Two and a half years ago I built a computer which, at the time, had fairly high-end specs except for the video card which is an XFX GeForce 7900GS with 256 MB of DDR3 memory. I was planning to upgrade when Windows Vista came out but I never did. I still have XP. Would there be much of an improvementin in FSX if I upgraded to a 9800GT card with 512 MB of DDR3 memory. I still have a Core 2 Duo E6600 processor OC to 3.1 with an adequate power supply and an up-to-date bios which canl handle the 9800.Thanks,Dan

Yes, you would likely see a rather nice increase in FPS by switching from a 7900 GS to a 9800 GTX. Although I would suggest you purchase a GTS 250 or GTX 260 instead as the 9800 GTX is several iterations old and you can purchase its replacement (GTS 250) for the same money.

Yes, you would likely see a rather nice increase in FPS by switching from a 7900 GS to a 9800 GTX. Although I would suggest you purchase a GTS 250 or GTX 260 instead as the 9800 GTX is several iterations old and you can purchase its replacement (GTS 250) for the same money.

Thanks for the help and suggestion. I purchased and installed a GTS 250 several days ago. What a difference. My frame rates have increased 10%+, the screen appearance has improved and FSX is running more smoothly. As far as my computer goes, it is booting up more quickly and running a little faster.My next upgrade will probably be a faster CPU. In your specs I see that you have an E8400 OC to 4GHZ. Would that in itself make a measurable difference over what I have now (E6600 OC to 3.1Ghz)? Thanks again for your help.Dan

As always, Flight Sim is very CPU intensive, so every bit helps. What are your upgrade options/budget and/or what processors are supported by your motherboard?

Check this link for a great review: 4890 RoundupThe gist of the review is that the Sapphire 4890 Atomic can match and exceed the GTX 285 for less money.Finally it gets the Dam Good Value Award because it more often than not grabs a stock GTX 285 and smacks it around while yelling

Check this link for a great review: 4890 RoundupThe gist of the review is that the Sapphire 4890 Atomic can match and exceed the GTX 285 for less money.Finally it gets the Dam Good Value Award because it more often than not grabs a stock GTX 285 and smacks it around while yelling

I'm intrigued by the ATI models but they are just so pricey :).. they're definitely a generation ahead with their 2000mhz memory clock. should definitely improve AA and framerates over the nvidias no problem which are currently running at half the speed.

The ATI 4890 may have an edge when running shader-intensive games like Crysis, but a 4890 isn't gonna be doing any smacking around on an nVidia 285 in FSX. When it comes to the old-fashioned triangle rendering our three and six-year-old sim programs need for speed, the nVidia cards are the uncontested champs, the GTX285 being the king of the single GPU hill.It's like comparing a Ford F-350 with a V-10 engine to an F-350 with a turbodiesel...the V-10 will leave the diesel behind off the blocks, but it can't come close to the torque produced by the diesel for pulling a big load. It's necessary to match the capabilities with the requirements. If you need to pull a big load, it really doesn't matter that the V-10 can beat the diesel from 0-60.Either card will work, but it's not valid to use a comparison based on shader engine performance to infer better performance in a triangle-intensive application like FS.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I agree that benchmark game tests are questionable at best and they NEVER use FSX. Nvidia makes great video cards and so does ATI. I would use an Nvidia card for just about any other game but when it comes to FlightSim, ATI has always been tops for me. Have only had driver problems and other issues with Nvidia cards in the past. And while ATI did hit a bump in the road two years back with their 2XXX series cards, they have come roaring back with the 4890 series IMHO.The 4890 series GPU runs 200MHz faster than the Nvidia and does it with less power consumption. I have nothing against Nvidia cards but I do get tired of hearing that old argument that they are so much better than ATI. They're not. And that's not even getting into which card renders a better visual experience since that relies on the opinion of the user. My opinion is that ATI cards give a clearer, crisper image than Nvidia does but that is completely subjective.Here is what a friend of mine's son said who is studying computer technology in college:"They benchmark the Nvidia cards to every game out there except flight simulator. Flight simulator has unique rendering issues with respect to the ever changing size of the area it needs to let you see. One minute you are on the ground and only need to see 1/2 mile and the next you are at 10,000 feet 250kts and need to see 25 miles in your sim world. That is entirely different than 3rd person shooter games and the like which have distance rendering issues but generally not more than hundereds of feet and in a universe that is much smaller than the entire world. Nvidia does not do as well at that specific challenge and they are not going to try because their money is in the guys who buy the cards for the other games. ATI cards are solid cards and stable that have in most cases, not all, provided a better experience in Fight Simulator with respect to handling the mulitiple issues of rendering and aliasing that Flight Simulator presents. Both Cards work and folks can be happy with both. Bottom line is that Nvidia is a great card but has demonstrated issues in rendering Flight Simulator. ATI cards are a tad behind in all the bencharked scenarios that relate to gaming but have, again in some cases, provided a better experience in Flight Simulator for those frustrated with Nvidia. It is a tough game to render and present especially when turned all the way up. So to each their own but personally dad, I would give the ATI guys a try next time around."

