I am running my 2600k at [email protected] or [email protected]. Depending how I feel about it... Given, 5.0 is a little unstable, Windows sometimes refuses to boot, but when in Windows, it's stable. Weird thing... doesn't happen with 4.8 I think. FSX performance is marginally (3%) better at 5.0. But if I drop do say 4.4, I get quite a drop, of about 10%...Some say up to 1.5 on Vcore is good for 24/7.If you can afford to get a new chip if it burns, hell, what's stopping ya :Big Grin:

look lt at this way fsx came out in 2006, whais it now 2011 / and we are still complaining about playing fsx at max conditions even when we overclock. something is wrong here, a sim 5 yrs old and we still have problems running it ? fsx was coded wrong that's the problem, I have my 980x running stable at 4.4 but still have tweek, in fact the only tweek I have is texture bandwith at 120 and I use which I think is a great tool nividia inspector. The bestthink to do with fsx and you can't max it out even wioth overclocking is that if you are going to jfk or london be ready for some slide show action unless you set the settings down. If you are flying in the middle of Kansas then you could put everything to the max.Yes overclocking helps, and yhes it can be risky if you don't know what you are doing,, but that is the only way you can run fsx at le3ast 4.0 and we are talking about asim that came out in 20006, yhes 2006 something doesn't make sense here.

fsx was coded wrong that's the problem

This seems somewhat off-topic.. <_<

This seems somewhat off-topic.. <_<

Yea kind of reminds me of that "Bling" T.V. ad where someone starts to look up something on a search engine like "Overclocking" and ends up with "fsx was coded wrong that's the problem" :LMAO:

Yea kind of reminds me of that "Bling" T.V. ad where someone starts to look up something on a search engine like "Overclocking" and ends up with "fsx was coded wrong that's the problem" :LMAO:

Lol, now that is funny. :LMAO:

Lol, now that is funny. :LMAO:

Sorry guys, not sure what you're getting at. What do you mean he was getting off topic. For goodness sake he was just referring to the FSX coding during the discussion about OC and it's a very valid point. It's something people need to be aware of. I have OC my rig from 3.05 through to 4.0Ghz. Sure, it's given me some extra frames, but it's no smoother now than it was running default and the loading of textures is no quicker either! That to me says there is a probelm with the code too! (surely you guys have read squillions of posts regarding this even from ex aces team developers?) IMO it's a valid point, if people think that by OC will be some kind of golden chalice and they will see the end of all their woes, they will be sadly mistaken, except for the very few who are 100% happy with their OC.

Sorry guys, not sure what you're getting at. What do you mean he was getting off topic. For goodness sake he was just referring to the FSX coding during the discussion about OC and it's a very valid point. It's something people need to be aware of. I have OC my rig from 3.05 through to 4.0Ghz. Sure, it's given me some extra frames, but it's no smoother now than it was running default and the loading of textures is no quicker either! That to me says there is a probelm with the code too! (surely you guys have read squillions of posts regarding this even from ex aces team developers?) IMO it's a valid point, if people think that by OC will be some kind of golden chalice and they will see the end of all their woes, they will be sadly mistaken, except for the very few who are 100% happy with their OC.

If you mean that overclocking does not by itself solve all FSX performance issues and can introduce new problems, you are right.This, however, does not equate to problems in the code..FSX is what it is, and CAN be made to run very nicely.I would prefer the awareness focusing on the users' ability to destabilize their system by overclocking and/or overloading their system with FSX addons, tweaks, and "sliders to the right" settings.There are many users who run a stable system with good FSX performance who have sharedtheir experience on this forum..

There are many users who run a stable system with good FSX performance who have sharedtheir experience on this forum..

