Noel,

 

It would be no better than anyone else.

Well I "only" run my Haswell at 4.5 GHz. According to the thread "CPUs compared clock for clock. FSXmarkCPU", this is equivalent to a Sandy Bridge running at 5.27 GHz.

 

I do keep Autogen maxed, but AI traffic is at 50%, LOD at 4.5 (anything else is asking for OOM errors), ground object and aircraft shadows are off (slows FPS and look glitchy), clouds at 60mi (again due to OOM errors), and water is one notch below max. FSAA is at the 16xS mode. At the worst FPS OrbX airports such as Anacortes, KBVS and 0S9 with the latest Carenado G1000 aircraft, I get FPS in the low 20's range. A faster CPU would be quite pointless for me. 20 FPS minimum is fine, and I can't turn up any more settings anyway without running into OOM errors.

This is a waste for FSX, been there and done it too many times. Great for benchmark contest but that's about it.

 

first off the you may lower the temps of Haswells but they will still hit a wall no matter how voltage you throw.

My I5 was a good example of this, Delided it still took way too much voltage to get it to pass testing and steady for a mere 4.5 OC, My I7 Haswell is doing 4.4 on air and I havent even pushed it yet, not delided and never will. Not worth the time, the risk, dont have to worry about TIM drying out underneath the HIS etc.

 

 

That is only because you have an AMD brother...Ha

Have i5 3570k and amd fx6300 both run fsx fine no need to overclock for me and it boost not worth it to me as I keep computers for 5 to 6 years. In 2009 a quad getting 3.5ghz was ideal in fsx and now its 4.8ghz and above deminishing returns with overclocking. Everybody know fsx likes higher ghz speed, but not all here can afford to upgrade each year. Get low frames does not matter as overclocking does not yield engough extra frame 3 to 5 at most on low fps end. If this computer only one can use for next 5 years would stay away from overclocking it.

Noel,

 

It would be no better than anyone else.

 

Sorry Noel, it would be interesting to compare the performance in differnet given scenarios but with comments like the one above (based on JSkorna's personal experience with the Haswell I presume) I would probably just be humiliated no matter what FPS number I would end up with.

Overclocking is bad mmmkay.

 

You also can't make a car run faster by tuning the engine, that is just ridiculous, because the rest of the car is still the same.

You also can't run faster by training every day, because a human body is still a human body.

 

If you see your FPS going up with same slider settings after overclocking, that only proves that the FPS counter in FSX now has enough power to count higher.

 

Don't even try it, change is bad. It's all witchcraft and voodoo stuff with proven technology.  

Let's keep everything the same like the old days, it's way less scary.

 

Thanks,

Mark

 

-- This message was posted using Nokia 1.0 © 1995 --

Overclock is linear process 3.4 to 4.8 about 30% gain in fps. If overclocking reason based on fps alone that poor reason to do it, but if using it reduce shutters flying that makes more sense to reduce fps spikes. Spikes and shutters with overclocks makes more sense than increasing fps. Overclocking even nowdays is not risk free and if you have money to replace parts and upgrade each year probadly worth it. For people own computer five years or more probadly think about it more especially if that computer cost over thousand to build. No free lunch with fsx

Overclock is linear process 3.4 to 4.8 about 30% gain in fps. If overclocking reason based on fps alone that poor reason to do it, but if using it reduce shutters flying that makes more sense to reduce fps spikes. Spikes and shutters with overclocks makes more sense than increasing fps. Overclocking even nowdays is not risk free and if you have money to replace parts and upgrade each year probadly worth it. For people own computer five years or more probadly think about it more especially if that computer cost over thousand to build. No free lunch with fsx

That of course is true. Overclocking just gives you some extra power you can use, either for higher FPS or less stutters with same settings. Everybody is free to do or don't do as they please.

It's a little extra performance that can only help you if you know what you are doing.

 

People training for 100m sprint will help them to go faster, but they won't be as fast as Usain Bolt in a day. But that's no reason for me to advise against it, even though they can get hurt by falling or an other sports related injury. They will run faster after a while, and that is their goal.

 

Overclocking doesn't turn FSX into a stutterfree 100 FPS monster simulator, but it helps people get a little more out of it, and some people don't mind putting in some effort. There are a lot of guides and tools to help you. Some motherboards even have an automated overclocking tool that helps you find the limit of your hardware without any risk. It's not about pumping extra volts and doubling the multiplier, but smalls steps and some testing. Some CPU's like the SandyBridges have much more power on board then their advertised specs, that is why Intel has the K-variants, that are actually designed for overclocking.

 

Stating it doesn't help at all is just plain ....

FSX runs like crap on my PC if I don't overclock the CPU. I have an i5 2500K which runs at 3.3 GHz by default: I have it running at 4.5 GHz (on air) for about two years now. That's around 35% faster. You bet you notice that in FSX!!! You'd be crazy NOT to overclock an overclockable CPU. Well, ok, maybe not crazy ^_^ but you WOULD be wasting money because you simply don't get out of the CPU what's in it.

 

The speed that the CPU has according to Intel or AMD simply is the GUARANTEED speed. Most CPU's can run a lot faster but Intel/AMD can't/won't guarantee it. That's all!

Begs the question  -- WHY is Intel using such a poor performance Thermal Compound within their CPU chips ??

... FSX has reached its limits, or however it should be called.

Using an overclocked PC as it is possible already by now (something in average  between +/- 4.2 to 4.8 GHz) already proofs what FSX can be capable of - but also what not!

The main reason for that is FSX's outdated and in many areas messed up "engine-code", which simply stops further big improvements.

