No offence but you don't buy a I7 975 and run it at default clock speeds, its meant to OC, thats like buying a Ferrari and using it for just running down to the local grocery store for some cheese and eggs.

I'm sure this pegs me as a computer illiterate (true)- but if overclocking is such a slamdunk, why wouldn't Intel do that at the factory, then sell the chip at a higher price? Or is there some uncertainty about overclocking which Intel is not prepared to risk? Alex Reid

I'm sure this pegs me as a computer illiterate (true)- but if overclocking is such a slamdunk, why wouldn't Intel do that at the factory, then sell the chip at a higher price? Or is there some uncertainty about overclocking which Intel is not prepared to risk? Alex Reid

Not illiterate at all...but it comes down to essentially a safety factor. Since overclocking increases chance for failure (higher temps, etc.), there's a magical reliability/performance statistic computed for the chip. Same thing for almost anything, say flap speeds. If you lowered flaps at 5 kts over the published limit, in all likelihood those 5 kts wouldn't blow out the flaps since there's a structural margin of safety in there.

Weber,You can safely OC with the right cooler. You don't need to be tech guru and there's really no need to worry about damaging your chip.I understand how you feel about cost, OC concerns etc.Please know that there are many talented simmers here, if you ever need the help.

Not illiterate at all...but it comes down to essentially a safety factor. Since overclocking increases chance for failure (higher temps, etc.), there's a magical reliability/performance statistic computed for the chip. Same thing for almost anything, say flap speeds. If you lowered flaps at 5 kts over the published limit, in all likelihood those 5 kts wouldn't blow out the flaps since there's a structural margin of safety in there.

As I understand this - Intel is not prepared to certify the chip at a higher clock rate - despite the loss of revenue that entails. If I overclock, in effect I am betting against Intel that it won't fail- and that I get extra performance at no cost. That sounds a bit risky on my part. I would expect that Intel has calculated these odds very carefully, with the result statistically, to be in their favour.Alex Reid

Agreed!IMO, FSX really offers nothing more than FS9 for folks who are into the heavy metal...especially with regards to add-ons like the Maddog which are merely ported over to FSX and don't over true FSX models. Again, just my opinion.

Ark,IMHO FSX, with enhanced payware, offers improved visuals, improved weather, ATC, and planes. Overall, everything is much more improved. My best FSX is way better than my best FS9 and I have tons of payware add-ons for both.

improved weather, ATC, and planes. Overall, everything is much more improved.

Out of curiosity: how were weather and ATC improved in FSX over FS9?

ATC was untouched, wxr now supports things like hurricanes (I think) but even the team at HiFi have said their is zero difference between the wxr depiction in FS9 v FSX and you do not get any wxr depiction benefits in FSX over FS9...Some things were changed (obviously texture resolution, water, round world etc...) but the core pieces we all wanted updated (ie. wxr, ATC) were left unimproved by ACES. Again, who the hell cares though and it is all irrelevant because it is ALL A PERSONAL CHOICE! I happen to like the 2009 Mercedes E-Class better than the 2010 E Class but does it mean anyone who buys the 2010 is making the wrong decision because they don't like the one I do? OF COURSE NOT!!!Come on people, lets get over all this garbage already...My .02,-PPS, Alex, as for overclockiong (and I hate to stick with the Auto analogies) it is like putting an aftermarket turbo kit in your car or on the bike... Yes, I know it will void my warranty but I calculate that v the chances of blowing the engine( why would they be selling the aftermarket turbo in the first place if they knew it would damage my engine) and vs the enjoyment level I will get out of voiding that warranty ;)In both cases the arguments for the turbo far outweigh the arguments against and I want to be the guy with the fastest car :). No different here, Intel wouldn't leave multipliers unlocked and give these chips the headroom they have for overclocking if they didn't expect people to push them harder than the manufacturer does stock... (ie. performance add-ons)It is almost like we are the performance add-ons for our own chips (cars), liquid cooling and even liquid nitrogen cooling are your superchargers and Turbo's and by OC'ing the way we do we are merely performance tuning our engines :) Personally, I have never been one to leave anything stock, cars and motorcycles included so it is no surprise that a computer that can be performance tuned would end up just like the rest of my toys :) -PPSS I have also been overclocking for YEARS and NEVER fried a chip, board or memory in the process... My current E8500 has been running a 4.45- 4.25 for 3 years!!!

