Support for 1333 does not mean it will always run at that speed without over-volting....some boards may need extra voltage to enable an overclock of the CPU - for example my Gigabyte P35 DS3R needed 0.1v added to MCH and FSB to get a stable 400 FSB. To overclock any higher may need more.....if you advise someone to overvolt a CPU to overclock, then it is probably prudent to advise that the m/b MAY also require an over-voltage....particularly if the system is unstable.My P35 'supports' 1333 - ie. the 8-series CPU's that have a standard 333 FSB. That is not "400".In addition, depending on the size of the o/c, the Northbridge may benefit form a 3rd-party cooler and possible the Vimms as well - the latter - overheating - is the cause of more crashes than you may realize.Please note my use of the word 'MAY'......just because your board runs great without any increase in voltage doesn't mean that they all will.My board goes up to 540 FSB - which allows me to o/clcok a CPU with a 10x multiplier to 5.4 GHz.......with 0.3v added to MCH and FSB, but this amount of over-volt would fry the board eventually.....just be aware that overclocking your CPU 'MAY' require attention elsewhere AS WELL.Don't assume just because windows is not stable, it's down the voltage of the CPU....a little knowledge is a dangerous thing....there are other factors that should be considered.Also, my board - which was critically acclaimed on release - under-states the actual voltage going to the RAM - this can result in problems when overclocking - unless you are aware of it and simply ignore what it says in the BIOS!Do your research before you buy hardware - overclockers.co.uk, Tom's hardware, AnandTech etc. These people know what they're about and do the hard work for you.

well yes scaling does work up to a point - but diminishing returns does kick in and other thing limit the system...I'm just interested in at what point it does - and I will be finding out for myself very shortly...

I agree that the law of diminishing returns kicks in. I've been running some of these benchmarks with an E8500 at stock speed and overclocked to 4GHz. My GPU is an 8800 Ultra superclocked by EVGA.I'll try to tabulate the results if anyone's interested, and possibly even if nobody is interested; but the bottom line - I think - is this:1. At the benchmark's "Global High" settings:(a) the average framerate increases almost linearly with the extra speed of the CPU; and(:( the % of time with >25fps and >30fps goes up: ie, smoothness is better.2. However, if I use my own more onerous settings (the main points being: all the scenery sliders to the right, but with Autogen on "normal"; clouds - full detail and maximum distance (by the way this makes a BIG difference in cloudy skies); no AI traffic of any kind; no lens flare or ground shadows or light bloom), something different happens. The framerates are all lower, obviously, but:(a) the average framerate increases with the faster CPU, but not proportionately to the extra speed of the CPU; and(:( smoothness (ie, % of time spent with higher framerates) is better with the faster CPU, but again not in proportion with the extra speed of the CPU.Now I know it's heresy to suggest it, but to my mind this tends to be consistent with my theory - which I know receives a sceptical response in this forum - that once your CPU is running faster than about 3GHz, the GPU starts to be a bottleneck in the most graphically dense environments. I should add that off-loading the AA and AF to the graphics card makes things worse, not better, in this scenario - which again would seem to support my theory.Tim

>I agree that the law of diminishing returns kicks in. I've>been running some of these benchmarks with an E8500 at stock>speed and overclocked to 4GHz. My GPU is an 8800 Ultra>superclocked by EVGA.>>>I'll try to tabulate the results if anyone's interested, and>possibly even if nobody is interested; but the bottom line - I>think - is this:>>1. At the benchmark's "Global High" settings:>>(a) the average framerate increases almost linearly with the>extra speed of the CPU; and>>(:( the % of time with >25fps and >30fps goes up: ie,>smoothness is better.>>>2. However, if I use my own more onerous settings (the main>points being: all the scenery sliders to the right, but with>Autogen on "normal"; clouds - full detail and maximum distance>(by the way this makes a BIG difference in cloudy skies); no>AI traffic of any kind; no lens flare or ground shadows or>light bloom), something different happens. The framerates are>all lower, obviously, but:>>(a) the average framerate increases with the faster CPU, but>not proportionately to the extra speed of the CPU; and>>(:( smoothness (ie, % of time spent with higher framerates) is>better with the faster CPU, but again not in proportion with>the extra speed of the CPU.>>>Now I know it's heresy to suggest it, but to my mind this>tends to be consistent with my theory - which I know receives>a sceptical response in this forum - that once your CPU is>running faster than about 3GHz, the GPU starts to be a>bottleneck in the most graphically dense environments. I>should add that off-loading the AA and AF to the graphics card>makes things worse, not better, in this scenario - which again>would seem to support my theory.>>>TimThat's great info - the first I've seen - anywhere.I am note sure how a Quad running maxed out - at say 3.6, would compare to a duo at 4 - 4.5. From your results it may suggest that the duo at an ultra fast speed may be better for framerates.I agree totally that the graphics card will come into play at some point - particularly with clouds at high ! But, also, at higher resolutions 16x10 and higher it will play a part...and/or with high levels of AA which I use - always use 4xS....although nHancer seems to be having problems with super-sampling with the latest drivers.http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia...iew,1792-6.htmlThese test show that at very high resolutions, really powerful cards do benefit FSX.....but I'd like to be that even at lower resolutions if there is lots of 3D stuff around - like clouds - it will also make a difference here.Soon we'll have the G0 stepping and the 8600 - which may reach 5 GHz....MAY....so then it really gets interesting.I intend getting a Quad and one of the new 8-series CPU's once the new steppings are out...and running the FSX Mark tests.....and hopefully I'll be able to subject the results to some statistical testing - I'm working on the best way to do that.Good stuff.

