A quick edit (my edit time has expired), I was a bit harsh on ATI card recommendations in my final para, as I rarely, if ever, advocate paying for top of the line hardware (OCing to get there is another story :-)). It should have read:"If I haven't said it before, once you've met FSX's basic needs of 2G RAM, a mid range nVidia video card (7800 or better) or a mid-high end ATI video card (1950+), and at least two cores to spread out the FSX + addon + OS load, then CPU speed is the absolute major influence on FSX performance from there on up, no matter how you get there ;-)"Gary

Gary.... WOW, that's an incredible graph!!! Tell Cameron not to do whatever he did at 3:00 and the difference probably isn't noticeable to the human eye. ;-) Your results are even more amazing in light of the variation in graphics cards, sound, amount of RAM, etc. It certainly illustrates your point that once you reach a certain threshold, "clock speed is king!" It would be fascinating to see the same graph with a quad-core and an E6850 added into the mix. And then compare it with the guy who's got the 5GHz water-cooled system just to make the rest of us weep! Getting back to the "Great RAM Discussion," I realized that I have until tomorrow before Newegg's sale ends. Checking their prices on all of their DDR2-1066 offerings, the Patriot is the cheapest at $124 (through tomorrow) and I'm not yet sure that I'll need 1066 anyway. So I'll probably go ahead and buy the Corsair DDR2-800 tomorrow... unless I can think of an incredibly compelling reason to part with the extra $53. :-) For the motherboard, it looks like the P35-DS3R is the one I want. It will take me a few weeks to purchase my other components, but you've been a great help in putting me on the right track with some of the most difficult and confusing choices. Thanks again.... Lee P.S. That graph deserves an article on AVSIM's front page! I bet it would be shocking to a lot of people, as it certainly has been to me.

I've found the Asus P5K Deluxe to be decent but mine was FSB limited.It maxed out at 399 FSB. The EXX50's are harder to overclock as they have lower multipliers needing higher fsb's. With a 6750, 399x8 took it to about 3.2Ghz. The 6850 would be a better bet to hit 399x9 = 3.6Ghz.Even better the Q6600 and Q6700 quads, have 9x and 10x mults making it easier to over clock with a lower FSB, but they run very hot...Lots of fun, FSX works fine at 3Ghz with a duo in most areas, anything more is icing on the cake :)

I bought Corsair for my 1st system because of the name too. It has been rock solid, but only at its rated speed. I had visions of O/C-ing glory and I was sure Corsair would get me there. But sadly, it totally locked up at even a 5% O/C. I know now it really didn't matter, but I wanted a cool toy.With any of those choices, you will have a guaranteed O/C from the default. In the case of the E6X50 series, the CPU will cause the mobo's FSB to default to 333mhz. Any ram you pop into the slot will run at a default 333x2= DDR'd 666mhz. To O/C your CPU, you will be turning up the FSB. How far can you go without causing your DDR2-800 to burst into flames? RightO. 400 mhz is the highest you can take the FSB and have a guarantee your DDR2-800 ram will run without an issue. Now, how far did that get your CPU. An E6750 uses a 333 mhz FSB to drive it via a 8X multiplier. That's its default setting. 333 x 8= 2.66mhz. Now, leave the multiplier alone and bring up the FSB . . .to what? How about 400mhz. That's a goos starting point because your ram is guaranteed to run there. Now the CPU is using a 400mhz FSB to drive it by that same 8X multiplier. What's your new CPU O/C? 400mhz x 8 = 3.2Ghz? I think so too. I'll bet that E6750 will run there, no problem. Wanta go somemore? Try it. That OCZ stuff looks A-OK. Forget about those timing numbers. That's total geekville stuff. If you give up on that Corsair ram you might be able to squeeze a bit more speed out of an alternate choice. It's play time. Ram O/C: First take the CPU's multiplier down a notch in the bios. This will get the CPU slowed down. We're checking ram now. Now take the FSB up to 410 (DDR 820, right?) then 420 (DDR 840, woah!). Keep going. When the ram finally hits its limit, it will burst into flames! Kidding!! The system just will not post. Back it off a notch. Running OK? Good. Now turn the CPUs multiplier back up. What will the CPU's new speed be? Still running?Well, it looks like we have a winner here. Somemore? Now, we want to see how far the CPU will go. Slow the ram down with a 5/4 divider (20%). This will slow down the ram so you can tell how fast the CPU will go. Crank the FSB on up 'till it won't go no more. This is your CPU's limit. Back it off a notch. Now use the ram speed setters (dividers/presetters/what-ever-G-uses) to dial the ram back to its maximum capability. Run Prime 95 overnight. If it survives, you're set. I had a pal bring me an ad for a $9000 VooDoo the other day. After we were done, he still looking to spend that left over $8000 bucks. I had some suggestions.

