Howdy... Mister FNG new guy here....      First time on a computer forum... and was needing for a little help before plunking down 600 + bucks for a new card. I want to use my present computer for at least another year   a gateway gt5222e 3.2 intel chip that I have up graded with the Creative SB A 2 ZS sound system...with the external head unit, an additional CD drive, 650 watt power supply, and an ATI X1950 Pro 256 with the silenty cooling heat sink and fan overclocked with the ati overdrive and an acer 24" LCD screen running 1920 X 1200 32. There is only one PCIE bay available but...as IM sure you all know... there is room for a double slot card converted to work just like my X1950 is. I use FS 2004 (9) a lot and FS X ( I have a private pilot lic. and an instrument rating and use this to practice inst apch. and to stay current when I cant go out and fly my usual ride... a 2006 Cessna 182 with the garmin g1000 dash) but the frame rates are crap on FSX with anything but low settings. No second PCIe slot so IM going to have to settle for a single until I build my own setup later on this year. I was thinking about an overclocked 8800..... and cutting the back of the computer and relocating the rear fan to use the stock on board fan...or better yet purchasing a silent cooling fan/sink set up made for this card...35 bucks or so. Have searched the web and the only info that I have found is that a 8800 GTX is slightly faster on the frame rates than my x1950... but the 8800 ultra over clocked has to do better. IM real good with electronics and have behind me in my home office 5 totally rebuilt from the ground up full size las vegas slot mach.... all running 98% pay back chips and rare games...so doing a modification should  be an easy task for me. What do you think? For the money is the ultra the way to go?  Thanks!   Tim

Get either a 3870X2 or 9800GX2.
 
Both cards are using newer tech than the 8800GTX / Ultra's, and in most cases offer better performance.
 
Or.... wait a few days for the 9800GTX, which should be priced reasonably well.

Ultra is never the way to go To be quite honest FSX is HEAVILY CPU bound (And I'm assuming you either have a single core or a Pentium D), so I would recommend you get a Quad core (either Intel Q series such as the Q6600 or even a Phenom if the latter is not within your budget), have available at least 2GB of ram, and buy a 8800GTS 512MB, or if you'd like to up the graphics card a notch, then I'd say an HD 3870 X2.

Basically here are your priorities to get a good FSX experience:

1.) Quad core CPU (Q6600 or Phenom 9500/9600 if the Q6600 is too expensive)
2a.) Have at least 2GB of ram available.
2b.) At least 8800GTS 512MB, I would recommend however an HD 3870X2 for anyone using a 24" 1920x1200 screen.

EDIT: From the looks of it, the 9800GTX is just an 8800GTS 512MB overclocked with a big price tag on it, so if anything I'd say take the plunge for a HD 3870X2 if you're going that high.

Definitely agreed ^^

Everybody just stop right there!!!
 
FSX is not a GPU intensive game.  a 9600GT will net you similar frames to a 9800GX2.  Sadly you will need Vista x64, with a minimum of 4GB of memory, and either a Q6600 or an E8400 in order to run FSX with respectable framerates.
 
On a side note, with the proper memory and CPU, you can run FSX on an 8800GTS VERY VERY well, take a look at different simming forums and youtube videos.

by the way... very well said emp.  I couldn't agree more for the most part.  There are benchmarks out there that suggest that NVIDIA drivers for some reason are alot better than ATI in FSX.  And NVIDIA has an SLI profile for FSX if you choose that route.  I saw that the 3870x2 got half the frames of the 9800GX2 though, so just get an 8800GTS, you won't regret it.... But yes sadly FSX will run like a slide show on ANY single core CPU, even if it's a 3.4GHz chip.

Also I was re-reading your post.  You have a huge freaken monitor for that much CPU/GPU power.  your definately going to need to be at 1680 x 1050 or 1440 x 900 unless you go all out with a new rig.

Thanks....so what you are basically saying is the huge monitor is eating the frame rates up. What about running FSX in a lower setting...say 1680 X 1050... will that help? And also that the Ultra 8800 would ba a waste of money...right?  |Thanks!   |Tim

Yes to both in a way.  The 8800Ultra is a waste of money because the 8800GTS (G92) 512 is just awesome for the money, it's WAY cheaper with only a little less performance.  If you plan to upgrade your video card anyhow, you should take a VERY serious look into the 8800GTS (G92) 512.  Make sure it's the G92 512!! The older 8800GTS's are still out there for sale and are not near as powerful.
 
And yes your resolution affects framerates.
 
