All,As promised I am updating how my first build went. It actually seems to have gone well, but I do have a few questions I was hoping you all could help answer.First and foremost, FS9 and FSX are a simple joy to fly. FS9 is maxed out and I think I may even be able to fly the PMDG 737 NG from the virtual cockpit into Cloud 9's LAX. This was something my prior Dell 8400 would just choke on. So, it really has changed my flying experience in FS9. I haven't even tweaked anything (although I might once I get FS2Crew in there with FSPassengers as well). As for FSX, I am flying locked at 20 fps in the Seattle area with the following settings:Graphics: Ultra HighAircraft: Ultra HighScenery: Ultra High (except water effects at med 2, and scenery density at maximum)Weather: Ultra HighTraffic: HighIf I do not restrict my fps, they jump to mid 30's and lower 40's depending on the complexity of the scene. Again, this is in the Seattle area (a place where my Dell got maybe 12 fps and with lesser settings). If you like, I'll post my fraps results from the pre-packaged test here in the AVSIM library. To say the least, I am pleased as punch. The $1200 was definitely worth upgrading from my last machine. Now my questions about OCing. I have a Q6600 SLACR processor with the unfortunate VID of 1.2750v. I've seen others have their VID as low as 1.21 and I would love to have one of those chips, but this is the one I got. I have OCed the processor to 3.2 GHz (8x400 FSB) at a VCORE of 1.34V. It is stable and runs great (as you can tell from my performance above). My question is about temps. At boot, the idle temps are 39,40,38,38 or thereabouts. After running Prime95 for a few hours the max temps inch slowly up to 72,72,70,70. Afterwords, the temps slowly sink back to 44,45,42,42 at idle. After a long while, they will sink back to around 40 again. Are these temps ok? I am in the thermal envelope of the processor, but that high VID seems to have me run warmer than I like. What do you all think? Thanks,JoshuaP.S. I also tried OCing to 3.2 GHz (9x356 FSB), but that did not reduce temps like I hoped.

You're ok in the low 70s. Check your temps with fsx and you'll probably find your in the low to mid 60s is my guess. What P95 test did you use?

Sounds about at the limit I'd go with, as the above poster said, FSX will probably not run that high.Your volts are low, if you could get the system cooler you could probably hit 3.6.I was able to drop temps by installing a 120mm fan in the CD drive bay to blow more cool air in. Looks like your case would support that too, just remove the big cd door and install a thermal right 120mm cage cooler.Enjoy your setup !

Go somemore. You will need a vcore of 1.4 to run the Q at 3.6. You'll get some droop (droop is good), so set your idle vcore to 4.3-ish. Intel's spec is 1.5, so you're fine there. Do not trust the bios setting. Check your vcore with CPUZ.Intel built in an auto-declock at 95C and a auto-shutdown at 100C, Tj (Temp, junction. That's the 50-70 temps you are reading). However, for simplicty, Intel's uses temp spec called Tc (Temp, core). This is an averaged temp taken in the middle of the die, between the cores. It runs about 15C cooler than the surrounding cores (the Tjs). Intel's operational temp spec is Tc at 71C.As you can see, 71+15=86. The Tjs can run an average of 86C. You also see a split between core pairs. For instance 2 could be running at 90 and 2 at 80, and Tc would still remain within Intel's operational spec. My Q6600 runs Prime with Tjs in the high 70/low 80 at a Vcore of 4.1 under load. I have it set to 4.5 at idle to compensate for droop. Runs fine. Leave Speedstep enabled. It will drop the multiplier to 6X at idle and ramp it back up to 9x under load. At a 400Mhz FSB, this leaves the CPU running at 6x400=2.4 for emailing and 9x400 for yet another Attempt to not-crash at Kai Tak.

Over lunch I was trying to get to 3.6 stable on this new Gigabyte board. I was able to get into windows but failed almost immediately with Prime95. I was at [email protected] in the bios, but I didn't check the voltage with CPUz. I was stable at [email protected] volts. I'll try to see if I can get up to that 3.6 tonight. Thanks for the tip.

Manually select ram speed ("Lock" the ram) to 800mhz. Sometimes the bios gets a bit confused. If you can get Everest, it has a good stress tester along with a real handy volt/temp tracking chart. Sounds good so far. You're on the road.

Hi all,Thanks again for all the advice. Sam, I did try going to 3.6 GHz, but it seems my processor is the bottleneck this time around. I could get pretty stable performance at 3.4 GHz, but it had a core voltage of 1.46V (in CPUID) to make it run. I pushed to 1.5V (CPUID) and 3.6 GHz, but the system would not stabilize. I could get Windows to boot, but then any significant increase in processing crashed the system. I think with my VID being so high, my processor is limited in how far it will go. Again, this is not a temperature thing, it is a voltage thing. So, is the VID really limiting me? I can't complain though as 3.4 GHz gives me extraordinary performance in both FS9 and FSX. I'm actually flying in Seattle with everything on Ultra High (with some individual sliders pushed beyond that). Thanks,Joshua

One more thing...I just found a link on Phil Taylor's blog to a Tom's Hardware link (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gpu-upgrade,1928-10.html) that basically states a Q6600 at 3.2 GHz with a modern video card can make FSX shine. Funny, I just found that out too. Did I mention I was maxed out in Seattle? :)JoshuaEDIT: "Maxed out" means sliders at Ultra High -- not all sliders to the absolute right.

