As to the first part of that.. and I'm speaking from common sense, not actual knowledge, I have a lot of trouble believing that ASUS would provide a tool which is supposed to take the guesswork out of overclocking only to have it "rob peter to pay paul," so to speak. I don't think the software engineers there are such slouches that they would put a useless tool into their product which doesn't do any good, and then have it be a selling point. It is probably not as good as a skilled overclocker executing a manual overclock, but I can't believe that anyone at ASUS would even bother to put a tool into their BIOS that simply pumps up the processor speed for looks and not function...

I have to agree with you here.. my instincts are the same.. I was just trying to figure out why the jump to 3.5 didn't show dramatic improvement, and I do know that if you have to slow your RAM down (for stability), it can counteract the increased CPU speed.As for a manufacturer giving you a feature that's more show than go.. ASUS wouldn't be the first to do it.. And if effective overclocking could be done with BIOS based software, why would anyone bother to do it the hard way ?ANYway, I do understand the frustration.. and what bothers me most, is the hit the whole community took, in the form of lost users, and new users who got scared away. Here's the funny thing.. If M$ had the foresight to just set FSX up so that maxed sliders were actually 1/2-way.. FSX would still have been a significant step up from FS9, and then as hardware caught up, they could sell a "Booster Pack", that essentially unlocked the sliders. As goofy as it sounds.. many users were more put off that they couldn't, "max it out", regardless of the fact that they were still getting a much more immersive sim with the settings pulled back.

Treb,With all due respect, I think you are subconsciously looking for a 100% guarantee that if you upgrade this, or over clock that you will see definite improvement in performance. Well... There are no guarantees with FSX. That's the nature of the program.The only other thing I can suggest is you pay for a session with FS-GS. They supposedly have some miracle "cure all" that makes even the most troublesome system able to play FSX at high settings, supposedly.I would never pay someone to tweak my computer, but from your last statement it sounds like you are at the end of your rope, and/or do not have the time, money or acquired skill to fine tune (visa vi over clocking the CPU and GPU) your PC the way it needs to be to run FSX.The two biggest things that reduce FSX performance are autogen and traffic (air, sea and land).I don't use traffic in FSX.I have my autogen at normal, using the autogen limiter commands in my FSX.cfgThat's just the way it is. I justify it by saying real multimillion dollar simulators real world pilots train in never include AI traffic for precisely this reason. They also have inferior graphics, too, so I am ahead of the curve in this respect :( My point is you are going to have to either accept the low performance you currently have... Or take steps that will improve it.Myself and others have offered what we think are the key areas you should concentrate on.Not to sound like a jerk, but your system specs are not that good for FSX. They probably kick &@($* in other games, but FSX is not like other games. You have a quad core, but it is still below the 3.0 GHz mark that is (what most consider) a bare minimum for FSX performance.You have an ATI card. A dual card solution, too. As we are discussing there are reported problems with ATI and MSFS, and dual card solutions in general.These are just some of the facts I think we've stated, and are also dancing around because these are probably the two main components holding you back even if others are being polite and saying they are not.Like I said, I'm not trying to be a royal jerk, but there are no guarantees with FSX. But I can say you will MOST LIKELY get better performance with a CPU over clock and another video card... A SINGLE SLOT SOLUTION CARD... Regardless of what brand it might be.

Sorry, I always forget this part....Q9550 Quad-Core 2.83GHz (unclocked and will not clock)4GB DDR2 1066 MHzASUS Rampage Formula MOBOAntec 1Kw PSUWD Caviar Black 1TB program driveWin7 x64 Build 7600Also running dual monitors: 1 Acer x223w @ 1680x1050 and 1 Dell 17" CRT @ 1280x1024 (Could this be part of the problem? I've noticed that FSX runs much faster on the CRT which doesn't make sense unless its a pure screen resolution thing... would it make a difference only running one monitor (not desired) or even running two panels instead of two different types?)

