I just finished building my new system - the one that was supposed to be the dream system. I brought a couple friend over to see the kick a** performance this new system was going to deliver - and ooops - the new system was not a frame rate (not a single framrate) faster than the old one. It was both an embarrasing and funny moment. The old system was an AMD XP 2100+, with 512MB of DDR (400MHZ), on some MSI motherboard. The only things I changed from the old system were the mobo, and the processor, and I added another 512MB RAM.The new system is a 3.6GHZ Intel chip, with 1GIG of PC3200 (400MHZ) RAM on an ABIT AS8 motherboard, I also have an FX5600 256mb video card, and an SB Audigy 2 sound card.My test scenario was done with both Eaglesoft's Citation X (deluxe) and the PMDG 737 full model (vc, cabin, etc.) At KICT (Witchita, Kansas Mid Continent Airport (default). Other applications running are Track IR w/ Vectore Expansion, FSHotSeat, Game Commander 2, FS Sky World, and Ultimate Traffic 100%. FS9 settings are everything maxed out except (terraing mesh detail - 80%, Anti Aliasing done through the video card 4x, 3d Cloud density at 80%, Cloud coverage at 100%. I run the resolution both desktop and FS at 1600x1200x32. And my FPS is locked at 16, That's all I want people just 16 little FPS and I will be estatic.with both planes in spot view (during the FS preset thunderstorm) I can only get 5.6 to 6.5 fps, in VC I get 7.5 to 8.0 fps, in 2D cockpit I am getting 8 to 9fps. The funny thing is even when I switched the aircraft and used the default piper cub the frames were the same. I then switched the test to Ohare (default) and the FPS were the same also.So far what I have tried is running ad-aware, sybot, and hijackthis, as well as my norton antivirus scanner - so supposedly there are no evil viruses sapping my power. Actually I increase my APG apeture from 128 to 256 and that did get me an addional 2 or 3 fps which puts me at the levels mentioned above. I tried running the motherboards game accelerator at turbo - but my system hangs at any setting other than AUTO. Anyway if any of you gurus out there could point a disappointed simmer in the right direction I would truly appreciate it.

Sorry to say man, but a 5600 isn't gonna get you too far regardless of your other hardware.I'm running a 5900 right now, and 4x AA is only a dream, not workable in reality.The FX series as a whole is very poor in terms of the hit the cards take with any level of AA, toss 3D clouds in the mix, and you're sunk.1600x1200 too ? Not gonna happen with that card. Sorry dude.Can I have a few details about the card ? Make/Model ?

On the new system did you:1. Reinstall the OS?2. Update the motherboard drivers?3. Cut and paste the FS9.cfg file so that FS built a new one with your new graphics card?4. BIOS settings correct?5. Update video drivers?If yes, to all this, then it shows that an old AMD will kick a new Intel's booty from here to heck and back again! My XP3400 64 will run a constant 35.Hope this helps,JimActiveSky Supporthttp://www.hifisim.com/images/as2004proudsupporter.jpg

I am no expert on hardware, but I would guess your video card is the limiting factor. With that processor and memory you would be screaming with a good card. It seems like you should be doing a little better than you are now even with that card. I used to use a FX5700 256 with a 3.2 and I was always in the 20-30FPS range for 2D and 15-20FPS range for VC. Though I don

I think you are asking too much from your FX5600 at 1600x1200x32 with 4X AA. I use a FX5700u and sometimes run at 16x12x32 at 2X, it's happier at 1280x960. Try dropping the AA to 2X and/or try dropping the res down.Kurt M

Well yes and no, a beter video card will get you higher res and optons like AA/AF whereas a 5200 must have those OFF to even run ok. FS is CPU hungry but even my laptop (Celeron 1.5 M) with an ATI 128 9600 M runs great. Best to save your pennies for a top 500.00 Video, either 6800 Ultra or ATI X800 PE or whatever then you WILL HAVE the ultimate system ;-) And do not let MSFS be the judge for you new system, try out a first person shooter to see the performance that your new rig really has. I will say that the only thing that you might actually see in FS is a better loading time and in SPOT VIEW you will be able to spin around without pausing.....As with 512 DDR only..Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |

