Note that I've always tended to judge FS performance by smoothness rather than by frame rates. Turn the frame rate display off. Increase the sliders and complexity. You've hit a bottleneck somewhere when it's no longer smooth.

That's solid good advice :( High fps isn't of much use if you can't enjoy a smooth and stutter free flight.

Nick or whomever,Tell me what I am seeing here if you kindly would.To get my QX to run stable at 4.1Ghz, I need a BIOS core voltage setting of 1.40v When I do this Everest or CPUID sensors show a core voltage of 1.36 idle, 1.31 at peak load. At 3.88Gz, I need a BIOS setting of 1.3625v, and show 1.31 at idle, and 1.27v at peak load via the sensors. The datasheet states the VID range for my QX is 0.85 - 1.3625v. So, the question is, since the sensors are showing 1.36v/1.31v with a 4.1Ghz overclock, have I exceeded the processors VID range because I have core voltage at 1.40v in the BIOS, or am I still within spec since the sensors show voltages less than 1.3625v? Intel also describes an "absolute maximum core voltage with respect to Vss" as 1.45v. Noel

The difference between what CPUZ shows and what you set in BIOS is VDroop: ASUS x58 motherboards have a feature called Load-Line Calibration and turning on LLC will bring the figures closer together, but will generate more heat. The BIOS voltage is the correct voltage and is the one to use.

Noel,If you want to delve further into Vdroop read the link below.http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=126

I don't know if this has been talked about in depth, but I just noticed something. Up to now I am running BP at 500000. BP at 0 gives too much artifacts, even when I run FSX in Vista mode.Now I just tried to see how far I could overclock my i7 920 CPU. I've been running it at 3.3 on the stock cooler for over a year and never managed to get it run higher. Today (stupid me) I finally figured out that it might be the RAM (1333 CLS9) that prevented me from OC'ing more (whenever I tried higher OC setting, the computer wouldn't start up). To my utter amazement I could easily run the CPU at 4.0... with the stock cooler (and RAM now running at 1200 instead of 1333). So my RAM was holding further OC-ing back. I am rather surprised btw that I can OC the i7 920 to 4.0 with the stock cooler and that I can even run FSX without any problems...!!!!Anyway, I decided to give BP at 0 another try and to my surprise I didn't have ANY artifacts...!So somehow the speed of the CPU influences what happens with the GPU...? I am sure other can explain what's happening here. ;) But there is a relationship. Maybe it simply has to do with the PCI-bus running faster due to the OC...? All those who are getting artifacts with BP at 0, what speed is your CPU running at?About my OC: right now my CPU reaches temps of 70 C when running FSX, but it's COLD at the attic right now. In order to keep on running my CPU at 4.0 I guess I will need a better cooler. Still, I am amazed I could achieve this... with the stock cooler and even without changing any voltages or whatever...! I think that if I get a good cooler and better RAM (1600 with a low CLS) I can make a big step forward...! Should have knows and tried this before.OT: all the coolers I can find for my i7 920 and Gigabyte EX58-UD5 seem to need brackets at the back of the motherboard... But I don't want to completely take my mobo out of the computer... Anyone knows if there are good coolers that I can simply put on the CPU without having to install brackets at the back of the mobo...?

If you want to delve further into Vdroop read the link below.http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=126

Great info, Bob!.. What a good site! But finding ICC & RLL mathematically??? Yikes! ...I think I like the idea of an automated tool! The article was written in 2007, so I expect one is available now. Gotta go digging... :( 'later.

All those who are getting artifacts with BP at 0, what speed is your CPU running at?

3.8 for normal and 4.0 using the sim with the Maddog. Very minimal artifacts, and mostly disappeared since removing the Affinity Mask from the cfg.

About my OC: right now my CPU reaches temps of 70 C when running FSX, but it's COLD at the attic right now. In order to keep on running my CPU at 4.0 I guess I will need a better cooler. Still, I am amazed I could achieve this... with the stock cooler and even without changing any voltages or whatever...! I think that if I get a good cooler and better RAM (1600 with a low CLS) I can make a big step forward...! OT: all the coolers I can find for my i7 920 and Gigabyte EX58-UD5 seem to need brackets at the back of the motherboard... But I don't want to completely take my mobo out of the computer... Anyone knows if there are good coolers that I can simply put on the CPU without having to install brackets at the back of the mobo...?

