Graphics

[Jim Chambers]

HI pilots, Is it worth getting the expensive new boards like the Radeon
9800 or gforce FX 5900 ie. is there sufficient detail in FS 2004 to show
off these boards?.......Comments welcome......Jim. N. London

[Angus Lepper]

Well, you'll get a better chance of getting more than 15 fps and it will run
smoother + they are DX9 cards so the reflective windows on terminals
(possibly due to an upgrade of mine, dunno about defautl) and better water
are available. I'd say there was definitely a point..

Angus
"Jim Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> HI pilots, Is it worth getting the expensive new boards like the Radeon
> 9800 or gforce FX 5900 ie. is there sufficient detail in FS 2004 to show
> off these boards?.......Comments welcome......Jim. N. London
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jim Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> HI pilots, Is it worth getting the expensive new boards like the
Radeon
> 9800 or gforce FX 5900 ie. is there sufficient detail in FS 2004 to
show
> off these boards?.......Comments welcome......Jim. N. London

Flight simulators are extremely system intensive. That means the entire
system as a unit, not just the video card. A good card is definately an
asset, but a total waste if not installed in a fairly fast system with
adaquate ram to back it up.
Anyone contemplating a high end video card as an upgrade for flight
simulators is well advised to take a good look at their entire system
and make a decision based on the system as it will be after the card is
installed. In other words, I's say that a HUGE percentage of people who
spend big bucks on a high end video card should have spent the money
first to upgrade their general system. It's a shame to see these people
time and time again put out hard earned money and then want to know why
their high end video card only gives them 5 FPS increase in performance
along with driver conflicts caused by having to upgrade video drivers
that are way ahead of their system's basic performance level.
There comes a point when upgrading the system as a whole is the FAR
better choice than just upgrading the video card!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:02:06 +0000, Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> "Jim Chambers" > wrote in message
> ...
>> HI pilots, Is it worth getting the expensive new boards like the
> Radeon
>> 9800 or gforce FX 5900 ie. is there sufficient detail in FS 2004 to
> show
>> off these boards?.......Comments welcome......Jim. N. London
>
> Flight simulators are extremely system intensive. That means the entire
> system as a unit, not just the video card. A good card is definately an
> asset, but a total waste if not installed in a fairly fast system with
> adaquate ram to back it up.
> Anyone contemplating a high end video card as an upgrade for flight
> simulators is well advised to take a good look at their entire system
> and make a decision based on the system as it will be after the card is
> installed. In other words, I's say that a HUGE percentage of people who
> spend big bucks on a high end video card should have spent the money
> first to upgrade their general system. It's a shame to see these people
> time and time again put out hard earned money and then want to know why
> their high end video card only gives them 5 FPS increase in performance
> along with driver conflicts caused by having to upgrade video drivers
> that are way ahead of their system's basic performance level.
> There comes a point when upgrading the system as a whole is the FAR
> better choice than just upgrading the video card!
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Actually, since moderm video cards help offload common operations from the
CPU, it's often a big boost for performance. Just the same, you are right
that for ideal performance, you want a complimentary fast CPU and video
card. Having said that, new video cards can often give new life to older,
slower, graphically challenged systems. Just don't go expecting miracles. ;)

If you have a system that is a year or two old and currently have a
commodity video card in it (e.g. old MX card), then a newer card can make
a night and day difference. Again, just don't go expecting miracles!

[K]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:02:06 +0000, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Flight simulators are extremely system intensive. That means the entire
> system as a unit, not just the video card. A good card is definately an
> asset, but a total waste if not installed in a fairly fast system with
> adaquate ram to back it up.

Absolutely agree with you. I've argued about this with others
before but I've seen a noticeable improvement with 1GB of RAM. Although
this does little for frame rates it does iron out any jerkiness and speeds
up loading times as there is less paging to disk. Fast memory goes well
with a fast processor too. But the most important component is still the
video card.

K

[Peter Duniho]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> If you have a system that is a year or two old and currently have a
> commodity video card in it (e.g. old MX card), then a newer card can make
> a night and day difference.