I guess you are wanting a better video card because of dual displays. I'm not sure what the relationship between multiple displays and video cards is, but if you were running this on one display it seems your hardware is just a bit soft for getting great performance from, defined as some combination of frame rate, image quality/texture update rate, and freedom from stuttering, unless your settings are dialed down accordingly. Is the no overclocking a philosophical issue for you or is it that it doesn't seem to be overclocking friendly? It's a good board to overclock on. Sure be nice to get you up to at least 3.6Ghz--which should get you another 25% or so increase in "performance".

Have to disagree about driver support though, Nvidia are much better orginized for driver support be it professional or retail/ game, the support is there and the drivers come out more often and quicker from NV all though of late ATI is doing a better job now compared with past few years.

Are you aware ATI releases a new driver every month and has been doing this for several years now? There's no way Nvidia releases more driver versions unless you're counting leaked betas or something. For normal mainstream gaming I really don't think there's much of a difference anymore - ATI's drivers were bad back a long time ago (Radeon 9500-9800 Pro and earlier days) but for the last few card generations they're by no means bad. I have absolutely no complaints with my card running games besides FS - any first person game, World of Warcraft, etc, they all run superbly.To the original poster in this thread - upgrading to a Core i7 based machine is going to do FAR more for you than another video card will. I just upgraded from a Q6600 to an i7 860 and the difference is astounding. The i7 architecture runs FSX much better.

Ok, I've gone and gotten some answers, but I want to run them by you all...First, I went and, with a lot of help from a friend, manually overclocked my machine to the following specs:-Q9550 @ 3.6GHz-DDR2 RAM at 1081MHz-Everything stable for 12 hours on prime64 (64-bit version of prime 95)The end result was an improvement of 0 frames in FSX under the testing circumstances of sitting on the runway at KJFK in the stock 744, with ultimate traffic at 60% and ultimate terrain USA X, which were the same conditions as before. The result was between 9-11 FPS for clocked and non-clocked states.Second, that same friend has the following machine:Core i7 975 XE @ 4.01GHz3x 2GB DDR3-1900MHz2x Powercolor HD 5870He tried to get FSX to run well on his machine with various setting changes and such, and was only able to get 15-18 fps in the same situation... Now, 15-18 fps would be great for me, because that usually means that there is a smooth image being presented, but its still not perfect... But this highlights the fact that maybe the problem is the ATI card (even the 5870) rather than the machine. Between his machine and mine, there shouldn't have been any limitations from the CPU or RAM, so the only logical conclusion is that is the video card. The simple fact that I'm getting 9-11 fps without overclocking and then not getting improvement with almost an extra 1GHz of processor speed (I did try to get to 3.8GHz, but just couldn't do it with my cooling setup...) and that he was getting only a few more frames with a much better machine, but that both of us had ATI cards, really speaks to the fact that our problem probably isn't the speed of the CPU or even the model of ATI card we're using, but rather the ATI card itself...Thoughts?Also, I'm curious how much of an all-around performance hit I would take if I went for a GTX 275, since thats the highest nvidia card I can afford right now new. Any thoughts on this?Thanks,Greg

Ok, I've gone and gotten some answers, but I want to run them by you all...First, I went and, with a lot of help from a friend, manually overclocked my machine to the following specs:-Q9550 @ 3.6GHz-DDR2 RAM at 1081MHz-Everything stable for 12 hours on prime64 (64-bit version of prime 95)The end result was an improvement of 0 frames in FSX under the testing circumstances of sitting on the runway at KJFK in the stock 744, with ultimate traffic at 60% and ultimate terrain USA X, which were the same conditions as before. The result was between 9-11 FPS for clocked and non-clocked states.Second, that same friend has the following machine:Core i7 975 XE @ 4.01GHz3x 2GB DDR3-1900MHz2x Powercolor HD 5870He tried to get FSX to run well on his machine with various setting changes and such, and was only able to get 15-18 fps in the same situation... Now, 15-18 fps would be great for me, because that usually means that there is a smooth image being presented, but its still not perfect... But this highlights the fact that maybe the problem is the ATI card (even the 5870) rather than the machine. Between his machine and mine, there shouldn't have been any limitations from the CPU or RAM, so the only logical conclusion is that is the video card. The simple fact that I'm getting 9-11 fps without overclocking and then not getting improvement with almost an extra 1GHz of processor speed (I did try to get to 3.8GHz, but just couldn't do it with my cooling setup...) and that he was getting only a few more frames with a much better machine, but that both of us had ATI cards, really speaks to the fact that our problem probably isn't the speed of the CPU or even the model of ATI card we're using, but rather the ATI card itself...Thoughts?Also, I'm curious how much of an all-around performance hit I would take if I went for a GTX 275, since thats the highest nvidia card I can afford right now new. Any thoughts on this?Thanks,Greg

