• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

256MB 9700 or 128MB 9800 Pro for MS FS2004?

Soldato
Joined
27 Sep 2005
Posts
5,909
Location
Burbage, Hinckley
I am setting up someones system to play Flight Sim 2004. He has a 9700 256MB already but I have an old 128MB 9800 Pro which I could pass his way. I need to know if GPU power is more important in flight sims or would extra memory for textures etc be more beneficial???
 
FS2004 doesn't require too much gfx power to be honest. I ran it perfectly using my old 6600 256mb card. As for the new Flight Sim X its a different story! Have been on a lot of Fsim forums and they all say you need serious gfx power to run it effectively. Hope this helps
 
Isnt fs2004 highly cpu dependant? I thought it'd run a-ok with just a heavy cpu (like a core 2 duo @ 3.6 ghz) and any dx9 card (even something like geforce 6200/ati9500)
 
FSX only needs a 32MB DX9 card so it should run well on a low-end card, and with a Core 2 Duo the game will run great
 
RaiderX said:
FSX only needs a 32MB DX9 card so it should run well on a low-end card, and with a Core 2 Duo the game will run great

did u ever try it? Any forums I have read on the issue say that it is all graphics card dependent and that the specs on the tin are so unrealistic!
 
I have ran FSX on my system which (Dell XPS M1710 laptop, intel Centrino Duo 2.16Mhz & 512MB Go7900GTX) and it runs ok but it's still a bit slow on the fps... must take a REALLY high end system to run it on max settings!!!
 
FS2004 will quite happily run on either of the cards mentioned by the op as long as your not running at silly resolutions , presonally I'd go with the 9800.
 
Back
Top Bottom