Hi....Ok, about video display cards, what to do?My System is actually an Athlon XP 1800+, with a GeForce4 MX 420. Really nasty card, since got FS 2004 it's really unacceptable. With FS 2002 it was still running under acceptable performance, but now...with FS 2004 I get even worst graphics quality respect to FS2002!!!So I'm looking to change it.My main targets were the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, and the ATI 9800 pro. I was pointing at the GeForce, when I discovered that a friend opf mine with an athlon XP 2700 (or around) and GeForce FX 5200 had a serious problem under FS: 2D Panels were not displayed, not to talk about other little issues: when in Select aircraft menu you go to the aircraft displaying window, the mouse goes under it and you can't move around the aircraft...I had other strange problems with my Geforce 4 MX 420 apart that problem about aircraft selection menu. Even , on several Gefroce cards reflective textures are not displayed... Very Bad for an aircraft designer!! Fortunately somebody fixed it, but the serious buga was another: my GPU was trting to mantain constant frame rates regardless of Sim speed!!! That's really UGLY.so, fixed it with updates to chipset and mother board drivers and also the BIOS.Don't want to have another problems, so. Will the FeForce FX 5900 be so buggy??Seems another friend uses ATI 9800Pro, and no bugs seen...So that might be my best choice...:-jumpy About performaces, which of the two works better??? I'm not video card expert, but, sadly, I ensure you I had to live with all type osf issues...:-vuur The only Fsim that ran completly smootholy on my system was FS95, on my old Pntium 1 133 Mhz!! What? all that technology and seems the oldies work better....(LoL)Mario NoriegaA.C.T. Publishing Freeware group, www.actpub.com

At this point, I'd have to say the 9800 is the better card. The Nvidia GeforceFX line have poor pixel shader performance which will affect most DirectX9 games comming out in the near future. Nvidia claims it's due to drivers, but I think it's also a hardware problem. Basically some poor decisions were made when NV3x (FX5900) was designed which results in performance being cut by 50% in the pixel shaders if full precision is used, but the card outperforms Radeon 9800 in shader ops if 16-bit low precision is used (which results in lower image quality).Hand-optimizing the drivers for each and every engine/game will not get them far and running mixed-mode 16/32 bit, or only 16-bit precision to speed things up will produce poor image quality compared to Radeon 9800 which can run true 24-bit precision (DX9 spec) at full speed. The 9700 and 9800's didn't need any "miracle drivers" to perform well with DX9 games.Anyway, if you only play FS, this is not a big deal since it doesn't use pixel shaders or any other advanced DX9-features at all.In terms of FSAA modes, the GeforceFX is more flexible since it has support for several modes of AA, some of which support anti-aliasing of alpha textures, such as trees (at a big performance hit). If you run at 1600x1200 however, you won't notice this slight problem with the Radeon cards and the Radeon cards are better at AA'ing the edges (6X AA on Radeon looks better than 8X AA on GeforceFX).For Anisotropic Filtering (making distant textures sharper and reduce shimmering), Radeon has a slight advantage both in speed and image quality (up to 16x full trilinear AF vs GeforceFX's 8x).So, for image quality in FS, the two are similar, each having advantages and disadvantages.The Radeon cards currently have a few problems with FS:Image turns black and flickers when loading a flight and when opening the menu by pressing Alt. Ths only lasts for a few seconds before image becomes normal, but it's annoying nontheless. Another problem is that text in checklists, the helpcenter etc. are unreadable in fullscreen (garbled text).Catalyst 3.7 drivers were supposed to fix these problems, but ATI choose to ignore the flightsim community and did not fix it. We can only hope that it's fixed in the next set of drivers (3.8).Also, if you will only use the card for FS, a card like the Radeon 9600 Pro or FX 5600U is a better choice, sine FS9 is limited more by the CPU and memory subsystem than videocard performance. Use the money saved towards a faster CPU and more RAM if you have less than 512MB.

The 9800XT is here:http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/9800xt/index11.htm

Since my next big upgrade will be in 2004, when all the new goodies come out, I opted now - for my new FS2004 - for a small and relative inexpensive change. I installed an Asus GeForce FX 5200 - 128 MB video card. This, plus increased memory and my old AMD XP 1700 Processor gives excellent results.At no time - even with heavy sceneries - I am at less then 17-18 FPS. My default is 22. You have to do several things to get this moving right;1. Download the latest drivers.2. Never ever run anti-aliasing (this thing is taking away 40% from your frame rate).3. Keep your PC clean - defragment regularily and make sure all your addons are in order of appeariance.4. unistall all startup programs that you don't need.5. Fly in real conditions - visibilty about 20-30 miles.6. Try several combinations of your sliders. No one need all of them all the way up all the time. It depend on your flight - once you wish the aircraft to be maxed and once the scenery is the most important.All in all I am surprised with the excellent results of the Asus and AMD. Next year we will see who wins - ATI or Asus, Intel or AMD. At the end a choice between those two can sum up to several hundred $$ Have FunSeevGigabyte Socket A Processor Motherboard GA-7VTX-HAMD XP 1700 Processor786 MB DDR MemoryAsus GeForce FX 5200 - 128 MB video cardMaxtor 40 GB 7200 HDDMaxtor 120 GB 7200 HDDHercules Fortissimo III sound card

If you have a radeon chipset, always turn on your anti-aliasing, no performance drop :)Ulisses

Radeon 9800 Pro all the way! :-hahThe FX5900 Ultras have trouble with true DX9 games.

