I am able to push the 4670 k to 4.3 ghz with a vcore of 1.3 v.This is minimum voltage that i can push to it, if i reduce the vcore i will get a bsod.I would really wish to push it to 4.5 ghz, but the voltage is crazy high and the temps are through the roof.I am not comfortable with de-lidding.

 

Iam under a h100 and with a Maximus VI hero and some old corsair vengence ram 8 gb (1600 mhz)

 

Any tips ?? How does FSX handle at 4.3 ghz ??

It happens.

 

Quite a few are finding that 4.3 is the max for their Haswell.

 

I'm in a similar situation with my 3770K. 4.6 is the max, and quite high voltage required to achieve that.

 

And when I push it to 4.7, temps are way too high. The thermal brick wall is hit and the thick, crappy TIM Intel used becomes more of an insulator.

 

What you have to consider though, is that the Haswell architecture is faster than previous chips. So 4.3 is the equivalent of much higher clocks for older CPU's.

 

Couple that with the fact that a few hundred megahertz makes very little difference and equates to merely one or two frames per second, and it's not really a deal breaker.

 

We are all subject to the silicone lottery.

 

It's easy to get carried away, and chase higher and higher clocks, when the actual performance increase is hardly worth it. A Haswell at 4.3 is a powerful CPU, do not despair, I'm sure you aren't desperate for a mere one or two frames.

 

P.S. Better RAM, and a better cooler would probably help a tad. The H100 isn't at the top of the tree these days. The H100i is better, the Noctua NH-D14 better still, and the Corsair H110 a fraction better still.

It happens.

 

Quite a few are finding that 4.3 is the max for their Haswell.

 

I'm in a similar situation with my 3770K. 4.6 is the max, and quite high voltage required to achieve that.

 

And when I push it to 4.7, temps are way too high. The thermal brick wall is hit and the thick, crappy TIM Intel used becomes more of an insulator.

 

What you have to consider though, is that the Haswell architecture is faster than previous chips. So 4.3 is the equivalent of much higher clocks for older CPU's.

 

Couple that with the fact that a few hundred megahertz makes very little difference and equates to merely one or two frames per second, and it's not really a deal breaker.

 

We are all subject to the silicone lottery.

 

It's easy to get carried away, and chase higher and higher clocks, when the actual performance increase is hardly worth it. A Haswell at 4.3 is a powerful CPU, do not despair, I'm sure you aren't desperate for a mere one or two frames.

 

P.S. Better RAM, and a better cooler would probably help a tad. The H100 isn't at the top of the tree these days. The H100i is better, the Noctua NH-D14 better still, and the Corsair H110 a fraction better still.

 

 

Hey thanks for your reply.Would you consider the h320 from swiftech a better cooler ?

 

Also what kind of frames should i expect coming from a 2500k ?

 

And lastly any ram suggestions ?

 

Thanks

I am able to push the 4670 k to 4.3 ghz with a vcore of 1.3 v.This is minimum voltage that i can push to it, if i reduce the vcore i will get a bsod.I would really wish to push it to 4.5 ghz, but the voltage is crazy high and the temps are through the roof.I am not comfortable with de-lidding.

 

Iam under a h100 and with a Maximus VI hero and some old corsair vengence ram 8 gb (1600 mhz)

 

Any tips ?? How does FSX handle at 4.3 ghz ??

 

What computer case are you using ? That might play some role.

What computer case are you using ? That might play some role.

The case is a 500r from corsair.

Hey thanks for your reply.Would you consider the h320 from swiftech a better cooler ?

 

Also what kind of frames should i expect coming from a 2500k ?

 

And lastly any ram suggestions ?

 

 

 

 

Good review of most of the coolers here.

 

Temps, overclocked and under load...

 

 

http://www.guru3d.co..._review,13.html

 

 

Noise levels here...

 

http://www.guru3d.co..._review,11.html

 

I don't know much about the H320 to be honest, as it's new. You would need a huge case by the looks of it, and as with other all-in-one water coolers, be comfortable with the risk of leaks. Personally, I use a Noctua NH-D14, very quiet and cools superbly.

 

As for RAM, I'm not a Haswell expert, so best to wait for others to advise.

 

 

The case is a 500r from corsair.

 

 

I don't think the case is playing a big role to be honest, your issue is that the silicone lottery has provided you with a chip that clocks in the lower range and requires higher voltage.

 

As for FSX performnace...

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412162-cpus-compared-clock-for-clock-fsxmarkcpu/

How does FSX handle at 4.3 ghz ??

 

Very well. Do yourself a huge favor and avoid thinking 4.5Ghz will be the Holy Grail of your simming experience. 4.5Ghz over 4.3Ghz delivers ~4.6% better performance, and so makes little to no noticeable difference--the difference would only be sensed in benchmarks, not subjectively by the user. When FSX gets bogged down because the user uses higher settings for the scenario involved, for example setting all sliders hard right while in the something like the NGX taking off out of KSEA in ORBX scenery etc, they are likely even w/ their delidded processor at 5.0Ghz, to see maybe 12fps (I said ALL sliders right for our discussion--traffic, the whole bit and I'm just using this as an example as I haven't tested it). Add 4.6% more clock speed, and you now get 12.6fps. Didn't help because 4.6% is what it is, virtually nothing. The same basic logic applies even when you start compromising your sliders as everyone has to do else suffer w/ poor performance. Be happy w/ 4.3. The real frame rate boost will come w/ adjusting your settings so your machine can handle it. In practical terms dialing cloud draw distance from 110m to 60m on a cloudy day might get you 10-12% frame rate boost--that's a lot easier/safer to do over overheating and harming your processor. FSX, as good as it is, is not fully optimized for multicore, multithreading, large system and video ram capacities, and highest end graphics cards. Look to something better to exploit your hardware sometime in the future. We are all hoping P3D version 2 or beyond might do better in this regard, or maybe XPlane 64 some day.

