Hi All,Last year I bought an HD4870X2 in a fit of impulse control specifically for FSX before realizing that it just couldn't really keep up with FSX in heavy scenery areas. I'm looking to upgrade to a new generation card in order to finally fix that mistake, but I have a price limit of ~$300, so I can't shoot straight for the top of the line stuff like the 5870 or GTX285, so I really need some help, direction, and advice to find the best replacement. There are a few musts:1) It has to be able to get smooth frame rates FSX in heavy scenery areas (Mega Airport Frankfurt / Heathrow), in weather (REX HD clouds), with complex add-on aircraft (Level-D / PMDG). I say smooth because it is possible to get lower frames and still get smooth performance out of FSX, but I guess I'm looking for a minimum of 18-24 in the above conditions.2) It has to have at least the same all around performance for other games as my HD4870X2, so I should still be able to get a consistent 50-100 frames out of games like EVE, Silent Hunter IV, and R6:Vegas.3) To meet the first two requirements, it can't require any overclocking.EDIT: Last thing is that it has to be new, I'm not interested in buying used tech here...Is there anything out there right now that will fit the bill? I thought I would go for a 5850, but I guess there are mixed reviews, and I really want to be sure about this this time around so I don't end up throwing good money after bad to fix the problem.Thanks,Greg

Hi,What are the rest of your system specs? FSX is still CPU bound, so if your CPU is the bottleneck, then a new graphics card may not do anything for you.

I am not a major tech person myself and really can't comment at all on ATI cards. However, my understanding is that FSX can't make use of multicore graphics cards and as such the GTX 285 is the best card you could use in FSX. I will say that if you are good at looking for sales, a GTX 285 with 1 GB of RAM can be found for $275-300ish and that's what I'd try (I am in a similar situation and have been looking a bit myself). It's not easy to find, but can be done.With all that said, what CPU are you using? While the graphics card is important, CPU still rules for FSX and depending on what you're running this may be the more useful upgrade. Dual cores can handle FSX, but what you're really looking for is a quad core at 2.6-3.3 GHz (or even faster if you're willing to OC). The increased memory bandwidth of the i7's really seem to be making a big leap, but that is starting to get pretty expensive too.

I am going to direct you to a post I made on the Video Cards forum because it might shed some light on why MSFS runs so badly on modern tech (barring the i7, and new 5800 series cards from ATI).THREAD ON VIDEO CARD FORUMNow, I *know* I simplified a lot of what I said for brevity sake, so commercial developers, don't crucify me :( However, the overall points are still true, and they are the main reasons why MSFS tends to run best with a Nvidia card vs. a ATI card if paired with a super fast CPU. I am not a mindless "a really excited user" and have owned both Nvidia, and ATI in the past. I just switched to a GTX 260 SP 215 because of the things I listed in that thread, and thought I would share my reasoning.

Hi,What are the rest of your system specs? FSX is still CPU bound, so if your CPU is the bottleneck, then a new graphics card may not do anything for you.

Sorry, I always forget this part....Q9550 Quad-Core 2.83GHz (unclocked and will not clock)4GB DDR2 1066 MHzASUS Rampage Formula MOBOAntec 1Kw PSUWD Caviar Black 1TB program driveWin7 x64 Build 7600Also running dual monitors: 1 Acer x223w @ 1680x1050 and 1 Dell 17" CRT @ 1280x1024 (Could this be part of the problem? I've noticed that FSX runs much faster on the CRT which doesn't make sense unless its a pure screen resolution thing... would it make a difference only running one monitor (not desired) or even running two panels instead of two different types?)

I am going to direct you to a post I made on the Video Cards forum because it might shed some light on why MSFS runs so badly on modern tech (barring the i7, and new 5800 series cards from ATI).THREAD ON VIDEO CARD FORUMNow, I *know* I simplified a lot of what I said for brevity sake, so commercial developers, don't crucify me :( However, the overall points are still true, and they are the main reasons why MSFS tends to run best with a Nvidia card vs. a ATI card if paired with a super fast CPU. I am not a mindless "a really excited user" and have owned both Nvidia, and ATI in the past. I just switched to a GTX 260 SP 215 because of the things I listed in that thread, and thought I would share my reasoning.

I'll have a look at that... as I've mentioned, the 4870x2 was a bad buy because I didn't read enough before purchase and because I got it stuck in my head that it was going to be better all around. At this point, I'm willing to entertain anything within my budget, but it must not be an overall step backwards just to get 25%-50% better performance in FSX since I don't just play FSX...

It seems curious to me that OP makes no mention of IQ? I find on my 8800GTS that in complex scenery areas esp with a complex VC that my IQ goes to pot. Massive aliasing (details around cockpit gauges and ground scenery like runways are horrible). Then I get extended waits with default color before objects are textured. But the fps are OK. In my case though it seems like I have less problems in the past (or maybe I just have more complex visuals now) so maybe it's a hardware failure issue.scott s..

It seems curious to me that OP makes no mention of IQ? I find on my 8800GTS that in complex scenery areas esp with a complex VC that my IQ goes to pot. Massive aliasing (details around cockpit gauges and ground scenery like runways are horrible). Then I get extended waits with default color before objects are textured. But the fps are OK. In my case though it seems like I have less problems in the past (or maybe I just have more complex visuals now) so maybe it's a hardware failure issue.scott s..

