I am looking for a new PC for FS2004 and am looking at the following specs. Please comment on how you feel it will run FS2004. Thanks.Athlon XP 3000 BartonAsus A7N8X Deluxe Nforce2 Ultra 400 MB1 GB PC-3200 RAMNvidia GFFX 5900 Ultra 256MB video cardSeagate 80 GB Serial ATA HD w/ 8MB cacheCreative SB Audigy 2 6.1Windows XP ProComments welcome.Gary J.

I'd buy a box for that system with a water cooler in it and overclock the living bejesus out of it. Also, see today's article at Tom's Hardware Guide about video cards. You may want to go the Radeon route. You can also read up on water cooling there.

If the primary use is FS2004, you might want to take a look at a 9800 Pro or XT option for the video card. There are many sources now saying that the 5900 isn't the way to go. Especially on a top-end system.Doug

The biggest consideration is the video card. You definately want one that supports directx 9 which most new ones will but do a little research in regards to complications with Nvidia vs Radeon cards. I am replacing my older nvidia card with a Radeon.

I agree, change the vid card to the NEW Radeon. I just put together the same system, Athlon 3200, 1 gig GEil high performance DDR, same MOBO and a G4 4600, everything cranked full, no AA in the sim, 2X AA on the card and 4X AF on the card, FPS locked at 30, resolution at 1600x1200 and it runs awesome!! rarely goes under 20 and looks sweet! NOT A SINGLE STUTTER and this is with XP display drivers and no tweaks other than changing the pan rate.Of course your mileage may vary, but that is what I have. Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

Yeah change the video card to a Radeon 9800 XT and consider getting one of the new Athlon 64's - they spank the old Athlon's and the P4s.Ryan

From what I've seen, the 9800 XT is not worth it. Considering what's on the horizon, maybe a 9700 or plain old 9800 would be a better purchase. As for the Athlon 64, benchmarks don't bear out your comments. It's also important to realize that there is no software available that will use the 64-bit features of the processor. As long as Windows is 32-bit, that's all you're going to get.Jim

>As for the Athlon 64, benchmarks don't bear out your comments.> It's also important to realize that there is no software>available that will use the 64-bit features of the processor. >As long as Windows is 32-bit, that's all you're going to get.Agree, but I'd also dump the Asus and get a Gigabyte 7NNXP m/board.Cheers,Paulhttp://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/sbird.jpgOfficially licenced by British Airways plc for use of name and logo[p]AMD XP2800+ Barton, Gigabyte GA-7NNXP nForce2, 1Gig Crucial PC3200 DDR 400MHz, Gainward 128 MB GF4-4200, SB Audigy, 3 x WD Caviar SE[/p]

>I'd buy a box for that system with a water cooler in it and>overclock the living bejesus out of it. Also, see today's>article at Tom's Hardware Guide about video cards. You may>want to go the Radeon route. You can also read up on water>cooling there. I agree with you on the Radeon choice but as far as OC'ing the 3000 your really stretching it a bit. There is really not a lot of headroom left in the XP at those core speeds. Sure you may find a little left but the dollar for dollar cost makes it an unwise choice for OC'ing. Want to use water and spank the bejesus out of the setup you've posted?Pick yourself up a 2.4 - 2.8 P4C with a gig of OCZ PC3500 an Abit IC-7 or P4C800 MB and a Radeon 9800. Spend $75 on an alpha cooler and a small tube of AS Ceramique and turn the wick up on that baby. anywhere from 3 - 3.5 Ghz 100% stable with aircooling for less money than the XP3000. And forget about benchmarks. The XP won't stand a chance in any benchmark except for maybe the Adobe Premier test.If you want to stay on the quiet side and still see the numbers above drop $200 bucks on a koolance exos. Dollar for Dollar the best self contained H2O system available right now.Bobby

Exactly what are your expectations performance wise?All this talk of Overclocking and Spending 75 bucks for a cooler and jazz.Is this system for you to be able to add a laundry list to your Sig so that everytime you post people say ooooh and ahhh? Or are you looking for good performance from FS9 at a price that won't have you kicking yourself in the cheeks about spending a wad of dough for that one extra FPS?I bought FS9 for my Celeron and obviously a 600Mhz machine didn't hack it. I bought a bargain basement, Wal-Mart $498.00 Compaq that had an Athlon 2400XP, 40 Gig Hard drive, 128Meg of Ram, On board sound.Spent $90 on a FX5200 GeForce AGP 128Meg card, and another $70 on 512Meg of Ram.With AA turned off and AF on 8x, I get consistent 24FPS locked. (chosen because 24FPS is considered "motion picutre speed) Clouds at 100% with Density at Medium. complexity at Extremely Dense, Autogen at Dense.Now I would gather that my Performance is 75% of anyone here, in terms of visual quality and speed. Yet I spent almost the same on my computer as some spend on a video card.Your numbers sound impressive, but at what cost? Is an extra few FPS that you can't detect or some less jaggie lines really worth $1000.00 of extra expenditure?Don't fool yourself into thinking that you are getting one that will be able to "handle" FS2006, because that won't happen either.I say, spend the least you can to get the biggest bang for your buck. There are many fine sub $1000 machines that will run FS just great. Then you can soak some of that money into quality FS Addon's and Mesh

I just replaced my Ti4600 with a 9800 Pro and am very happy with it. Not only is it very fast but the image quality is brilliant and the reflective textures are gorgeous.Other than that I would go the pentium route so as to go 800MHz front side bus. How fast the ram and cpu can talk to each other would certainly help out FS9. CPU cache is also important so make sure its 512kb.That's my plan anyway.Speed.

