Hi TimThanks for your Input!I have tried with no clouds, no AA/AF, Settings from NickN, etc. I am an overclocker since a view (my actual rig is stable at 4.6GHz) years now and have also tried many different settings, but nothing I have tried results in a 10FPS performance loss or plus.It can be the GPU though it is overclocked. Or, and that is what im pretty sure about, it is the CPU because of the QPI 6.4GT/s.What I have seen in the past months/years, the perfect match of all Components makes a huge different in FSX. So I guess this is why my rig is slower than Mike's.But this are no news as NickN has all this said already.Regards Patrick

So, let me get this right. If you OC the 920(d0) to 4+GHz, will the QPI remain the same/default as it is in 2.66GHz ??? (4.smthing can't remember exactly)??? I thought that the QPI is the memory bandwidth of the memory controller which is increased by default from the motherboard in order for the 975 chip to operate at its stock 3.3 GHz frequency. I thought that since you OC the 920 above 3.2-3.3GHz the QPI increases to 6.4GT/s by default as well. I am probably wrong since I am not a OC/hardware expert anyway.

So, let me get this right. If you OC the 920(d0) to 4+GHz, will the QPI remain the same/default as it is in 2.66GHz ??? (4.smthing can't remember exactly)??? I thought that the QPI is the memory bandwidth of the memory controller which is increased by default from the motherboard in order for the 975 chip to operate at its stock 3.3 GHz frequency. I thought that since you OC the 920 above 3.2-3.3GHz the QPI increases to 6.4GT/s by default as well. I am probably wrong since I am not a OC/hardware expert anyway.

QPI and UNCORE raises with higher BCLK. QPI (FSB on none X58 MB) is for IOH to CPU Bandwidth and not for Memory to CPU, as the Memory Controller is inside the CPU since Core i7. See this Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:X58_Block_Diagram.pngFor better Memory Bandwidth you can raise the UNCORE, this will add some Memory performance.

QPI and UNCORE raises with higher BCLK. QPI (FSB on none X58 MB) is for IOH to CPU Bandwidth and not for Memory to CPU, as the Memory Controller is inside the CPU since Core i7. See this Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:X58_Block_Diagram.pngFor better Memory Bandwidth you can raise the UNCORE, this will add some Memory performance.

So if you raise the BCLK, the QPI and UNCORE will raise inevitably. So I am right. If you OC a 920 by increasing the BCLK to 200, the QPI will raise. so an OC 920 will operate with increased QPI and there will not be much difference in performance vs an unclocked corei7 extreme. Am I right?

So if you raise the BCLK, the QPI and UNCORE will raise inevitably. So I am right. If you OC a 920 by increasing the BCLK to 200, the QPI will raise. so an OC 920 will operate with increased QPI and there will not be much difference in performance vs an unclocked corei7 extreme. Am I right?

From wikipedia: "The Core i7 920 and 940 are restricted to a 2.4GHz frequency at stock reference clocks." 965 and 975 operates with 3.2GHz. If you now overclock a 920, 940 or 950, let's say to 4.2GHz (just an assumption), then the QPI will be as fast as a none overclocked 965/975. But if you overclock the 965/975 as well then of cores they are faster. The fact is, that we should be able to direct compare an 920 and 975 at same clockspeed on exactly the same platform. otherwise we are not able to made it clear if it is worth to by an 975!

From wikipedia: "The Core i7 920 and 940 are restricted to a 2.4GHz frequency at stock reference clocks." 965 and 975 operates with 3.2GHz. If you now overclock a 920, 940 or 950, let's say to 4.2GHz (just an assumption), then the QPI will be as fast as a none overclocked 965/975. But if you overclock the 965/975 as well then of cores they are faster. The fact is, that we should be able to direct compare an 920 and 975 at same clockspeed on exactly the same platform. otherwise we are not able to made it clear if it is worth to by an 975!

Ok I know I may be getting off topic but has anybody (tom's hardware, overclocking.com) or another site ever done this comparison??? Especially using FSX as a benchmark utility? I.e. to directly compare a 920 oc'ed to 3.33GHz and a 975 running same clock freq. 3.33GHz on exactly the same hardware???

Ok I know I may be getting off topic but has anybody (tom's hardware, overclocking.com) or another site ever done this comparison??? Especially using FSX as a benchmark utility? I.e. to directly compare a 920 oc'ed to 3.33GHz and a 975 running same clock freq. 3.33GHz on exactly the same hardware???

