I have a Dell Dimension 8400 system with 3.2 GHz Pentium 4, 2 Gbytes RAM, IDE 160 Gbyte hard drive, and a X800XL video card. Well, I used to have a X800XL video card. After a solid 2+ years with the card, it has given up the ghost and now I'm back to the default X300 video card. Since the X300 is really not designed for games, what video card can I get that will work in my system to tie me over until Fall 2008/Winter 2009? At that time I plan to build a system based on the Nehalem processor; so, buying a pretty good video card now that I can use in that system is an attractive option except for the fact that my current PSU is only rated for 350W. Finally, you should know that my budget is ~$250 (U.S. dollars). I have a third child on the way, mortgage to pay, etc and am saving pennies for a new system later this year, but would like to play FS9 in the mean time. What do you all recommend?Thanks,Joshua

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814130317You will need to check the space in your Case to see if this will fit and also check that your PSU is capable of handling the power connector/requirements. It's probably worth getting a new PSU to go with it that will also be able to migrate into your new system. Some Dell cases though don't use standard size PSUs, you'll need to do some measuring!RegardsJim

Jim,Thanks for the info. I had not realized that some Dell cases have odd sized PSUs. I was wondering if I had to upgrade the PSU as well given that all the newer video cards require more power than can be supplied by my 350W PSU.I looked at the link and it led to an EVGA 8800GTS with 320 Mbytes for $229, but I also found a MSI 8800GT with 512 Mbytes for $210 and an EVGA 9600GT with 512 Mbyes for $180. It is my impression that the 8800GT and 9600GT offer better performance (at cheaper cost). Is this true for FS? To make matters worse, I found a Sapphire 3870 card for ~180 as well. I'm assuming that all of these cards will improve performance (maybe not so much FPS, but sharpness, color, etc.) equally well for FS9. Are they good enough to keep around for the new system in Fall or are new video cards coming that will significantly change FS performance (I'm thinking "probably not"). Thanks,Joshua

I looked at the link and it led to an EVGA 8800GTS with 320 Mbytes for $229.....It should have linked to 8800GTS with 640MB for $229 ($199 after rebate)The 8800GTS has a bandwidth of 64 GB/sec and a Fill Rate of 24 billion per secThe 8800GT has a bandwidth of 57.6 GB/sec and a Fill Rate of 33.6 billion per secThere is very little to choose between them and as I have never compared them it's hard to judge which would be best, but I guess the GT wins on fill rateJim

So, does VRAM play a central role in performance for FS? I'm assuming that's why you pointed to a 640 MB card?Thanks,JoshuaEDIT: Sorry Jim, I just saw the rest of your message. Based on Phil Taylor's blog, I notice he stresses VRAM.

512 MB VRAM is good enough for FSX. Of course, you should get more if you can afford it but your system doesn't have a good enough PSU.8800 GT beats the 8800 GTS 640, believe it or not. It's been proven. Problem is, NVIDIA says that it needs a minimum of a 400 W power supply to operate. I'm not sure if that's true or not.Let me know how things go,

BoeingGuy,Just an update on what has happened. I ended up getting a Diamond 3870 card based on a few things. First, the price was good ($165.00 w/ rebate from NewEgg). Second, it had better GPU speeds and memory bandwidth than the 8800 offerings. These two metrics along with VRAM were mentioned in Phil Taylor's blog as the most important things for FSX. While I know the 8800GT is a better card for most games, I decided the cheaper price and the improved IQ (IMHO) where better for me. Plus, it if didn't work out, I'd just replace the card when I build the new system next January. So, after messing with the 8.43 drivers that came with the card and downloading the ATI Tray Tools beta , I'm very happy with my purchase. On average my FPS for FS9 have gone up 29% with all settings maxed from 24.5 FPS to 31.6 FPS over my X800XL. On FSX using the Seattle benchmark here on AVSIM, my FPS also went up from 15 FPS to 19.8 FPS on average. Not bad considering I'm running a P4 3.2 GHz machine with 2 GB RAM. The interesting stat though was that the minimum FPS did not change. The reason is because these low FPS occur when the machine is loading high density scenery (like Cloud 9 LAX, downtown Seattle in FSX, etc.). I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone. What did surprise me was how quickly the FPS recovered once the scenery loaded. I used to be at 10 FPS over Cloud 9 LAX and now the FPS stayed around 18 FPS (except for the initial loading). For my FS9 specifications: I'm running FS9.1, Ultimate Terrain 1.2, Ultimate Traffic augmented with WOAI, Ground Environment, and FRAPS to measure the frame rates. Settings are all maxed including 100% AI with AiSmooth 1.11 running. The FPS comparison was done using a fixed flight in the default Lear virtual cockpit flying from Santa Barbara over Cloud 9 KLAX to KSAN at 7:30am in partially cloudy conditions. Joshua