Phil's a bit optimistic. Although with the prepackaged airplanes, you can get all the sliders on the LEFT side of the Scenery tab full-right. That'a all Vcard. The wall starts to show up as a player starts to add autogen and AI. That's All CPU. A poor ol' core2 at 3.6 can't stand much of that. With a serious airplane like the PMDG 744, FSX simply won't run close to the ground. The PMDG folks just released a big patch for their FS9 744. They're still serious about support because FS9 is the only platform where their product is still fully functional (close to the ground).The Q should run at 3.6 if the temps stay in the low 80s (This IS a GO/SLACR, right?). VID is just the volts it took to get the thing stable at 2.4 on Intel's post-production test bench. If you declock to 2.4 and reset the volts to auto, this is the voltage you will see. It took more volts to get the CPU to run at default clock. That's not (necessarily) a big deal.Let's see how the mobo/ram is doing. Try setting the CPU multiplier as low as it will go, then run the mobo at a 400Mhz FSB. That will get the CPU out of the picture and check the mobo/ram at 800Mhz. If it throws errors there, run Memtest86 to check the ram. If the ram throws errors, try locking vRam at 2.3 volts. If the ram's OK, the mobo's having problems. Try raising the north bridge volts a bit. The P35-X48 parts are all old 90nm stuff will take the heat fine.

I agree with you. I'm getting smooth, stable 20 fps with Ultra High settings, default planes, and WofAI/GA Traffic AI planes. In such a case, I would say standard, non-addon FSX is now playable with current hardware. Onto the real story of this thread, I'll give it a go again with 3.6 GHz (yup, G0/SLACR Q6600). Right now, I am running the system at 8x400 to get 3.2 GHz. Given the FSB is currently at 400 MHz and the system is running just fine, I take it we can rule out the MOBO/RAM? I had not adjusted the north bridge voltages yet. I'll try that next to see if I can stabilize at 3.6. Also, should I run Prime95 with the 3.6 GHz setting? It's going to get awfully hot (80C range)?Thanks,Joshua

Could be the CPU, but those GOs will go to 3.6. How are you measuring temps? Coretemp is the tool for that. If you can get it, run Everest's System Stability test. It has a temp/volt monitor too. See what volts and temp are doing under load. If it will run Everest's CPU and memory tests, you're good. An other (unobservable) potential is a current-limit occurring from that power supply, It can't be seen. The only trouble-shoot for that is to swap it out. That's a long shot, though (lots of trouble for not much hope).

Sam,Well, I did get it to 3.6 GHz letting the system pick the voltages. It picked some really high voltages that I'm sure I could back down a bit and stay stable. The thing is that my case and my cooler cannot get rid of the excess heat at those clock speeds. The idle temps sit in the 60's which is just too high for my comfort. Plus, at 3.4 GHz it's running like a champ and it's hardly breaking a sweat at 3.2 GHz. To test out the 3.2 GHz clock, I flew the PMDG 737-700 in VC/Cabin mode into FlyTampa's KMDW with FSDreamTeams' KORD and 80% AI Traffic (WofAI and GA Traffic) in FS9 (everything else literally maxed out). I had smooth 25 fps all the way down to the runway. Somehow I think I can live with the 3.2 GHz clock. :) To get any higher at this point is just to tweak for fun. Thanks again to everyone helping out with my purchase. I'm thrilled with FS9 and can finally run FSX at Ultra High in nearly all conditions (yup, even Seattle although I haven't tried NY yet). Thanks again,JoshuaEDIT: I use CoreTemp and HWMonitor for temps and voltages during OCing.

Sounds like your runnin' good. With a Thermalright 120, my cores sit 'round the mid to hi 50s at idle and bounce all through the 70s under load. I can touch 80 with 2 of them if I run Prime 95 and the Everest stresser at the same time. Vcore idles at 1.44v and vDroops to 1.41v under load. Droop is good. I also leave Intel's speed-step function engaged. That drops the multiplier to 6 under no-load, then bumps it back to 9 under load (9x400=3.6Ghz). Works great. 4 Core2 at 2.4 (400x6) seems plenty for email. 3.6 only happens when the system's got game-on.Also, there are bios settings that will increase the CPU fan speed at pre-set CPU temps. That can help cool the CPU, but also keep the noise down under non-gaming moments.FS9 will run like a rocket, but FSX with AG/AI and a big-dog airplane like the 744X will be a disappointment. FS11 will fix that, we hope.Also consider using Vista's sleep funtion. I measured power usage with and with out the sleep function. Just leaving the machine on, (at 11 cents/KWH) I spent ~ $30 a month. With the sleep function, the cost drops to about $15 month. Modern mobos and Vista have it down cold. It's been bullet proof and I'm back from sleep in ~ 5 seconds. $180 a year for a couple of mouse clicks? I'll take it! Any users mileage Will vary (of course), but the takeaway is is Will save a user dough.