Simviation Forums

sorry if this has been covered before, i have pieced together a pc for playing fs2004 on.

details are: windows xp pro, athlon xp 1.5gig, 2gig ddr ram, 150gb hd, 19" monitor

graphics card ati radeon 9200 128mb.

question is, is the graphics card good enough for fs2004, i have read a couple of other threads and think i made the wrong impulse buy, and should have gone for the geforce fx 5200.

any help and constructive advice welcome, i can return the graphics card if it is felt that it needs replacing.

Well my advice here would be:

2gig ram is totally overkill.  1gig is more than enough for gaming and home use, you only need more for intense graphical work.  So with the money you save yourself only getting 1gig ram go and get a 9800pro or FX5900.  I would personally go for the ATI but only coz my bro has one and his FS2004 looks real good.

Here is a list of cards and the bench scores:

ok, thanks so far -

is the grahics card that i have upto the job for fs2004?

I asked the same question, pretty much (below). I also have the 9200 and it seems that we might just get away with it. I have FS2002 installed at the moment and the frame rates are very good (except with very heavily AI-populated add-on airports like a detailed Heathrow).

It depends what you would describe as 'up to the job'.  For me no your g/card isnt good enough as I couldn't turn up the settings enough at my preferred resolution and have Anti-alias and Anistropic Filtering on.

It will run the game though it just wouldn't meet my required demands  ;)

I currently have a GF4 ti4600 and for me it isn't man enough  ;D but it is years old now and when I got it it was a good card its just aged a bit.

Regarding the FX5200, there are many people in these forums who swear they are a great card.

I just tried one (a 128mb version) on two high end machines and I couldn't get any sort of performance out of it at all, FS2004 performance was horrible.

In terms of video cards, the Nvidia FX line is bad.  They provide good performance in terms of frame rates, but you don't get the same type of image quality that ATi provides.  Try to aim for the Radeon 9800 Pro, or at least the 9600XT.  But whatever you do, don't get suckered into any of the SE variants.

2 gig of ram is overkill.  Max out at 1gig for now, even 512 is sufficient.  

As for your processor, what model number is it i.e. XP 2400+.

Intel and AMD have different clock speeds, so an AMD 2GHz processor will run similar to an intel 3Ghz

In terms of video cards, the Nvidia FX line is bad.  They provide good performance in terms of frame rates, but you don't get the same type of image quality that ATi provides.  Try to aim for the Radeon 9800 Pro, or at least the 9600XT.  But whatever you do, don't get suckered into any of the SE variants.

2 gig of ram is overkill.  Max out at 1gig for now, even 512 is sufficient.  

As for your processor, what model number is it i.e. XP 2400+.

Intel and AMD have different clock speeds, so an AMD 2GHz processor will run similar to an intel 3Ghz

Intel and AMD have different clock speeds, so an AMD 2GHz processor will run similar to an intel 3Ghz

Erm, No! When AMD moved from the 'Thunderbird' class of Athlon to the XP, they included a number of technology enhancements in the core of the processor - this meant that a simple comparison between T'BIrd and XP processors on the basis on Megahertz alone would give very misleading results, and understate the actual performance of the XP.

If you compare an XP and a T'Bird running at the same clock speed, the XP will be significantly faster in actual performance.

So AMD did a huge series of benchmark tests using some 35 industry standard benchmarks on the XP's and T'Birds, and created a rating that compares relative performance of the XP with the speed a T'Bird would need to be to give that same performance.

Despite many pronouncements by people that should know better, including some magazines, it is NOT any form of a comparison to Intel processors, whether that be the P4 or anything else.

The logic behind this is that people want a yardstick to measure the performance they are actually paying for, and that clock speed (Megahertz) is no longer a good reflection of comparitive performance.

[quote]Well my advice here would be:

2gig ram is totally overkill.

In terms of video cards, the Nvidia FX line is bad.  They provide good performance in terms of frame rates, but you don't get the same type of image quality that ATi provides

woah woah woah hold on there buddy your forgetting the absolute beast of the fx range the 5950 ultra. now this baby i swear by as still one of the greatest graphics cards on the market...ATI have had a far more share of problems (a lot of them from quality) than the fx range and this one has caused me no problems since i bought it about 6 month ago now.

about the processors anything up to the athlon xp2000 is not worth the money and if you can still get hold of them i would suggest a 1.4 thunderbird them babys ran a little hot but were fantastic processors.

Can I echo the last comment, made by Daz.  I'm running an FX5900U (Daz, they're obviously paying you too much, lol), and get good results.  Even with some of my recent payware purchases, noted fps-killers all, I'm getting 15-20 fps+ (yes, even with the Eaglesoft Citation X).

I did read somewhere the all of the FX cards can be upgraded to 5950U status by upgrading the bios, just not brave enough to try it myself!  However, on that basis the FX5900XT would be a good buy, witht he ability to update it to an absolute killer card!

i know i didnt know about teh bios hacks at the time of purchase i spent