Guys, thanks so much for all your help!I've decided to go through with the upgrade. My rig will be as follows: i7 2600K, P8P67 Deluxe and I will keep my RAM and see how it runs and then if I feel I need more/better RAM I'll upgrade that too.I one last question: Is there a specific Batch of 2600K that is known to OC to 5Ghz+ or something I can do to increase my chances of not being stopped at 4.8? EDIT: A little OT, sorry: I'm also tempted to buy a SSD to run win7 and FSX on, 120GB should be enough for me, I've read that OCZ Vertex 3 has been troublesome to a lot of people, especially the drive not being recognized etc by the BIOS, is this still true? If so any other fast (random read) SSD's that are reliable?

Guys, thanks so much for all your help!I've decided to go through with the upgrade. My rig will be as follows: i7 2600K, P8P67 Deluxe and I will keep my RAM and see how it runs and then if I feel I need more/better RAM I'll upgrade that too.I one last question: Is there a specific Batch of 2600K that is known to OC to 5Ghz+ or something I can do to increase my chances of not being stopped at 4.8?

I'm not sure. I have read on the other site that there are no known superior batches, unlike the Lynnfield series. I can say that I tried a 2500K and got to 4.6 without even a hint of trouble. The only detail was what level of LLC to use. It was a BIOS performance issue, not a CPU issue. The droop on my Z68 was quite pronounced. I used CPU-Z to momitor the core voltage and adjusted the LLC level to keep the loaded core voltage above 1.31. On my Asus board it required 1.34 volts in the BIOS which droops to 1.328 under Prime95 testing at Ultra(75%) LLC. Using High(50%) LLC with 1.34 volts drooped within 15 minutes to 1.30 volts and would allow for errors in Prime95. My finding with the 2600K was that I could run 1.33 volts in BIOS and Ultra LLC and stay at 1.312 volts under blended Prime95 stable with no errors. So maybe SpiritFlyer is correct in saying that the 2600Ks are binned higher and more predictable high overclockers. Lower vcore would give you more headroom and cooler temps at 4.8. I doubt that the performance difference between 4.6 and 4.8 is significant but go for it! I use the Crucial C300 SSD which is blazing on random reads but there is a concern about what will happen as it fills up. Crucial claims that the current firmware is immune to the kind of performance degradation that showed up in the earlier version so I am kind of testing this out.KayDub

I use the Crucial C300 SSD which is blazing on random reads but there is a concern about what will happen as it fills up. Crucial claims that the current firmware is immune to the kind of performance degradation that showed up in the earlier version so I am kind of testing this out.KayDub

Thanks. The C300 looks very good, but I have heard about lockups in windows 7 when using Sata3 and the Marvell controller, has this been solved?

Thanks. The C300 looks very good, but I have heard about lockups in windows 7 when using Sata3 and the Marvell controller, has this been solved?

Don't know. The Asus SNB uses the JMicron controller, I think...

Here it is Corey:Kind regards,

Oh yeah, and may I say that your testing has helped me tremendously. I lost a lot of money when I Ebayed my GTX 470 but you were so happy with your 580 when you got it and there were no 580s to be found at that time. An Indie shop near me had one, (they almost always get one of the top of the line of everything, then sell it as "clearance" a year later because their prices can't compete with the NewEggs, etc), and this one time I spent top $ for a component. They had it at $539 and sold it to me for $529 because I have purchased there over the years. Now, that was $30 more than everywhere else that was out of stock, so $30 was the bird in the hand adage. I don't regret that purchase for a moment, and many people say it is a waste to buy a 580 over a 560Ti. I know you like yours and that was good enough for me. I like mine, too. Do you have the F1 Mustang? That's what pushed me to buy new gear. I could never avoid big stutters and chop with it low over Seattle, and some chop everywhere else. The 2000 CL9 setting vastly changed things for me on my Lynnfield and convinced me to go Sandy Bridge when I saw the improvement that came with increased bandwidth. I will Maxx test my 2600K later this afternoon.Kaydub

That comparison shows clear results in the favour of the higher speed and latency settings, although I don't know if the very small difference would realize any observable impact on FSX performance.Kind regards,

That comparison shows clear results in the favour of the higher speed and latency settings, although I don't know if the very small difference would realize any observable impact on FSX performance.Kind regards,

With my Lynnfield, going from 1600-6 to 2000-9 made a huge difference on the F1 Mustang. I had unresolved stutter issues for 15 months until I put in the 2000s. The 1600s worked fine with all other aircraft. On my 2600k, I can see the difference between 1866-8 and 2133-9. The 2133s are a little better, although nowhere near as pronounced as with the Lynnfield. It's the Mustang that is so stubborn with stutters...K

this is my score....i am having low fsxmark11 scoresee: http://forum.avsim.n...1/page__st__175now having 1600 9-9-9Could this possibly be due to memory Kaydub?

this is my score....i am having low fsxmark11 scoresee: http://forum.avsim.n...1/page__st__175now having 1600 9-9-9Could this possibly be due to memory Kaydub?

