My only objection to this is using FSX as a stability test. There's no way you can deem your OC stable, or check temperatures that way.

Simon, Here is the approach I used...1) Start from a known stable hardware base - NO overclock. 2) Get all hardware working rock solid. Finalize the the platform and drivers. Use tools to load test the platform (prime95 etc)3) Get a plain vanilla FSX install running and solid. No overclocking and no addons yet. Develop a fixed flight plan with fixed traffic levels and get a warm feeling that things are stable. 4) Overclock now. Use tools to load test the paltform (prime95 etc). I used FSX as the load test tool since other tools stress the platfom far more than the intended FSX use and this is not necessary. Try to resist the temptation to go that .1ghz "more". It will not make great difference. Stay on the stable side of the fence. Fly the same fixed flight plan and make sure all is good.5) Once you are comfortable that you have solid hardware and fsx is "rock solid", then start adding the fsx.cfg tweaks one by one while testing using the same fixed flight plan.I found that the added video speed (480 and 257.15/21) did add some instability to my platform. Might make sense since video bandwidth increased and travels over the pcie bus which is clocled by the bclk etc etc etc.Good Luck. I think you made the right call on the 470. The 480 is overkill IMHO. EVGA Precision tells me that my 480 is sitting at roughly 25% (peaks to 35%).Once you get everything sorted you will be very happy I'm sure.

My only objection to this is using FSX as a stability test. There's no way you can deem your OC stable, or check temperatures that way.

here we go again... :( This is fun. :( A stable platform is one that performs its FUNCTION in a stable way. It is a relative concept. If your rig is dedicated to fsx and fsx uses 1 core (approx), then other than bragging rights (which in fact no one really cares about), why limit your overclock by stress testing with 8 cores? Simply put you can achieve higher clock speeds and be "fsx stable" with less Vcore, less temps and less wattage consumption. Is anything twigging yet?Point #4 says "Overclock now. Use tools to load test the platform (prime95 etc)" So the general approach would be to stress test with a known defacto tool. Then, I taylored my oc to suit the function - yep FSX not Prime95."There's no way you can deem your OC stable..." - incorrect" ...or check temperatures that way." - incorrect (use Real Temp)

I'm just saying that you need to run prime95 blend for 8h+ or 20+ IBT runs to rest assured your clock is stable. Ask anyone who really knows what he's doing if you don't believe me. sloppy overclocking can degrade your chip in the long run. do what you want with your comp, but don't go giving advice that can get others in trouble

After a number of people expressing that they are having problems with the Bufferpools=0 tweak, I tested an alternative put forward by Bojote (*******, Hey-sus) and it seems to work very well in my system with all the other settings I use. Apparently it allows the default bufferpool but sends all the big and heavy loads to the GPU. I post this here in this thread because it seems harmonized with the information I posted above.This goes into it's own section in the fsx.cfg file, replacing any other bufferpools fsx.cfg tweak:[bufferPools]RejectThreshold=98304Stephen

I'm just saying that you need to run prime95 blend for 8h+ or 20+ IBT runs to rest assured your clock is stable. Ask anyone who really knows what he's doing if you don't believe me. sloppy overclocking can degrade your chip in the long run. do what you want with your comp, but don't go giving advice that can get others in trouble

I agree with this, but i use only 5 runs with maximum stress level to test my clocks, and they are proven stable. (tho im kinda scared my 80c temps, lowered vcore 0.02v, causing me to lower my clock by 0.1GHz (4.1GHz now). Temps max at 73c, succesfully ran IBT maximum stress level 5 times, like its defaulted, getting "your system is stable" I've also heard from many OC'ers same thing, that 5 runs is enough. Even tho 20 runs isnt as long as 8h prime, my average run is 150 sec.. Too bad that i have fairly bad chip, to overclock it more it requires alot bigger step in vcore. (managed to achieve 4.3ghz with 1.42vcore, with AC on coldest and normal desktop fan blowing into case...)Everybody does things their own way, we don't have to pay for someones CPU if its not stable and becouse of that dies. (unlikely if you dont mess around with VCores, my friend has fried 3 980X's when using liquid nitrogen..)

screen shot in PMDG 747 showing relative perfomance with 480.

After changing Windows 7's theme to classic FSX's windowed mode performs just as good as full screen does. I never in fly in full screen anymore.

After changing Windows 7's theme to classic FSX's windowed mode performs just as good as full screen does. I never in fly in full screen anymore.

Dazz, does this remove the "Aero" functionality? I notice a graphics mode change before and after FSX runs. I will try this out.

After changing Windows 7's theme to classic FSX's windowed mode performs just as good as full screen does. I never in fly in full screen anymore.

tried this. No discernable change. Perhas the 257.21 drivers are optimized for win7/aero and the 480 eats it all up. Besides the aero interface has some nice features (appplication preview etc).

do you mean the aero texture bundle? I don't have it so couldn't say if it's a factor. would you recomend it compared to rex2 textures?

do you mean the aero texture bundle? I don't have it so couldn't say if it's a factor. would you recomend it compared to rex2 textures?

"Aero" Themes are a Win7 feature that improve the look/feel/functionality of the Win7 GUI. Not related to FSX and not needed/wanted on lower end platforms since apparently lower performance. (right click/personalize). I am not sure but it seems like win7 switches graphics modes when fsx runs. REX2 are still ranted top dog from my understanding.

Yes, when FSX is launched Windows switches to "windows aero basic", but the classic is the one that is in win 98/95.

How do you guys notice that change to aero? the contextual menus/tool bar actually change?I just read somewhere that someone run classic theme for FSX. Tried it and helped a bit in windowed mode, and I don't see any theme switch when I start FSXI don't really know what it does for FSX, simply assumed it sort of needs less resources to run classic or something

Yes, when FSX is launched Windows switches to "windows aero basic", but the classic is the one that is in win 98/95.

Simple, if you select classic before launching fsx it doesn't have to switch to basic mode, aka the one thats not see thru, but if you have aero on and launch fsx it switches. Whats so hard to understand?

How do you guys notice that change to aero? the contextual menus/tool bar actually change?I just read somewhere that someone run classic theme for FSX. Tried it and helped a bit in windowed mode, and I don't see any theme switch when I start FSXI don't really know what it does for FSX, simply assumed it sort of needs less resources to run classic or something

you notice a quick flash and a resolution change. The first time it tells you that Aero doesn't support the vid mode you/fsx are changing to and gives you the option of not nagging anymore.