Graphics Card

[CombatAce]

Am planning on getting a new graphics card this week but wanted to know which is more recommended..


ATI RADEON 9200 128MB DDR AGP Graphics Card

eVGA.com e-GeForce FX 5200 128MB AGP Graphics Card

BFG Technologies Asylum GeForce FX 5200 128MB AGP Graphics Card

PNY GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR AGP Graphics Card

ATI ALL-IN-WONDER VE 64MB DDR Graphics Card

http://www.flight-xtreme.com/upload/.../UAC1721-6.jpg
www.flyunity.com
http://www.flyunity.com/odbc/profile.asp?mbr=1721

Alex "CombatAce" Barrios
MSN- Rockerinc0808@hotmail.com

[pvalexl]

Go for a Radeon 9500...They aren't much more expensive than the card that are listed above and trust me you will love the preformance of it!

Pentium 4 3.0 w/ 800 mhz FSB
1024 Dual Channel PC3200 DDR
Radeon 9800 Pro
Windows XP Pro

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/Use...ab5e4b3e9d.jpg

[keaja]

I'd recommend a 9700 Non-Pro, I picked myn up for $199 and the performance is outstanding.

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/Use...1172040a02.jpg

Captain Jason Winn
UPS905

Atlanta ZTL ATC
DEL/GND/TWR

Amd Xp 2700+ 333
1 Gig Cosair PC2700 XMS 333
Epox 8RDA+
Antec 400 Watt PSU W/ Dual Fans
Radeon 9700
Windows 2000
Sound Blaster Live Audigy 2
80 Gig Maxtor 7200 Rpm 8MB Buffer

[pvalexl]

Jason,

Hey did you get your mipmap problem worked out?

Pentium 4 3.0 w/ 800 mhz FSB
1024 Dual Channel PC3200 DDR
Radeon 9800 Pro
Windows XP Pro

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/Use...ab5e4b3e9d.jpg

[natman2]

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jun-28-03 AT 07:00AM (EDT)[/font][p]Right now ATI seems to be in the lead and even Nvidias latest and greatest seems to be headed for an advanced stage of "growing pains"

http://www.evga.com/community/messag...X+Family+Forum

I agree with keaja on his 9700 recomendation. Especially if its image quality that you are seeking.

No offense intended Nvidea fans I will return to the fold when they get back on track with there products.

[bigbear]

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jun-28-03 AT 10:16AM (EDT)[/font][p]Like i said before, but i like to help:

Flight Simulator is very much CPU-intensive and not graphics intensive. That's why if you upgrade from a GeForce 3 to a Radeon 9800 ULTRA, you will see only a max of about 1-2 FPS performance boost and a better picture quality. The only things that really put a strain on the graphics card in FS are AA and AF. So if you want a perfect looking picture with Anti-Aliasing 4x (no "staircase" lines) and anisotropic filtering 8X (no shimmering) WITHOUT LOSING FRAMERATE, get the 128 MB and DirektX 9 supporting ATI RADEON 9700 (standard version).

In FS2002 it's perfect you don't even need a 9700 PRO version (saves 100$ !) or an expensive 9800 ULTRA.
For FS2002 (and surely for 2004 that will support DirectX 9) the 9700 is better value than the NVIDIA GEFORCE 4 (directX 8) and even the FX series (directX 9): only the newest very expensive FX 5900 (not even the 5800!) is really faster than the Radeon 9700 with AA and AF on. Look at the tests in www.tomshardware.com or http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/

Of course the Radeon 9700 cost a bit more than a NVIDIA TI4200-8x buth is really worth it!