I don't think so. Memory doesn't have THAT much of an effect. How many processes do you have running in the background? How many programs are on your START tab?KayDub

Thanks for your MaxxMEM screenshots, guys! I just reran mine with my OC at 4.8GHz. Check it out!

Here, this is from Guru3D, this explain why lower latency is better, Memory timings explainedWhat are memory timings? Okay, allow me to explain a little what you will run into with memory timings. first off latency. We used the word numerous times already in this article. Latency is the time between when a request is made and the request is answered. I.E, if you are in a restaurant for a meal, the latency would be the time between when you ordered your meal to the time you received it. The faster your order is served, the better right ?Therefore, in memory terms, it is the total time required before data (your meal) can be written to or read from the memory. latency - lower is better.Say we notice on the packaging is this: CL9-11-9 1.65V (1T) for a memory kit. What do the numbers mean ? Well this refers to CAS-tRCD-tRP-tRAS CMD (respectively) and these values are measured in clock cycles.CAS Latency <br itxtNodeId="83">Undoubtedly, one of the most essential timings is that of the CAS Latency and is also the one most people can actually understand. Since data is often accessed sequentially (same row), the CPU only needs to select the next column in the row to get the next piece of data. In other words, CAS Latency is the delay between the CAS signal and the availability of valid data on the data pins (DQ). Therefore, the latency between column accesses (CAS), plays an important role in the performance of the memory. The lower the latency, the better the performance. However, the memory modules must be capable of supporting low latency settings. tRCD<br itxtNodeId="86">There is a delay from when a row is activated to when the cell (or column) is activated via the CAS signal and data can be written to or read from a memory cell. This delay is called tRCD. When memory is accessed sequentially, the row is already active and tRCD will not have much impact. However, if memory is not accessed in a linear fashion, the current active row must be deactivated and then a new row selected/activated. It is this example where low tRCD's can improve performance. However, like any other memory timing, putting this too low for the module can result in instability. tRP<br itxtNodeId="88">tRP is the time required to terminate one one Row access and begin the next row access. Another way to look at this it that tRP is the delay required between deactivating the current row and selecting the next row. Therefore, in conjunction with tRCD, the time required (or clock cycles required) to switch banks (or rows) and select the next cell for either reading, writing or refreshing is a combination of tRP and tRCD.tRAS<br itxtNodeId="93">Memory architecture is like a spreadsheet with row upon row and column upon column with each row being 1 bank. In order for the CPU to access memory, it must first determine which Row or Bank in the memory that is to be accessed and activate that row via the RAS signal. Once activated, the row can be accessed over and over until the data is exhausted. This is why tRAS has little effect on overall system performance but could impact system stability if set incorrectly.<br itxtNodeId="92"><br itxtNodeId="91">Command Rate<br itxtNodeId="89">The Command Rate is the time needed between the chip select signal and the when commands can be issued to the RAM module IC. Typically, these are either 1 clock or 2. Memory testing is a process of trial and error, find and seek the maximum. This is pretty much a sucker for your free time.Traditional system: If you are going to overclock then increase the system bus frequency, change the memory timings, but most of all alter memory dividers until your system won't boot. If you are not comfortable with such a thing, hey this isn't your game then. I recommend you to lower the processor's multiplier and then slightly increase the FSB with high memory timings and take it from there timings wise. For a Core i5/i7 system: change memory multipliers/dividers in the BIOS or overclock Baseclock, QPI frequency and memory voltage.http://www.guru3d.com/article/mushkin-blackline-ridgeback-2000-mhz-ddr3-8gb-review/1

After reading this post I upped my ram from 1600 cls 6 to 2133 cls 9 and it seems perhaps a little better, but very close on the low end side in heavy areas. Hard to tell with ram on FSX; this is on a 2600k; 4.7 4g mushkin ram, 580 gtx and ssd's...my fps are always so high now it is hard to find stutters these days, but my system appears stutter free:) Thanks guys.

After reading this post I upped my ram from 1600 cls 6 to 2133 cls 9 and it seems perhaps a little better, but very close on the low end side in heavy areas. Hard to tell with ram on FSX; this is on a 2600k; 4.7 4g mushkin ram, 580 gtx and ssd's...my fps are always so high now it is hard to find stutters these days, but my system appears stutter free:) Thanks guys.

That's good to hear. My 2600k at 4.6 is almost stutter free also. Only every hour or so or when I'm approaching Seattle will I get one sharp stutter, but it's just one. I'm real happy with FSX, it's quite enjoyable.