I don't think there are any that don't require a backplate Jeroen: I'm running the Scythe Mugen II with the heat surface ground on glass. It's good, but Prime95, IntelBurnTest, and Orthos will all push the temps into the low 80's at 4.0, with mid 70's at 3.8. Measured with CoreTemp & RealTemp.It's not a huge job to pull it apart: just takes time and a little care. There are only five or six screws holding the mobo in place.Edit:Great 4gig oc site:http://forums.pureoverclock.com/showthread...ted=1#post37754

I don't know if this has been talked about in depth, but I just noticed something. Up to now I am running BP at 500000. BP at 0 gives too much artifacts, even when I run FSX in Vista mode.Now I just tried to see how far I could overclock my i7 920 CPU. I've been running it at 3.3 on the stock cooler for over a year and never managed to get it run higher. Today (stupid me) I finally figured out that it might be the RAM (1333 CLS9) that prevented me from OC'ing more (whenever I tried higher OC setting, the computer wouldn't start up). To my utter amazement I could easily run the CPU at 4.0... with the stock cooler (and RAM now running at 1200 instead of 1333). So my RAM was holding further OC-ing back. I am rather surprised btw that I can OC the i7 920 to 4.0 with the stock cooler and that I can even run FSX without any problems...!!!!Anyway, I decided to give BP at 0 another try and to my surprise I didn't have ANY artifacts...!So somehow the speed of the CPU influences what happens with the GPU...? I am sure other can explain what's happening here. ;) But there is a relationship. Maybe it simply has to do with the PCI-bus running faster due to the OC...? All those who are getting artifacts with BP at 0, what speed is your CPU running at?About my OC: right now my CPU reaches temps of 70 C when running FSX, but it's COLD at the attic right now. In order to keep on running my CPU at 4.0 I guess I will need a better cooler. Still, I am amazed I could achieve this... with the stock cooler and even without changing any voltages or whatever...! I think that if I get a good cooler and better RAM (1600 with a low CLS) I can make a big step forward...! Should have knows and tried this before.OT: all the coolers I can find for my i7 920 and Gigabyte EX58-UD5 seem to need brackets at the back of the motherboard... But I don't want to completely take my mobo out of the computer... Anyone knows if there are good coolers that I can simply put on the CPU without having to install brackets at the back of the mobo...?

Jercen,Some of these things seem about as logical as curses and hexes. I am now getting flashes and artifacts back big time. LOL It stuck me funny this morning and thought it might have something to do with the phases of the moon or the intestines of a chicken or clam or something. Maybe the clock speed of the CPU is more logical, but only just maybe! :( Stephen

I am now getting flashes Stephen

Hmmm.... time you went on leave, Stephen.... :(

The difference between what CPUZ shows and what you set in BIOS is VDroop: ASUS x58 motherboards have a feature called Load-Line Calibration and turning on LLC will bring the figures closer together, but will generate more heat. The BIOS voltage is the correct voltage and is the one to use.

I did read the article below, which confirmed what I had guessed vDroop had to do with, having read about it elsewhere. It still doesn't quite answer my concern, which I think you have tried to do with your final comment re the BIOS voltage. Even so, I'm still not certain what I am seeing. Plz pardon my electrical ignorance. Do you think this is the correct interpretation:1. BIOS core voltage is the maximum voltage available to the CPU thru the mainboard's power management circuitry. This IS NOT the same as what the processor is actually receiving, because of how the VRM works, with or without vDroop.2. If CPUz shows a level of 1.31v at peak load, this was what the VRM and vDroop circuitry did to give the CPU some headroom for fluctuations that happen as the demand state changes.So, it seems the critical question is: is my processor actually sustaining voltage through it of 1.40v, or does the mainboard downregulate this, and offer some buffer protection thru vDroop and other circuitry? It would seem to me, if this is correct, that setting 1.40v in the BIOS, provided I am not seeing that as a sustained core voltage in CPUz, leaves me within the range of "safe" voltage for my CPU.Here is Anand's comment from one article, which makes me think #2 above is an accurate statement:"The CPU VID setting establishes the absolute maximum allowable processor supply voltage experienced during transient conditions and is not the target idle voltage. We hope this statement draws attention to this important distinction, as many believe the opposite to be true - a mistake all too commonly made. Together, Vdroop and Voffset ensure that the peak CPU supply voltage seen during heavy to light loading changes remains well below the established maximum. If you determine that 1.17V, as in the case above, is not sufficient for maintaining CPU stability under load, simply increasing the CPU VID does correct the problem."And then this comment: "The Core 2 family of processors is extremely resilient to abuse - reports of failures due to overvoltage or over current incidents are exceedingly rare. Features such as these work by clamping processor input voltage (and current) to tolerable levels in order to prevent permanent damage."This discussion had me rethinking whether or not it is relatively safe to run my processor at 4.0Ghz or slightly higher. For the past year or so I had run this thing at 4.08Ghz at 1.40v and never had any problems. I am (still!) so happy with FSX performance that I decided to prolong the fun I would dial back voltage IN THE BIOS to 1.3625, thinking this was critical to protect the cpu. I am thinking now this may not be necessary, based on the idea the VRM w/ vDroop is clamping voltage anyway, so it's ok. What do you think about the logic in this? Am I missing some key points, or no? I do know lower voltage generally means better long term reliability. But long term for me really means another 2 years or so, after which I will do the next big upgrade. Of note, temps seems well controlled with my (NickN strongly rejected!) method of cooling. At peak load I rarely get to 60C using core temp.exe, and usually run around 52C at 4.08Ghz in FSX.

