would this be a good card for fs2004 will i notice a performance boost from my 9250

Whatever modern video-card is better than a ancient Radeon 9250.

This said, do not expect a dramatic boost. As average FS9 is more CPU power dependent than GPU, and without upgrading the CPU as well you will surely receive a good boost in some conditions, like complex sceneries and plane models, and a medium boost in presence of a great deal of AI planes (which depend on the CPU as much as the GPU), but little to nothing more in the same conditions that the old Radeon already gives you high FPS rates.

Keep in mind that when I say "good boost" and "medium boost" I speak relatively to your actual FPS rate. No miracles. If your actual FPS rate is, to say, around 20 on a complex plane model or scenery, where a good performance boost is to be expected, you can maybe 5 FPS more as an average. To have a superior FPS boost than this you MUST upgrade CPU (and preferably memory too) speed as well.

Groundbound1 wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 11:31am:


This is the ABSOLUTE FIRST TIME I've heard FS9 is GPU dependent more than FSX, and that this last depends more on the CPU, and I'm around ever since FS4.

You have it all wrong. Recheck and control your sources.

As about his CPU... Derrek surely knows what he has and if he need help for an upgrade, he'll ask.

Groundbound1 wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:


Who?

I cannot remember him and hardly can know everyone, but a search on the net gives me someone that has been active on FSX... only. If this is true, what does someone with only FSX experience know of comparative performance testing with a platform he doesn't use?

And, to close it all, if you're so sure FS9 is more GPU intensive, tell me please WHY on the same rig, with the actual same video density of autogen and effects lowered to FS9 standards, and using the same aircraft, it's FSX the one constantly trudging with lower FPS? For what you said to be true, it should be the other way around.

I could give you that sometimes FSX seems to be hungry for memory more than GPU power... in fact I remember on my old rig going from 1Gb to 1.5Gb improved performances dramatically with FSX... but really, FS9 more GPU power hungry than FSX? On what TV channel do they give it and at what time? I want to record it.

We can agree that a simulator is not a mere game (with Flight being the classical exception that confirms the rule, it being a mer[d]e game sold as a simulator) and for a simulator... WHATEVER THIS SIMULATOR THIS MAY BE... upgrading the sole video-card is like... mounting an oversized engine in a car. Unless you tune up a lot of other pieces, you won't see any real advantage out of it.

These other pieces are the CPU and memory, this last both in size and speed. Of course a faster HD helps too... and so does an audio-card with a self reliant chipset that does not use the PC's CPU to process audio data (a plague, lately, these audio interfaces that are dumber than an old ISA connector SoundBlaster 16 of all the way back in 1994 and only to save the 50 cents of the cost of a sound processor)...

There's no dearth of pieces to tune up to the new video-card's real or supposed power, anyway. Coming myself from a Radeon 9200 (back in 2004), I can attest that almost any other more advanced card is better. Of course, changing only the video-card hardly makes miracles in the the betterment of a sim's performances.

derrek_lee_25 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2012 at 11:41pm:


Derrick,

As some have said above, the 3450 would be a small upgrade from your on board graphics suite. If you want more bang for your buck, try finding a 1GB or larger video card based on your system specs and motherboard... the extra memory won't hurt, and you might as well get as much as your wallet will allow.

Hope this helps!

Alan