I agree wholeheartedly. It's just about always the same people who complain about poor FSX performance and "limitations" in various flightsim websites over and over again. It does not seem to matter what equipment or speeds they run at, or how tuned, they never get it right. They must be either the most unlucky people in the world with their hardware, or part of the perpetually perplexed, :Shocked: a common human trait that I share from time to time! :Big Grin: Kind regards,

I feel compelled I must say something:Performancewise, FSX sucks and it will always suck. It will only suck less on every newer hardware, but it won't stop sucking.Why is it that I feel so after I have one of the fastest systems running FSX as fast as it can, AND it looks nice?I play other games, and I could say I am spoiled by good performance. Yes, yes, we know the story about one map to load vs. the whole world and all. I get it.But sorry it's simply a killer if I want to land in the VC of my favorite aircraft and my system starts little stutters, just to check the FPS counter and see it's showing below 30... I know it's not about FPS in FSX, and I totally stopped going after that. But when I get the feeling of going "slower", and then check my FPS to see that it really is below my limit, well...The problem is FSX can probably never be smooth like other games (FS9 can by surprise...), that is why I fly so rarely lately.For me, anything below certain FPS counter is a slideshow. I don't want to get into specifics now, but FSX mostly can't reach it.I am playing Crysis 2, a game very taxiing on the hardware, and I can totally feel when I get below 40 for instance, which is a total killer for me. You can't even decently turn/shoot any more.I'm right now in this Twilight Zone, between FS9 and FSX, where I don't like either sim. I went back and forth 4 times, and still can't decide. FS9 looks bad, FSX performs bad. So I decided to give up. I still have FSX installed, but it's been more than a month since the last flight... I'm very sad about it.Maybe some day, I'll find something better, but I found myself in this zone of "destroying hardware to run a broken sim"... and is not only me doing that. I guess not many people are gonna share my feelings, but so be it - is only my opinion.

Sorry guys, not sure what you're getting at. What do you mean he was getting off topic. For goodness sake he was just referring to the FSX coding during the discussion about OC and it's a very valid point. It's something people need to be aware of. I have OC my rig from 3.05 through to 4.0Ghz. Sure, it's given me some extra frames, but it's no smoother now than it was running default and the loading of textures is no quicker either! That to me says there is a probelm with the code too! (surely you guys have read squillions of posts regarding this even from ex aces team developers?) IMO it's a valid point, if people think that by OC will be some kind of golden chalice and they will see the end of all their woes, they will be sadly mistaken, except for the very few who are 100% happy with their OC.

Hay Rockliffr we where just having some fun .. sometimes you guys take things a little too serious .. and sometimes you just need good laughter And from now on.. every time I see that "Bling" tv ad I'll think of some poor old Flight Sim kid trying to look up "Overclocking" on some search engine and ending up with "Performance wise, FSX sucks and it will always suck" :LMAO:

Hay Rockliffr we where just having some fun .. sometimes you guys take things a little too serious .. and sometimes you just need good laughterAnd from now on.. every time I see that "Bling" tv ad I'll think of some poor old Flight Sim kid trying to look up "Overclocking" on some search engine and ending up with "Performance wise, FSX sucks and it will always suck" :LMAO:

Sure, no sweat mate. I didn't mean to bark back, that was not my intention and I apologise if that's how I came across. I just thought the issue regarding FSX code is quite important when discussing FSX. Stephen is far more experienced than most of us in the simming world and certainly me, but I can't help thinking that having read so much about FSX code being such a dog, then I believe it needs to be taken into consideration. From what Stephen says, his opinion seems to suggest that there is no problem with the code, that is certainly not how I understand things. Perhaps we are all out of kilter with the whole FSX code thing anyway. Maybe the only reason why the FSX code 'appears' to be a dog, is that virtually everyone's rig simply isn't capable enough to run it smoothly and adequately, due to the massive graphics draw on the CPU. It's only when guys like Stephen who have the knoweledge and expertise , not to mention a rig to die for, that they can make the whole thing come together. But for mere mortals who perhaps only have a modest to hi-end rig with only a moderate knowlede of tweaking and understand of the workings of FSX, then we never get to that level of satisfaction with FSX . I hope that made sense. Just had a night of wine, watched 'The Beach' and now I'm off to bed, cheers.

