We all know that FSX will require lots of video RAM. I was searching through new video cards and see that they are now up to 1Gb of video RAM. Surely that will be enough to run FSX at full visual detail (DX10 or not). I remember the fall of 1999. Most very good video cards were at the 64Mb range of RAM. There was an article online stating that video cards would soon be up to 128Mb and how that was complete overkill and just marketing gimmickry. Now we just look back and laugh.However, now there is talk that FSX will be very video RAM hungry and not to expect to have your sliders to the max without lots of it. I thought I read on this site somewhere that the 256Mb video cards MS used to test FSX quickly ran out of space.But, don

>We all know that FSX will require lots of video RAM. I was>searching through new video cards and see that they are now up>to 1Gb of video RAM. Surely that will be enough to run FSX at>full visual detail (DX10 or not). >>I remember the fall of 1999. Most very good video cards were>at the 64Mb range of RAM. There was an article online stating>that video cards would soon be up to 128Mb and how that was>complete overkill and just marketing gimmickry. Now we just>look back and laugh.>>However, now there is talk that FSX will be very video RAM>hungry and not to expect to have your sliders to the max>without lots of it. I thought I read on this site somewhere>that the 256Mb video cards MS used to test FSX quickly ran out>of space.>>But, don

There's no such thing as overkill if it results in better performance. However, if the extra memory is not utilized or properly utilized then it's mere waste and superfluous. I don't know if FSX will properly utilize the extra memory and I haven't heard from the developers whether 1 gb video card will be used effectively.

So, do we have a consensus that 512Mb will be enough?RH

>There's no such thing as overkill if it results in better>performance. However, if the extra memory is not utilized or>properly utilized then it's mere waste and superfluous. I>don't know if FSX will properly utilize the extra memory and I>haven't heard from the developers whether 1 gb video card will>be used effectively.Actually what the developers said was, "FSX will use all of the video memory that you have."Rhett

Well, all I know is what they said, and that is that FSX will use all the vid mem you have. I don't know if there is a limit to what it will use, or not.To me, that means that if you have a gig, FSX will use a gig, but who knows. I even have my doubts as to if MS has even tested FSX on a machine with a 1gig video ram card in it. Probably not.512 will probably be fine. I have thought about getting a 1 gig DX10 card next year. It will probably be a 2nd generation DX10 card. I'm not sure what i'm going to do at this point. :) Things are still up in the air, besides my A330. haha.Rhett

The demo runs fine w/256 meg video memory...all sliders maxed.

You guys're funny. If I were on-line retailer I'd suck money out of you trying to convince you in buying expensive and useless crap (in FS terms). It's been said TRILLIONS of time that FS is CPU-hungry program. The amountspeed of RAM is the second most important component...and only after that a significance of videocard comes into play.During FS2004 (2003-2006) I've changed three videocards (9200, 9800/128 and X800/256) and none of them have had such terrific effect on performance as change of CPUMobo had.

>>>>Actually what the developers said was, "FSX will use all of>the video memory that you have.">>>RhettI'd be suprised if they would say opposite. In this case the entire MS PR department should have been fired.

Yes it has been said many times, but that was about FS9. FSX is supposed to take advantage of graphics card a lot more than FS9 did!

This version (FSX) is supposed to be different with more powerplay between videocards.RH

>Yes it has been said many times, but that was about FS9. FSX>is supposed to take advantage of graphics card a lot more than>FS9 did!Which is why FSX will benefit next to not at all from SLI setups? I highly doubt that FSX will be less CPU dependent than its predecessor.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

I agree cpu and ram is first but the video card can make a huge difference especially if you are using high resolutions like one of the 24 or 30 inch monitors or the Matrox triplehead to go. My setup is 3 19" monitors with triple head to go at 3840 X 1024. I experimented with my old Nvidea 6600 and my current BFG 7900GTX 512 mb. The difference is night and day with both FS9 and FSX Demo.Regards, Carlos

That is the whole point about Directx 10. It unloads a lot more on the card.I don't know about SLI. But even FS9 got a huge boost with a graphics card upgrade!

With DX10, we will get the nice silver water and see-though clouds, but I am not sure if we will get better framerates and smoother action.RH