OK....last time now. I've been reading about these two cards on various sites for a while now, and I need to decide by tomorrow. I am selling an ATI 9700TX (came with my Dell, 2.8gig), and I'm getting $150.00 for it. But tomorrow, I'll buy either the 9800 Pro or the NVidia 5900 Ultra. For MSFS, which is really the better choice? I've seen reviews for these cards comparing them on 1st person shooter games and such, but NONE on MSFS 2004. If your were me, which would you buy? Please vote! Stan

hi stanim not an expert by any means,but i've just bought the Gigabyte9800proand so far(crossed fingers)it been really good.fs2004 runs really smooth .FPS limit is 20,and it stays around that wherever i go.so i say GO for the 9800...should add there is a driver problem at the moment(flashing menu screens)but ATI are working on a fix as we speak. best wishes steveAthlon 3000xpGigabyte KT400 moboGigabyte 9800pro1GB 333memsblive

Use the search button please. This topic has been discussed many many times in recent weeks. Bottom line: 9800 Pro is better for AA & AF, has better AA quality, complex shaders (2.0); 5900 Ultra has better AF quality, may be faster than 9800 Pro w/out AA & AF.-Max Cowgill

Stan - I don't think there's any definitive answer. I went through the whole "which do I get" thing a month ago and opted for the 9800 Pro. But, I've also seen FS2004 on a 5900 and, honestly, I can't tell the difference between the two cards. The conventional wisdom says that the 5900 may be tad faster and that the 9800 rendering looks a tad better. My vote goes to the 9800 (mainly because I'd look really dumb if I opted for the 5900 now :-) ).Doug

When I buy a video card, I consider it a permanent fixture for at least two years if not more. I say go with the 9800 Pro if for no other reason than because of the future DX9 issues with the 5900 Ultra in games like HL2 with many more DX9 games to come in the near future. If you only play FS2k2 and FS2k4, then it doesn't much matter unless price is a consideration. I'm gonna keep my 9700 Pro and when the "Loki" becomes available, I'll be checking it out of the store soon afterward.

>and when the "Loki">becomes available,what's Loki ??Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Loki - Supposedly the codename for ATI's next chip, the R420 (Radeon 9700 = R300, 9800 = R350).For FS2004, Radeon and Geforce both have their advantages and disadvantages. ATI has the better FSAA and AF (up to 16X with full trilinear), but the Geforce FX has support for Supersampling to completely eliminate flickering/shimmering autogen tree textures.Performance in other games depends on what technologies the games use but the most interesting aspect is shader performance. If the games use true DX9-precision (24-bit or better) in the shaders, the Radeon will have an advantage. With only 16-bit precision in use, the Geforce FX will have the edge. The Geforce FX overall seems to have very weak Pixel Shader performance but it appears more powerful at processing geometry than the R350.

Sorry, I know this subject's been beat to death, but often a search shows opinions from weeks or months ago.Fresh opinions from TODAY mean a lot to me, because just YESTERDAY someone may have arrived at a new and educated opinion.I appreciate the re-hashing and new opinions on this. I'm going out to buy the 9800 now. Now I have to decide on the 256 or the 128. Hmmmmmm? Stan