In other words, if your video card isn't already at par with the rest of
your computer. And that, I can agree with.

However, that doesn't mean that you can always get a performance boost with
a faster video card. While the video cards are doing more and more work
that the CPU used to have to do, you still need to be able to get all that
data over to the new card. There also is still a fair amount of work left
for the CPU, even after the stuff the video card is taking care of.

If your CPU and memory bandwidth is your bottleneck, a faster video card
will produce NO increase in speed whatsoever.

It is important to make sure your video card and processing power are
relatively balanced, and it is true that not doing so results in a big waste
of money.

Pete

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:26:13 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:
> If your CPU and memory bandwidth is your bottleneck, a faster video card
> will produce NO increase in speed whatsoever.

I have to call you on that one. Remember, newer video cards are able to
offload a lot of work from CPUs these day. If your video card is only a
generation or two back, it *can* make a big difference. Why? Well,
drivers are now able move the data the card and let the card compute and
figure out how to draw things. This means, you now have more CPU
available. The net effect is that in some cases, it's like getting a
faster computer. Furthermore, if memory bandwidth is a bottleneck, it
might be because your computer is having to juggle large amounts of
textures bewteen its self and the video card. Again, a newer video card,
may greatly alleviate this. Why? Because a video card that is a year or
two old, especially if it's a commodity board, may only have 16M or 32M on
it. Maybe 64M if it's a fairly nice one. These days, you can get a nice
mid-range card which is several generations more advanced, which have
128M, 256M and even 512M on them. This means all those textures which
were saturating your memory bandwidth and bus can now be loaded, ONCE,
onto your video card. That also means more main memory may suddenly be
available. If you were paging before and offloading the textures prevents
this, it can make a **HUGE** performance difference (of course, adding
memory would probably be recommended too). Again, this can result in new
life in a slightly older computer.

Because computers, video cards, drivers, and the 3d software which is
running greatly differs, it's impossible to answer in absoluetes what type
of return you'll get by moving up to a new card. Just the same, If you
are thinking of getting a new system, try a nice card first. You may find
that it gives you the extra life that you was wanting. If it falls short,
then you already have your video card for your new system. Nothing is
lost.

[Peter Duniho]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:26:13 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:
> > If your CPU and memory bandwidth is your bottleneck, a faster video card
> > will produce NO increase in speed whatsoever.
>
> I have to call you on that one.

Really? I'm still waiting to see the post where you do.

> Remember, newer video cards are able to
> offload a lot of work from CPUs these day.

Older cards can too. That's the whole point of a 3D acceleration card. So?

> If your video card is only a
> generation or two back, it *can* make a big difference. Why? Well,
> drivers are now able move the data the card and let the card compute and
> figure out how to draw things.

Again, whole point, so?

> This means, you now have more CPU available.

Only if the CPU is capable of preparing the data in time, and only if the
pathway from the data to the video card is not already running at maximum
speed. Are you sure you know what the word "bottleneck" means? You're
acting like you don't.

> The net effect is that in some cases, it's like getting a
> faster computer. Furthermore, if memory bandwidth is a bottleneck, it
> might be because your computer is having to juggle large amounts of
> textures bewteen its self and the video card.

So you're talking about more texture memory, not a faster video card.
Please go back and read what I wrote. My comment was specifically about the
card's processing speed, not its memory capacity. But even if it was, a
video card that's on par with a system only a year or two old is not going
to be running low on RAM for textures, not yet.

> Again, a newer video card,
> may greatly alleviate this. Why? Because a video card that is a year or
> two old, especially if it's a commodity board, may only have 16M or 32M on
> it.

You meant to write ONLY if it's a commodity board. No serious 3D
accelerator card has had only 32MB of video RAM for several years (5+). And
if it's a commodity board, then by definition it's not on par with the rest
of your year or two old system.

But boy, your straw man did sure fall over nice for you, I'll give you that
much.

> Maybe 64M if it's a fairly nice one. These days, you can get a nice
> mid-range card which is several generations more advanced, which have
> 128M, 256M and even 512M on them.

