I'm about to pull the trigger on a laptop for fs9. Specs of my current top choice listed below. Would greatly appreciate any help if I am off base somewhere, as I've looked over the forums here and based on what I've read this seems more than adequate. I notice drive make/speed is missing but I'm not tech savvy enough to know how important that is.I will be running with some scenery and aircraft addons and would of course like very smooth performance. Been away from the sim for a couple of years and have never run it on a laptop so I appreciate any assistance. I have a little upward flex in the funds if I could gain significant improvement from upgrading processor or graphics card.Regards,RoySorry, here are the specs:DETAILED SPECS OF THIS LAPTOP: Manufacturer # PSAT3U-00X002 processor brand Intel processor model Core 2 Duo diagonal screen size 16 inches memory 4 GB hard drive capacity 400 GB screen resolution 1366 x 768 weight 6.48 lb optical drive DVD

The GT230M is not a gaming GPU. This will hold back performance, even in the dated FS9. If you can swing at least a GT 240 or GTS 250 that should be adequate for FS9.

With the specs of your machine you should be able to run fS9 reasonably well. I have an old original Asus G1 laptop which has a 2.0Gig core duo, 2GB of ram, Geforce Go 7700 graphics, and 1680x1050 display. I have my frames locked at 25fps and it

Guys,Thx very much for the help. After researching some more I've found essentially the same system with an ATI HD 4650 which benchmarked in the range of the better cards you mentioned. Unless you advise otherwise I will proceed with that choice. I've gotten out of touch with the graphics card market in the last couple of years and needed some expert input, as this system will need to last me a while.

Guys,Thx very much for the help. After researching some more I've found essentially the same system with an ATI HD 4650 which benchmarked in the range of the better cards you mentioned. Unless you advise otherwise I will proceed with that choice. I've gotten out of touch with the graphics card market in the last couple of years and needed some expert input, as this system will need to last me a while.

The HD 4650 is a much better card than the GT230, however some ATi users have reported various problems running both FS9 and FSX. Nothing that would be a show-stopper IMHO, but you may have "issues". You can search this forum for examples of such.

The GT230 should be up to the task just fine. Here is why I say that.From the spec of my system above you can see I have a Geforce go 7700.I tried a little experiment this morning to see how much the frame rates were dependant on the GPU card versus the CPU. I first set the frame rates to unlimited to see what my FPS was, I got between 40-45 this was with my AA set to combined with 8S and AF to 16. This was using my PMDG 747 from Seattle taking off to the north and flying for a bit to get an idea of where my FPS is at.I then went in and changed the AA and AF to “off” to see how much my FPS would change, performing the same flight I had less than a 3 FPS improvement (with an absolutely awful picture quality). It was actually pretty difficult to get a good number either way as the FPS was bouncing around so much.This is with a higher resolution monitor and a much slower GPU. I know this was hardly a well controlled experiment but I feel pretty confident that if I had a GTS 230 that my system would certainly not run any worse and in fact would run better.Unless I am missing something here my performance is pretty dependant on how much CPU horsepower I have and not effected enough by the GPU to worry about.I sure would like more feedback on whether ATI cards have the same performance\driver issues in FS9 as they do in FSX. As some of the new laptops I am looking at have ATI cards.

The GT230 should be up to the task just fine. Here is why I say that.From the spec of my system above you can see I have a Geforce go 7700.I tried a little experiment this morning to see how much the frame rates were dependant on the GPU card versus the CPU. I first set the frame rates to unlimited to see what my FPS was, I got between 40-45 this was with my AA set to combined with 8S and AF to 16. This was using my PMDG 747 from Seattle taking off to the north and flying for a bit to get an idea of where my FPS is at.I then went in and changed the AA and AF to

Show me benchmarks then, show me some facts. Just cause you say the 7700 is faster means nothing to me. The best comparison that I can come up with is on notebook check, which isn't the greatest but it clearly shows GT230 as a superior graphics card. I looked for spec's on Nvidia's web site and that really is not very good. The 7700 has lower clocks, fewer pixel shaders, vertex shaders, lower fillrates. I also don't understand your statement that it's no appropriate to compare across generations, both cards are considered in the performance category of cards so I think it is appropriate to compare them. If we were comparing say a GTS230 to a GTX280 than yes there is no comparison.With the resolution at which the OP laptop can display at, he is going to be CPU limited before the GPU limits the FPS even with AA, AF set at high levels.

As I've already explained, FS9 (and even FSX) are not limited by the capability of the shaders. Fill rates have NOTHING to do with shaders. Shaders are ALUs, functional units which perform mathematical operations upon pixels to modify them, then send them back to the ROPs which blend/apply AA, and output. Games like FS9 and FSX are more dependent upon the speed of the triangle setup rate and the rasterization rate. Something your 7700 has more of than the GT230M (12 vs. 8).

Everywhere I look show's the 7700 as having 8 ROP's, along with GT230.Since the ROP's is a function of the clock frequency, the GT230 would be faster.

It has 12 pixel pipelines. Pixel pipelines are synonymous with ROPs.

Guys your discussion is interesting but I don't understand all the tech stuff. I've found enough threads here on ATI problems that I'm back to the GT230 M. Even a Google search does not turn up any specific info on FS9 with this card, nor could I find it in Avsim forums.I'm going to be primarily flying the LD767 and DreamFleet 727 etc. into major airports with add on scenery. Can you guys agree on whether I have an excellent chance of smooth performance (whatever the frame rates) in these scenarios with the 230? I've looked at several sites (new egg, cyberpower, tigerdirect etc.) and can't find any laptop with a better card unless I bust the budget, which I cannot afford to do now. I'm going to be stuck with this decision for quite a while, so any consensus, or even advice on how to better research this and make a good decision is greatly appreciated!Regards,Roy

I went and looked at the cost of the laptop you

Very helpful, as I lived in both Col and Utah and still fly a lot out of SLC and DEN in the sim, also with Gary's scenery. I did find a laptop with similar specs on Best Buy with a GTX 260M for a couple hundred more. Do you think they would be worth the upgrade? I pull the plug here shortly, thanks again for help.

Here's a link, one of several charts I've looked at trying to decide if I would get significant improvement going from the 230M to the GTX 260M. I just don't know enough to interpret the data and make that decision.http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=98&pgno=7