I don't see it as "garbage." I see it as better results from FSX than FS9.Those who have not made the full transition, because they neither have the HW nor payware add-ons will not see the improvement.One day, they might see it on their screen. It's not a personal preference. To me FSX is much more improved "VISUALLY."I had to add "visually." ATC, just seems to work better in FSX. It's not where near what it should be. Even RC4 is not what I'm looking for.

I don't see it as "garbage." I see it as better results from FSX than FS9.Those who have not made the full transition, because they neither have the HW nor payware add-ons will not see the improvement.One day, they might see it on their screen. It's not a personal preference. To me FSX is much more improved.

I am saying these discussions are garbage... And they are...And do you realize how you just contradicted yourself? First you say it is not a personal preference and then you start your next sentence with "to me" which directly implies it is your personal opinion or preference!!!Again...I happen to like the 2009 Mercedes E-Class better than the 2010 E Class but does it mean anyone who buys the 2010 is making the wrong decision because they don't like the one I do? OF COURSE NOT!!! This is the beauty of CHOICES which we are lucky enough to have between FS9 and FSX :)

I had to make some changes to my last post.Allow me expatiate.Personally I think FSX is much more improved. But, in reality, FSX is much improved. If we are to compare FS9 patched to FSX Acceleration (Bare) FSX is just better. (IMHO)No contradiction.

I had to make some changes to my last post.Allow me expatiate.Personally I think FSX is much more improved. But, in reality, FSX is much improved. If we are to compare FS9 patched to FSX Acceleration (Bare) FSX is just better. (IMHO)No contradiction.

But again, nothing more than "your opinion"... Just because it is your opinion does not make it fact.... Not debating the FS9 V FSX thing at all, debating the semantics of you stating your opinion is just a fact... You even end with IMHO In My Honest Opinion... Not IIF (it is fact)

Well To be honest,I am myself pretty much annoyed with Fs9Firstly, Repeated ground textures despite of using many ground addons such as GE pro.Fs9 is pathetic for visual scenic flights...I will wait for the time when I have a good job & I will get the RIG to run FSX perfectly with all addons on it.

Some things were changed (obviously texture resolution, water, round world etc...) but the core pieces we all wanted updated (ie. wxr, ATC) were left unimproved by ACES.

FSX included thermal emulation, which is a vast difference to the way weather can be depicted, and a massive improvement on what can be simulated as far as air mass movement is concerned. The ATC was changed in FSX in a number of ways, most notably with the addition of non FAA procedures for various places around the world, additionally FSX can feature a control tower where players are able to direct traffic on a radar screen.Al

FSX included thermal emulation, which is a vast difference to the way weather can be depicted, and a massive improvement on what can be simulated as far as air mass movement is concerned. The ATC was changed in FSX in a number of ways, most notably with the addition of non FAA procedures for various places around the world, additionally FSX can feature a control tower where players are able to direct traffic on a radar screen.Al

Then I stand (or sit) corrected... I did not consider the thermal additions... Never have an issue with someone proving me wrong, in fact it is usually the best way to learn something new... Because I know you have a ton of experience Al what does the non FAA procedures entail? Does that mean no 250/10000 restrictions and things like that in certain parts of the world?I am one of those FS9'ers who definitely see a lot of enhancements in FSX v FS9 so it is possible to like one thing while seeing the beauty in another...

It's not just an honest opinion that FSX has been improved over FS9 - it's a fact! It's just a better all around sim.That's my point and I'm sticking to it.