Name one mid-range card with 512MB of video memory.

> This means all those textures which
> were saturating your memory bandwidth and bus can now be loaded, ONCE,
> onto your video card. That also means more main memory may suddenly be
> available. If you were paging before and offloading the textures prevents
> this, it can make a **HUGE** performance difference (of course, adding
> memory would probably be recommended too). Again, this can result in new
> life in a slightly older computer.

You sure are making a lot of new assumptions about the computer in question.
No decent game PC built in the last year or two is going to be running into
ANY paging issues playing games. Besides, if you ARE running into problems
like that, no simple video card upgrade is going to produce any significant
improvement in frame rates.

> Because computers, video cards, drivers, and the 3d software which is
> running greatly differs, it's impossible to answer in absoluetes what type
> of return you'll get by moving up to a new card.

That depends on your absolute. I specifically limited my comment to the
situation where CPU and memory bandwidth are already the bottleneck. You
know, "bottleneck". As in, the place where performance is most limited,
leaving the other components at less than 100% utilization.

Sure, if you try to broaden your assumptions, you can't make an absolute
statement. But I didn't do that. You did.

> Just the same, If you
> are thinking of getting a new system, try a nice card first. You may find
> that it gives you the extra life that you was wanting. If it falls short,
> then you already have your video card for your new system. Nothing is
> lost.

Of course something is lost. If you are considering high-end hardware (and
if you aren't, why are we talking about this at all?), then a new card is
going to put you out somewhere in the $200-400 range. But just because you
can afford a new card, that doesn't mean you can afford a whole new system.
So now you've just wasted $200-400 in sunk capital. Capital that's useless
to you until you've saved up the $1500-2500 you'll need for the current fast
hardware.

Tell you what. How about you send me four $100 bills. I will keep them
cozy for you, and I'll send them right back to you in six months. They'll
work just as well then as they do today. Nothing is lost. Right? That's
what you said.

Pete

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:43:01 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:26:13 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:
>> > If your CPU and memory bandwidth is your bottleneck, a faster video card
>> > will produce NO increase in speed whatsoever.
>>
>> I have to call you on that one.
>
> Really? I'm still waiting to see the post where you do.
>

Sadly, you've missed the boat... It already happened.

>> Remember, newer video cards are able to
>> offload a lot of work from CPUs these day.
>
> Older cards can too. That's the whole point of a 3D acceleration card. So?

Obviously. They just can't offload the same amount of work. Furthermore,
newer cards are able to offload more kinds of work, especially as it
relates to additional detail. This is especially true for newer games that
take advantage of newer dx features or opengl extension on newer
drivers which push data to newer cards. So yes, it's the whole point of
acceleration. It's just that not all cards accelerate equally; especially
if they are an older card with older drivers running newer 3d software.
Since the title has 2004 in it, I think it's safe to say it qualifies as
newer software. Shesh.

Thankfully we can pretend you never replied here and move on.

>
>> If your video card is only a
>> generation or two back, it *can* make a big difference. Why? Well,
>> drivers are now able move the data the card and let the card compute
>> and figure out how to draw things.
>
> Again, whole point, so?

Hmm. I think I made it. I guess it went over your head. Is there
specifically something there that you want to admit you didn't understand.
If so, I'm happy to try to explain a second time. In a nut shell, newer
cards can offload more work, more kinds of work, faster. Since it can
offload additional work that older cards couldn't do, this means that in
some cases, time the old computer spent computing and then shoving to the
card can now be spent shoving to the card to let it compute. Is it really
that hard to understand?

If we try to show how a workload can shift, we imagine a vague concept
such as this:
computer old card
x+y+z a

vs

computer new card
x y+z,a

In the situations where this is able to happen, suddenly, the picture
really turns into:

computer new card
x,x,x y+z,a,y+z,a,y+z,a

Whereby, each letter represents some 3d specific operation.