>Catalyst 3.7 drivers were supposed to fix these problems, but>ATI choose to ignore the flightsim community and did not fix>it. We can only hope that it's fixed in the next set of>drivers (3.8).Actually Jimmi, the 3.7 were ready to go before a fix could be implemented in the 3.7's. For the last time they are not ignoring the FS community. It's called timing and it didn't work out for this set. According to sources the next set is due out on or around Oct. 8 with the fixes for FS supposedly implemented. Don't hold me to this but it is on good information.>Also, if you will only use the card for FS, a card like the>Radeon 9600 Pro or FX 5600U is a better choice, sine FS9 is>limited more by the CPU and memory subsystem than videocard>performance. Use the money saved towards a faster CPU and more>RAM if you have less than 512MB.Gotta disagree with you here Jimmi. Yes he's very CPU limited but the to reccomend a card such as the 5200 or 9600 just doesn't make sense. If he does upgrade his CPU in the future than the card becomes the bottleneck again and not the CPU. Although good cards, if he's got the money for the 5900 or the 9800 why cut corners. Always look towards future upgrades to save moeny in the long run.Mario,If you have the money than the 9800. If you have a little patience the R360's are not that far off.Bobby

Have to agree with the gist of most post here with a few exceptions...JimmiG wrote:"For Anisotropic Filtering (making distant textures sharper and reduce shimmering), Radeon has a slight advantage both in speed and image quality (up to 16x full trilinear AF vs GeforceFX's 8x)."True the ATI has an "x16" sample, but it has been shown and is widely accepted that NV's use of whole scene Aniso is superior to ATI's. This is seen easily in viewing FS terrain from most any elevation at the highest settings the ATI looks very blurred compared to the NV's especially if you use a "MegaScenery" type add-on.That being said, If you want the best card for the money you should look at 9800Pros as most any new DX9 games soon to come that rely more heavily on the GPU the 9800P will walk all over the 5900FX and as stated you can over come >some< of the FS8/9 image issues running at 1600x1200 etc.Prices on the 9800s will drop soon as the 9800XT hits stores, 9800XT is better even still with a better PCB layout, better cooling and thermal detection but they will be expensive...Then we have Nvidia introducing the NV38 in a few weeks but don't hold your breath.

>Have to agree with the gist of most post here with a few>exceptions...>>>>JimmiG wrote:>"For Anisotropic Filtering (making distant textures sharper>and reduce shimmering), Radeon has a slight advantage both in>speed and image quality (up to 16x full trilinear AF vs>GeforceFX's 8x).">>True the ATI has an "x16" sample, but it has been shown and is>widely accepted that NV's use of whole scene Aniso is superior>to ATI's.> This is seen easily in viewing FS terrain from most any>elevation at the highest settings the ATI looks very blurred>compared to the NV's especially if you use a "MegaScenery">type add-on.>>That being said, If you want the best card for the money you>should look at 9800Pros as most any new DX9 games soon to come>that rely more heavily on the GPU the 9800P will walk all over>the 5900FX and as stated you can over come >some< of the FS8/9>image issues running at 1600x1200 etc.>>Prices on the 9800s will drop soon as the 9800XT hits stores,>9800XT is better even still with a better PCB layout, better>cooling and thermal detection but they will be>expensive...Then we have Nvidia introducing the NV38 in a few>weeks but don't hold your breath.Funny Paul, I hear you parrot the above AF nonsense all the time yet you never provide any PROOF to back it up (i.e. pictures comparing the two). I'm not saying you have to test the two cards yourself but if you can find some examples of Nvidia AF being of higher quality than ATI AF, I'd love to see them. And I'm not talking about synthetic AF tests showing colors around a bullseye pattern, I mean actual in-game/in-benchmark screenshots. In case you're wondering, I can provide plenty of screenshots that show the exact opposite of what you're referring to ;)-Max Cowgill

Here we go again... Nvidia is better than ATI. No... ATI is better than Nvidia. Yada, yada, yada.:-outta

>Here we go again... Nvidia is better than ATI. No... ATI is>better than Nvidia. Yada, yada, yada.>>:-outta ATM, ATI is better than Nvidia and has been for the past year. If you deny this you're either an Nvidiot or have been living under a rock during said timeframe. This is not opinion or speculation, countless benchmarks and screenshots prove it.-Max Cowgill

