Has anyone tested the difference in FPS in FSX between a CPU running with a 8x or 9x multiplier with everything the same?I am trying to overclock my CPU to 3.2 at 9x and I am having a rough go at it. Either it takes a huge amount of voltage to the CPU or the overall temperatures are pretty highHowever if I use an 8x multiplier everything appears stable and the temps and voltages are better.If it has been proven that a higher multiplier is better for FSX then I may scrap this chip get an Intel QX chipMy current CPUQ6600 G0 VID 1.3125

The multi doesn't matter. It only drives the CPU clock. CPU Temp differences at the same clock and voltage but different multipliers won't occur. Northbridge temps might be higher with the lower multi because the FSB must run faster to cause the same CPU clock. Avoid that.You're safe up to 1.5v vCore and Tj temps ~ +80C. My Q6600 runs fine at 3.6Ghz with 1.45vCore and temps 'round 80C in Prime. FS temps are a Lot lower.

In theory, a lower mult / higher FSB should be the best, but in actual FSX use it makes little to no difference.Stick with 8x400, with the memory at 1:1 if possible too.

With all due respect, I wouldn't push a quad to 80 deg C. That's just too high. 75 tops, nothing more. -jk

Most Q6600's should be able to do 3.6GHz @ 9x400FSB. And they should do it under 1.5v AND under 75 deg C. Here's the wrinkle: some of the newer batches of Q6600's are not as good overclockers as the one's that came out earlier this year. I had an OEM I got back in January '08 and it did 9x400 at 1.45v all year w/o a hiccup. Always under 70 deg C too and I'm in San Diego ( replaced with a Q9650).This past June or so, I tried a retail Q6600 and it wouldn't do anything higher than 3.2Ghz without high vcore and high temps (much higher than the OEM) so I sold the retail and kept the OEM until I got the 9650.You may have a dud Q6600 there.But The Q9650 will run 4GHz and it's $500 less than the QX, much cooler, and much less vcore. -jk