4.3 GHz Haswell = 4.7 GHz Ivy Bridge = 5.0 GHz Sandy Bridge.

5.0 GHz on Sandy Bridge is a dream, so 4.3 on Haswell is still very good.

4.3 GHz Haswell = 4.7 GHz Ivy Bridge = 5.0 GHz Sandy Bridge.

 

5.0 GHz on Sandy Bridge is a dream, so 4.3 on Haswell is still very good.

I hope to feel the difference, as i am, coming from a 2500k @4.7 ghz

Very well. Do yourself a huge favor and avoid thinking 4.5Ghz will be the Holy Grail of your simming experience. 4.5Ghz over 4.3Ghz delivers ~4.6% better performance, and so makes little to no noticeable difference--the difference would only be sensed in benchmarks, not subjectively by the user. When FSX gets bogged down because the user uses higher settings for the scenario involved, for example setting all sliders hard right while in the something like the NGX taking off out of KSEA in ORBX scenery etc, they are likely even w/ their delidded processor at 5.0Ghz, to see maybe 12fps (I said ALL sliders right for our discussion--traffic, the whole bit and I'm just using this as an example as I haven't tested it). Add 4.6% more clock speed, and you now get 12.6fps. Didn't help because 4.6% is what it is, virtually nothing. The same basic logic applies even when you start compromising your sliders as everyone has to do else suffer w/ poor performance. Be happy w/ 4.3. The real frame rate boost will come w/ adjusting your settings so your machine can handle it. In practical terms dialing cloud draw distance from 110m to 60m on a cloudy day might get you 10-12% frame rate boost--that's a lot easier/safer to do over overheating and harming your processor. FSX, as good as it is, is not fully optimized for multicore, multithreading, large system and video ram capacities, and highest end graphics cards. Look to something better to exploit your hardware sometime in the future. We are all hoping P3D version 2 or beyond might do better in this regard, or maybe XPlane 64 some day.

HI

 

I agree that the settings do make all the difference.

 

Could you advise me a good balance of settings, as i find myself beating a dead horse by pushing the sliders to the right...  :(

 

 

I hope to feel the difference, as i am, coming from a 2500k @4.7 ghz

 

I'm running the same currently, i5 2500K @ 4.7. Unfortunately I don't have the money to upgrade. Please, would you tell me what your results are as soon as you know? I am very curious as well.

I'm running the same currently, i5 2500K @ 4.7. Unfortunately I don't have the money to upgrade. Please, would you tell me what your results are as soon as you know? I am very curious as well.

surely

 

Just wish someone could share their balanced fsx settings...cause i have tried alot of them to no avail..

Not happy with your overclock? The watercooling industry has been around a long time. They understand what you are trying to do.

Memory:@ 1.65V

2800MHz cas11

2666MHz cas10

2400MHz cas9

2133MHz cas8

 

HLJAMES

surely

 

Just wish someone could share their balanced fsx settings...cause i have tried alot of them to no avail..

 

Google for "Word Not Allowed's Flight Simulation World", you will find best balanced fsx settings for your system.

About your overclock, you said that you need a "crazy high" voltage for 4.5GHz, what vcore you actually need for 4.5?   

What all have you tried adjusting? Anything other than Vcore?

 

Plenty of people, myself included, have found we need to adjust other voltages to get Haswell stable. I ended up adjusting Vcore, VRIN, CPU Input Voltage, system agent voltage, and a couple other things to get stable at 4.5 (Though currently at 4.4 for slightly lower voltage/temps until I decide to get better cooling and possibly delid).

 

 

Give this a read if you haven't already. It's for Gigabyte boards, and some of the terms are different, but it was a great help for me in getting things stable. http://www.overclock.net/t/1401976/the-gigabyte-z87-haswell-overclocking-oc-guide/0_50

Could you advise me a good balance of settings, as i find myself beating a dead horse by pushing the sliders to the right...

The correct balance is the one YOU'RE happy with. Keep in close focus: NO ONE HERE, even HLJames who appears to really enjoy getting every last bit (pardon the pun) out of his hardware, makes some kind of compromise--no matter what they tell you. FSX is constrained for all the reasons mentioned, so one has to make peace w/ this, and the peace comes from finding compromises you can live with. Better hardware gives you more options for compromise, but in the end, that's really what FSX is about--finding compromises you can live with and that would be personal, according to what you care about in your simming experience. Another handy approach is the create batch files for different levels of complexity in your planned flight scenario, so you can load the correct fsx.cfg for the sort of flight you intend to embark on. I, fortunately for me, am not so enamored w/ the NGX that I have to fly it often. I prefer some easier to process planes and so for those I can run my settings very high: LOD 6.5, Very Dense Autogen, clouds out to 110M, etc. For the NGX, I'll dial back clouds to 60-80, LOD 4.5, etc. Since I see FSX as a dying platform, and despite the fact it's arguably the best show in town thus far, my new machine I just put together was built for a different simulator that can better exploit 64 bit native environment, DX11, plenty of video ram & system ram, and multicore/multithreading. I am tickled w/ my 6-core SB-E system, 32gb of 2400 ram, and 6gb of video ram. It's running easily at 4.4Ghz now w/ low temps, low voltage. I still have to compromise, especially because again--FSX only exploits a portion of my total processing power. But that's fine, because I understand compromise is required no matter what the hardware. I hope to be well positioned for a better simulator ...