As you can see, suddenly the old computer is doing more work because the
GPU is doing more of what used to be the CPU's load. Now granted, you are
not going to get miracles, as I originally said. Just the same, it can
OFTEN be enough to put new life into an older computer; especially so for
newer 3d applications. Where, new life can mean more detail, higher
resolutions and same detail & resolutions with higher frame rates...or
some combination. Again, that also depends on the 3d app too.

>
>> This means, you now have more CPU available.

I guess I really did already state it. See. I said it again. It's up to
you to comprehend.

>
> Only if the CPU is capable of preparing the data in time, and only if
> the pathway from the data to the video card is not already running at
> maximum speed. Are you sure you know what the word "bottleneck" means?
> You're acting like you don't.

You missed the boat again. Just because you're maxed with an old card
does not mean you will be maxed with a new card. Things have gotten lots
better, even in the last couple of years. Best of all, they've gotten
better in ways other than just faster GPUs.

>
>> The net effect is that in some cases, it's like getting a faster
>> computer. Furthermore, if memory bandwidth is a bottleneck, it might be
>> because your computer is having to juggle large amounts of textures
>> bewteen its self and the video card.
>
> So you're talking about more texture memory, not a faster video card.

Again, you've missed the boat. If your app needs to shuffle more textures
that you can fit onboard, this takes up a large amount of CPU, memory and
bus bandwidth. If you offload this to your video card, you suddenly have
a lot more CPU, memory and bus bandwidth to allocate to other takes. Is
this really that hard? More textures and especially higher resolution
textures directly translates to more visible detail. Again, the specifics
are going to depend on the app in question and the pre-existing hardware
in use.

> Please go back and read what I wrote. My comment was specifically about
> the card's processing speed, not its memory capacity. But even if it
> was, a video card that's on par with a system only a year or two old is
> not going to be running low on RAM for textures, not yet.

Memory capacity, depending on the application's texture requirements,
can be a significant performance factor. It can and does effect the
entire system's performance.

>
>> Again, a newer video card,
>> may greatly alleviate this. Why? Because a video card that is a year
>> or two old, especially if it's a commodity board, may only have 16M or
>> 32M on it.
>
> You meant to write ONLY if it's a commodity board. No serious 3D
> accelerator card has had only 32MB of video RAM for several years (5+).
> And if it's a commodity board, then by definition it's not on par with
> the rest of your year or two old system.

That's not true. Commodity boards are often low end and very low end for
any day's standard. I think I clearly made the point. Ignore it if you
want, but it doesn't change facts. Remember, some commodity hardware
which offered minor 3d acceleration used the AGP bus and system memory for
texture cache. Ouch. Since the original post did not state what hardware
he currently has, one has to offer a broader range of options and
associated possibilities. I'm sorry that knowledge and possibilities
scares you. Hopefully it won't scare or confuse Jim.

>
> But boy, your straw man did sure fall over nice for you, I'll give you
> that much.

LOL. I think it just went over your head.

>
>> Maybe 64M if it's a fairly nice one. These days, you can get a nice
>> mid-range card which is several generations more advanced, which have
>> 128M, 256M and even 512M on them.
>
> Name one mid-range card with 512MB of video memory.

Feel free to look. It's not hard. Does it really matter at this point?
If you have an older commodity card with even 64M and you step up to 256M,
the point remains. Or are you going to be so foolishly stubborn to ignore
common sense and facts of reality? Are you in such a hurry to ignore the
reality of how computers work?

>> This means all those textures which
>> were saturating your memory bandwidth and bus can now be loaded, ONCE,
>> onto your video card. That also means more main memory may suddenly be
>> available. If you were paging before and offloading the textures
>> prevents this, it can make a **HUGE** performance difference (of
>> course, adding memory would probably be recommended too). Again, this
>> can result in new life in a slightly older computer.
>
> You sure are making a lot of new assumptions about the computer in
> question. No decent game PC built in the last year or two is going to be
> running into ANY paging issues playing games. Besides, if you ARE
> running into problems like that, no simple video card upgrade is going
> to produce any significant improvement in frame rates.

