Mine is at 4.9 with voltage at 1.32. Mark.

Wow....wish I could get there. Anything over 4.6 at the same voltage and I get near instant BSOD. In fact to get to 4.8 stable I have to go all the way to 1.38v

Wow....wish I could get there. Anything over 4.6 at the same voltage and I get near instant BSOD. In fact to get to 4.8 stable I have to go all the way to 1.38v

Same here, mine does not like anything over 4.7 at all, 1.38 to get to 4.7; voltage wall at 4.7 and anything over that does not work very good. Pity these chips don't produce as smooth a performance as my 920 did when fps get into the teens with all add-ons etc etc. The 1366 sure seemed smoother than this thing does when loaded and fps are crawling; maybe triple channel ram does indeed help smoothness when the sim is under real pressure. Weird! The good thing is I can run addon airports and the ngx with all siders near maxed on the 2600k; the 920 at 3.8 would not be able to that.

Mine is at 4.9 with voltage at 1.32. Mark.

And POW....that's one in a million....what stress test did you use at 4.9GHz and for how long? Knowing you'r in the safe zone (voltage wise) did you try higher clock?

I thought i was safe at 4.9GHz with 1.360V, after 2 hours of P95, BSOD! First one ever for the system.

Same here, mine does not like anything over 4.7 at all, 1.38 to get to 4.7; voltage wall at 4.7 and anything over that does not work very good. Pity these chips don't produce as smooth a performance as my 920 did when fps get into the teens with all add-ons etc etc. The 1366 sure seemed smoother than this thing does when loaded and fps are crawling; maybe triple channel ram does indeed help smoothness when the sim is under real pressure. Weird! The good thing is I can run addon airports and the ngx with all siders near maxed on the 2600k; the 920 at 3.8 would not be able to that.

I agree with you about the comparison with the 1366. My impression is that the 2600K at 4.8GHz is less smooth overall than my old 975 at 4.4GHz in its heyday. There is something missing: possibly the third channel of communication with the RAM. Tim

I agree with you about the comparison with the 1366. My impression is that the 2600K at 4.8GHz is less smooth overall than my old 975 at 4.4GHz in its heyday. There is something missing: possibly the third channel of communication with the RAM. Tim

Cool, I'm not alone then. I remember my old 920 crawling along at ORD for example at 8-12 fps, but smooth, this thing anything below 20 is not that good and more jerky. This is with all ram configs of 2133 cl9 or 1600 cl 6 on the SB. Overall FPS are good and very high; the only time I have noticed the stutter or jerks is at a major airport addon and with a complex airliner on a loaded sim. The 920 was defineatly more smooth on the low end for sure. Funny maybe a good memory subsystem is important after all. Simon

Who needs 4.9Ghz when it's only 6% higher than 4.6? That equates to 21.3 fps instead of 20 (and that's assuming that it scales perfectly). I doubt you would even notice it in FSX.

Cool, I'm not alone then. I remember my old 920 crawling along at ORD for example at 8-12 fps, but smooth, this thing anything below 20 is not that good and more jerky. This is with all ram configs of 2133 cl9 or 1600 cl 6 on the SB. Overall FPS are good and very high; the only time I have noticed the stutter or jerks is at a major airport addon and with a complex airliner on a loaded sim. The 920 was defineatly more smooth on the low end for sure. Funny maybe a good memory subsystem is important after all. Simon

Oddly, however, Everest and Aida64 report similar or improved RAM performance (including latency) with the 1155. Possibly it's just that the 1155 gives so much better performance than the 1366 that the peaks and troughs are more noticeable. We all know that the fps counter is never static but always fluctuates in any given situation. Perhaps with the 1366, fluctuations between (eg) ~17 and ~32fps give a smoother performance than the (eg) ~22fps and 40fps achieved by the 1155 in the same situation. Tim

I was flying around Alaska today in a twin otter going from 35FPS to 95FPS mostly around 60FPS though with it back down at 3.3GHz.

Oddly, however, Everest and Aida64 report similar or improved RAM performance (including latency) with the 1155. Possibly it's just that the 1155 gives so much better performance than the 1366 that the peaks and troughs are more noticeable. We all know that the fps counter is never static but always fluctuates in any given situation. Perhaps with the 1366, fluctuations between (eg) ~17 and ~32fps give a smoother performance than the (eg) ~22fps and 40fps achieved by the 1155 in the same situation. Tim

Actually there was zero difference in BW and latency scores between 1156 & 1366 in Everest / Aida64 and MaxxMem despite of the extra memory channel, Tim.The only benchmark that I know that shows a benefit from triple channel is the SiSoft Sandra memory benchmark, and some cryptographic software benchmarks too

Actually there was zero difference in BW and latency scores between 1156 & 1366 in Everest / Aida64 and MaxxMem despite of the extra memory channel, Tim.The only benchmark that I know that shows a benefit from triple channel is the SiSoft Sandra memory benchmark, and some cryptographic software benchmarks too

Yes, it's an odd one. If the extra channel were actually doing anything useful then it's very difficult to see why it wouldn't be reflected in the measurements in Everest / Aida64. On the other hand, if SOME applications benefit from the third channel, then it is equally difficult to see why at least some others (possibly including FSX) do not also benefit. One of the real problems for consumers these days, is penetrating the wall of marketing and/or silence from the manufacturers of this kit. IMHO the single most disgraceful example of misleading spin in the relatively recent past, was when Intel & AMD ran up against the 4GHz wall. Instead of a bit of intellectual honesty, they started to spin the idea that it was very important to have lots of cores instead. The brute reality is that almost everyone outside a laboratory or a data centre would prefer two cores at 6GHz, to any number of cores at 3Ghz. But other examples abound. Another notable one was Nvidia quietly dropping the 512-bit bus for the 480/580 GPUs and settling for 384 instead. Given the high speed of the VRAM in those cards, this subtle change perhaps makes little difference for most applications. However, high bandwidth is not for all purposes a substitute for high bus width. See Phil Taylor, for example, at http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2008/01/29/gpu-variants-performance-envelopes-and-being-an-informed-consumer.aspx . It means that moving from the 285 (with a 512 bit bus) to the 580 is only half the upgrade it ought to be for a user of FSX. Tim

Possibly it's just that the 1155 gives so much better performance than the 1366 that the peaks and troughs are more noticeable. We all know that the fps counter is never static but always fluctuates in any given situation. Perhaps with the 1366, fluctuations between (eg) ~17 and ~32fps give a smoother performance than the (eg) ~22fps and 40fps achieved by the 1155 in the same situation. Tim

Good point and I have thought of that being the reason for the perceived lack of smoothness despite being 20 fps. Who knows; can't seem to find any threads relating the old i7 1156 and to the old i7 1366 in FSX; one would assume that the 1366 was smoother than the 1156 as 1156 was dual channel. God only knows.