>Gary.... WOW, that's an incredible graph!!! Tell Cameron>not to do whatever he did at 3:00 and the difference probably>isn't noticeable to the human eye. ;-) Your results are even>more amazing in light of the variation in graphics cards,>sound, amount of RAM, etc. It certainly illustrates your>point that once you reach a certain threshold, "clock speed is>king!" The benchmark is set a flight path on GPS autopilot, so Cameron shouldn't have had any influence at the 3 min mark. It was most likely one of his background processes I forgot to shut down beforehand that caused a minor stutter at that point.>It would be fascinating to see the same graph with a quad-core>and an E6850 added into the mix. And then compare it with the>guy who's got the 5GHz water-cooled system just to make the>rest of us weep! That's why I call my benchmark unfamous - people are very impressed with its worth as a repeatable comparator with my systems, but do you think I can get anyone else, especially someone with a quaddie, to run it? Perhaps the potential truth it may reveal scares people away. :-hmmmGary

Hmmm.... interesting points, Sam. If only I knew what an overclock above 3.2GHz would mean in terms of FSX performance! I found the following post in one of the tomshardware forums, which makes me wonder about the possibilities: -----QUOTE-----The E6750 will run @ 2.67Ghz by default with DDR2667 RAM.DDR2-800 (Not OC'd) will allow for speeds of 3.2 GhzDDR2-1066 will allow for speeds of 4.27 Ghz Traditionally 3.2Ghz was a good OC number for the C2D and higher OCs may not have been very safe due to heat/voltage issues. However, the new 1333FSB chips have a new stepping that will allow for much highe OCs at low temps/voltages.Rumors of stable 3.8+ on STOCK coolers with 4.0+ on top end air coolers. This means that the DDR2-800 Ram may be limiting in your OC potential because of the new steppings. -----END QUOTE-----Now I need to do some web-searching to find out whether an overclock in the 3.8 to 4.0 range has actually been achieved by anybody on the P35-DS3R board. If I knew that I had a realistic chance of achieving those sorts of clock speeds (on air), then a bit of extra investment in DDR2-1066 RAM might actually be worth it. OTOH, if I'm not likely to get very far beyond 3.2GHz anyway, then there's hardly much point in making the extra expenditure. But as far as cost goes, it really is amazing how cheaply you can build a highly-capable system right now. I don't think it's ever been better! (Which is fortunate for us flight simmers, considering how CPU-limited FSX still is.) Decisions, decisions....

Gary, "That's why I call my benchmark unfamous - people are very impressed with its worth as a repeatable comparator with my systems, but do you think I can get anyone else, especially someone with a quaddie, to run it? Perhaps the potential truth it may reveal scares people away." Surely you can find SOMEONE who's just done a new build to run your benchmark??? I'll certainly be willing to give it a shot once my new build is finished.... I'm not the sort of person who equates his manhood with his CPU speed! LOL!!! ;-) Honestly, I wish you could get AVSIM to put a short blurb about this on the front page, and encourage more people to volunteer to run the benchmark. It would really be fascinating to see what results you get! (Not to mention that it would be really useful to many FSX users.) I'd bet Tom Allensworth would be willing to do it if you discussed it with him. - Lee

First, all modern CPUs will have a thermal-throttle. This means that if the CPU gets too hot, it will automatically de-clock . . . or simply shut down. So, the first statement is questionable because you cannot hurt a modern CPU via voltage induced heat excursions. No worries there. Next, I don't believe the higher FSB CPUs (QDR'd 1333) were necessarily endowed with the newest steppings. Further, the FSB increase to 1333 was just another marketing ploy to bring onboard the underinformed. Further yet, steppings and FSB speeds are entirely unrelated. With the O/C that we are proposing (FSB at 400mhz), we will be at a QDR'd 1600mhz FSB. 500mhz FSB speeds (QDR's 2000mhz) are not uncommon these days. QDR'd 1333mhz FSB is old hat and not even worthy of braggin' rights. O/Cers have been there since last July when the original C2D was released. 1333 FSB is a big deal? Actually, it is totally irrelevant. A faster FSB alone will NoT provide aNy performance increase. The new G0 stepping is what is getting us the big bang now . . . and it has nothing to do with the FSB speed, 1333mhz or any other. Finally, there's no need for ram to limit a CPU's O/C. Remember our O/C-ing drill a couple of posts back? If a FSB is driving a stick-O-ram beyond its capability, a mobo's bios will have ram dividers to slow the ram down to runnable speeds. This has been a standard bios feature for years and is done without touching the FSB. If an O/Cer is allowing a DDR2-800 stick to limit a CPUs O/C, this only tells us the O/Cer is still learning how to operate the levers. Heck, even we simmers know better than that!So, if you want to get 3.8Ghz from a CPU with a 8 multiplier (the E6750 for instance), how fast will the FSB need to go? Will the G-board's FSB go that fast? That's one question you need to answer. The next question is how much cooling will be needed for that little ol' CPU to keep its cool?Yes, there's a real jungle of confusion out there. With the help of all the great contributors to this forum, we'll get that trail cleared yet.