Greg,What can I tell you? I get incredible stable performance with my Q9550 @ 3.6 and a cranked up EVGA GTX275. No opinion here, or wishful thinking, just fact. Instead of soliciting what you want to hear from others (no offence intended for we all do it), you might want to consider buying FSXGO from www.fullterrain.com for something like $9.99 and benefit from some of the smartest FSX wizards in the world. Stephen

Skimming past a lot of the discussion here which was interesting, but you can get an ATI 5850 for just under $300 right now, the online sites all have them in stock. If you can hold out until February I suspect they'll be retailing for around $260 by then. How would a 5850 compare to the GTX285 in FSX? Anyone know? I myself am running a 5870 but the only addon I'm running so far is the Flight1 Citation Mustang.-- editjust checked out this thread:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=263062after reading that I would strongly consider a 5850, because with some overclocking you can get the 5850 to be very close to the 5870. However the prices of all the 5800 series cards are still somewhat inflated after the "GPU drought" in November, so it might pay to wait 3-4 weeks.

Greg,What can I tell you? I get incredible stable performance with my Q9550 @ 3.6 and a cranked up EVGA GTX275. No opinion here, or wishful thinking, just fact. Instead of soliciting what you want to hear from others (no offence intended for we all do it), you might want to consider buying FSXGO from www.fullterrain.com for something like $9.99 and benefit from some of the smartest FSX wizards in the world. Stephen

While I do appreciate a tweaking program like that, unless they have built some sort of tweaking logic into it so you can ask it to make changes and get some results, I don't see how it will help me out at this point. I have already set up my system / FSX according to THIS POST, so most anything else would probably just be kicking a dead horse...

Skimming past a lot of the discussion here which was interesting, but you can get an ATI 5850 for just under $300 right now, the online sites all have them in stock. If you can hold out until February I suspect they'll be retailing for around $260 by then. How would a 5850 compare to the GTX285 in FSX? Anyone know? I myself am running a 5870 but the only addon I'm running so far is the Flight1 Citation Mustang.-- editjust checked out this thread:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=263062after reading that I would strongly consider a 5850, because with some overclocking you can get the 5850 to be very close to the 5870. However the prices of all the 5800 series cards are still somewhat inflated after the "GPU drought" in November, so it might pay to wait 3-4 weeks.

Well, as of right now, I'm not looking at the ATI's really anymore... considering my friend with a much better PC than mine (mine's no slouch either) still only got 15-18 fps in the testing circumstances, and he's running a 5870, I don't think it would help my situation much better. That being said, he didn't make any fsx.cfg tweaks, so that might have something to do with it, but I can't throw out $300 in the hopes that it will. Right now, I'm leaning towards an nvidia card of some variety as I've still gotten nothing but good reports from them, but I'm not 100% which one, and I'm sure I'll have to wait a couple of weeks, since I'm not interested in buying a 275 now when I can get a 285 later for a similar price maybe...That all being said, I want to point out to anyone who is on the fence... overclocking your pc is not a silver bullet answer to this mess of a program... yeah it might run a little smoother, but there are no gurantees. My suggestion is, overclock if you want, but expect to buy a better video card...

Well, as of right now, I'm not looking at the ATI's really anymore... considering my friend with a much better PC than mine (mine's no slouch either) still only got 15-18 fps in the testing circumstances, and he's running a 5870, I don't think it would help my situation much better. That being said, he didn't make any fsx.cfg tweaks, so that might have something to do with it, but I can't throw out $300 in the hopes that it will. Right now, I'm leaning towards an nvidia card of some variety as I've still gotten nothing but good reports from them, but I'm not 100% which one, and I'm sure I'll have to wait a couple of weeks, since I'm not interested in buying a 275 now when I can get a 285 later for a similar price maybe...That all being said, I want to point out to anyone who is on the fence... overclocking your pc is not a silver bullet answer to this mess of a program... yeah it might run a little smoother, but there are no gurantees. My suggestion is, overclock if you want, but expect to buy a better video card...