I never see such a comparison. They always compares with newer Games witch are in most case GPU related and not CPU as FSX is..Send me 1000$ and I will do this for you. :( Just kidding.

Ok I know I may be getting off topic but has anybody (tom's hardware, overclocking.com) or another site ever done this comparison??? Especially using FSX as a benchmark utility? I.e. to directly compare a 920 oc'ed to 3.33GHz and a 975 running same clock freq. 3.33GHz on exactly the same hardware???

Sort of:http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16044I still don't know what the "Uncore" speed is supposed to do. Does it affect the bandwidth between the CPU and the on-board RAM (ie, the cache)? If that's all it does, then I would imagine the real-world differences are pretty slight. On my PC with an i7 975, I get a lot of options for Uncore speeds. How many do you get with an i7 920? If you only get a few, then maybe I can try with different Uncore speeds (assuming the PC lets me boot if I fiddle with this setting!) and see if it makes any appreciable difference.I am also able to choose from 3 different QPI settings, the highest being 6400MT/s. The numbers change slightly depending on BCLK, but I'm sticking at 133 with a 33 multiplier to get to 4410 (the 133 BCLK is actually 133.63). How many QPI choices do you get with a 920? I suppose I could try a lower setting here too, and see what happens.Tim

Sort of:http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16044I still don't know what the "Uncore" speed is supposed to do. Does it affect the bandwidth between the CPU and the on-board RAM (ie, the cache)? If that's all it does, then I would imagine the real-world differences are pretty slight. On my PC with an i7 975, I get a lot of options for Uncore speeds. How many do you get with an i7 920? If you only get a few, then maybe I can try with different Uncore speeds (assuming the PC lets me boot if I fiddle with this setting!) and see if it makes any appreciable difference.I am also able to choose from 3 different QPI settings, the highest being 6400MT/s. The numbers change slightly depending on BCLK, but I'm sticking at 133 with a 33 multiplier to get to 4410 (the 133 BCLK is actually 133.63). How many QPI choices do you get with a 920? I suppose I could try a lower setting here too, and see what happens.Tim

Hi Tim,The only different in case of the bios settings with a 975 is the open multi. Rest is equal to 920, 940 and 950.

Hi Tim,The only different in case of the bios settings with a 975 is the open multi. Rest is equal to 920, 940 and 950.

That's what I suspected - in which case, is there any other difference between the chips at all? The article I gave a link to seems to be saying that there's another magic ingredient: but I don't see it.Tim

That's what I suspected - in which case, is there any other difference between the chips at all? The article I gave a link to seems to be saying that there's another magic ingredient: but I don't see it.Tim

Another difference is binning--the 975 CPUs are selected from the highest-performing batches as determined by production sampling. Small variances in physical and chemical makeup in the various wafers can make a tremendous difference in the chips' high-end performance. When you buy a 920, you may be getting one from a really good wafer that can match a 975, or you might be getting one that can't get near a 975 due to die contamination or other factors. I know people with 920s that won't get past 3.6GHz, and I've seen reports of people having them at 4.5 GHz, too. As someone hanging a lot of other expensive high-end gear on the CPU (GPU, SSDs, fast DRAM etc), it wouldn't be a good outcome to end up with a CPU that can't get to 4 GHz.In practice, getting my 975 to 4.4 GHz was easy, and with moderate voltages and temps a long way back from the ragged edge. The 920s I've seen running that fast are mostly running at extreme voltages and BCLK overspeeds that I didn't want to mess with. The areas of the processor I have pushed way up (the cores) all have good thermal monitoring that enables setting management that will stay clear of trouble. An extreme uncore clock overspeed produced by high BCLK speeds is producing a lot of heat in an unmonitored area of the chip. RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Hi Tim,The only different in case of the bios settings with a 975 is the open multi. Rest is equal to 920, 940 and 950.