>Finally, there's no need for ram to limit a CPU's O/C.>Remember our O/C-ing drill a couple of posts back? If a FSB is>driving a stick-O-ram beyond its capability, a mobo's bios>will have ram dividers to slow the ram down to runnable>speeds. This has been a standard bios feature for years and is>done without touching the FSB. If an O/Cer is allowing a>DDR2-800 stick to limit a CPUs O/C, this only tells us the>O/Cer is still learning how to operate the levers. Heck, even>we simmers know better than that!Sam, I believe that we are all in agreement here, it is really a question of what, depending on which nomenclature the mobo maker uses, the highest RAM divisor or lowest RAM muliplier is offered by the mobo. On my older DS3 and my son's new DS3, 2.00 is the lowest multiplier that can be set, which means at 3.2GHz for an 8x multiplier and a bus speed of 400MHz, 800MHz (2.00 x 400) is the absolute lowest memory speed I can set for that clock speed. The next setting up on my board is 2.5x, which gives 1000MHz, which is no go for my 800MHz memory, and they only go up from there.If I could download the DS3R mobo manual without it taking all day I would, but suffice to say that if the DS3R is anything like the older DS3 mobo is, then 2.00 is the lowest memory multiplier Lee can set which therefore makes the quote Lee gave us totally relevant in this discussion.Gary

Just to be clear, I would in no way consider the message I quoted from the tomshardware forum as Gospel. It was useful in getting me thinking about the additional investment I might need to make if I wanted to overclock significantly above 3.2GHz. The simple takeaway message I'm getting is that an additional investment of $53 (or so) in DDR2-1066, PLUS another $60 (or so) for one of the latest C2D's, MAY give me a higher probability of achieving a CPU overclock in the 3.8-4.0GHz range. (With nothing being guaranteed, although I'm quite confident that I could at least reach 3.2GHz with any C2D I might choose.) So the question for me as a consumer is: do I want to spend an extra $113 (or so) for a spin of the dice at the overclocking craps table? And even if I come out a winner, will the extra 20% (or so) in clock speed translate into a 20% increase in fps? If the answer turns out to be "yes," is an increase of 5 fps (or so) worth risking the $113? It's not an easy decision. I could very possibly be a happy FSX camper with the kind of performance that Gary and Cameron's machines have demonstrated. Of course, I also need to consider additional CPU demands as new add-ons hit the market, the unknown performance impact of the SP2/DX10 patch, as well as the alternative use of my $113 towards the purchase of a Penryn in a few months if I choose not to spend the money now. This is what one of my former professors used to call "a decision problem under conditions of uncertainty." As I see it, it comes down to a question of probabilities, and of not getting carried away with unrealistic expectations. Vegas, anyone? :-) - Lee

>The simple takeaway message I'm getting is that an additional>investment of $53 (or so) in DDR2-1066, PLUS another $60 (or>so) for one of the latest C2D's, MAY give me a higher>probability of achieving a CPU overclock in the 3.8-4.0GHz>range. (With nothing being guaranteed, although I'm quite>confident that I could at least reach 3.2GHz with any C2D I>might choose.) Just work backwards and do the RAM math. With an E6850, which has a 9x max multiplier, an OC to 4GHz means a bus speed of 4000 / 9 = 444MHz and a slowest settable RAM speed of 2 x bus = 888MHz. 800MHz RAM would probably stetch to this, but if you want to be sure that the CPU isn't being held back by struggling RAM, then 1066MHz RAM would easily cover it. By virtue of its lower 8x multiplier, an E6750 pushes the RAM requirements even higher. Just pick a realistic target OC (I would pick 3.6GHz myself at this stage of C2D headroom) and do the math!>>So the question for me as a consumer is: do I want to spend>an extra $113 (or so) for a spin of the dice at the>overclocking craps table? And even if I come out a winner,>will the extra 20% (or so) in clock speed translate into a 20%>increase in fps? If the answer turns out to be "yes," is an>increase of 5 fps (or so) worth risking the $113? Short answer is yes. Longer answer is absolutely, as shown by another one of my graphs, this time with everything set the same between the two runs except CPU speed (note the dips on the 3.2GHz run were sound driver issues that I later sorted out):http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/176723.jpgFor a 50% OC, the average FPS increased 38.3% (and most likely closer to 45% if I removed those sound pause spikes from the 3.2GHz run).Gary