My best advice would be to upgrade your card.Everything looks good with your new system, except the cardthat could very well be the limiting factor to your poor fs performance.My Advice would be the Radeon 9600XT 128MB or the 9800Pro 128MB if your budget is low after that big brute that you just built. But if your budget is a little higher, around $300 to $350, i would reccomend the 6800Ultra 128MB. And if you can get something around 399 or so. Check out the 6800GT 256MB. I bet with the 6800GT 256, you would be pushing around 40 or 50. Even with the 9600XT, you could expect around 25 or so.I am about to get my new system, and with my budget, i am going with the 9600XT. Mid range and a little older card? yes. But still good for FS and many many other games out there? yes.The 9600XT is the least i would look at. And is avalible from many manufactures at around 179 to 210. and the All-in-wonder for about 250. But then again, its up to you. Just a little advice. Hope this helps!:-wave

Also, i forgot to mention this.Allthough you want as many fps as you can get for your $$$, keep in mind, anything over 30 isnt really noticible. Standard tv only runs at 30FPS. yes 90FPS is awsome, and means that you must have a good card that will be around for several years. NVidia's 5950Ultra 256 was a card my friend was running on a P4 3.0. 1GB RAM. and with that card he pushed 50FPS in fs with sliders mostly right. When he upgraded to a new system with the 6800GT OC, he saw around 65 to 70 and couldnt tell the diff. Like i said, anything over 30 isnt noticible.So look for a card that you can get atleast 25 or 30 out of. The only NVidia Chipsets i would reccomend would be the 5950 Ultra or the 6600 or the 6800. And, the 6600 from what i hear is having quality problems and is being recalled.The cards though i would check would be the ATI 9600XT 128mb, 9800Pro 128MB, X800Pro 256MB. NVidia 6800GT Ultra 256MB.Happy Holidays! :-wave

Thanks for all the responses guys, yes it seems this PNY 5600FX may be the culprit. I've got another $300 to go so I'll look at some of the cards recommended, especially the ATI cards. Like I said all I am looking for is a constant 16 fps - at that level I have no issues with FS. I can tell the system has some serious horse power on other applications, i have a 28MB excel database that would often crash my old system and on this one it runs like a dream, so I just need to translate that to FS, will report back when i get a new card.

With a good video card and that system you should be able to do much better than 16FPS.

>So look for a card that you can get atleast 25 or 30 out of.>I generally agree but few folks realize that even if the FS9 tells you you are getting 25 or 30 fps that may NOT be true. True 25 fps would mean that every frame comes precisely 40 ms one after another and this is often not the case in FS9. For example when there are sudden stutters due to I/O or else fps reporting is actually suspended for a brief moment so at this moment your fps may only be 1 or zero but a brief moment ago it was showing 25 or more. The highly asynchronous way frames are generated in FS9 means that comparison with fps in movies (where every frame is *guaranteed* at fixed interval) is impossible. While movies look super smooth with 24 fps, FS9 may not simply because you are not getting TRUE 24 fps despite the displayed count.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

GUess what guys, as I sat here I remembered I had an old Nvidia Ge Force4 Ti 128MB card. So I popped the FX5600 out and put the Ge Force 4 in and there it was the framerates shot up to the 16 lock that I have in place. I have yet to stress it (ie. PMDG or EagleSoft at O'Hare or JFK, but this will hold me till I pick up an ATI 800XT.

The Geforce 5### series were a joke. Really pathetic performance. You may want to look at getting a better card as the Ti4200 is also quite slow.I upgraded from an XP 2400+ with a 9700 Pro to an Athlon64 3500+ with a X800XT and I basically got twice the performance in my test scenario (13 FPS on the old one, 26FPS on the new one). This scenario is basically KSEA with full traffic and lots of clouds and its as slow as the sim ever runs for me.

"....anything over 30 isnt really noticible. Standard tv only runs at 30FPS...."I know this issue is raised from time to time. And my response is always the same--you can't compare standard tv or movie fps to a computer simulation--different areas of perception come into play. While I hum along happily at 25 fps with no complaint, ask someone used to 45 fps to back down to 30 fps, and they will notice a difference.However, the example you gave is true--someone humming along at 50 fps would be hard pressed to perceive a difference at 65-75fps, although some can.I think seeking fps higher than 30 has issues for another reason--one is much more apt to notice a pause/stutter when the sim eventually fetches more textures from the hard drive or even those cached in RAM. Such a stutter would really stand out once you get in the 30+ fps territory. That was the original reason the fps lock was put into MSFS--to even out the fps so such stutters wouldn't be so evident.-JohnEdit: I do feel the fps mentioned in the opening post are low--even low for my system, which has a P3/800 cpu and a 4200TI. Something's amiss there...

Not if you tried to run 16x12 at 4xAA, 3D clouds, in the PMDG deluxe model, with 100% UT, John, sounds about right to me.