Yes, your question was answered.
For the second time...:
Both the 4350, and 4650 are slower than the 7900GT in MSFS. The 4350 is the slowest of them.
agreed, for both FSX and FS9 I found any thing from the 7900GT (and personially I think its on the low end) on up is good to use, I have never used ATI except once when I had the X700Radion card but I swaped that out for an nvidia (for got what card but i may still have the card some place) but the (least to me) 7900GT runs FSX margenally on medium settings and runs FS9 pretty well, with all possible settings maxed out (and FPS set to 20 - 30) but I went to the dual 8900GSO (sli though for some reason I think my system only finds one card since it only registers the 780MB and I have two cards with 780MB) but thats for another topic and I got FSX fully maxed out and it runs pretty smooth, so really it not only depends on the card(s) them selves
but it also depends on things like your CPU (centeral processor unit), RAM, FSB and how much ram and the type of procesor you have.
and yes you can have the best top of the line video card that can run FSX and FS9 fully maxed out at the same time, but if your ram and CPU arn't up to par for the task you might as well be running a 386...the CPU and ram (mor CPU then any thing else) is the most critical piece, why?
Because the CPU is the main bottle neck, its got to process just about every thing, yes the video cars now have there own built in GPU which can take the main bulk of the work off the CPU but your CPU still has to do other things like procesing data the GPU cant, and handeling I/O tasks (keyboard, mouse, ect) and the like.
Sorry, if its a bit technical, I work on computers and I am getting my degree in internet system security...hehe...plus been taking computers appart and building them since i was 4 (first one i ever had my hands on was a 386 which i still have hehe)