Looks like the "Auto" memory ratio is the only hope with that G-board. Otherwise, G-byte has their customer base locked into buying useless, hi-dollar ram to stay off a CPU O/C stop. If Auto won't lock the memory to its default speed, it's time to consider another board. This just won't do.It seems the E6X50s will run a 1-2Mhz higher than even the G0 quads. However the value is not in that extra 100mhz. It's in quadrupling my bang for the buck. Once the software industry catches up (Farcry in November and maybe an optimization in SP2) 4 cores will rEalLy be twice the value of 2. Sadly, they are quite worthless right now. But right now it will cost only (an additional) $70 to get them. If I can spend $70 right now for what will cost me $300 later, that's a 4X good deal. But (one argues) I'd have the E6X50. But (I'd respond) it would take another $5-600 to build up a system around it. Either the initial E6X50 cost is wasted or yet an another cost must be incurred. Either way, that's gone money. My goal is to have that single quad doing the work of 2 complete boxes. "Simplify" is my motto. That extra $70 is cheap. This makes it even cheaper: http://www.shentech.com/bx80562x3210dh.htmlThe X3210 is just a re-stamped Q6600. Gotta forgive me though. I'm about 1/2 accountant.

Well, I've made my decision..... and I'm jumping into the wild and crazy world of "aggressive" overclocking. (Meaning I'll be kicking myself if I don't hit at least 3.8GHz!) In a spur-of-the-moment switch, I've changed my motherboard choice to the Abit IP35 Pro, which has great features and was just $145 at the Egg after a MIR that ends today. Seems like an excellent value, and just a slightly better overclocker's board than the Gigabyte. I also went with the Patriot DDR2-1066 RAM. Haven't yet finalized my choice of CPU, but I'm leaning towards the E6550. Seems like a nice value for $179. I hope to goodness it overclocks like crazy. Sam, I'm not ready to take the plunge in the direction of quad-cores until there's a demonstrable benefit in FSX. While I'm still open to ideas on CPUs in general, I just don't see the point in investing in a quad-core that (currently) underperforms the E6X50 series -- for my needs anyway. I still need to buy: - a video card (probably the "superclocked" eVGA 8800GTS); - a HSF (most likely the Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme, as long as I'm serious about overclocking)I already have: - an Antec P182 case - a Thermaltake Toughpower 750W power supply - a generic 22" WS monitor - a 500GB Samsung SATA2 hard drive - a Lite-On SATA 20x DVD burner I'm undecided about a sound card. It looks like onboard sound isn't as much of a performance hit as it once was. That's it for now. My head is still spinning. Thanks again to everyone, particularly Gary and Sam, for all your helpful advice. - Lee

Lee,Just one final word of advice being that getting an E6550, with its 7x max multiplier to your desired 3.8GHz, translates to a bus speed of 542MHz which is a tall order for any motherboard and also pushes your 1066 memory over its rated speed to 1084MHz, albeit only slightly. You would be far better off going for a an E6750 (8 x 475MHz bus = 950MHz memory speed) or an E6850 (9 x 422MHz bus = 844MHz memory speed) to get to the dizzy heights of 3.8GHz.As I suggested before, 3.6GHz is your most realistic OC with a G0 C2D, and you can get there with an E6750 @ 450 bus / 900 mem or an E6850 @ 400 bus / 800 mem, and with the E6850 option you could drop back to 800MHz memory (cause that's all you'll need) and use the saving to pay the extra for the E6850 over the E6750.OK, I'll stop spinning your head now :-lolGary

Gary... My head's still spinning, but I really appreciate your thoughts about my CPU choice. A little voice inside my head keeps telling me I REALLY want an E6850. ;-) FYI, a cousin and I actually purchased two packages of the inexpensive OCZ Gold DDR2-800 RAM, for a total of 4GB. The total cost was around $110, which is about what I paid for just 1GB of Corsair "value" RAM just 2 years ago! Anyway, the additional RAM will enable me to experiment with 3 and 4 GB configurations, just for fun. (Whichever RAM I don't need will go into a "budget" build my cousin is planning.) VIDEO PERFORMANCE. One thing I keep forgetting to ask you: since you're running an 8800GTS, and Cameron's running a 7900GTO, are there noticeable visual differences between the two? (I'm talking about a subjective evaluation, not benchmarks.) Until we reach a state of DX10 nirvana, is a cheaper nVidia card about as good as an 8800, as far as FSX is concerned? COOLING. While I know the Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme is the current "king of the hill" among CPU coolers, I've also seen great reviews of the Arctic Cooler 7 Pro you're using. Would I be crazy to start off with the Arctic Cooler 7 Pro, and then switch to something else if I can't get the cooling performance I need? Thanks again! - Lee