Don't be bummed if you already bought the FX 5900 Ultra, I have the non-ultra version and the game runs terrific. I don't think it's that critical to get the Raedon and there was no driver issues with the Nvidia. Both cards are awesome and you'll be happy either way.

>Don't fool yourself into thinking that you are getting one>that will be able to "handle" FS2006, because that won't>happen either.LOL! :-) Ain't that the truth...!!!Cheers,Paulhttp://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/sbird.jpgOfficially licenced by British Airways plc for use of name and logo[p]AMD XP2800+ Barton, Gigabyte GA-7NNXP nForce2, 1Gig Crucial PC3200 DDR 400MHz, Gainward 128 MB GF4-4200, SB Audigy, 3 x WD Caviar SE[/p]

>Exactly what are your expectations performance wise?Obviously he's looking for the best performance he can achieve with the setup he mentioned.>All this talk of Overclocking and Spending 75 bucks for a>cooler and jazz.Doesn't have to spend that much. Actually, if he's building it for just FS than he could do 2.4P4C, Antec case w PS, Abit MB, Corsair memory 512 megs, 80 Gig JB HD, Radeon 9600 and a turtle beach SC for about $850. That's about $150 more than you paid for your Compaq without having to worry about the hassle of upgrading a proprietary machine. Oh yeah and with the stock Intel HS he could easily see 2.8 Ghz. Not to mention framerates w the 9600 that would eat a 5200 alive. See, you don't have to spend that much :)>Is this system for you to be able to add a laundry list to>your Sig so that everytime you post people say ooooh and ahhh?Kind of sarcastic no? Do I detect a hint of jealousy in your comment. Personally I build my machines for me. Not to impress anyone. I also use my machines for more than FS so the extra ooomph is needed. My post was more directed at CW1011's than the original posters> Or are you looking for good performance from FS9 at a price>that won't have you kicking yourself in the cheeks about>spending a wad of dough for that one extra FPS?Now come on... 1 FPS>I bought FS9 for my Celeron and obviously a 600Mhz machine>didn't hack it. I bought a bargain basement, Wal-Mart $498.00>Compaq that had an Athlon 2400XP, 40 Gig Hard drive, 128Meg of>Ram, On board sound.>Spent $90 on a FX5200 GeForce AGP 128Meg card, and another $70>on 512Meg of Ram.So you spent $500 on a mchine from Wally world that you had to sink almost another $200 into to get "acceptable" frame rates.>With AA turned off and AF on 8x, I get consistent 24FPS>locked. (chosen because 24FPS is considered "motion picutre>speed) Clouds at 100% with Density at Medium. complexity at>Extremely Dense, Autogen at Dense.To run FS without AA is a crime visually. With the machine I just mentioned in this thread he could run 4XAA and 8XAF and get better FR than the Compaq for about $150 more than you spent. with twice the storage, twice the performance CPU wise, a fantastic sound card that's not eating CPU cycles like onboard sound does and a better VC.>Now I would gather that my Performance is 75% of anyone here,>in terms of visual quality and speed. Yet I spent almost the>same on my computer as some spend on a video card.Funny but I paid $300 for my Card. Less than %50 of what you paid for your machine. A 9700Pro will run you about a third less. $700 for a video card. Now even I wouldn't do that. :)>Your numbers sound impressive, but at what cost? Is an extra>few FPS that you can't detect or some less jaggie lines really>worth $1000.00 of extra expenditure?Now let's be honest, I think the improvement would be a hell of a lot more than a few FPS and some less jaggie lines. After you spend another $200-$300 upgrading your machine within a year to keep up he's still in the ballgame.>Don't fool yourself into thinking that you are getting one>that will be able to "handle" FS2006, because that won't>happen either.Hey finally something we agree on. :)>I say, spend the least you can to get the biggest bang for>your buck. There are many fine sub $1000 machines that will>run FS just great.No argument there either but I don't think that was the point of his post. Obviously he's looking to build the best machine he can right now. Key word being right now. Upgrade wise he's got at least a 1 year jump in terms of needing to upgrade over a sub $1000 box. >Then you can soak some of that money into quality FS Addon's>and MeshCome on now, if he's a real FS addict he'll spend that money anyway.Now don't take this as a flame post. It just amazes me how many people seem to need sarcastic comments to prove a point. You seemed to direct your comments towards my post and the original posters as if we needed a reason to brag. Actually, it was quite the contrary. The need to run FS at the best level we can and avoid the need to upgrade yearly.Bobby

Thanks for all the comments. No, I am not looking for a PC with great specs that I can post in a sig. I am looking for a good high end system that will run FS2004 (not 2006 or 2008) smoothly and with good visuals. I don't want "bleeding edge" so the 64 bit is out and is the reason I am looking at a 3000 instead of the 3200. That seems to be the price break point. I will probably end up going with a 9800 Pro...that was my first thought but saw others on the forum that run the 5900's with no problems. I don't care if I only see 20-25 fps as long as they are smooth with most sliders towards the right side of the scale. And no, I don't want a $500 system that will run the sim marginally now but may choke later as other add-ons come out. I don't tend to buy many add-ons (Lago's Mad Dog for FS98 or 2000 and the new PMDG 737 are the only 2) but I do like all of the freeware that's available.Anyway..thanks for all the comments and it seems that the above specs with a 9800 Pro should work well for the CURRENT sim!Gary J.