>>Here we go again... Nvidia is better than ATI. No... ATI>is>>better than Nvidia. Yada, yada, yada.>>>>:-outta >>ATM, ATI is better than Nvidia and has been for the past year.> If you deny this you're either an Nvidiot or have been living>under a rock during said timeframe. This is not opinion or>speculation, countless benchmarks and screenshots prove it.>>-Max CowgillMax,I am surprised with you Max, You are a real let down. You might want to stay in school a bit longer. :-lol I have shared first hand knowledge with you no mere speculation my friend.I am no fan of any one brand of hardware just a fan of good graphics and have stated enough times that I wish we could have the best of what ATI and NV does right and leave out what they both do wrong. the ATI AF issues is as old as the intro of the 9700 and has been documented on most any GPU test site with tools such as "Aniso Testor" developed as a result of the mystifing AF anymolies of the 9700/9800 serries. While it can be said that ATI's AF "optimising" was "smart" work for many popular game titles for which thier brand of AF IQ was not an issue there are plainly many other game titles that clearly are effected in a negative way and unfortunitly FS/FUII/FUIII is among them as it hits DX sims quite hard. OGL titles are not affected.I hope your brain (I was gonna say small but I wont) can digest and understand the following info then I hope even more so that you take your time and try your best to think before you make another smart reply.Enjoy:What you will see in game:http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/dis...orce-fx_12.htmlwhy you see it:http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/200305...fx_5900-07.htmlhttp://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/200305...fx_5900-08.htmlhttp://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDcyLDc=http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-ref-p10.htmlhttp://www.vr-zone.com/reviews/NVIDIA/FX5900U/page9.htm

"Max,I am surprised with you Max, You are a real let down. You might want to stay in school a bit longer. "I agree with Paul here, Max. You have alot to learn. Your post a few days ago spelling the end of Nvidia's video card efforts adds proof that you should spend more time listening and less time offering your opinions. Your opinions no longer have credance.And for the record, I'm not an Nvidiot. Been simming with a 9700 Pro since last spring. For my money, ATI's are the best way to go at this time.Cheers,

Paul,Thanks for those links. I now can see why you say what you do about both cards. A picture truly is worth a thousand words. :)I agree though, can you imagine a card that shares the best of both. Now that would be worth the price of admission.Bobby

>>>Here we go again... Nvidia is better than ATI. No... ATI>>is>>>better than Nvidia. Yada, yada, yada.>>>>>>:-outta >>>>ATM, ATI is better than Nvidia and has been for the past>year.>> If you deny this you're either an Nvidiot or have been>living>>under a rock during said timeframe. This is not opinion or>>speculation, countless benchmarks and screenshots prove it.>>>>-Max Cowgill>>>>>Max,>>I am surprised with you Max, You are a real let down. >>You might want to stay in school a bit longer. :-lol> I have shared first hand knowledge with you no mere>speculation my friend.>>I am no fan of any one brand of hardware just a fan of good>graphics and have stated enough times that I wish we could>have the best of what ATI and NV does right and leave out what>they both do wrong.>> the ATI AF issues is as old as the intro of the 9700 and has>been documented on most any GPU test site with tools such as>"Aniso Testor" developed as a result of the mystifing AF>anymolies of the 9700/9800 serries. >>While it can be said that ATI's AF "optimising" was "smart">work for many popular game titles for which thier brand of AF>IQ was not an issue there are plainly many other game titles>that clearly are effected in a negative way and unfortunitly>FS/FUII/FUIII is among them as it hits DX sims quite hard. OGL>titles are not affected.>>>Enjoy:>>What you will see in game:>http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/dis...orce-fx_12.html>>why you see it:>http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/200305...fx_5900-07.html>http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/200305...fx_5900-08.html>>http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDcyLDc=>>http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-ref-p10.html>>http://www.vr-zone.com/reviews/NVIDIA/FX5900U/page9.htm>So you were only able to provide one link to an article that compares the GFFX 5800 Ultra to the Radeon 9700 Pro using 6-month-old drivers as your evidence? Surely you can do better than that, Paul. I've read countless articles on theory and how things *should* work, but I've seen countless articles that show how they *actually* work and in most every single instance the AF IQ of ATI is better than Nvidia's. LOL @ the other links as to the "why". That was exactly what I meant by "And I'm not talking about synthetic AF tests showing colors around a bullseye pattern." Oh, and the HardOCP article you linked to shows better aniso quality on the R9800 than the GFFX, you may want to check that again ;)For actual IQ comparisons why not try the following (actual NV3x AF screenshots vs. R3xx AF screenshots shown):http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/ra..._256mb(2).shtmlhttp://www.lostcircuits.com/video/ati_9700/9.shtmlhttp://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/...0/index.x?pg=14http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1432&page=4http://www.elite######s.com/page.php?page...ad=1&comments=1_http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=33707710&perpage=20&highlight=af[^s]*%20screenshots&pagenumber=2_ (take out _ copy&paste link into browser, FS2k4 screenies 3rd post up from bottom)Check it out. Some nice screenies there showing in-game and in-benchmark AF on GFFX hardware and R3xx hardware. Seems as though despite what you and other pundits say, AF on R3xx is just as good if not better than on GFFX while providing less of an FPS loss!-Max Cowgill