"My P35 'supports' 1333 - ie. the 8-series CPU's that have a standard 333 FSB. That is not "400".Well aware of that thanks.If you check the ASUS forums, you will find that all of the P35 boards they built were done with 400FSB in mind. It made sense at the time considering the fact the predominant memory choice was DDR2-800.Maybe not 'officially' supported, but certainly built for.I see you have 93 posts. We aren't idiots here you know. Do a search of the hardware forum for posts by the usernames you are quick to put down.

I wasn't puttng anyone down - just defending my right to suggest - as I did - that "if there is any instability when overclocking, you may need to tweak other m/b voltages"....ie. it's a little simplistic to just suggest "whacking up the FSB - and you're done".That's all I was saying.And please don't start on the "I've got more posts than you" line - OMG, I'm gonna chuck up.And, when's GE Pro for Europe coming out ?

"And please don't start on the "I've got more posts than you" line - OMG, I'm gonna chuck up."Not at all.....just suggesting that you do a little research on other posters, especially if you are fairly new which the post count suggests. Nothing to do with a 'mine is bigger than yours' attitude.I have yet to come across a recent motherboard that won't run stable at 400mhz FSB with little more than a minute vcore increase if it needed anything at all.Obviously, I haven't seen them all though.GE Europe is not yet in the hands of the beta tester. Shouldn't be long though.

Hmm the one thing I am curious about is this:With the possibility of getting a B3 Q6600 do you think it is a better investment to just get a Q9550or Q9650 and OC that? Or still try and get a Q6600?

The Q6600/GO/SLACR is still the best bet. At $200 for a 3.6Ghz quad, it can't be beat.

The catch seems to be; being able to get it.

GLEM:Okay - no worries perhaps I got off to a bad start.Looking forward to the Europe release....don't forget to post some screenies - especially of north wales,UK around Snowdonia !Cheers

>The catch seems to be; being able to get it.THere are plenty in the UK - EBuyer or Scan......don't forget if the Nehalems come out in a month or so, the price of the Q9450 should drop...may be a better bet...I'm thinkinh=g of waiting for that to come down a little...?

>Efrain, are you running on water with your setup?>>>Rhett>>FS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3>Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600>Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm>Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate>64>ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GTNope, air cooling. I did change the stock HSF for a Scythe Ninja HSF. ______________Efrain RuizLiveDISPATCHhttp://www.livedispatch.orgCooler Master cosmos SDFI LP UT P35 T2R (3-17-2008 BIOS) | E8400 @ 4GHz (500MHz x 8) | 2 x 2GB OCZ Flex II PC9200EVGA Nvidia GTX280Two (2) WD3200AAKS 320GB (Operating System RAID-0) | Two (2) WD3200AAKS 320GB (Flight Simulator RAID-0)Corsair CM PSU-750TX | Asus 20X DVD

Yeah Im in the US :-( but if anyone has any info do let me know.As for Nehalem has a definitive release date been published yet? I am sure the cheapest Nehalems will be slower then the faster older cores whatever they were. Though I wonder if I should just wait and see...I am never keen on getting first gen tech like that though....esepcially at the premium it would command.

I'm sure I read that the N's are gonna use a different architecture - you may be surprised with the results.As for the 9450 - strike that - I think it has a pretty loww multiplier and won't o/c that much....I think the 9550 is the best bet over the Q6600 - but quite a hike in price....