Sure, no sweat mate. I didn't mean to bark back, that was not my intention and I apologise if that's how I came across. I just thought the issue regarding FSX code is quite important when discussing FSX. Stephen is far more experienced than most of us in the simming world and certainly me, but I can't help thinking that having read so much about FSX code being such a dog, then I believe it needs to be taken into consideration. From what Stephen says, his opinion seems to suggest that there is no problem with the code, that is certainly not how I understand things. Perhaps we are all out of kilter with the whole FSX code thing anyway. Maybe the only reason why the FSX code 'appears' to be a dog, is that virtually everyone's rig simply isn't capable enough to run it smoothly and adequately, due to the massive graphics draw on the CPU. It's only when guys like Stephen who have the knoweledge and expertise , not to mention a rig to die for, that they can make the whole thing come together. But for mere mortals who perhaps only have a modest to hi-end rig with only a moderate knowlede of tweaking and understand of the workings of FSX, then we never get to that level of satisfaction with FSX . I hope that made sense. Just had a night of wine, watched 'The Beach' and now I'm off to bed, cheers.

Gosh Rockliffe, I sure hope I don't come across as smug and self-satisfied as this indicates! I'm the guy who was trying to put the power plug back in my laptop and could not find the hole at the back, so I put the end of the plug in my mouth in order to use both hands. Talk about a shock, burned my mouth and tongue and just about knocked my teeth out! I don't know anymore than most of the guys that frequent here, and probably not as much as Dazz and Corey and a few others. If anytime I seem like I act smarter than thou, then I need another jolt!Kind regards,

Rockliffe,Rest assured that you are not wrong about FSX not being coded properly. As SP2 shows, the original release could have been done much better. MS chose to release the product without essential fixes that came only with SP2/Acceleration. Even with SP2, FSX has many problems that could have been fixed, but were not.As an example, we are now starting to have hardware that can run FSX at acceptable frame rates. With top of the line hardware we can now turn on more eye candy and install higher resolution textures, but we will run into the nastiest bug in FSX, that of the OOM errors.Yes, we can raise the virtual memory limit that FSX can use, but because of the unfixed memory leak (or inefficient memory usage) in FSX, FSX will run out of memory eventually.So, overclocking is useful, up to a limit, but there is no reason to go beyond a certain point, because high fps does not translate into smooth flying and you can't use the CPU headroom to load more complex scenery or aircraft, because of the OOM errors.

Gosh Rockliffe, I sure hope I don't come across as smug and self-satisfied as this indicates! I'm the guy who was trying to put the power plug back in my laptop and could not find the hole at the back, so I put the end of the plug in my mouth in order to use both hands. Talk about a shock, burned my mouth and tongue and just about knocked my teeth out! I don't know anymore than most of the guys that frequent here, and probably not as much as Dazz and Corey and a few others. If anytime I seem like I act smarter than thou, then I need another jolt!Kind regards,

Way off topic but reminded me of the time my old CRT television set was acting up; The wire to the back of the tube was insulated ( I am not a total idiot) so I thought I would give it a wiggle. Next thing I remember when I came to, was picking my cigarette up off the carpet in the living-room and wondering where I was and what in the world happened. TV. repairman said I took about 150,000v. :Applause: And they say that smoking kills; sheesh.

Gosh Rockliffe, I sure hope I don't come across as smug and self-satisfied as this indicates! .......put the end of the plug in my mouth in order to use both hands. Talk about a shock

Stephen, please, you most definitely do not come across as smug or anything close to that description. I have the utmost admiration for you, both as a fellow simmer and as someone who has contributed so much to this great hobby, as I am sure many others do. However, I love the fact that you almost needed a visit to the dentist after plugging your face into tour laptop, priceless Thanks for the reply Attila.