Of course I'm making assumptions. You are too. A broad and generalized
question was asked. Only a fool can assume anything other than broad and
generalized answers. My answers attempted to cover the broadest range of
possibilities and offered facts to support them. Your answers made far
too many specific assumptions. I'm simply correcting/expanding/offering
additional detail.

>
>> Because computers, video cards, drivers, and the 3d software which is
>> running greatly differs, it's impossible to answer in absoluetes what
>> type of return you'll get by moving up to a new card.
>
> That depends on your absolute. I specifically limited my comment to the
> situation where CPU and memory bandwidth are already the bottleneck. You
> know, "bottleneck". As in, the place where performance is most limited,
> leaving the other components at less than 100% utilization.

And I specifically limited my answers to how a newer card can address your
specifically poor assumptions about modern hardware. Again, I think it
went over your head. Care to point out these imagined absolutes that I
supposedly offered...other than hardware and software facts?

>
> Sure, if you try to broaden your assumptions, you can't make an absolute
> statement. But I didn't do that. You did.

Where did I make absolutes? My posting clearly went over your head. I
constantly said things like, "could", "maybe", etc...and stated specifics
conditions when there were exceptions. Get real.

>
>> Just the same, If you
>> are thinking of getting a new system, try a nice card first. You may
>> find that it gives you the extra life that you was wanting. If it
>> falls short, then you already have your video card for your new system.
>> Nothing is lost.
>
> Of course something is lost. If you are considering high-end hardware
> (and if you aren't, why are we talking about this at all?), then a new
> card is going to put you out somewhere in the $200-400 range. But just
> because you can afford a new card, that doesn't mean you can afford a
> whole new system. So now you've just wasted $200-400 in sunk capital.
> Capital that's useless to you until you've saved up the $1500-2500
> you'll need for the current fast hardware.

Oh brother. Back to reality. If you get a mid-range card
($175-$250), nothing is lost. I stated the exceptions. Obviously, he
only has a couple of options if he wants more power. One, get a new
system. Two, get a new system and card. Three, get a new card for his old
system. Four, do nothing and live with the fact that he won't have more
power.

Is comprehension really this problematic for you?

>
> Tell you what. How about you send me four $100 bills. I will keep them
> cozy for you, and I'll send them right back to you in six months.
> They'll work just as well then as they do today. Nothing is lost.
> Right? That's what you said.

I said no such thing. Is comprehension really this problematic for you?

The original question was, "HI pilots, Is it worth getting the expensive
new boards like the Radeon 9800 or gforce FX 5900 ie. is there sufficient
detail in FS 2004 to show off these boards?.......Comments welcome......"

I offered comments and expanded on your narrow and, IMO, overly specific
assumptions. I broadened them by offering additional details to a
generalized question. I offered hardware and software facts to back up my
assertions. No matter what, they are still based on assumptions. It's
just the my assumptions address a broader range of possibilities. Most
people prefer to make decisions based on knowledge rather than narrow
answers which may or may not address their specific situation. While all
of the possibilities I offered, may not address his situation, at least
some should.

Is comprehension really this problematic for you or are you upset that you
clearly don't know as much as you're trying to pretend you do?

If you want to specifically and in technical details explain why I'm
wrong, please feel free to do so. I must warn you that I am a programmer
and have a fair knowledge of what's going on under the covers. Feel free
to fire back if you insist.

[Peter Duniho]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> [...] I must warn you that I am a programmer
> and have a fair knowledge of what's going on under the covers.

I'm a programmer too and "have a fair knowledge of what's going on under the
covers". So what?

I am amused at how much text you went to the trouble to write, just to make
up a brand new argument, pretending it was the old one, and debating it as
if someone else actually said all the things you bothered to rebut.

As for your answering the original question, that's not what this subthread
is about. I made a perfectly accurate statement, and you claimed it was
false. Since you failed in that, you then proceeded to write an entirely
entertaining essay, making up a whole new argument, the purpose of which I
can only imagine is that you figured you'd have better luck with that one
than the previous one.

I do appreciate the time you've spent in pursuit of the amusement of the
rest of us though. Thanks!