Okay, I had to do some measurements. I hovered at the same place for about fifteen seconds, sim not paused, and then took a screenshot. BP=0 w/ below normal priority felt the smoothest, and as a bonus, the buildings got roofs. TrackIR was disabled, and the reference points marked w/ explanation marks illustrate the view from the cockpit.TBM=40, scenery & cloud density: highest.

At peak load I rarely get to 60C using core temp.exe, and usually run around 52C at 4.08Ghz in FSX.

Interesting, Noel; what application are you using as a load?

So, it seems the critical question is: is my processor actually sustaining voltage through it of 1.40v, or does the mainboard downregulate this, and offer some buffer protection thru vDroop and other circuitry? It would seem to me, if this is correct, that setting 1.40v in the BIOS, provided I am not seeing that as a sustained core voltage in CPUz, leaves me within the range of "safe" voltage for my CPU.

Nutshell answer: Generally - the CPUZ voltage is less than the vCore which you set in bios, but it is desirable for it to be as close to the bios setting as possible.Ok - bear with me - I'm no processor architecture wizard at all - I've been an average electronics guy since 1960, and this is what I've gleaned from the article. Nick Needham is probably much better qualified to evaluate this article or answer your concerns than I am!The cpu needs a stable, solid vCore to operate: What the article describes is essentially Intel's voltage regulation system - which is controllable by you setting your bios vCore; with an internal addon control which can keep the vCore voltage moderately stable in spite of the changing load requirement of the processor. i.e. it's a feedback system which senses the difference between the power supply's input circuit and its output circuit, and adjusts that voltage slightly upwards or downwards to keep that output stable within a known specification. Power (in watts) = voltage (vCore) x current (VCC). For example - very rough - let's set 1.2625 in the bios with LLC off: the power drawn at idle may be 53 watts: so w=v x i therefore 53w=1.2625 x 42amps, which will give a resistance of 0.03 ohms. The only way we can get an increase in Icc is by reducing the load resistance (called correctly Load-line Impedance, as we're dealing with high frequency a/c.) So - if we now increase the current (the load Icc) by clocking slightly i.e. reducing the load resistance say, to 0.02 ohms - then we'll see the power consumption rise to almost 80 watts, with an Icc of 63 amps. The unfortunate part of this is that, in regulating the current within the power supply - the "load line regulation resistor (RFB)" - there is a voltage drop at the output end - where it actually 'feeds' the cpu. As the load gets lesser/ greater, or fluctuates - that o/p voltage moves up and down in concert with the load current Icc -which is not what the processor wants to see. It needs a stable vCore voltage. So - a method of keeping the voltage high enough to cover off a sudden negative or positive spike is needed to control that voltage difference - the vDroop, and keep the output vCore within acceptable limits. This is achieved by adding a "well controlled output impedance (resistance), (so) the output voltage under load can be effectively 'level shifted' down so that a larger positive spike can be sustained without crossing the upper specification limit (such as when the system suddenly leaves a heavy load condition)".The tough part is - when it's in-circuit it increases the heat production, and so it seems lots of overclockers (me included) leave it turned off. Hope this helps. (I hope it's right, too.... :(

Interesting, Noel; what application are you using as a load?Nutshell answer: Generally - the CPUZ voltage is less than the vCore which you set in bios, but it is desirable for it to be as close to the bios setting as possible.

