I am sorry to ask a question that is undoubtedly seen as obvious by many but I am always very confused about the relative importance of different bits of hardware to FS performance. I have read threads that individually reckon every bit is critical but the graphics card question raises its head most often. Some threads see graphics cards as relatively minor yet others promote the use of very high end & expensive cards for FS use.To clarify for a non computer expert: The very recent topic 36072 appears to be saying that if I build a modestly overclocked E8400/8500 system (or the equivalent quad core) with 4Gb Ram & Vista 64 it will not change the FSX frame rate whether I spend

The reason that you get such a wide range of opinions on the worth of video cards in the FSX hardware equation is that people have different views on what the video card is actually improving. eg. these range from avg FPS improvement, lowest FPS improvement, ability to crank up AA/AF to high levels, blurry reduction, perceived image quality and texture loading speed.In my case, I have been happy with image quality, blurry state, texture loading speed and mid range AA/AF settings on all cards I have owned since my ATI X800 days, so in my case I concentrate on what an upgrade can do to improve my lowest FPS scenarios. It is in this area that I have proven by repeatable benchmarks that fancy video cards don't do squat for improving my lowest FPS scenarios. And that includes when I throw every FSX addon that I have into the mix.Case in point: in one FSX test I did recently, with the only difference between two runs (on a 3.2GHz C2D, 3G DDR2-800 RAM, Gigabyte DS3 Rev 1.0 system) was having a 7900 GTO 512M in one run and an 8800 GTS 640M in the other. Both were at super wide res (3360x1050), in-game AA/AF enabled, global high settings otherwise and doing the same benchmark run over 5 minutes through Seattle (see FSXMark07 here in the AVSIM library for more on this). The result was:7900 - 17.653 FPS average, 12 FPS min8800 - 18.16 FPS average, 12 FPS minThat's a 2.8% average FPS improvement, and NO improvement in lowest FPS = wasted upgrade for me. I'm glad I play other games (eg. Crysis) where the difference between the 7900 and 8800 performance is night and day ;-)So, as I said at the start, you must first work out what floats your boat in the graphics department, then temper your reading of peoples' opinions and test results with that accordinglyGary

Yeah, what he said heheIf you are shopping around, I'd say bang for buck, go for a 8800GT, cause the 3870x2, while good, is like twice as much, same with the GTX.... for FSX, the GT is all you need, even if you play other games, the GT does very well. I play all sorts of other games. I got my card for a little under 200 with my rebate....

Chris,If only the conundrum of which graphics card was best for FS was a clear cut one we'd all be laughing. :-(FS has, and for the forseeable future, will be CPU bound. So the first priority is always to get the fastest CPU you can't afford! :-lolHowever, the choice of graphics card in recent versions has become almost as important. There was a time when any half-decent card would do but then FS98 arrived and it all changed.Until recently nVidia had the market cornered as ATI had nothing that could compare to the 8800 series. With the release of the 3870X2 they do now have a card that is a realistic challenger to nVidia's dominance. Whether you choose an nVidia or ATI card will depend a great deal as to which 'camp' you sit in. Some here will swear blind allegiance and never consider a card from the other camp but I try to keep an open mind and choose whatever works best for me.Now those last four words are important because we all have different setups. One of the major changes in recent years has been the big increase in large screen displays with accompanying high resolutions. I run FSX at 1920*1200 and that requires a card with a lot of grunt. If you're going to run FSX at 1280*1024 then you can probably choose any 8800 series card and probably a single 3870 and frame rates won't be worlds apart.Where the X3870X2 and higher-end 8800 cards come into their own is not killing performance when you increase resolution from 1280*1024 up to 1920*1200 and perhaps beyond. One thing that came out of a review of the HD3870x2 in PC Pro here in the UK was this ability to maintain performance. If that card hadn't been available when I was ordering my components I probably would have opted for the 8800GTX.Having run FSX with three different graphics cards in two different systems I would say the most important thing is graphics card memory. My Radeon 9800Pro 128Mb card was hopelessly inadequate and the scenery just turned into a blurry mess. When I changed it to a Radeon X1950Pro 512Mb AGP card even with the same processor (P4 3.0) it transformed FSX and it was flyable albeit with many sliders to the left. In FS9 changing to the X1950Pro didn't change the frame rate but it remained the same at 1920*1200 as it had at 1280*1024 with the 9800Pro.The HD3870X2 with 1Gb of memory together with a E8400 (not overclocked) has allowed me to move most sliders towards the right and still retain 30fps except in the highest density airports. A 5GHz CPU would resolve that but those are just pipe dreams except for the extreme overclocker brigade. In FS9 I am getting silly FPS - 45 at EGLL with 100% Ai aircraft and 130+ when airborne.I would say that if you're going to run at high res then buy a 8800GTX, Ultra or 3870X2. As far as TomsHardware is concerned I am extremely sceptical of their latest FSX comparison charts because they show a single 3870 outperforms a 3870X2 by quite a margin. That is just not believable I'm afraid.Once the 3870X2 is reviewed using FSX it should become clear whether the 3870x2 or 8800 Ultra is best but by then the next generation card will be in the offing and the whole debate will start again! Unfortunately most reviews concentrate on Crysis or other such games and the results from game to game can be markedly different and subsequently confusing.We were fortunate that Phil Taylor - head of the ACES team at Microsoft - put together a guide as to which type of cards you should concentrate on to maximise FSX performance. In his guide he places the 8800GT in the second tier below the 8800GTX/Ultra. The 3870x2 wasn't out when he wrote that blog but if it had been I'm sure it would be in the top tier.You can read his guidance here. It certainly helped me and I hope it does for you. http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...d-consumer.aspxCheers,

Another thing you might consider is driver updates. I haven't followed ATI but Nvidia has not had an official updated driver for its 8 series for almost 3 months, which is unprecedented. I don't understand Nvidia's logic on that decision and I don't like it at all. I have an 8800GT that I bought in January that now seems to be abandoned. If you are into installing hacked drivers it may not be a problem, otherwise it is something to think about.

>Another thing you might consider is driver updates. This is an important point for the original poster to consider that can't be emphasized enough.nVidia = great hardwarenVidia = poor driversRhettAMD 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

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.:-smile12I always use the Omega drivers. If Chris hasn't tried those I can recommend them. http://www.omegadrivers.net/

This is really interesting & is helping enormously. Thank you all.I am very interested in what is being said about drivers. I must say that I have always had nVidia but when they moved away from a common driver I did wonder if they would keep supporting cards that were out of production with any great zeal. It appears that the answer is increasingly obvious. Whilst I have owned nVidia I have strangely tended to the view that Ati cards looked "nicer" on the screen. I also like the common drivers.Chris

>Another thing you might consider is driver updates. I haven't>followed ATI but Nvidia has not had an official updated driver>for its 8 series for almost 3 months, which is unprecedented.>I don't understand Nvidia's logic on that decision and I don't>like it at all.Maybe they're rewriting their engine from the ground up? :)Colin