I have a Q6600 running at 3.6GHZ (9 x 400) and am thinking about getting a new Q9650, E0 stepping, that has been shown to easily run at very close to if not at 4 GHz. With best case senerio, how much would that improve things for FSX?-jk

Tell ya what, I'm goin for it. I think the Q9650 just plain beats the Q6600 anyway and it will get me through the initial Nellie shakedown period and well into next year.-J

At identical slider settings, CPU clock v FPS runs about 1:1. So 4.0/3.6 = 1.11. Meaning you'll get about an 11% increase in FPS with identical sliders. The penryn claims a very slight clock for clock advantage. So it might be wise to give it 15% as a generous concession. Or you could trade back some of that 15% FPS increase for another notch of AG or a bit of additional traffic. It won't be magic, but it Will help. The question is (as always) how much is a user willing to spend for that last 10%. That's not a judgment in the process of making, only an observation of the facts at hand. Speed costs, How fast do you want to go? Increased FSB won't help at all. Memory speed assistance is subjective, at best. You're on the right track cuz clock increases are the best bang for the buck. The real situation is that there's not much bang for Any buck to be had.

If the money isn't a big deal, I'd go for it.Sams right it won't be a huge performance increase, I can speak from experience between 3.6 an 4.0 on a Penryn...but it will be a little bump.RhettFS 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 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

I don't expect a huge difference. I'm after improvements and not miracles. But I would be much happier with a native 3.0GHz penryn as opposed to a 2.4GHz Q6600. With my settings I hang at 30 fps and dip down from there. If I can reduce the "dips" a little then I'll reach my goal with this chip.-jk

I upgraded like you plan, and would do it again, but in truth FSX needs much more still.Too many areas remain that bring the framerate below acceptable.Its just an FSX problem IMO.Example: Fly Tampas Hong Kong looks amazing and frames are very highthen I go to MS's Tokyo and watch a slide show if settings are up.Instead of giving JS 10 million for 2 bad commercials, money might have been better spent improving FSX :)

LOL! What crap, huh? Too much $$$ in advertising, not enough in the actual product.I got it in and it's at 3.6GHz (9 x 400) @ 1.312v BIOS (cpuz 1.28v idle, 1.24v load). Only just over 2 hours prime stable but I'm going to a higher clock and will Prime a minimum of 12 hours before I settle on stable enough for simming. I flew at 3.6GHZ (same as the Q6600) and no doubt at the same airport I fly out of (San Diego intl) I stay at 30fps (locked) for a higher percentage of time. The real trick I think will be to get my memory settings dialed in for low tRD, I'm shootin for tRD6 at around DDR21066, CAS5. -jk

It's in. It's running at 3.6GHz @ 1.312v BIOS and 1.24v CPUZ under Prime95 load (loadline calibration disabled). Don't know how stable it is yet, only primed for 2 hours but no errors yet. More later.-jk

3.99GHz, 1.325v BIOS, 1.248v CPUZ under load and close to 3 hours Prime95 stable. Hottest core under 60 deg.Gotta run Prime 12 hours to get some more confidence but these results so far are better than I thought! -jk

Just finished a 12 hr Prime95 run. 4.02GHz (9 x 445), 1.325v BIOS (1.248v load),VTT is 1.25v, NB 1.55v, 62 deg highest temp on hottest core. 333MHz strap and Memory's running DDR2 1069 5-5-5-15, tRD7. Now just gotta go in and reduce voltages to lowest I can get.This chip rocks. -jk

>Prime a minimum of 12>hours before I settle on stable enough for simming. >I hear you. Last night I was flying a short flight, KORD to KSTL, and my overclocked sys hardlocked near Joliet on climbout. Nothing more aggravating than losing a flight like that, and I thought "!@#!@ I was just about to press the ; key" to save the flight.I guess 1.26v @ 3.8 ghz isn't quite enough voltage for an E8500. Or it could be the memory too, I'll figure it out.If I had some sense I would have Prime'ed those settings for many hours as you recommend...RhettFS 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 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

I make sure I run at least 12 hours of the small FFT and the blend test too. I also run Memtest86+ for at least 12 hours. 24 hours is what most would probably consider "stable". I just hate to put that much stress on my parts for that period of time so I run 12 hours. I used to crash out of the sim a lot before I did those longer prime runs.-jk

>I guess 1.26v @ 3.8 ghz isn't quite enough voltage for an E8500. Or >it could be the memory too, I'll figure it out.I had to give mine 1.280 in the Bios which shows 1.272 idling in Vista with Loadline Calibration disabled for 3.8. It probably needs 1.36 or more for 4.0 but I've haven't tried it yet.3.8 is plenty fast for now. Regards,Jim Karn

I'm at 1.325 in the BIOS to get 1.240 - 1.248 under load in cpu-z. I wonder if I should raise the Vcore up a notch.-jk

>I'm at 1.325 in the BIOS to get 1.240 - 1.248 under load in>cpu-z. I wonder if I should raise the Vcore up a notch.>>-jk>Turn on the CPU VOLTAGE DAMPER which should stablize the vcore and deliver what you select in the BIOS with very little drop in WindowsLoad line droop or Vdroop is a normal function of an Intel system. It helps reduce the output surge or spike that results from fast load changes and its fine under normal conditions however in a clock it can present issues which is why they give you the DAMPER setting in the BIOS to reduce its influence on the CPU. Max vcore on that slug would be 1.35-1.4v and I would not exceed 1.4 with a P Quad even if the temps are cool. ENABLE the CPU VOLTAGE DAMPER and disable all of the CPU power manaagement fucntions and you should find a much more stable environment for clocking and be able to get that last 5GHz you were looking for, perhaps more.. but watch the temps1.35 should do nicely, perhaps a touch more. Enable the damper first and disable all the CPU power management junk under the CPU menu in the BIOS @ 1.32v Vcore and see if it allows a bit better stability for a touch more clock before trying a higher Vcore.You should then notice 1.32v in the BIOS = 1.32 (or close) in Windows