Pete

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:30:59 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...] I must warn you that I am a programmer
>> and have a fair knowledge of what's going on under the covers.
>
> I'm a programmer too and "have a fair knowledge of what's going on under the
> covers". So what?
>
> I am amused at how much text you went to the trouble to write, just to make
> up a brand new argument, pretending it was the old one, and debating it as
> if someone else actually said all the things you bothered to rebut.
>
> As for your answering the original question, that's not what this subthread
> is about. I made a perfectly accurate statement, and you claimed it was
> false. Since you failed in that, you then proceeded to write an entirely
> entertaining essay, making up a whole new argument, the purpose of which I
> can only imagine is that you figured you'd have better luck with that one
> than the previous one.
>
> I do appreciate the time you've spent in pursuit of the amusement of the
> rest of us though. Thanks!
>
> Pete


I can only say that it's not very often a troll reels me in. Congrats.
You got me.

Should you actually want to know the truth, bother to go back and read
what I said. Hopefully Jim will wade through the find the facts.
Everything I've stated is accurate and factual. I seriously have no idea
who rang your bell, but troll is the best I can come up with to describe
your oddly combatant behavior.

I did notice, however, that you failed to respond to any of my requests
for specifics. I think that speaks volumes. Nuff said. Like I said, I
think Jim will be able to wade through.

[Bill]

I think it depends on your system CPU and power supply. These cards require
external power supply connections and I think a minimum of 350W or more. So
if you have less than that and do not like messing with upgrading your PSU
then dont bother. Think of the ATI9600XT which is a vg card. I installed it
, no extra power required and it improved everything. Modest frame rate
improvement but tremendous eye candy improvement. Better water/ocean effects
etc etc. It was worth every penny. I had a geforce 2 MX400 before so it was
a great leap.

On the CPU if you are not at or near the top then going with the very
expensive cards will not help performance much. Its like putting a rolls
royce engine in a VW (no offense meant to VW owners its a great car) :-)

my 2 cents

Bill
"Jim Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> HI pilots, Is it worth getting the expensive new boards like the Radeon
> 9800 or gforce FX 5900 ie. is there sufficient detail in FS 2004 to show
> off these boards?.......Comments welcome......Jim. N. London
>

[Pilot Pete]

I am thinking of upgrading my graphics card too.
My system is as follows.
Windows XP Home
120 gig HDD
1024mb of pc 3200 400mhz ram
AMD Athlon XP2600
Gigabyte 7vaxp mainboard.

Is this enough "main" hardware to do the radeon 9800 or equivalent some
justice.

Phil.
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jim Chambers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > HI pilots, Is it worth getting the expensive new boards like the
> Radeon
> > 9800 or gforce FX 5900 ie. is there sufficient detail in FS 2004 to
> show
> > off these boards?.......Comments welcome......Jim. N. London
>
> Flight simulators are extremely system intensive. That means the entire
> system as a unit, not just the video card. A good card is definately an
> asset, but a total waste if not installed in a fairly fast system with
> adaquate ram to back it up.
> Anyone contemplating a high end video card as an upgrade for flight
> simulators is well advised to take a good look at their entire system
> and make a decision based on the system as it will be after the card is
> installed. In other words, I's say that a HUGE percentage of people who
> spend big bucks on a high end video card should have spent the money
> first to upgrade their general system. It's a shame to see these people
> time and time again put out hard earned money and then want to know why
> their high end video card only gives them 5 FPS increase in performance
> along with driver conflicts caused by having to upgrade video drivers
> that are way ahead of their system's basic performance level.
> There comes a point when upgrading the system as a whole is the FAR
> better choice than just upgrading the video card!
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:07:14 +0100, Pilot Pete wrote:

