Is there a major difference in FPS between 4.5ghz and 4.7ghz in FSX ?

 

Would appreciate of knowing.

 

Also what should the PLL value be when OCing a 3770k machine to  either 4.5 or 4.7 ghz (asus z77 deluxe, kingston beast 2400mhz 16gb ram, gtx 670)

 

 

Thanks a lot.

 

You can expect in the neighborhood of up to 1:1 scaling depending on other factors. Some claim this is not the case and that magically the performance flood gates open up, but I don't buy this myself, and I certainly have heard no theoretical explanation for these claims.

 

So for 1:1, let's say you're in a very high demand setting, for example PMDG NGX taking off out of KSEA in heavy weather, w/ ORBX FTX Pacific Northwest scenery installed. You have your sliders maxed out, air traffic at 100%, road traffic at 50%. You're running your video settings maxed out for your display.

 

Let's say in this high demand scenario at 4.5Ghz overclock, you're seeing 21 frames per second. Now increase clock speed to 4.7Ghz.

 

1:1 scaling would imply: 4.7Ghz/4.5Ghz = 1.044 x 21 frame per second = 21.92 fps. There is a point of diminishing returns (returning higher performance in exchange for higher watt usage & heat production & potential CPU damage if overvolting is involved for example). What do you think, is it worth it, to go from 21.0 to 21.92 fps, in exchange for increased heat/voltage stress? Will this improve your simming experience, beyond just knowing you have your machine running as fast as it can? Doubtful--no one can detect 4.4% increase in performance, especially in FSX where spuriousness in interpreting what's happening is the rule. And then there's the risk for a wee bit more instability as it were. I think if you can do 4.7 w/o adding more volts, then sure why not?

HM I've overclocked my 2500k to 4.7. I'm wondering if I should bump to 4.8

HM I've overclocked my 2500k to 4.7. I'm wondering if I should bump to 4.8

 

 

A lot of Sandy Bridge overclockers report that going from 4.7 to 4.8GHz can be a major challenge. I found this to be true with the i7-2600k. My 4.7 overclock was totally stable at ~1.365v, however to get to 4.8 stable I had to raise volts to ~1.425, which is higher than I really wanted to go. For me the performance increase was too small to warrant pushing the processor that hard.

It's most likely to be a linear increase at those levels in my opinion.

I don't understand these types of question, surely with overclocking the goal is to reach the maximum speed you can within the confines of your hardware, if you can run 200Mhz faster at safe voltages and temperatures then what's the issue? If you can't and so are thinking of spending money on upgrading hardware to acheive an additional 200Mhz which may only be theoretical then no it's probably not worth it.

 

A lot of Sandy Bridge overclockers report that going from 4.7 to 4.8GHz can be a major challenge. I found this to be true with the i7-2600k.

Upgrading the BIOS on my Asus P8Z77-V board from v1504 to v1708 allowed me to go from a stable 4.7 to a stable 4.8Ghz on my 2700K so it's an option I'd explore if anyone has not bothered with a BIOS flash since building their rigs.

I really never see the sense in these small increases, IMO they make no sense whatsoever. The benefits of such small improvements could be easily matched and exceeded by simply dropping AI by a few % or unticking bloom, aircraft shadows, or by tweaking a single value in the cfg. There are so many other ways of achieving such a small increase in performance that IMO it seems barely worth contemplating.

I run my i7 3770K at stock 3.5 and for me it works and I am happy. Performance is good and everything does what I want it to.

 

I certainly wouldn't fuss over a 0.2ghz increase and just enjoy flying. If there were two machines exactly the same side by side and one had the 0,2ghz increase I doubt anyone would notice the difference in performance anyway.

 

I've moved on from worrying about what should or shouldnt be running in Windows services, tweaking the life out of my fsx.cfg etc etc

 

Get a flight going, look out of the cockpit window and enjoy what you already have.

Noel is correct. I tested this with my 3770k. The scaling was indeed 1:1. And like Noel, I seriously doubt this "magical" and significant increase in performance above a certain frequency is a real phenomenon. 

 

Precisely why I haven't bothered to delid my Ivy Bridge. No point, increase in performance above my current 4.5GHz, is utterly negligible, would amount to only two or three frames, even if I went to 4.8-4.9.

 

Howard is correct also. There's no point in pushing for every drop of performance and thus generating more heat and degradation, when a minor change to a slider or two will achieve the same and be barely noticable in terms of image quality.

 

Of course, for many, overclocking is not about that, it's about the challenge.

If you are overclocking with ddr3 1600 MHz You are wasting your time. The CPU has to wait (wait state). Your FSX experience is no faster than your memory can deliver!

 

HLJAMES

Yes, there will be difference, absolutely! Sometime increasing only 0.1GHz you can get rid of stutters for example. 

Minor change to a slider or two will achieve the same? But how much difference will do minor change to a slider or two + that 0.2GHz higher overclock? 

Every increase in CPU speed is worth to be done for fsx

Sometime increasing only 0.1GHz you can get rid of stutters for example. 

Eh?

On an 2700 I found little difference between 4.7 and 4.9, virtually none between 4.9 and 5.0. IMO pick the highest speed you can achieve with safe temps and voltage - it's not worth the risk of cooking the chip to gain a single digit % increase in FPS.

I oc'd my 3770k to 4.7ghz @ 1.328v (running at 70-75c after 2 hours of stress test)

I have yet to install FSX; I don't want to be disappointed.

I oc'd my 3770k to 4.7ghz @ 1.328v (running at 70-75c after 2 hours of stress test)

I have yet to install FSX; I don't want to be disappointed.

 

In my experience FSX doesn't push the CPU nearly as hard as, say, Prime95 or IBT do when stress testing. So, if you have a good, stable OC with acceptable volts and temps, you won't have any problem running FSX. Using offset voltage my 2600k @ 4.7 runs FSX at about 1.35v with temps in the high 50s to low 60s on water cooling.