I have it narrowed down to two Video Cards that I am going to get. I can get either the GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR AGP 8X w/ TVO & DVI for $130 or the ATI Radeon 9600 256mb DVI+CRT+TVout support 4-pipeline programmable for $120. There are ones with 128MB for ten bucks cheaper. Is my logic of 256mb will work better than 128mb in FS9 legitimate? Please fill me in. I want the best performance with my PMDG and FS9. Im also not that computer literate! thanks

"Is my logic of 256mb will work better than 128mb in FS9 legitimate?"It would work better if FS9 used that much in the way of texture memory, but the number seems to come in lower. I've used a 128 Meg 4200...seems to be a real sweet spot with both FS2002 and FS2004.However, 256 megs may serve you well as more titles start taking advantage of it.Beyond that, the larger debate becomes Radeon vs. Nvidia. The only qualified answers you'll get would be from those who've tried both cards on their system with FS2004. Hopefully you'll get some good advice...-John

Do not, I repeat Do Not whatever you do buy that FX5600 card. It may have 256Mb of memory and It may seem good value but the reality is that its a p1ss poor card. I have a GF4 Ti 128Mb card and it works a million times better than the FX5600. My FX5600 lasted approx 30 mins before being put back in its box and shipped back from whence it came! I have no knowledge of the Radeon but from my experience with the FX5600 I would strongly suggest you skip it.FX5900 Ultra is the only decent FX card but it comes at a price!Hope this helps you,markyboy.

John, You'll get plenty of opinions on this one! 256MB of texture memory probably won't buy you much in Flight Simulator, but if you play other games (and plan on buying new games as they come), you might want to consider it if money isn't that big of a deal to you.As to the nVidia or ATI question, a week ago I would have said to get ATI period because of the recent DX9 issues that have surfaced with nVidia. However, the new drivers that have leaked for nVidia run DX9 games great (at least the one I'm using.) For example, I'm able to run Halo at 8X aniso and 1280x1024 with all settings maxed out, and it runs great. Jim

>128MB for ten bucks cheaper. Is my logic of 256mb will work>better than 128mb in FS9 legitimate? Go to tomshardware - he took recent benchmarks for different video cards and he now also uses FS2004 as one of his test games. (!!)The results are self evident - (1.) ATI is a much better choice than Nvidia for FS9 (2.) 256 mb is an absolute waste of $$ for FS9 unless you are running with 1600x1200 screen resolution.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Jim; is that at FP12 or FP16. hehehe. Don't hit me!! Seriously, how's the pic quality with Halo?

Hmmm... FP12/FP16? I'm not understanding. :)Halo is AWESOME! Lots of people complain about it running terribly slow, but it runs great on my system. The effects are incredible. Lighting effects are incredible. Get it! If you have a slower machine, you can choose (via command line) to run it at under the DX8 codepath.Jim

>I have it narrowed down to two Video Cards that I am going to>get. I can get either the GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR AGP 8X w/>TVO & DVI for $130 or the ATI Radeon 9600 256mb DVI+CRT+TVout>support 4-pipeline programmable for $120. There are ones with>128MB for ten bucks cheaper. Is my logic of 256mb will work>better than 128mb in FS9 legitimate? Please fill me in. I want>the best performance with my PMDG and FS9. Im also not that>computer literate! >thanks>>256mb vs 128mb>FS9FS9 is one of the few titles that can take advantage of the larger 256mb frame buffer under certain circumstances:If you will be using any of the texture hungry add-ons like some of the high density airports as well as using something like CS727 etc. while at the same time you want to run at ultrahigh screen resolutions (1600x1200 and up) and then turn up the AA and AF...then the 128mb just can't handle all the filtering and things like AA quality can deteriorate if not just kick down as well as slow reloading of textures when changing views but you had better have a screeming machine to feed it, if not just go for the 128mb. If you are on a budget you may want to wait for the 9600XT as well as the NV36 (replaces 5600-ultra) to go retail as these will both be great budget cards.9600XT vs NV36 vs 9800XT:http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/revie...mlld19JRD02NDQ=

I currently have a ati 9700 pro. It is a really great card but ati can never quit get the drivers right for msfs. I have been experiencing crashes, lockups, and performance that does not meet the great technical specifications listed on this card. I spend more time trying to get the drivers right then playing the sim. Also they choose not to use AA to smooth out alfa textures so you will always have jagged edges on scenery. The card you are looking at is ok but you will still have a few frame rate issues when using higher settings and using AA. So if I were you I would do what I'm doing.I just ordered a Nvidia 5900 Ultra. It has 256 ddr ram, 256 bit graphics, and a bit per second on graphics that is the best in the marketplace. One of my good friends just got his and he is running full up on all settings and is using AA and all the rest of the scenery enhancements and the sim is running smooth as silk. Anyway, just one persons idea.Capt.Mac

Most people seem to be having very good luck with the new drivers for the ATI. Not the new Catalyst, but the Omegas. I don't own an ATI card, so I'm just regurgitating, but that's what's being reported here.I have great performance with my 5900. People running high-end ATI cards report the same. As far as visual quality, some prefer ATI and some prefer nVidia. There's a Web site somewhere with images showing the difference between the two. I personally can't tell much difference, but I'm not geared that way.Jim

The Tomshardware article was fairly well debunked in a couple of threads here--the benchmark used was hardly a scenario under which most of us fly under. That doesn't mean that the ATI isn't better, but I'd love to see results under a better benchmark before I throw together my next system. If the improvement the ATI offers in line with the price vs. the Nvidia, then that could factor in to some simmers' decisions. I really think the simmers here who've tried both cards can offer the best review, until such time that Tomshardware's benchmark has benefited from our feedback. -John

Mac,The problems your experiencing are not related to the card but to either improper driver installation or removal of old ones, a MB Bios that needs an update or a chipset that is running outdated drivers.I am currently running an OEM ATI 9700Pro Overclocked granted but with the new 2496 Drivers from Omega I no longer suffer any issues whatsoever and gaurantee you it will stand shoulder to shoulder with a 5900 in 95% of the benchmarks that can be thrown at it right now. Currently running FS9 @ 1280X1024x32 4XAA and 16XAF quality all sliders maxed except cloud density at 90 and autogen at 90.I think that if you had gotten all the issues resolved with the 9700, a 5900 would not have been a purchase you would have made.JMOBobby

I, too, would like to see a comparison with all the sliders to the right John. Having used both, however, my instincts tell me that the gap between ATI and nVidia will widen even more in favor of ATI as the settings go up. I just wish I had benchmarked the 5900 when I had the chance...sigh...But, subjectively speaking, the 9800 Pro I have installed now seems to run rings around the 5900 I tried for a short while.Doug

Ya Bobby, you could be right. However after seen the 5900 ultra, not the standard 5900, run msfs so smooth on my friends machine with all the sliders up on full I could not help myself. I've used every method of driver cleaner that I could find to include cleaning the registry each time I changed drivers. I got a driver removal and installation email from ATI and also followed that. I've tried the latest ATI, Omega, and Catylist drivers and all have the same issues for me. Anyway I can't really complain about the card itself I think it is pretty close to top of the line and everything else I run smokes. I've been engaged in some of the ati forums at Rage and Guru and lots of folks are having the same problems. I guess every system reacts to these cards somewhat differently. Anyway I guess I was ready for an upgrade fix anyway. :]Capt.Mac