Simple question. Simple answer: no. I did yesterday couple of tests, since I got my new E6600 and rest of top components...Here are the results:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162598.zip

I have not reinstalled fs9 since upgrading to fsx. Suprised you are not seeing a benefit. Try fsx. I went from 10fps to 15fps (in a severe slider scneario) overclocking my E6400 from 2.1GHZ to 3.4GHZ.

Word Not Allowed, I know this may sound silly but I think that you are GPU limited.See also http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014654,00.aspRegards,

No no no, guys, please don't take my post wrong. This test was about FS9 ONLY. I very well know that in other applications and games overclocking might and does pay off. If SuperPI gives 14seconds instead 21, which it does when I overclock it to 3.6, of course one will see benefit in applications and some games.But my measurements shown that for FS9 on E6600, it brings NOTHING. Doesn't matter if I overclock CPU, FSB, RAM, GPU or all. Has no real influence. And no, I believe there is nothing wrong with my tests, because 3DMark06 and SuperPI both show improvement (tested no OCed and completely OCed).

Had exactly the same results Just purchased the Core2Duo 6600 and I was very satisfied with out of the box performance. I run my sim on a dual screen setup with 1900x1200 for VC and 1600x1200 for 2d popup panels. I run most sliders except clouds maxed out and it runs steady at 26fps locked except in heavy thunderstorms where it would drop to about 12-14fps. Wanting to see if I couuld get any performance boost in the heavy thunderstorm scenario I decided to overclock step by step to see the framerate increase(I thought) I would get. I was both surprised and disappointed when I slowly climbed in steps from 2.4Ghz to 3.1Ghz and an amazing result...absolutely no increase in FPS all the way(YES, I did set the FPS to unlimited in FS9 display setup). I also have a very overclocking friendly motherboard, AB9 PRO with a special utility to overclcok called Uguru, but alas no success. I have the ATI850 which I find to be an excellent card but I do wonder if it represents some kind of limitation, but my next purchase will be the upcoming radeon monster, maybe that will yield better results.CheersJon T.

Word Not Allowed and Jon,I am glad you guys did that test.I had this inkling that I did not get a perceptable FPS increase in FSX (FS9..I don't care cause its already running at 40-80FPS).I was wondering about that. I may now just for the heck of it tone down my OC running at 3.47 to 2.4 (E6600) and see if I get a FPS loss.I have also Overclocked my nVidea 8800GTX a little from freq 575MHz to 622Mhz. (Thats the max I could go). I get 2% more in the 3DMark results.The interesting Q then is... why does it run with lower FPS in a lower CPU? Or does it? We should ask the ACES folks that Q. :(Manny

Interesting observation. Every other CPU I've overclock has generally revealed a proportional FPS increase with FS9, but I can't say I've measured the difference with my C2D yet (I just OC out of habit :-lol).One thing I do suggest to those testing such things is to make your test scenarios easily repeatable and independently measurable (FRAP is best for this), otherwise gut feel and wavering FPS numbers are too hard to quantify.Will report back on my findings with both FS9 and FSX (Beta 3).Gary

I measured according to the Average FPS display in FS9.

OK, I've done a comparison of FS9 performance at two different C2D core speeds in three different saved situations. I let each situation load and stabilise for a few seconds, then used FRAPS to measure a 30 second average FPS. All sliders are to the right except traffic is set to 80% and clouds are set to the highest preset, AA/AF is 4X/8X. resolution is 1680x1050 windowed.Situation 1 - KSFO in LDS 767 VC view facing the terminalSituation 2 - default FS9 flight ie. Cessna at KSEA rwy 34RSituation 3 - First flight kittyhawk that came pre-saved with FS9Core Speed = 2.13GHz (stock E6400)Situation 1 - 28 FPSSituation 2 - 34 FPSSituation 3 - 97 FPSCore Speed = 3.2GHz (+50%)Situation 1 - 41 FPS (+46%)Situation 2 - 47 FPS (+38%)Situation 3 - 112 FPS (+15%)As you can see, the more complex Situation 1 responded almost directly proportionally to the clock speed increase with a 93% conversion of core speed increase to FPS increase, whereas the much simpler Situation 3 gave a 30% return. FS9 on a C2D is as much CPU bound in complex situations as any other CPU I have thrown at this title. The only explanation I have for your results Word Not Allowed is that the higher FPS you measured indicates to me that your test scenario was very graphically and AI simple in comparison to mine, which is where CPU speed matters much less. Try a complex airport with lots of AI and some good cloudage and I'm sure you'll see the same results I have that CPU speed makes all the difference in these scenarios.BTW, my previous systems (A64 3700+, 1G RAM, X800XT) pulled around 23 FPS in Situation 2, so my new C2D rig pulls double the FPS @ 3.2GHz and even more when I push it up to 3.6GHz (although I'm not entirely comfortable with the 1.57V core I need to run at this top speed - 3.2GHz runs at stock voltage for me). Very impressive indeed.Gary

Alright, that makes a lot of sense. Must admit I didn't think of that. Will try some complex situations.

Thanks for that clinical study Gary. That was helpful and You saved me some work. :)Manny

So, after all you were GPU limited ;)Regards,

GPU limited? Hmm...I had the 7600GT 2 months ago when I built my system and yes..That could have been the weak link. Now, I have to 8800GTX. :)Manny

Sorry, the comment was referring to Word Not Allowed :-doh In any case being GPU limited does not mean that the GPU is cr@p, just that in a particular scenario a GPU can be the limiting factor frame wise. Btw I'd love to be GPU limited with a 8800GTX...Regards,

You think? With X1950? Somehow I doubt that...Today gonna do tests with complex scenery.