Just wondering if having a 512MB video card vs. 256MB one will make much difference in performance with FSX?

I've got a 1GB video card (Nvidia 7950 GX2)...with most tweaks applied (except for texture resize to 512), I get 30-40 fps away from LOD monsters like KATL, KLAX, KSEA etc...I get 10-15fps at those locations on the runway and can't seem to get any higher. I do all my fps testing with white King Air in VC mode (I lose 5-8fps in 2D cockpit).Interestingly, I was getting about the same performance with an ATI X1900XTX 512MB video card (about 25-30fps), and 10-15fps at major airports with lots of scenery.FSX is highly dependent on CPU speed/pipeline.DX10 will direct some processing away from CPU and over to GPU which will help...but there's no card on the market yet to support DX10...maybe Nvidia G80 soon.So, yeah you will likely see better fps with more video memory. How much is dependent on your settings and CPU.RakeAMD FX-60Nvidia 7950 GX2 (1GB) video4GB ultra low latency RAMRaptor 150GB 10000rpm HDDell 24" wide (running FSX in 1950x1200 res)

Thanks for the response.Someone I know is interested in both my 7600 GT and 7900 GT so am tempted to get an eVGA 7950 GT KO 512MB.I think most upcoming titles will benefit from the 512MB anyhow.

Well, if FSX is CPU intensive (as it is) I would upgrade both the video ram (via the appropriate card) and system ram as well. But you may have already done so. It appears from some tests performed and noted on this site that you're very safe with 2 gigs of system ram. Performance with video ram indicates that 512 mb is a necessity but as the poster notes above it appears that anything above that may be redundant?P4 3.6 GHz, 1 gig ddr ram (yep it needs to be kicked up), X800XT 256 mb PCIe (yep that's a problem too)