But you are mostly CPU limited, which is where I would focus my attention... unfortunately you'll probably need a new motherboard to upgrade though.  Do you know what socket your motherboard is?

Also have you tried the FSPax addon for FS9?  www.fspassengers.com  
I got it a year ago and LOVE it, it makes simming (from an airline standpoint that is) so much more realistic, it adds lots of new stuff to the arena like earning rank as a pilot and creating a company and failures to include bird strikes, stuck gear, hydraulic failure, oil pressure loss, fuel leak.  It's really worth the money.

FSX is very demanding on the CPU, I love the sim. I'm getting 40 fps using a X2 6400BE on Vista Ultimate X64 with 4GB of memory. I was running two X1900's with 512mb of GDDR3. As I'm planning on updating my video cards later this summer I sold my X1900 Master card and now I am only using a single X1900XTX. I'm running all grafics settings on max except for auto generated sceenary which I must run one step below the maximum. 40fps is extreamly smooth I may add.

Thanks again!  IM not sure what socket the mother board uses but...is it worth upgrading the cpu on a 1 1/2 year old computer like mine or should I just plan on building from the groung up...using my new power supply, ag2 zs sound board...and scrap the rest?  And thanks again for the info on the ultra's....and almost bought one of the older gts cards !  And IM going to try the FSP that you told me about...THANKS!   I have a ton of traffic loaded on the fs9 and profiles from  http://www.projectai.com/index.php    
Probably the only reason that I started using FSX is that it has the same dash that I use in real flight... the garmin g1000...on an 172.. but it still works great on an instrument approach fogged in with the terrain settings llow. But I like having things like the taxi way lights on...somthing you only get in the higher settings.
 
Thanks again!   Tim

 
Wow...IM lucky to even get the screen to pull up at the higher settings...with maybe 5 fps max!  Has to be pretty cool!

Honestly, in FSX, I cannot tell a difference between 20fps and 40fps.  
 
Get the best quad you can afford and either a 3870 or 9600GT.

cessnac, what specific CPU are you using? There is a huge difference between a Pentium 4 or Pentium D at 3.2GHz and a Core2 Duo at 3.2GHz.
 
As many have mentioned before, FSX is harder on the CPU than it is on the GPU. This is not to say that you can get away with a fast processor and a cheap GPU, but a 512MB 8800GTS will serve you very well in FSX for a helluva lot less than an 8800 Ultra or 9800GX2.
 
You should make it a priority to have at least a Core2 Duo (preferably quad) at 3GHz. A little bit of overclocking can save you a lot of money if you are willing to spend some time on it (a few hours for a beginner). Try to have at least 4GB of RAM as well. If you're really serious then you can move up to a 64bit OS if you haven't already.
 
I know that's a lot of work to get a flight simulator to run properly, but compared to the cost of flying a real plane I'd say it could be worth it. FSX is incredibly immersive on my <$1000 rig, which you can view by clicking the "more information" button to the left.

20fps is usually smooth for any game. With FXS the big thing is keeping a constant frame rate. If you can maintain 20fps in close to the ground flying in a large metropolitan area your gonna be fine. With my setup I have it capped at 40fps it will top out at 55fps but then when you hit the metropolitan areas it will drop back to low 40's and you can see the change when it makes the change. It's slight but you can see it.  
If your computer will only hit 20fps when you get to drawing a lot of objects close to the ground or say at an airport I bet the frame rate is dropping well below that.

Here is the info... I think this is a dual core  :
 
 
Specifications
Part Number: 4506268RIntel Pentium 4 524 Processor (3.06 GHz)
 
 
Following are the specifications for the Intel® Pentium® 4 524 Processor (3.06 GHz 533 MHz FSB, LGA775, EM64T).
Specifications are subject to change without notice or obligation.  
Feature Description  
sSpec Number SL8ZZ  
CPU Speed 3.06 GHz  
PCG 04A  
Bus Speed 533 MHz  
Bus/Core Ratio 23  
L2 Cache Size 1 MB  
L2 Cache Speed 3.06 GHz  
Package Type LGA 775  
Manufacturing Technology 90 nm  
Core Stepping B0  
CPUID String 0F49h  
Thermal Design Power 84 W  
Thermal Specification 67.7° C  
Core Voltage 1.25V-1.4V  
 
 
 

HD 3870X2 ... this card says that it is a pcie 2.0.   Does the 2.0 make any difference on the pcie slot ? Thanks!  Tim

Hey that socket is LGA 775.    Your processor is a piece of junk but that is the same socket is say an intel C2D 6750, which is a very nice upgrade for you.... provided your motherboard supports it! (it might not)