I would like to buy a present for my boyfriend and he loves Flight Simulator so i was thinkin of buying maybe a graphics card for about £100 for his compaq laptop which has the vista OS. But I do not knw which to get. I am not even sure its a graphics card Im looking for, just a type of hardware which will make flight simulator sun smoothly and look good. I was looking around and I read that a video card also makes a difference. Is this true? I think at the moment he has NVIDIA GeForce 6400 supporting 128MB/Mo.
Thankyou so much
I would recomend a graphics card with 512 MB of memory but if money is an issue you can also get a 256mb card. and make sure it fits in his computer ex: pci to pci or pci express to a pciexpress port.
hope this helps
Right now, the best video cards that are capable of withstanding FSX demands are the Nvidia GeForce 8800 series (GTX or GTS). I don't know the latest ATI Video cards but as long as they are Direct X 10 ready, then you should have no problems.
Can I put that it the HP slimline pavilion s7700y?
If the current graphics card in integrated will the upgrade still allow the media features such as tivo and surround sound to work?
There is no graphics card that can run this game smoothly to its full potential, even a Nvidia 8800GTX in SLi will not run FSX at max. Wait until the next generation of graphic cards come out with DX10 better than the 8 Series. Plus your not gonna get anything for £100 to make it run smoother. I would save that £100 and wait.
For fellow simmers....
Who cares if people can get 40 frames with a 8800GTX in rural areas with autogen cut back and traffic density to zero. If you can run this game with 35 frames or more in Urban areas like tokyo and london with max autogen, 100% traffic, etc then i will applaud and say this graphics card will handle FSX. Otherwise stop saying you can run this game maxed out. This game has been released ahead of its time, a year to early i think. Shame because this game is awesome pity about the shabby ATC/Pilot voices.
I cant justify why this game needs so much GPU usage, CPU and RAM when the textures and graphics aint that super. Buildings dont look realistic, the ground textures from the sky look perfect, go up close and roads and fields are just superimposed on the land texture, no realness to it. So why so power hungry?
Also Compaq is well known to have integrated boards like, graphics cards etc with minilam upgrade possiblity, so even if you did buy your boyfriend a graphics card it may not be able to be fitted or compatible.
I.e Do you know what AGP, PCi, PCi Express, PCi Express x16 mean?
My computer has pci express16. Will going from 128 to 256 make a signicant diference?
Also, I have a widescreen and the default is set for 1024 by 768. Should I increase this? Will this help?
People are also grossly misinformed on whether or not the graphics cards are the REAL problems with FPS... For instance, I own an NVIDIA GeForce 7600GTKO 256mb... When I had my Pentium D running at 3.6ghz, was lucky if I got 15-16fps in urban areas, but mostly hang out around 10fps, with roughly 60% autogen and scenery.
The moment I changed to a Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86ghz), noticed that without touching ANYTHING jumped to nearly 28fps!!! I couldnt believe it. I then decided to up the scenery... I then was running at roughly 80% scenery with 18-22fps... when I maxed out all scenery sliders, I noticed I dropped down to 12-14fps... Well, I then decided to take the awesome overclocking abilities of this chip and see what happens... I overclocked to 2.94ghz and took my 2gigs of 533ghz DDR2 to 630ghz of overclocking.
I then went back into the sim and noticed... 26fps!!! This is in Los Angeles with ALL scenery sliders maxed... EVERYTHING!! I did notice the occasional stuttering, but its rare, and nothing significant. I decided to back the water down to 2.x Mid since this stopped the stuttering.
I then decided to perform another test... My 7600GTKO is factory clocked at 580mhz with 2 x 750mhz DDR3 @ 1500mhz effective. I added a Zalman cooler and maxed the overclockablility of the card at 635mhz and 1650mhz Mem... Guess what... no change in performance. So I then went the other way, underclocked it at 480mhz and 1000mhz mem effective and guess what... same performance!
I then dedided to perform one last test... I turned on a small 3D benchmark utility that consists of a bunch of floating marbles... This charges up the 3d accelerator on the card and gives me real time temp, speed, and usage of the 3D memory and core speeds... when this is on, everything jumps, you can see the card working. When I turn on Counter-Strike, same thing... But when you turn on FSX, nothing changes. It stays at idle speeds, temps, etc. the temp doesnt even rise 2*c when running FSX in urban areas..... Perplexing!
What does this mean?! Well, it appears, MS programmed this is a processor based sim, rather than graphics based. There is no script that lets the graphics card know its a 3D program, therefor, the card does not open itself up to broadening performance parimeters.
FSX is more concerned with your processor capabilities rather than your graphics capabilities which is why it does not benifit from SLI... MS needs to do some major reprogramming and release these changes in their first service pack.....
People re-read the OP it's a laptop!
I had noticed that, but was mostly responding to the mis-information being given regarding cards.
People re-read the OP it's a laptop!
Oops........ you're right.
My bad. There are no high-end graphic cards that are interchangeable for laptops, at least that I am aware of. Normally you woulsd have to buy a laptop specifically built for gaming. Then I am not even sure FSX will run like everyone else expects it to run.
thank you so much, I think I am better off saving my money and waiting. Instead Ill try save to buy the package where he can experience flight simulator at heathrow!
Good luck to future gamers