Good day simmers.If I were to go down to 1680x1050, on a LCD screen with 1920x1200 as its native resolution, would I suffer much less picture quality?? I mean, is this "native" resolution on LCD spec sheets something that you dont mess with, in general?? Or just what the LCD is capable of??The reason I'm asking is: If my FS9 PC can not handle the output of 1920x1200, can I go back to 1680x1050 without some suffering. But if, my allready 1680x1050 capable machine, does not handle 1920x1200 well, then Plan-B would be to revert back to 1680x1050.The step up from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200 is 31%, but I figure that I'm not adding 31% to the CPU load, because of those background tasks that dont have anything to do with pushing pixels, like audio, calculating FDE's etc.As an aside question; how much CPU% is deticated to pushing pixels?? Has any FlightSimmer here, done any scientific comparing in that department? Like how many frames gained, after an CPU swapping, without swapping anything else?Lots of question marks in this post, I know, but I also know that there are many hardware specialists on this Forum ;-)Thanks in advance.BTW the plan is also to upgrade my AMD 5200+ CPU to an AMD 6400+, 2600mhz to 3200mhz. And add an XFX8800GTS 640mb Video card. And add an X-Fi outboard sound card. So #### her if she does not burn those 1920x1200 pixels :-bang Golli.

Firstly,Your system should handle 1920x1200 with no problem.I can't see any reason for you to run at 1680x1050.Make sure your Windows screen resolution is set to 1920x1200(Right-Click desktop->Properties->Settings)and that your FS9 Settings->Hardware is also set to 1920x1200...is this "native" resolution on LCD spec sheets something that you dont mess with, in general?? Or just what the LCD is capable of??The former...ie don't mess with it unless you have to! If you run at 1680x1050 your application will create that number of pixels but your monitor will still need to receive 1920x1200. So the GPU will need to stretch the 1680x1050 to fill 1920x1200.RegardsJim

Hi Golli,Why don't you try it and see how it works. I'm running my LCD at a nonnative resolution because I find it simpler to have all three of my monitors (2 CRT and 1 LCD) running at the same resolution.I see no difference in picture quality in native or nonnative mode but you should try it for yourself. R-

Going from 1280x1024 to 3840x1024, ie. a 200% increase in pixel output, on my Matrox TH2G in FS9 results in about a 5-10% reduction in FPS with this title. FSX is a bit harsher on this front and results in about a 23% drop. Your existing 7950 will be more than up to the task for FS9.In short, you will be fine.Gary

Thanks for your input guys.So my switch from 2600mhz to 3200mhz ie. 23% increase in CPU power should go well against 5-10% reduction by going up in pixel count.I think I'll go ahead and invest in this hardware :9 Thanks again guys.Golli.

Golli,When you say "I'll go ahead and invest in this hardware", I am hoping that you just mean the CPU upgrade. The sound and video card upgrades you proposed in your original post will make barely any difference with FS9 - save your money on these items!Gary

Hi Gary and thanks again for your expert advice, and for making the FSX benchmark for the whole flightsim community.Well by hardware investment I mean the 27" screen also ;-) and I need to get a better video card (the FS9 PC is also an Video editing machine) and the XFX 1950GT(a fanless one) and AMD 5200+, perfect for upgrading my Pro Tools (secondary) machine. So, upgrading the flight PC, has a "domino effect" downwards :-)BTW Gary, I have noticed when people talk about those 8800GTS/GTX cards, that the picture quality has dramatically improoved. Is that your feeling also?? Only negative comments, I've seen on those cards relate to driver issues, but surely, after a year n-Vidia has resolved that?Golli.

Golli,Yes the image quality from my 8800GTS is very nice indeed, although I only ever use the FSX in-game AA/AF and 4X/8X driver set AA/AF for FS9. Any higher settings than those and I can see much of a visual difference and I start getting stutters while panning in external view (well I did with my XP installation, but I haven't tried yet with Vista). I was also pretty happy with the image quality of the 7900GTO I had before it. I would have waited until about now to upgrade to an 8800GT, but my son's FS computer died back in July and with his new motherboard being PCI-E, his X800XT AGP could no longer be used, so it was either he gets my 7900 and I get something more current or I keep my 7900 and he got something more current. I was paying, so you know who ended up winning that one :-)Gary