Dan,Thanks for your response,The information about memory is taken from CPUID. I have 3 sticks 2GB each. Here is the data from CPUID (cannot take a screenshot) for each stickMemory SPD-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Dmitri, Here are the settings I have below. What you should do is write these down or print them out. And before you change any settings, look over the entire list to see if anything is not as I have it in your bios.I have had that bios with this same overclock and was still rock solid, but I don't have it anymore and am running an unlocked bios written by someone other than Asus. 0001 to be exact.If anything does not make sense when you are comparing the list, stop, hit escape and say no to saving changes. Come back and let me know what was wrong.Also, make sure you have Turbo OFF, that is priority #1.Your settings will be set to Auto, and these options may only be visable when manual is chosen, I can't remember for that bios.CPU Ratio 19.0 BCLK 200 PCIE Freq 100 DRAM Freq 1603 UCLK Freq 3208 QPI Link 7218 MT/S cpu voltage 1.325 PPL 1.88 QPI/Dram 1.325 IOH Voltage 1.10 IOH PCIE 1.50 ICH Voltage 1.20 ICH PCIE 1.50 Dram Voltage 1.64If everything looks the same as far as name goes (the numbers of course will be different until you change them), then proceed. What will happen is once you save and restart, you'll get the scare of your life (I shouldn't tell you that, it's a good initiation into overclocking :-) What will happen is your computer will shut down. Don't worry, that's normal. When your comp boots and displays the settings and speed hit Pause on the keyboard and verify the settings are showing. You should see 3.80 to 3.83 and memory should be @ 1603.A couple sets of these numbers will be in yellow after you set them, don't worry, that is just because your going slightly more than what your jumper is set for (manufacturer settings). If the overclock failed it will display that in an error on the top of your bios screen. To be on the safe side, when OC'ing always have your Motherboard cd available (not in the drive since it's bootable). That way if something does go crazy you can still recover. This is more a bios disaster when flashing the bios but you should have it as an extra precaution.Good luck and have a fire extinguisher handy :) haha just kidding, it will be fine... :(

***Warning - Anyone else reading this should note, this is only for someone with DDR3 1600 rated ram, an i7920 and the Asus P6T6 WS Revolution motherboard and should not be used with just any setup.***

Dan,Thank you very much for your guidance and time devoted to explain. I will definitely try this in the middle of next month and report back.The other question (rather fundamental) I'd like to ask - what is the TRUE benefit of OC in FSX in terms of FPS gains? I mean raw numbers (not percentage). is it just +2 or 4 FPS or massive +8 or 12 increase?Thanks againDmitriy

wait for the i7 980X and see what it can do, it gonna have 6 cores and running of a speed of 3.33 ghz im sure it can be clocke to 4,5 ghzyes its gonna be expensive i know but i have the money to buy it when it arives.

I think it will be outside the budget of most people.

Both true statements, but very different meanings for us simmers in FSX! FSX does benefit by as many true cores as you can throw at it. It does not benefit much (if at all) from hyperthreading (too many 'collisions' I hear - data & instruction collisions, not airplanes!).So, as an example, on my i7 920, Performance will show 8 cores, only 4 are 'true', physical cores and FSX will use all 4 'true' (physical cores) to the best of its ability. The key here is to recall that "hyperthreading" is really a 'virtual core', not a physical one.Hope this helps clear up confusion!...without creating more. :( Bottom line: more cores, i.e. Quad, or the upcoming Six core and in the future more cores (I believe FSX sp2 can explicitly schedule 32 cores with no user intervention or tweaking).Cheers!

So near and yet so far. Yes FSX (sp2 or acceleration) uses multi-core. Yes physical cores give better results then virtual ones. BUT, the second and subsequent cores are only used for intermitent discrete tasks such as loading textures etc., which means that the primary core does the vast majority of the work and remains the bottleneck. Yes, more cores are better, so a 2.8GHz 8 core will outperform a 2.8GHz quad core, but, and I think this is a big "but", a 3.2GHz dual core will outperform them both.

So near and yet so far. Yes FSX (sp2 or acceleration) uses multi-core. Yes physical cores give better results then virtual ones. BUT, the second and subsequent cores are only used for intermitent discrete tasks such as loading textures tc., which means that the primary core does the vast majority of the work and remains the bottleneck.

Hence my post earlier in the thread about why I isolate FSX to the 2nd and 3rd cores thus avoiding the already abused 1st core. It does work since it's not smacking headlong into the OS, ASA, FSInn, Vatspy.. and everything else that grabs the first core. Opening up the 4th core to FSX strangely caused the odd microstutter so I just stick to 2 & 3.

Why not install FSX and FS9 on the same PC?That way you get to use your FS9 when you feel like it and also FSX when you fancy! I did that and slowly migrated to FSX. In fact it was quite quick ( despite loads of FS9 payware )... as I found FSX with reduced sliders better than FS9.Now I have only FSX installed on a powerful PC. You could save your pennies slowly for the PC while enjoying FS9 and FSX.There is no rule saying you must be in one camp only.... you can use both!Paul

Hence my post earlier in the thread about why I isolate FSX to the 2nd and 3rd cores thus avoiding the already abused 1st core. It does work since it's not smacking headlong into the OS, ASA, FSInn, Vatspy.. and everything else that grabs the first core. Opening up the 4th core to FSX strangely caused the odd microstutter so I just stick to 2 & 3.