I assume you mean image quality? For me the image quality is excellent for the most part, though I do tend to get blurries as I gain altitude, even in somewhat clear days. I don't have issues with gauges or other non-ground textures.

Hi,When running FSX, what do you place on the second screen?

Hi,When running FSX, what do you place on the second screen?

Web browser with charts or other info usually... sometimes word or other office programs... and sometimes a movie or streaming video. On rare occasion, when cruising at high altitude for several hours I'll put FSX to the second monitor and play another game on the first (with good frames I might add....) but that's usually only in low density areas (FL350ish) and long hauls where I'm not really spending a whole lot of time focusing on the game, and FSX becomes the secondary concern then anyway.

Something not mentioned, that need to be re-mentioned.... is that the best video-card made, isn't going to give you your money's worth, on an un-clocked Q9550. You have to get that up to WELL over 3GHz before the video-card matters.I have an old 8800GTS and get very good FSX performance, because my Q9550 is running at 3.8Ghz

I am going to direct you to a post I made on the Video Cards forum because it might shed some light on why MSFS runs so badly on modern tech (barring the i7, and new 5800 series cards from ATI).THREAD ON VIDEO CARD FORUMNow, I *know* I simplified a lot of what I said for brevity sake, so commercial developers, don't crucify me :( However, the overall points are still true, and they are the main reasons why MSFS tends to run best with a Nvidia card vs. a ATI card if paired with a super fast CPU. I am not a mindless "a really excited user" and have owned both Nvidia, and ATI in the past. I just switched to a GTX 260 SP 215 because of the things I listed in that thread, and thought I would share my reasoning.

This is a very interesting take on the hardware behind the scenes... I wonder if you think that the 5800 series is better because they are just so much faster so there is less loss when dealing with inefficient drivers, or if you think that they have better drivers? Or even if they are focusing less on P+V than they used to? Do you think that the 4870x2 is salvageable once they finally put out a good enough driver for it? Or is it pretty much a lost cause?

Something not mentioned.. is that the best video-card made, isn't going to give you your money's worth, on an un-clocked Q9550. You have to get that up to WELL over 3GHz before the video-card matters.I have an old 8800GTS and get very good FSX performance, because my Q9550 is running at 3.8Ghz

I may clock my Q9550 now that its out of warranty, BUT I just don't have the clocking skill to pump it up very high without risking some major damage to the CPU, which I cannot afford to replace unless I forget upgrading the video card. I bought this whole machine just as the i7's were coming out and I'm regretting not catching the new wave of tech. I probably wouldn't have been in this situation had I gotten an i7 / nVidia build like 1-2 people suggested, but I didn't...I've looked into the auto-clocking stuff that comes with my MOBO, but even though it looks super simple, everyone I've ever talked to about it has said that they are just gimmicks and that I'd probably not get anything worthwhile out of it, either because they wouldn't get me high enough to really work well, or because they'd just mess up my system without ever giving me a decent boost. That being said, its about the only way I'd ever clock my system...

The most important part of over-clocking, is having good, fast memory.. and a very good and stable power-supply.. and of course good cooling.There isn't much risk for two reasons.. First, these newer CPUs have thermal protection, but more importantly, they're actually UNDER-clocked from the factory; so that they work well with cheap components used by the mass-producers. You can get that Q9550 to 3.4GHZ easily, on the stock cooler.. Just t ake your time.. do a lot of research, and ask ask ask...

One thing I should mention is that when I built this machine, I had Vista x64 on it and was getting about 50%-75% better frame rates. Since the upgrade to Win 7 back in January (Beta), the frames have been permanently lower. Maybe its an OS issue on top of everything else?

The most important part of over-clocking, is having good, fast memory.. and a very good and stable power-supply.. and of course good cooling.There isn't much risk for two reasons.. First, these newer CPUs have thermal protection, but more importantly, they're actually UNDER-clocked from the factory; so that they work well with cheap components used by the mass-producers. You can get that Q9550 to 3.4GHZ easily, on the stock cooler.. Just t ake your time.. do a lot of research, and ask ask ask...

Well again we're back to the skill of it... even if there isn't a danger, I'm not the one to go and start messing with clock speeds and voltages... especially on a computer that cannot break down in the middle of a semester at school...On a side note, my RAM is Corsair Dominator DDR2 (I think its 5-5-5-15) 1066MHz (with fans) and I've got a massive OCZ tower cpu cooler, so I don't think heat will be a problem, only skill. That being said, I can't really bring myself to clock the cpu unless I have 100% guarantee that it won't cause me troubles, which is inherently a false statement when dealing with overclocking a cpu...EDIT: The reason for this concern is that this computer has to last me at least 2 more years... I can't afford to keep replacing parts as they fail... About the only reason I can afford to replace the video card is because I have a buyer of the old one already lined up when I get the new one...

That's possible.. but I have no Win7 experience, so I can't say. I am running the Q9550 on Vista64, though.I understand your reluctance to overclock.. I had it too.. but it's not the dark science it used to be. You just have to have an understanding of what you're doing, and why..To sum up my set up.. I spend days reading every forum I could find on clocking.. and then had the SimV guru (NickN) hold my hand ..lolAs for an i7.. it doesn't have much on the Q9550.. They're both 45nm, and both have massive cache. If you read through testing, you'll see that a Q9550 can be a very high-level performer.sorry.. lol Our posts got dove-tailed..Yeah, there's always risk.. so I'll leave it at that..