Prime95 is the test application running torture test, but only the blended one. The other one is FSX, since that is the most CPU intensive program I run.Hmm, why is it good for it to be as close to the BIOS setting as possible?Well, it helps my understanding, but kinda doesn't answer my real question which has to do with what to look at to assess longer term threats to reliability. I'm thinking now that if I set to 1.4v in the BIOS to get a stable 4.0Ghz overclock, which is where it must be set to get stable operation, then since sensors are displaying core voltage under load of about 1.3016v and 1.35v at idle, the thing must be needing transient volts delivered of up to 1.39v, else it would not need this maximum VID in the BIOS. If this is the case, now the question is refined to: since my processor has a stated VID range of .85 to 1.3625v, how do transient spikes up to 1.4v affect long term reliability? It does not seem as if as long as the sustained draw is 1.35 or less, that there would be much of an issue. I guess this is compatible with my history of about a year of running my CPU at 4.08Gz with no changes in stability. I began getting concerned when I realized there did not seem to be huge benefits from this (the reason for my initial post) and the processor now requires my active cooling solution. That is, I'm adding signficant watts and heat with not alot of visible improvements. It's pretty much academic, but hey, if 1.4v really is not a problem, why not?! Good for bragging rights (well, it was a year or two ago!) if nothing else.Noel

Hey GuysI know this thread has gone into parts unknown(DPC latency is WAY over my head) but I wanted to post an update about getting BP=0 to work better on my system in case others are having problemsEverything was working great x/c in very high texture burden environments, where I would get a brief video outage and the picture would come back on with all this snowy artifact that required a reboot, or simply bluescreen with the typical nvidia dll message indicating a non-specific card failure.I am running BP=0 and TBM=60 on a 2gb GTX 285(overclocked)Step 1Lock the framerates, this reduced the spiking artifacts tremendously, BUT I would get crashes in very very high texture burden environments i.e. Orbx Tamworth with alot of weather in the Flight 1 PC-12Step 2 reduce to 16bit textures in the FSX settings(I can't tell the difference)Step 3Make individual profiles for all my flight conditions(this is something I started after reading Mathijus's PDF)propsGA, Tubeliners, OrbxGA, etc to load before each flightAnd Voila' I can now fly Orbx Tamworth in a complex aircraft with very high slider settings(I have an autogen limiter in my FSX cfg) and get 20 frames/sec locked and 30fps over default terrain(sliders maxxed and activesky weather with REX clouds)I am also using the new texture flow libraries from Orbx.So if you are having trouble with this tweak you may want to try the above. Cheers pp

Yes I did but found that the BF=0 shoved my performance over an edge so to speak.

BTW,Found an intersting setting.. it doesn't 'change' anything, but at least proves that BP=0 means *0* and not 'default' values.If you try something like:[bufferPools]Poolsize=50000000UsePools=0(notice the UsePools=0) it will completely ignore the 50000000 value. Found the UsePool setting hunting for hidden FSX.CFG options in the FSX's DLL's there are tons of options to play with (not related to bufferpools) but its time consuming to map all of them to their corresponding sections in the FSX.cfg fileAditionally, I've also noticed fsx.exe process memory utilization grows 'proportionaly' to the size set in PoolSize=X so, If you were to startFSX with PoolSize=100000000 PoolSize=300000000 or PoolSize=600000000 (thats 100MB, 300MB and 600MB respectively) and check the fsx.exe process you will see it 'grows' EXACTLY in proportion to the ammount you set in PoolSize, so it is EFFECTIVELY a buffer, that *seems* to be reserving SYSTEM memory that otherwise will not be used when PoolSize is set to 0 or UsePools=0

Jercen,Some of these things seem about as logical as curses and hexes. I am now getting flashes and artifacts back big time. LOL It stuck me funny this morning and thought it might have something to do with the phases of the moon or the intestines of a chicken or clam or something. Maybe the clock speed of the CPU is more logical, but only just maybe! :( Stephen

------------------------------------------------------------------------Stephen, if you have a 1GB card use the following;[bufferPools] PoolSize=500000You will have just about as smooth and stutter-free performance from FSX as if you had it set to '0'. You will not have any further artifacts or FSX crapping out on you after a half hour or so. Give it a try. I had Buff at 0 with my GTX285 1GB card, but kept getting artifacts after about 1/2 hour to 45 minutes after I started FSX. I usually had to restart the computer to get rid of them (artifacts, white dots, tears, etc.) With my Buff now set to '500000 (five zeroes) I have no further issues of any kind, FSX totally stable and have the odd VERY SLIGHT stutter if at all. Quite livable. If though I had a 2GB card, I certainly would use the setting of '0' once more.Post Edit: Stephen, Buff at 500000 is the solid performance setting. No crash, no artifact, and great FPS and rendering performance. I'm going to be making this permanent in my .cfg.Mitch