> I am thinking of upgrading my graphics card too.
> My system is as follows.
> Windows XP Home
> 120 gig HDD
> 1024mb of pc 3200 400mhz ram
> AMD Athlon XP2600
> Gigabyte 7vaxp mainboard.
>
> Is this enough "main" hardware to do the radeon 9800 or equivalent some
> justice.
>
> Phil.
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Jim Chambers" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > HI pilots, Is it worth getting the expensive new boards like the
>> Radeon
>> > 9800 or gforce FX 5900 ie. is there sufficient detail in FS 2004 to
>> show
>> > off these boards?.......Comments welcome......Jim. N. London
>>
>> Flight simulators are extremely system intensive. That means the entire
>> system as a unit, not just the video card. A good card is definately an
>> asset, but a total waste if not installed in a fairly fast system with
>> adaquate ram to back it up.
>> Anyone contemplating a high end video card as an upgrade for flight
>> simulators is well advised to take a good look at their entire system
>> and make a decision based on the system as it will be after the card is
>> installed. In other words, I's say that a HUGE percentage of people who
>> spend big bucks on a high end video card should have spent the money
>> first to upgrade their general system. It's a shame to see these people
>> time and time again put out hard earned money and then want to know why
>> their high end video card only gives them 5 FPS increase in performance
>> along with driver conflicts caused by having to upgrade video drivers
>> that are way ahead of their system's basic performance level.
>> There comes a point when upgrading the system as a whole is the FAR
>> better choice than just upgrading the video card!
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>> For personal email, please replace
>> the z's with e's.
>> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>>
>>

Yes. You have plenty of machine to push data to the fastest of video
cards.

Nice system, btw.

[Dudley Henriques]

I would think so. That system shouldn't have any trouble at all running
FS9, or anything else for that matter :-) As for video cards, I
researched and tried several high end cards before ordering one for my
high end Hypersonic system. Be advised that when it comes to the choice
of video cards, someone suggesting one over another is not unlike
walking into the nearest bar and yelling, "I can lick any SOB in this
place" :-))
I'll only tell you that I opted for the FX 5900 Ultra 256 and it's doing
a superb job in FS9 with the sliders exactly where I want them, and this
doesn't mean maxed out to the right. Video settings should be custom set
in for each system independently and using an arbitrary "everything to
the right" and "as much frame rate as I can get" in my opinion isn't the
way to approach flight simulator.
If you have a good system, get a high end card; then "adjust" the
settings until you get them the way you want them to be. It's a
complicated process really, and there isn't a short answer. You'll no
doubt get a lot of short answers, but in my opinion anyway, what I've
told you is the way to go if my personal experience is of any value.
Best of luck with your card purchase regardless of which you decide on,
and have fun "tweaking" the system.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
"Pilot Pete" > wrote in message
...
> I am thinking of upgrading my graphics card too.
> My system is as follows.
> Windows XP Home
> 120 gig HDD
> 1024mb of pc 3200 400mhz ram
> AMD Athlon XP2600
> Gigabyte 7vaxp mainboard.
>
> Is this enough "main" hardware to do the radeon 9800 or equivalent
some
> justice.
>
> Phil.
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Jim Chambers" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > HI pilots, Is it worth getting the expensive new boards like the
> > Radeon
> > > 9800 or gforce FX 5900 ie. is there sufficient detail in FS 2004
to
> > show
> > > off these boards?.......Comments welcome......Jim. N. London
> >
> > Flight simulators are extremely system intensive. That means the
entire
> > system as a unit, not just the video card. A good card is definately
an
> > asset, but a total waste if not installed in a fairly fast system
with
> > adaquate ram to back it up.
> > Anyone contemplating a high end video card as an upgrade for flight
> > simulators is well advised to take a good look at their entire
system
> > and make a decision based on the system as it will be after the card
is
> > installed. In other words, I's say that a HUGE percentage of people
who
> > spend big bucks on a high end video card should have spent the money
> > first to upgrade their general system. It's a shame to see these
people
> > time and time again put out hard earned money and then want to know
why
> > their high end video card only gives them 5 FPS increase in
performance
> > along with driver conflicts caused by having to upgrade video
drivers
> > that are way ahead of their system's basic performance level.
> > There comes a point when upgrading the system as a whole is the FAR
> > better choice than just upgrading the video card!
> > Dudley Henriques
> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> > For personal email, please replace
> > the z's with e's.
> > dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
> >
>
>