FS X or 2004 with this system and do I wait for Vista

Tarquinius Guest


i know there a number of threads covering various aspects of this, but I thought it would be useful to get a summary of the situation in one place?

I'm looking for some advice. My father in law currently plays FS 2000 on a (very !) old machine. (600 MHz)

He now wants to buy a new PC (but doesn't want to spend too much, say £600 - specs below) and also upgrade to new FS software.

So the question is, with a machine of this standard (see specs below), will it run X to a good standard, or would it more within its capability to go for FS 2004? (I've read a lot of comments that X needs a top end system to play really well).

Also, does anyone have views on whether Vista will solve a lot of these issues with X? So even if this system won't work well for X under XP, is it likely that the same system will work well for X if it has Vista?

Any advice gratefully received.

System spec of new £600 machine as follows:

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ processor (2.4 GHz) (no point in a dual processor?)

256 MB ATI Radeon X1300 Pro PCI Express Graphics card

2 MB RAM (DDR2 533 MHz)

Any view on how will this will run FS X (and FS 2004) - both with and without Vista ?

Thanks for your help - it is much appreciated

7 Responses

Pro Member First Officer
2robplaying First Officer


Pro Member Chief Captain
RadarMan Chief Captain

With a bit of tweaking he should be able to run it just at or just below default and get nice FPS.

And yes it would run 2004 (FS9) nicely.



Yes, your new system should run FSX fine at medium settings. Although FSX is a DirectX9 game, it will alot smoother under Windows Vista as DirectX10 provides an improved graphics pipeline for DirectX9 too.

I have found that FSX requires massive amounts of memory and at least 256MB of 256bit DDR3 VRam on the Video Card.


BTW... I am using the Demo at the moment and my 128MB 6600GT can handle 25-30FPS at Medium High settings in all the missions. But with only 1GB of system memory the demo is using over 1GB of swapfile which makes loading times and starting very slow along with the odd stutter when panning in Virtutal Cockpit.


Oh and finally....after flying the FSX demo for an hour or too I usually spend another hour of flying in FS2004 and I got to say that there is not really much difference between both sims. Apart from the smoother flying experience and much better weather effects in the Virtual Cockpit in FS2004, I find FSX has only much improved the autogen scenery and textures along with the annoying cars and trucks 😂

Pro Member Trainee
Splitdog Trainee

I have always had a problem with FS 2004. The planes don't fly at all like 2002. I think 2002 is more realistic. The flight dynamics, i mean.

lemonwonder Guest

Erm I may be crazy, but u cant even load msn messenger on 2mb of ram can ya? Nevermind windows xp and then the game and everything....

All times are GMT Page 1 of 1

Related Questions