One important caveat is that the cheaper OEM versions of the i7 920, 940, and 950 chips sold in bulk and used by most commercial system builders have hard-locked CPU and memory multipliers. One shouldn't expect to order a computer from a system builder and have much flexibility in overclocking, if any at all. There are some specialty shops that do (or can) use retail-boxed components to build OC-friendly systems, but not many. But if you have a PC built for you and don't ask the question, or buy a ready-made system at retail, it's quite likely you will have a motherboard and/or CPU that will never be able to realize the potential of the i7.Caveat Emptor...RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Another difference is binning--the 975 CPUs are selected from the highest-performing batches as determined by production sampling. Small variances in physical and chemical makeup in the various wafers can make a tremendous difference in the chips' high-end performance. When you buy a 920, you may be getting one from a really good wafer that can match a 975, or you might be getting one that can't get near a 975 due to die contamination or other factors. I know people with 920s that won't get past 3.6GHz, and I've seen reports of people having them at 4.5 GHz, too. As someone hanging a lot of other expensive high-end gear on the CPU (GPU, SSDs, fast DRAM etc), it wouldn't be a good outcome to end up with a CPU that can't get to 4 GHz.In practice, getting my 975 to 4.4 GHz was easy, and with moderate voltages and temps a long way back from the ragged edge. The 920s I've seen running that fast are mostly running at extreme voltages and BCLK overspeeds that I didn't want to mess with. The areas of the processor I have pushed way up (the cores) all have good thermal monitoring that enables setting management that will stay clear of trouble. An extreme uncore clock overspeed produced by high BCLK speeds is producing a lot of heat in an unmonitored area of the chip. RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Thanks for clearing that up Bob. I also had an easy job getting my 975 to 4.4GHz, just by setting the multiplier to 33 and pushing the Vcore and QPI voltages up to 1.36-something. With BCLK at 133 the RAM won't run at its rated 2000MHz but 1866MHz at 7-7-20 on command rate 1 is good enough for me. I am very pleased with the results. My only PC problem is that the motherboard is reporting inexplicably high southbridge temperatures (90+ degrees). I don't think I've done anything wrong so it looks like a faulty MB. Hey ho.RegardsTim

Thanks for clearing that up Bob. I also had an easy job getting my 975 to 4.4GHz, just by setting the multiplier to 33 and pushing the Vcore and QPI voltages up to 1.36-something. With BCLK at 133 the RAM won't run at its rated 2000MHz but 1866MHz at 7-7-20 on command rate 1 is good enough for me. I am very pleased with the results. My only PC problem is that the motherboard is reporting inexplicably high southbridge temperatures (90+ degrees). I don't think I've done anything wrong so it looks like a faulty MB. Hey ho.RegardsTim

Yikes, 90 deg is way too hot there. Can you take off the SB heatsink without voiding the warranty? I've seen a few mobos with really crappy factory chipset heatsink installation, including one that had no thermal grease applied at all. In my case, I turned the rear 140mm exhaust fan around to provide positive airflow over the vreg and chipset heatsink areas.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Hi Everyone,I'm about to begin testing FSX with my new setup. I'm using Windows 7 R/C - 64bit.Just a quick look at my hardware: An I7-975 Processor, 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 Corsair 7-8-7-20 2000mhz memory, 300gb 10,000 rpm hard drive, BFG 285 Video Board.A quick look at my software: FSX, FSX Service Packs 1 & 2, FSGenesis All Mesh Available, Ultimate Terrain X All Available, Ground Environment X, Real Environment Extreme, Level-d 767-300ER, Ultimate Traffic II.FSX Setup Screen Shots----------------------------

Mike, I was looking at your settings and I am seeing something weird. How is it you have your autogen set to max but it reads as dense? Your not using a autogen tweek are you?Jim

Another difference is binning--the 975 CPUs are selected from the highest-performing batches as determined by production sampling. Small variances in physical and chemical makeup in the various wafers can make a tremendous difference in the chips' high-end performance. When you buy a 920, you may be getting one from a really good wafer that can match a 975, or you might be getting one that can't get near a 975 due to die contamination or other factors. I know people with 920s that won't get past 3.6GHz, and I've seen reports of people having them at 4.5 GHz, too. As someone hanging a lot of other expensive high-end gear on the CPU (GPU, SSDs, fast DRAM etc), it wouldn't be a good outcome to end up with a CPU that can't get to 4 GHz.In practice, getting my 975 to 4.4 GHz was easy, and with moderate voltages and temps a long way back from the ragged edge. The 920s I've seen running that fast are mostly running at extreme voltages and BCLK overspeeds that I didn't want to mess with. The areas of the processor I have pushed way up (the cores) all have good thermal monitoring that enables setting management that will stay clear of trouble. An extreme uncore clock overspeed produced by high BCLK speeds is producing a lot of heat in an unmonitored area of the chip. RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

So that's the magic trick. There had to be a difference otherwise all those spending 1 grand would be plain fools. But I am not going to cancel my order for that D0 920 (still waiting :( in SE europe)If I am lucky, I may get to 4GHZ. If not, so be it. Even 3.5-3.6 GHz will (hopefully) eliminate or at least significantly reduce stutters for my beloved FSX. :(