So my FSX is really stable at 3.9 Ghz, and I think it can probably handle going higher. My frames with the NGX at Flytampa tampa rebooted with AI traffic is around 24 frames. So, question is,

 

Will Overclocking from 3.9 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz really make that much difference? In terms of boosting frames?

Going from 3.9 to 4.2 isn't a big increase, so I wouldn't expect much in return. Why not just simply try it out and see for yourself?

About a 3FPS increase in CPU limited scenarios... Go for it. :smile:

Any 2500K with a decent P67 motherboard should make 4.5GHz without any problem, there is no reason to cap it lower.

That's a 13% increase in clock speed. Not huge, but worthwhile since clock speed increases translate nearly directly into FPS increases. Go for more if you're comfortable of course.

That's a 13% increase in clock speed. Not huge, but worthwhile since clock speed increases translate nearly directly into FPS increases. Go for more if you're comfortable of course.

 

How are you coming up with 13%? 300Mhz/3900Mh (or 4.2/3.9) =107.7% increase in CPU clock speed. Nor can you expect a 'about a 3 fps increase': 3/24fps = 12.5% increase in frame rate from a 7.7% increase in clock speed. I have tested this many times in the past many years and have never seen a greater increase in frame rate than the percentage increase in clock speed from an over clock. Some would depend on scalability of other components, but empirically for me, it's been much closer to maybe a 7% increase in frame rate for every 10% increase in CPU clock speed. That's my experience. Moreover, there is no question running a system on the brink of instability--not saying this is true for your proposed 7.7% increase in clock speed--can increase a degree of potential loss of general stability and ability to sustain bleeding edge performance (relative to your particular system's maximum potential), at least that's my sense. These things being said, as was said previously, why not try it and see how it goes for you. Risk will come with too much voltage and heat to your CPU. I killed (it's my best guess about why since temps were good) an expensive processor running it fairly infrequently at 1.45v which was the listed absolute maximum rating for Vcore. This voltage was well outside the 'functional operation conditions' but just w/in the maximum, and here is intel's disclaimer for this:

 

At conditions outside functional operation condition limits, but within absolute maximum and minimum ratings, neither functionality nor long-term reliability can be expected. If a device is returned to conditions within functional operation limits after having been subjected to conditions outside these limits, but within the absolute maximum and minimum ratings, the device may be functional, but with its lifetime degraded depending on exposure to conditions exceeding the functional operation condition limits.

 

My processor didn't die while I was flying at 1.45v at 4.2Ghz, but eventually died prematurely. And I often ran the CPU at default speed whenever not flying. Buying a replacement cheaper Q9650 CPU, I now run at 3.8Ghz instead of 4.2Ghz, and truthfully, the difference is absolutely...hardly detectable, and I pay close attention to all aspects of 'performance', which I define as: Image Quality & Texture Update Rate + freedom from stutters + frame rate.

Simple miscalculation on my part, it's 7.6%

I had good performance at 4.7 and 4.8GHz, but fps went down on airports(more than 3fps which is not good and can cause stutters)and i had stutters when T.O. And landidng, at most important parts of flight. From 4.8 to 4.9GHz it was a huge difference for me, a couple of fps gained which means less fps variations(fps ramain locked at 30 - 99% of time)=less stutters(almost gone). Overclocking is allways worth it for fsx. You will see improvements in fsx with each higher clock.

 

TechguyMaxC, one update - i had some time for fine tuning and i managed to get awesome temps at 4.9GHz, max temps with IBT was 83c, with fsx max temps are 60c now. I think i'll go for 5GHz soon )

Thank you for all tips and advices!

4.9GHz it was a huge difference for me, a couple of fps gained which means less fps variations(fps ramain locked at 30 - 99% of time)=less stutters(almost gone). Overclocking is allways worth it for fsx. You will see improvements in fsx with each higher clock.

 

 

I am going to OC a bit more now that you said this. I am currently at 4.8 but I'll go a bit higher and shoot for 4.9.

I am going to OC a bit more now that you said this. I am currently at 4.8 but I'll go a bit higher and shoot for 4.9.

 

Ben, this was enough for me, i get 2-3more fps and fps are now very, very stable. I had some time this days, and i played with other voltages to get better temps and stable overclock. I tried 5GHz, no difference in fps(becouse i have fps locked at 30), but it look's just a litle bit smoother than @4.9GHz(maybe placebo). I'm still playing with 5GHz and i don't know if i'll leave it there even when i get stable oc, becouse i don't feel comfortable with 1.48 vcore. I use 1.4vcore for 4.9GHz.

Now I get bad fps only in bad weather becouse i have 560ti, which is just not enough for bad weather and too much clouds. I'll change it with GTX580 in a couple of months.

About a 3FPS increase in CPU limited scenarios... Go for it. :smile:

 

3fps above what? If you mean, 100->103fps, or do you mean 10->13fps. Define!

 

 

3fps above what? If you mean, 100->103fps, or do you mean 10->13fps. Define!

 

I take back what I said. More like 5% increase in FPS...

Word Not Allowed, i have a couple of scenarios for testing only, saved flights. On lower clocks, i saw fps increase with each 100GHz increase. At some point(i don't remember exactly how much), i have locked 30fps most of time. I have this on 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9GHz. But for example, in my scenario with bad weather on aerosoft EDDM, fps went down(on ground only) to 20-22 @4.7, 24-26fps @4.8 and 29-30fps @4.9GHz - This is approximately, i don't remember all values.

On Fly Tampa LOWW i have fps variation when i am on RWY only with 4.7GHz and below.

@4.8 and 4.9GHz i have 30fps, but @4.9 i have no stutters. So, i assume that i have better fps @4.9 and that probably means smoother fsx, less stutters. I don't know if i explained well, but this is how i test fsx performance

Each clock increase brings FPS, that is clear as day. The higher you can get, the smoother it will get in certain scenarios, I have the same experience. But I try to make generic scenarios, like default clouds, locked spot etc, so that when loaded, same picture is loaded, you can notice this in my FSX/P3D tests. And then I have some test scenarios with saved default 737 viewing overwing at KSEA ready for takeoff, only release parking brake, and then I observe the passing scenery. Test without clouds or winds, so only scenery passing is measured. You can very quickly spot stutters if there are any.

So my FSX is really stable at 3.9 Ghz, and I think it can probably handle going higher. My frames with the NGX at Flytampa tampa rebooted with AI traffic is around 24 frames. So, question is,

 

Will Overclocking from 3.9 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz really make that much difference? In terms of boosting frames?

 

The higher you overclock the better your perf. will be assuming all your other hardware can keep up with your oc and assuming your rig is 100% stable, futher more, a 100% stable rig does not mean FSX will run without crashing, some times you need a little more Vcore (on a 100% stable rig) just to make FSX crashes free as I tested it myself severals times.

 

Here is my golden rule about overclocking, if you can't afford to overclock don't.

 

Good luck.