I run FS2002 at 1280 / 1024 /32 with anti-aliasing 4x and anisotrop filtering 8x. Beautifull picture, no "stairs"!
Target framerate locked on 24 : for me this is completely fluent and it gives the processor maximum resources for textures and other stuff. FS2002 flies like a dream even with my favorite but "framerate-eater" DREAMFLEET B737-400!
I have ALL options AND hardware things on, ALL DISPLAY-sliders on MAX, except for: VISIBILITY on 90 miles, CLOUDS on 75 recommended by the beautifull freeware FS SKYworld 2002 SE clouds addon.
ATC seems the be the biggest frame-eater: Normally i use 50 but with very heavy addon airports (like AIRPORT 2002 vol 1 by WILCO)with lots of AFCAD traffic, the best setting seems to be 25% for the best framerate. (which can drop to 10 fps or less in that case !!)

I have a friend with the same computer except for the video card: he has a Radeon 9700 PRO. Difference in framerate: NONE !
With this videocard it's the processor that is the "bottleneck" not the card.

Read also:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/forums/s...&threadid=6586
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa..._3.4/page8.asp
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...tra/page13.asp
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...iew/page7a.asp

For AA 4x / AF 8x: (and remember: no difference in FS2002 between the 9700 PRO and the slightly slower 9700 normal)

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...iew/page11.asp
http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphi...0-5200-24.html

COMMANCHE 4 is comparable to FS2002 because it's also a DIRECTX 7/8 program and a simular "processor killer".

Enough frame rates (fluent=24) means 512 MB (DDR)ram and a faster PROCESSOR which will NEVER be fast enough !


Bigbear

Pentium 4 2.66 GHZ
MOTHERBOARD: ASUS P4PE
512 MB DDR 333 Ram (PC 2700)
HERCULES 3D PROPHET 9700 (=standard RADEON 9700 )
WESTERN DIGITAL WD 800 JB (7200 RPM - 80 GB)
Soundblaster Audigy Player
WINDOWS XP PROFESSIONAL

3DMark 2001 SE: 13340
3DMark 03 : 4108

[MIKEYORCHIE]

radeon 9700 sucks, bad drivers, bad support, Nvidia rules, extremely good drivers, extremely good support, lalalala, FS2002 sucks!

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/Use...3912ca723c.jpg

Mainboard: KT266B Jetway
CPU: AMD Athlon XP 1700+
Memory: 256mb PC2100 DDR
GFX: MSI GeForce FX 5600 128mb @ 350mhz clock speed and rising . :-)
OS: Windows XP Pro
Internet Connection: 512k ADSL

[shwncplnd]

As the saying goes, what is one man's treasure is another man's trash....and the same vice versa. :-) Just picture ATI and NVidia climbing Mt. Everest.

Shawn
Nobody beats the Rizz

[MIKEYORCHIE]

I'm gonna pay the CEO's of both companies to do that, holding there best graphics card that they have in thier pants :-)

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/Use...3912ca723c.jpg

Mainboard: KT266B Jetway
CPU: AMD Athlon XP 1700+
Memory: 256mb PC2100 DDR
GFX: MSI GeForce FX 5600 128mb @ 350mhz clock speed and rising . :-)
OS: Windows XP Pro
Internet Connection: 512k ADSL

[panzerschiffe]

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-03 AT 01:47PM (EDT)[/font][p]That's bupkiss, I noticed quite a difference moving from the Ti4200 to the 9700 Pro. With the Ti4200 I had to move the sliders down to hit the FPS I wanted (locked at 25), but with the 9700 Pro I can max the sliders, turn on AA, max the AF (16X for the Radeons, unlike just 8X for the GF4's), eat a slice of pizza and burp the coke obnoxiously loud and my FPS never drops below the lock. If you want something that'll last a little while, and be great for FS2004 whenever you make that step, don't settle for second rate garbage. Get a 9500/9700, or one of the comparable Nvidia types (which I don't know which one it is).

Albaro Villegas SPC [link:www.army.mil|US Army] | FDX1243 [link:www.vfedex.com|Virtual Fedex]
http://thescorned.homestead.com/big.jpg
www.md11.net www.vfedex.com | [link:www.ifdg.net|iFDG] - MD-11 Designer
No more Disco Chicken because he's 24 pixels too tall.
The mods are watching me!