I agree that benchmark game tests are questionable at best and they NEVER use FSX. Nvidia makes great video cards and so does ATI. I would use an Nvidia card for just about any other game but when it comes to FlightSim, ATI has always been tops for me. Have only had driver problems and other issues with Nvidia cards in the past. And while ATI did hit a bump in the road two years back with their 2XXX series cards, they have come roaring back with the 4890 series IMHO.The 4890 series GPU runs 200MHz faster than the Nvidia and does it with less power consumption. I have nothing against Nvidia cards but I do get tired of hearing that old argument that they are so much better than ATI. They're not. And that's not even getting into which card renders a better visual experience since that relies on the opinion of the user. My opinion is that ATI cards give a clearer, crisper image than Nvidia does but that is completely subjective.Here is what a friend of mine's son said who is studying computer technology in college:"They benchmark the Nvidia cards to every game out there except flight simulator. Flight simulator has unique rendering issues with respect to the ever changing size of the area it needs to let you see. One minute you are on the ground and only need to see 1/2 mile and the next you are at 10,000 feet 250kts and need to see 25 miles in your sim world. That is entirely different than 3rd person shooter games and the like which have distance rendering issues but generally not more than hundereds of feet and in a universe that is much smaller than the entire world. Nvidia does not do as well at that specific challenge and they are not going to try because their money is in the guys who buy the cards for the other games. ATI cards are solid cards and stable that have in most cases, not all, provided a better experience in Fight Simulator with respect to handling the mulitiple issues of rendering and aliasing that Flight Simulator presents. Both Cards work and folks can be happy with both. Bottom line is that Nvidia is a great card but has demonstrated issues in rendering Flight Simulator. ATI cards are a tad behind in all the bencharked scenarios that relate to gaming but have, again in some cases, provided a better experience in Flight Simulator for those frustrated with Nvidia. It is a tough game to render and present especially when turned all the way up. So to each their own but personally dad, I would give the ATI guys a try next time around."

Clock speed doesn't necessarily mean better performance. I have a 9600GT overclocked past the 4890's clock, but I know it'd still beat the 9600...

I agree that benchmark game tests are questionable at best and they NEVER use FSX. Nvidia makes great video cards and so does ATI. I would use an Nvidia card for just about any other game but when it comes to FlightSim, ATI has always been tops for me. Have only had driver problems and other issues with Nvidia cards in the past. And while ATI did hit a bump in the road two years back with their 2XXX series cards, they have come roaring back with the 4890 series IMHO.The 4890 series GPU runs 200MHz faster than the Nvidia and does it with less power consumption. I have nothing against Nvidia cards but I do get tired of hearing that old argument that they are so much better than ATI. They're not. And that's not even getting into which card renders a better visual experience since that relies on the opinion of the user. My opinion is that ATI cards give a clearer, crisper image than Nvidia does but that is completely subjective.Here is what a friend of mine's son said who is studying computer technology in college:"They benchmark the Nvidia cards to every game out there except flight simulator. Flight simulator has unique rendering issues with respect to the ever changing size of the area it needs to let you see. One minute you are on the ground and only need to see 1/2 mile and the next you are at 10,000 feet 250kts and need to see 25 miles in your sim world. That is entirely different than 3rd person shooter games and the like which have distance rendering issues but generally not more than hundereds of feet and in a universe that is much smaller than the entire world. Nvidia does not do as well at that specific challenge and they are not going to try because their money is in the guys who buy the cards for the other games. ATI cards are solid cards and stable that have in most cases, not all, provided a better experience in Fight Simulator with respect to handling the mulitiple issues of rendering and aliasing that Flight Simulator presents. Both Cards work and folks can be happy with both. Bottom line is that Nvidia is a great card but has demonstrated issues in rendering Flight Simulator. ATI cards are a tad behind in all the bencharked scenarios that relate to gaming but have, again in some cases, provided a better experience in Flight Simulator for those frustrated with Nvidia. It is a tough game to render and present especially when turned all the way up. So to each their own but personally dad, I would give the ATI guys a try next time around."

The results you posted elsewhere speak for themselves. As you say, the received wisdom is that Intel and Nvidia rule the roost with FSX. That is what I have always thought. But this is now open to serious doubt, IMHO. I have the same loyalty to brands as they have to me: ie, absolutely zero. I just get cross about being ripped off. I am beginning to feel tempted to build an ATI/AMD system to run side-by-side with my very expensive i7 975 / GTX285 PC and see for myself exactly what's going on. Tim

Have only had driver problems and other issues with Nvidia cards in the past. The 4890 series GPU runs 200MHz faster than the Nvidia and does it with less power consumption. I have nothing against Nvidia cards but I do get tired of hearing that old argument that they are so much better than ATI. They're not. And that's not even getting into which card renders a better visual experience since that relies on the opinion of the user. My opinion is that ATI cards give a clearer, crisper image than Nvidia does but that is completely subjective.

The 200MHz does what?Nothing different here it

getting much better frame rates with my OC'd 4890 than I ever got with my 8800GTX in FSX :)way betterand better IQ too- the FSAA seems to be working a lot better than with my Nvidia cardthe Asus 4890s are cheap and very good clockers - mine cost me

getting much better frame rates with my OC'd 4890 than I ever got with my 8800GTX in FSX :)way betterand better IQ too- the FSAA seems to be working a lot better than with my Nvidia cardthe Asus 4890s are cheap and very good clockers - mine cost me

No surprise there, if the machine was previously botched to begin with sure the new card is going to perform better.

botched ? how so ?at some review sites - the 8800GTX was giving better fps than the GTX285 in FSXI could never get FSAA (even with Nhancer) to quite work properly on aircraft themselves with the 8800GTXI'm just quite shocked how quick the 4890 is in FSX compared to the GTX - its genuinely extremely good indeed

botched ? how so ?at some review sites - the 8800GTX was giving better fps than the GTX285 in FSXI could never get FSAA (even with Nhancer) to quite work properly on aircraft themselves with the 8800GTXI'm just quite shocked how quick the 4890 is in FSX compared to the GTX - its genuinely extremely good indeed

So you couldn