So do you predict that a fast 2 core processor like the i5-670 running at 3.73Ghz turbo boost (3.46GHz base) will suffice for FSX? Or would you still go for the 4 core i7-920 or 860 running at 2.66 GHz (2.93 Turbo) and 2.8 GHz (3.46 Turbo) respectively and OC them?

FSX does benefit by as many true cores as you can throw at it. It does not benefit much (if at all) from hyperthreading (too many 'collisions' I hear - data & instruction collisions, not airplanes!).So, as an example, on my i7 920, Performance will show 8 cores, only 4 are 'true', physical cores and FSX will use all 4 'true' (physical cores) to the best of its ability. The key here is to recall that "hyperthreading" is really a 'virtual core', not a physical one.Hope this helps clear up any confusion!...without creating more. Bottom line: more cores, i.e. Quad, or the upcoming Six core and in the future more cores (I believe FSX sp2 can explicitly schedule 32 cores with no user intervention or tweaking). Again, whole history FSX from beginning through to Acceleration - from the folks who wrote the program please reference http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/ it is the definitive, authorative resource on FSX.Happy flying!Cheers!

So near and yet so far. Yes FSX (sp2 or acceleration) uses multi-core. Yes physical cores give better results then virtual ones. BUT, the second and subsequent cores are only used for intermitent discrete tasks such as loading textures etc., which means that the primary core does the vast majority of the work and remains the bottleneck. Yes, more cores are better, so a 2.8GHz 8 core will outperform a 2.8GHz quad core, but, and I think this is a big "but", a 3.2GHz dual core will outperform them both.

Paul, too many variables in play to make such a statement. Most all folks O/C their i7 920 (the homebuilt folks anyway, of which MANY simmers are)...I have mine at 3.2 on air - many with better cooling have their 920's at 3.8 on air or even 4 on water.Bottome line being that you can have both - cores and speed! For all of $289 at NewEgg (or your favourite vendor).Folks, go with the more cores - it has never been cheaper. No reason at all to settle for dual-core unless (and this may be the case mind you, and I understand) an extra US$100-150 will break the bank. If that is truly the case, dual core is ceratinly better than single...No matter what the speed! And the 'bottleneck' in FSX is bandwidth between cpu/bus and video card. QPI, PCIe 2.0 both solved this problem on X58, i7 systems back in late 2008).Most of all- have fun flying!Cheers!PS Oh, and Paul, those intermitent(sic) jobs such as 'loading textures'? They occur all the time as you fly from place to place - that's what makes FSX unique among sims, such as first person shooters and 'maze' games, the program (FSX) has no clue where you will fly next, so it is continually loading, dumping, loading textures, mesh, etc. Bottom-line all cores well used!

Hi Patrick,Sorry for my spelling mistake. There are no additional variables in what I stated. CPU speed has more impact on FSX performance then core count and you can prove it for yourself (and prove me wrong if you like :( ). Slow your CPU to 2.8 GHz, restrict FSX to 2 CPUs and perform a reproducible (able or ible?) test to measure fps. Repeat with the test with FSX enabled on 4 cores and record the fps. If you want you can try all 8 cores and you should get a further small improvement. Now restrict FSX back to 2 cores, up the speed to 3.2 GHz and repeat your test. I will be right or you will, but you will know for certain.Pete; As Patrick said "you can have both". While FSX, like everything else, responds best to clock speed, most modern stuff will take full advantage of everything you can throw at it.

Dan,Thank you very much for your guidance and time devoted to explain. I will definitely try this in the middle of next month and report back.The other question (rather fundamental) I'd like to ask - what is the TRUE benefit of OC in FSX in terms of FPS gains? I mean raw numbers (not percentage). is it just +2 or 4 FPS or massive +8 or 12 increase?Thanks againDmitriy

Well Dmitriy, I'd be lieing to say a percentage, since I just don't know it in that way. But when I went from your bios to the beta one I have now, at some stage lost my settings. In other words, after my bios flash, I went into the bios, reset defaults, rebooted, then back in the bios and rest all my parameters the way I like, to include the OC... Some days later and for a reason I still don't understand, my bios reset on it's own. I didn't notice right away but definitely did notice in my systems performance. It was very noticable to me and that was the main time I have litterally "Seen" the difference.I seldom run a comp long enough to get use to it before immediately OC'ing so never noticed exactly how much benefit it is, unless I was running a benchmark, but again, normally I am OC'ing a new motherboard on it's 3rd or 4th reboot at the very latest so don't have enough chance to see the difference as I described.Do I get more FPS in FSX? Absolutely. Is it worth learning how to OC for someone just for more fps in FS, or take the risk for someone that never did it? Absolutely not. I do it because I like to know how things work and explore things I'm ignorant to.I see a difference, but as I answer this question would also like to know just how much FPS my 45%+ OC is giving me so will run some tests in FSX when I get a chance. I am going to be fairly busy for the next 2 to 3 weeks so will add this to a rather long to do list, but if I haven't posted by then, remind me. I'd like to do an exact comparison.

If you had a choice of:

I chose more cores, I might stay with the Q9650 until 6 cores come out and then go down in price unless it takes too long.

Dan - good move, you won't be sorry - happy flying!Just to test some of the wild core vs. Ghz stuff I've been reading, I've just completed an experiment (I've been very busy with this since yesterday afternoon!)I ran down to the local BestBuy and bought the following systems and hardware:

• [*]Asus - Factory-Refurbished Essentio Desktop with Intel

Patrick, thats interesting stuff. I wish I could run out and buy a couple of new computers! You deserve your sleep. Thanks for the info.Regards,Pete Smith, UK