In light of my previous post about Intergrated Video cards, can anyone recommend the best valued video card with performance for FS 2002/2004 in consideration?!Thanks for your help!.Kevin

Kevin,This really does belong in your other post. In any case, hook yourself up with either a NVidia Ti4600 or a ATI 9500, both good values. If you can afford it, get the ATI 9700.

Forgot to mention, I really recommended 4 ATI cards to you ;-) The 9500, 9500 Pro, 9700, 9700 Pro. Get a pro version of the card, it is way more powerful than the non-pro versions.

Here's a good read for you: http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php...readid=33677929

>Here's a good read for you:>> http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php...readid=33677929>>Thanks a lot for everyones help, the more questions I have answered the more arise!...After reading this article, I wonder if their would be any problems between my Video Card and my 4 year old Monitor..? How do I check "Refresh Rates" and how does this come into play?I have a "Viewsonic Optiquest 1769DC" Monitor if anyone is familiar..., and I am planning on purchasing the following:.Pentium 4, 2.53 GHz w/ 533MHz system bus & 512K L2 Cache512MB DDR SDRAM at 333MHz64MB nVidia GeForce 4 MX 420 Graphics Card w/ TV-OutI'm on a tight budget abd I have a sweet price in Canadian dollars on this . . . So your comments are appreciated... what type of frame rates can I expect running FS2002...?Thanks again,Kevin

Please, whatever you do, do *not* get the GeForce 4 MX 420, or any other MX card. It it basically a GeForce 2 with a few minor differences. However, it will get you by, with somewhat acceptable framerates with alot of things turned down or off.Good luck :-beerchug

Why's it so bad?!!I'll see if I can swing the 64MB All-in-Wonder Radeon 9000 Pro . . . How will my monitor work you think?http://www.si87.com/MonitorSolutions/optiquest/1769dc.htmlthanks,Kevin

No idea about your monitor, but I would assume it would work.Why is the GeForce 4 MX series so bad? Well, it really isn't a GeForce 4. It is just named as such. They are charging you way more than the card is really worth. Like I said, it really is a GeForce *2* card. And some other perfomance issues......However, as compared to a 9000, I think the MX would serve you better.Really, what it comes down to is how much you can spend. If you can't spend the money to afford a new model ATI(or don't want to wait to be able to afford....) then get the MX. It won't be a real 'turbo' card, but it will get you along, albiet a bit slowly.

>After reading this article, I wonder if their would be any>problems between my Video Card and my 4 year old Monitor..? >How do I check "Refresh Rates" and how does this come into>play?>KevinHi Kevin,As far as checking your monitor refresh rates, the easiest way is to do the following. You can set the refresh rates at both the Monitor and the card, the monitor providing the limitations:Right-click your desktop and select Properties, Settings, Advanced.You should then see tabs for the Monitor and Adaptor.For the Monitor, if it allows you to change the default refresh rate the tab will provide the facility.For the Adaptor, there should be a Refresh Rate Box, probably set to Adaptor Default (60Hz) or Optimal. To improve matters you could set this manually to a higher rate (70Hz-85Hz should be sufficient) if your monitor can support it. There is a trade-off between high screen resolutions and frame rates. Most reasonable monitors should be able to support 70Hz or better up to 1024x768 or 1280x720, higher than that and the monitor may have to reduce the refresh rate to "keep up". As most "home lighting" is around 50-55Hz (depending on where you live - its 50Hz in the UK), you'll detect some flicker at 60Hz refresh rate. At 70-85Hz, this should disappear. If you cannot detect any flicker, you don't need to go any higher.Hope this helps,Alastair

Indeed, I fully agree that you won't be happy with the MX - or the ATI 9000. While it will suffice, is that what you really want? To spend hard earned money on something that will simply suffice with many visual trade offs?I'd highly suggest you wait a bit longer until you can afford either a Ti4200/Ti4800 (in the $200-230 CAD range) or even better for the slight increase it costs, the ATI 9500 PRO ($260-270 CAD range). Neither are top of the line today, indeed they are very much entry level. However they will provide you scads better performance and visual quality than any 2-3 year old MX or 9000/9100. ATI even better than the Ti's, for hardly any more $.As for performance, with either of the above two types of cards, and the processor you are buying, you can expect 20-25 fps in most sceneries: with at least some form of both AA and AF enabled. With the 9000, you can expect somewhere close to the same framerates, with both AA and AF disabled. Your milage may vary of course... As always.Here's a site to give you an idea of pricing for most cards - in Canadian (and no PST if you live outside of BC):http://www.ncix.com/canada/productlist.php...&minorcatid=108Good luck,Elrond ---Not enough bandwidth to display this signature! Don't reformat hard drive? (y/N)