF3 Ti200->9800 Pro->6800 GT->X800 XT->7900 GTO->8800 GTS with FS9, anything after the first GPU upgrade I did (ie. GF3 Ti200->9800 Pro) is a flat out no. Whilst a newer graphics card may boost your high-end FPS and allow max AA/AF combinations to be used with little penalty, your low-end FPS (ie. where you really care) will not budge as FS9 is almost entirely CPU-bound at such times.>I have a limited budget>and would only upgrade if it makes sense especially with my>old PC. I do not plan to migrate to FSX or Vista nor upgrade>to a more powerful PC anytime soon. I want to be able to>enjoy FS2004 with the current PC for at least the next few>years.Your system is nicely balanced for FS9 now, so save your dollars and enjoy what you have!Gary

I agree with Gary, the 6800 is a good match to your CPU and any gain will be negligible.RegardsJim

Thanks everyone for your great inputs. One more thing I forgot to mention in my original thread is that I use 2 monitors hooked up to my Nvidia 6800 to expand my desktop. Would this changes what you already recommended for my setup? The main reason why I was searching for a more powerful card is to improve texture loading e.g. when changing views on the Cheyenne, FS pauses for a second to load texture on the wings. Other times it pauses to load texture on the terrain. I always uses FsAutostart and defragment my disk frequently. Would a 9750GT or 9600GS help in this instance? I am sorry if I seem ignorant when it comes to hardware issues, but I am relatively "green" when it especially comes to FS and this new generation of PC technology. Henry

Re two monitors, the most video memory I have seen used in FS9 with two LCD panels spanned at 3360x1050 and 4X/8X AA/AF is 192MB, so 256M should still serve you well with your setup.Re texture loading, IMO it hasn't improved any between the 6800 I had and the 8800 I now have - it is just a "feature" of FS9 (and FSX too BTW).Gary

Thank you once again for your input. At least now I know I'll stay happy with what I currently have to run FS2004.Henry

Henry:See my system specs below -- they're senmi-similar to yours, and my addons are very similar, but I don't fly such advanced, resource dependent aircraft as you. I just bought my new x1950 card and am pretty happy with it, but I'm not sure the 512mgb memory did anything. Finally and for now I'm staying right where I am, and I'm running 3 flat screens happily.BTW, I have a 2 month old ATI x1300 Pro sitting in the box with no home and I'm not sure I could eBay a slightly used vid card. If you're interested in buying it email me offline or send me an IM from the board here with a fair offer and I'm sure we can come up with a mutually agreeable deal. I'd rather it was helping somebody sim in FS2004 anyway.

Chuck, Thanks for your input. Based on the replies I received, I now have second thought about upgrading my graphic card. If I ever decide to upgrade, I would probably take the following data into consideration:http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.htmlThe link was given to me by a Dell forum member. What is your take on this? It seems like Nvidia outperforms ATI when it comes to flight sim (even though FSX is chosen as a reference)Henry

Interesting that you mention the Cheyenne, it has been my plane of choice ever since I got it - I try to go back to other good quality payware options I have but I'm afraid they all look second class compared to the Cheyenne!However, it does suffer from long delays in loading textures when changing to a view out of the side window from the 2D panel. The reason for this seems to be that it's actually loading the VC to provide the side views, not simple bitmaps of the window frame. As soon as you go back to the straight-ahead 2D view, the VC drops out, so if you look to the side again shortly afterwards, it has to reload.The delay is nothing to do with your video card, those VC textures are big and are having to be dragged off the disk every time you look out of the window.There are presumably two options: 1) Modify the panel to use a 2D bitmap for the side window - I don't know how to do that. Neither do I know the legalities of modifying a payware panel, but I presume as long as it's only for your own use, you can do what you like (as long as you don't expect support from the original author!). 2) Fly from the VC. That way, the VC stays loaded permanently and there is no delay when looking to the side. Obviously there is a bit of a hit on frame rates relative to the 2D panel, but it's manageable on my far-from-cutting edge system. I use ActiveCamera to set up VC panel views to replace the 2D sub-panels, but in any event, you can still call up the 2D sub-panels using Shift+number. One of the reasons the Cheyenne is so good is that the VC is completely clickable - the only exception is the 2 or 3 buttons on the yoke, which work in 2D but not in the VC.I have masses of AI, ActiveSky 6, Ground Environment Pro and Ultimate Terrain. In clear weather and away from major airports, I can average close to 30 FPS from the Cheyenne VC. Weather is the biggest factor in dragging that down and I did struggle to average 20 FPS yesterday in cloudy conditions close to Heathrow and Paris CDG.Spec is:Dell XPS Series 3Pentium 4 3.6ghz3GB DDR2 RAMNVidia 7950GT 512MB

Does Active Camera setup of 2D views reduce your texture loading time in the Cheyenne? I see you have the 7950GT I was looking for. BFG web store has it in stock for about $200 for the 512mb version. I am just a little tempted to get it, if not so much to improve FS2004, but for eveything else. Also, like you I have tons of World of AI planes and have to turn down AI setting to 50% because Cloud9 KLAX just stutters like madness especially at night.Regards,Henry

>Also,>like you I have tons of World of AI planes and have to turn>down AI setting to 50% because Cloud9 KLAX just stutters like>madness especially at night.This is one of the low-FPS scenarios I was talking about before that I'd be very surprised if a video card made any difference at all to your FPS. You can quickly verify this yourself by turning AA/AF on to max and off completely and seeing if it makes any difference to FPS in such an area. If your FPS doesn't budge, then it is not your GPU carrying the load, hence a GPU upgrade won't help.Gary

Thanks Gary, I will give it a try.Henry