Depending on when Fermi comes out the prices on the GTX285 might drop even more. I'm guessing that probably will not happen until late spring/early summer though. Prices on all video cards are still somewhat inflated right now because of issues with GPU production. Things are better now, but in late November I was seeing 5870's go for $800!

Depending on when Fermi comes out the prices on the GTX285 might drop even more. I'm guessing that probably will not happen until late spring/early summer though. Prices on all video cards are still somewhat inflated right now because of issues with GPU production. Things are better now, but in late November I was seeing 5870's go for $800!

Ouch... I made the mistake of buying a card that was too expensive last time... I'm not going to do that again...BTW, does FSX support SLI with nvidia cards?

Ouch... I made the mistake of buying a card that was too expensive last time... I'm not going to do that again...BTW, does FSX support SLI with nvidia cards?

Apparently not, nor does it support Crossfire on ATI cards.

Apparently not, nor does it support Crossfire on ATI cards.

I knew that crossfire didn't work, but SLI not working means that I can't get away with 2x 260's instead of a 285+...

Don't waste your money on a GTX 295 (260 x2), SLI or xFire setup. The GTX 285 is probably the best FSX card today but get an OC'd version (or do it yourself). I think that you want the highest shader clock you can get in a single GPU platform. 1gig mem is perfect.jja

Don't waste your money on a GTX 295 (260 x2), SLI or xFire setup. The GTX 285 is probably the best FSX card today but get an OC'd version (or do it yourself). I think that you want the highest shader clock you can get in a single GPU platform. 1gig mem is perfect.jja

Unfortunately, a factory clocked GTX 285 is way out of my price range (note the title of this thread...), if I were to go to the store today and buy a card, the best I could but is either a GTX 275 or a HD 5850. Since I've not been impressed with the 5800 series after this overclocking and comparison experiment, that leaves the 275, which is probably not the best way to go. I may go for a regular 285, but again, they run up near $400 and so its still over my price range...

Unfortunately, a factory clocked GTX 285 is way out of my price range (note the title of this thread...), if I were to go to the store today and buy a card, the best I could but is either a GTX 275 or a HD 5850. Since I've not been impressed with the 5800 series after this overclocking and comparison experiment, that leaves the 275, which is probably not the best way to go. I may go for a regular 285, but again, they run up near $400 and so its still over my price range...

Another 2 cents, Greg.. I hear your pain, but another gpu won't fix your problem. After using ATI since the late 1980's I went to nVidia about 18months ago because ATI could not support the TripleHead2Go. I haven't looked back. I've been running a 8900GTX (old, isn't it?..) for around a year, now, and it worked fine with the Core2Duo e6600, o/c'd to 3.2 gig. - but I couldn't run heavy clouds, airline and road traffic around KSEA all at the same time.. - especially with the Leonardo Maddog.This has bugged me for the longest time, and so I took the plunge three/four weeks ago, with the i7. I didn't change the gpu - just went to Win 7 in performance mode, studied how to oc and did just that. 20 x 200, and she now runs at 4 gig Prime stable - and I just came back from flying that KJFK scenario with the stock 747, 3840x1024x16, Aniso, AA, Gl.Text max, LOD large, Mesh comp. 100, Mesh Res. 5m, Text Res 30cm, Water H1.x, Land Text Det checked, Scen Comp very dense, A/G very dense, Sp. Effects Max, Airline Tr. 34, GA Tr. 100, Road 35, Cloud Cov Max, C.Draw 60 m. Fair Weather selected (ASA&REX) 5/10 cover, day. FPS is locked at 25 and she's at 24.9 or 25 solid. This was startup and climb out turning toward Manhatten. Perfectly fluid.The sim doesn't care about the gpu: it needs cpu cycles, and this has proven it for me. The rig cost me $1300 Can. - not $4000 that some have quoted here. (I could have purchased the i7-920 for half the price of the 950 and it o/c's every bit as well.)