Subjectively: it's a bit faster, I do it mostly for the lighting, shadows, and water though.

 

I hate to hijack this thread but, are there any major drawbacks? glitches? crashes?

 

I know that there is a shader fix for the flashing but what about airport textures that are grey etc.

The same for me from 5 to 5.4ghz much more fluid on ground and heay airports

what is the batch of your CPU ? some of the never CPU:s like low voltage

 

I have the costa rica batch... but don't think I want to test its voltage more.

 

I concur with your findings because I experience the same thing. Only thing I have to tell you though, your machine is on the brink of instability. Running a lidded 3770K at 5GHz with only 1.3v, is really pushing it.

 

Try running Prime95 for 5 minutes. I say Prime95, because if you try IntelBurnTest, it will not run for more than 1 minute, for sure.

 

What temps are you getting under full load?

 

I can't say I've tested with Prime95 yet. You are correct though... its fairly unstable at 5ghz. Although I was able to run FSX for hours, It ha a bit of trouble getting into bios.

It's back to add 8.6% increase in clock speed, and report 5-15 fps increase, which is 16-33% increase in frame rate. Unless there is some magic from improve synchronization or something like that, it doesn't add up. I would only buy this if the test were 100% identical which often it isn't. Try running something exactly standardized, which means you must save the flight, not bring in new weather, time of day, anything and see what you get then. There is no valid explanation, though I'm more than willing to hear one.

 

Ok.... I didn't post my results so we can calculate the absolute precise framerate. Take my results how you want, I'm not interested in making everyone a believer.

For example when that small improvement makes you maintain your locked FPS most of the time instead of some of the time, or when your FPS stays above the refresh rate of your LCD all of a sudden instead of being below it. The extra smoothness from this will make that smaller FPS improvement a lot more noticeable.

 

That is exactly what matters to me. This is one of the reasons that I am so excited for Haswell. If we can send a Haswell to 4.8GHZ, this would bump my FPS from 23-25 all the way into the 30s.

 

 

Ok.... I didn't post my results so we can calculate the absolute precise framerate. Take my results how you want, I'm not interested in making everyone a believer.

 

Well, since you are the owner of FlightBeam, it would be better for your public appearence to make factual statements especially when making bold claims.

I hate to hijack this thread but, are there any major drawbacks? glitches? crashes?

 

I know that there is a shader fix for the flashing but what about airport textures that are grey etc.

 

I didn't notice any performance increase and I was never able to get 1/2 refresh rate Vsync working 100% properly. Also, if you like ENB at all it won't work apparently. It also isn't a mode that is widely supported by addons so any incompatibilities probably won't be addressed.

Well, since you are the owner of FlightBeam, it would be better for your public appearence to make factual statements especially when making bold claims.

 

There is no reason for me to lie, as others have noted here, they have had similar results. Different computers, different settings, different results. Everyone can disagree, it's fine

Just trying to contribute to enhancing fsx experience with different OC settings.

 

best,

I bet the source of Mir's i7 3770K's extraordinary performance is the flux capacitor for the i9 which Intel accidentally inserted during production. That is the only logical explanation.

That is exactly what matters to me. This is one of the reasons that I am so excited for Haswell. If we can send a Haswell to 4.8GHZ, this would bump my FPS from 23-25 all the way into the 30s.

You know that you can always lower your current sliders for a similar result ;-)DX10 is quite often having issues with 3rd party software. But it is in my opinion prettier. If only MS never closed down ACES and let them continue with their work... Nah, don't get me started, I just get myself all worked up.

Ok.... I didn't post my results so we can calculate the absolute precise framerate. Take my results how you want, I'm not interested in making everyone a believer.

 

There is a saying that goes something like "screenshots or it didn't happen".

 

I think that should be applied here. Currently your claim has no bones. If you wish to add bones to your claim, please post screenshots showing the sim with the framerate counter displayed so that we can all see exactly what you are getting under what conditions.

 

Also, if your PC isn't stable enough to run Prime95 for more than 5 minutes then frankly your system is too unstable and I would say that the results of your o/c are suspect until this is addressed.

I don't think he wants to argue the matter.

Hi

I can missunderstand this tread but ewen if the PC is unstable you see a slight performance gain on 400mhz.

I did a fast test in FSMark 11 with my allday settings its IBT Prime stable can push it for + 1-1.5 avf fps more by tighting timings

add 100mhz more . but this is my allday settings not maxed out and thats close to +10fps more than a avg high performance PC

if you dont see diff on that :Thinking:

 

It's interesting how similar threads pop up every now and then. It kind of reminds me of my first tests of FSX vs P3D. I was also testing in the ORBX area with the NGX and saw some real high framerates. But buddy, I can tell you there is much more behind the cake than you imagine right now. I spent weeks behind it. Not having a 3770K but having a big OC experience, I can tell you that what you reported might be true, the boost is there with 400Mhz, but surely not 15FPS over 45FPS (which would mean 33% boost!).

 

The problem is not that you report your findings, the problem is that they are very likely incorrect, and these 400Mhz much likely yield closer and lower than 5Mhz, and not 15Mhz over 45. You are only misleading people.

The problem is not that you report your findings, the problem is that they are very likely incorrect, and these 400Mhz much likely yield closer and lower than 5Mhz, and not 15Mhz over 45. You are only misleading people.

 

Agree , if we look at raw power in FSMark11 400mhz would give 4fps if you have 45avg you get 49fps avg .

Interesting results...

 

I think a lot of people here are missing the fact that you're not running shadows and you're running 1x water. Those can make huge difference from my testing.

 

It's almost funny, anytime a user get's higher fps than the rest, people start saying you're lying lol...

 

People don't forget this guy woks with graphics and design... he probably has his PC setup for maximum performance off the bat.

It's almost funny, anytime a user get's higher fps than the rest, people start saying you're lying lol...

 

This just got interesting...

 

1 adult and I'll take a large Coke, large popcorn with extra butter... oh and some M&Ms and Skittles... Thanks... lol

 

*subscribed*

"Same as him but skip the skittles... and I'll take a Snickers (get it?) instead..."