I have just begun using FSX with SP2. I have a system built around an Intel 8400, 4 GB of RAM, and Windows XP. I have my videocard settings at 1600x1200. My videocard is a couple of years old and is a Nvidia 8800 GTS 320Mb. My question is, to what degree is my videocard holding my FSX experience back? I know the CPU is what is most important in running FSX but that the videocard does contribute up to 25% of obtained performance. If it is holding me back, what do you suggest I upgrade to in terms of the best bang for the buck for performance (framerates, smoothness...). What kind of performance improvement could I (or others in my situation) expect?Thanks,RH

I have just begun using FSX with SP2. I have a system built around an Intel 8400, 4 GB of RAM, and Windows XP. I have my videocard settings at 1600x1200. My videocard is a couple of years old and is a Nvidia 8800 GTS 320Mb. My question is, to what degree is my videocard holding my FSX experience back? I know the CPU is what is most important in running FSX but that the videocard does contribute up to 25% of obtained performance. If it is holding me back, what do you suggest I upgrade to in terms of the best bang for the buck for performance (framerates, smoothness...). What kind of performance improvement could I (or others in my situation) expect?Thanks,RH

IMHO I wouldn't change a thing with your current system. Upgrading to, say a 9800 GTX might help with some smoothness but I doubt you would notice much difference. I believe the 200 series Nvidia cards work most efficiently with the Intel Core i7 products and you can't get to those cpu's w/o upgrading your whole system. I would recommend you save your money and/or upgrade your whole system. I'm personally waiting for the next generation of flight sims (if one ever arrives) before I upgrade my system. It works well with FSX.Best regards,Jim Young

Thanks for your reply. The thing that concerns me is memory. Is 320Gb enough to do FSX justice? I have read that you 512 and above is best. Do you agree?Thanks,RH

Thanks for your reply. The thing that concerns me is memory. Is 320Gb enough to do FSX justice? I have read that you 512 and above is best. Do you agree?Thanks,RH

You mean 320MB vs GB for GPU memory. I was thinking about an increase of GPU memory too when I posted above but find it hard to believe it would give you smoother performance since it is such a small increase. But more memory couldn't hurt. Maybe someone here on the forums have gone from 320MB to 512MB and can give you a better assessment but I would check with a computer shop to see if you can try before you buy and install a 512MB card and see for yourself if it made a difference. Best regards,Jim Young

You mean 320MB vs GB for GPU memory. I was thinking about an increase of GPU memory too when I posted above but find it hard to believe it would give you smoother performance since it is such a small increase. But more memory couldn't hurt. Maybe someone here on the forums have gone from 320MB to 512MB and can give you a better assessment but I would check with a computer shop to see if you can try before you buy and install a 512MB card and see for yourself if it made a difference. Best regards,Jim Young

I read somewhere that 512Mb was the minimum standard. The only problem I have is that when looking outside, some of the textures load slowly. That is also the case inside the flightdeck. Overall, the FSX performance in this area is much improved over FS9 but not quite where I'd like it. I wondered if moving to a newer videocard would help in that regard. I'd rather avoid the hassle of having to purchase a videocard and returing it when it does not work. I have done that sort of thing in the past. Best Buy never has a problem with me returning it. It's a 40 mile trip there and back and there's the added pressure of doing it all without my wife knowing about it :( . If anyone else has experience with a situation similar to mine or if you have any more information, let me know.Thanks and take care,RH

I read somewhere that 512Mb was the minimum standard. RH

The FSX box say the minimum is 32MB but that's got to be w/o addon's, just the default stuff. Hope someone can help you get your issue sorted out!Best regards,Jim Young

The FSX box say the minimum is 32MB but that's got to be w/o addon's, just the default stuff. Hope someone can help you get your issue sorted out!Best regards,Jim Young

Thanks for the reply. I'll try and put the question on the more general hardware forum.RH

I read somewhere that 512Mb was the minimum standard. The only problem I have is that when looking outside, some of the textures load slowly. That is also the case inside the flightdeck. Overall, the FSX performance in this area is much improved over FS9 but not quite where I'd like it. I wondered if moving to a newer videocard would help in that regard. I'd rather avoid the hassle of having to purchase a videocard and returing it when it does not work. I have done that sort of thing in the past. Best Buy never has a problem with me returning it. It's a 40 mile trip there and back and there's the added pressure of doing it all without my wife knowing about it :( . If anyone else has experience with a situation similar to mine or if you have any more information, let me know.Thanks and take care,RH

Keep in mind that on Win XP (and Vista 32) that every MB of additional video RAM blocks the same amount of system RAM from being accessed due to hardware address mapping. So if you slap on a 1GB GTX260 you just lost 1GB of system RAM...in effect a fourth of your RAM is now inaccessable because those addresses are assigned by Windows to the 1GB of RAM in the video card instead of system RAM. That's a first-class ticket to FS Out-of-Memory Hell.For a 32-bit OS, your video card is OK. Going to a 512 MB card may help some, but the bang for the buck factor isn't there.I think an upgrade to XP64 or Vista64 and a video card upgrade to a 9800 or a GTX260 with 768 - 1024 MB is probably optimum with your CPU. But even that's not going to be an earth-shattering improvement. If you find yourself on the ragged low edge of acceptable now, it could push performance up into the comfort zone.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Thank you guys. I won't have to worry about that then. I will look into it again when Windows7 64 is released and I purchase it.RH