 

The forthcomming and very promising DX10 patch will most likey offer some real noticeable improvements to the better - but after that, i think the party will be more or less over.

 

FSX for sure still has to offer a lot and sure will continue to offer a lot in the near future ahead, but it will definitely not get much better than what already is possible nowadays - simply due to its old engine.

Only my two cents here though and nothing new.

 

So ... where are the alternatives?

And which one to choose then?

XPlane, LM's forthcomming P3D Version 2

... or a complete new and yet unknown sim

... or something completely different?

I - only personaly spoken - think that this will more and more become the prime question to be answered in a confident way for us dedicated flightsimmers and dedicated 3rd party add-on developers out there over the next few years ahead!

:smile:

[it just depends on your settings mostly. High LOD settings + high AI will bring a system to it's knees, but running one of both could still be just fine.

 

If I try to run high LOD settings with 100% UT2 AI in a dense scenery area, I will almost certainly suffer an OOM. In fact, I don't even bother increasing the LOD radius beyond 4.5, because I don't need it. I run FSX on a 19" monitor at 1280x1024 resolution, so I can't see any blurry textures from the cockpit. It all looks fine to me, but then I am using photoscenery instead of the butt ugly default textures (how some of you guys live with default terrain surrounding a high resolution photoreal airport I will never know).

 

For the record, I run FSX on an i5 2500k @ 4.3Ghz/8GB DDR3-1600 RAM/1GB GeForce GTX 560Ti/Windows 7 64 bit powered system. The CPU was factory overclocked to 4.5Ghz, but one instance of a reboot due to overclock issues persuaded me to reduce that to 4.3Ghz, and it was worked fine ever since. I understand that some of you are experts at overclocking, but the vast majority of flight simmers would not be able to achieve a stable system overclocked at 5+Ghz.

So ... where are the alternatives?

And which one to choose then?

XPlane, LM's forthcomming P3D Version 2

... or a complete new and yet unknown sim

... or something completely different?

I - only personaly spoken - think that this will more and more become the prime question to be answered in a confident way for us dedicated flightsimmers and dedicated 3rd party add-on developers out there over the next few years ahead!

:smile:

 

Not sure how that will all work out. What would happen if some developers went to XPlane and some to P3D? Kind of hard for people to pick a sim to run all their add-ons.

What a bunch of BS, why cant some of you just try to have a real intelligent conversation and admit somethings while you try to make your point?

 

Lots of conjecture in here by just a few and that even refuse to look at the facts and use their powers of reason really is a disservice to the community, I mean you can have a opinion but if you really don't know then you shouldn't pretend that you do while you cast doubt and fear. Guys really, its easy you don't have too go all out, for cripes sake even Intel offers a warranty to overclock their chips and will replace your CPU >IF you ruin it by overclocking. http://click.intel.com/tuningplan/

 

I have been overclocking since 386/486 days and have NEVER ruined a CPU (ruined a couple of MB, but it was me, not overclocking) and I had an old AMD XP-2600 Mobile Barton that I had pin-tricked to run as a desktop, used extreme voltage and overclocked since 2006 and it is still running for a friend of one of my kids.

 

Its just so obvious by the statements that some just haven't experienced enough especially with recent CPU's, and that's ok you guys enjoy your non-overclocked AMD chips or whatever.

I'm sure we are all so glad you have saved your money because YOU decided not to upgrade or spend $60-$100 on a cooler and some Thermal Compound and a few minutes time that could have been done yesterday, bravo, great!

 

But please you don't have to insult everyone's intelligence by making dumb statements about no differences in FSX performance and ruined CPU's when you obviously don't have a clue.

Apples to Apples Non Overclocked and Overclocked AMD vs Intel

 

I would like to see how one of your non overclocked systems handles Manhattan X with FSDT-JFK and with what settings, but I dont have to I already know and I wont even mention NYC X, oh wait sorry I did. Hah  :lol: 

Begs the question  -- WHY is Intel using such a poor performance Thermal Compound within their CPU chips ??

 

Its really not that poor, it is made to last and not dry out like what is being suggested to use when delided (Liquid Pro), it is just that it does not compare to the solder method as previously used.

 

I think sometimes it is more of a problem with the gap between the chip and the HIS, but yeah I wished they used solder. 

What a bunch of BS, why cant some of you just try to have a real intelligent conversation and admit somethings while you try to make your point?

 

Lots of conjecture in here by just a few and that even refuse to look at the facts and use their powers of reason really is a disservice to the community, I mean you can have a opinion but if you really don't know then you shouldn't pretend that you do while you cast doubt and fear. Guys really, its easy you don't have too go all out, for cripes sake even Intel offers a warranty to overclock their chips and will replace your CPU >IF you ruin it by overclocking. http://click.intel.com/tuningplan/

 

I have been overclocking since 386/486 days and have NEVER ruined a CPU (ruined a couple of MB, but it was me, not overclocking) and I had an old AMD XP-2600 Mobile Barton that I had pin-tricked to run as a desktop, used extreme voltage and overclocked since 2006 and it is still running for a friend of one of my kids.

 

Its just so obvious by the statements that some just haven't experienced enough especially with recent CPU's, and that's ok you guys enjoy your non-overclocked AMD chips or whatever.

I'm sure we are all so glad you have saved your money because YOU decided not to upgrade or spend $60-$100 on a cooler and some Thermal Compound and a few minutes time that could have been done yesterday, bravo, great!

 

But please you don't have to insult everyone'sintelligence by making dumb statements about no differences in FSX performance and ruined CPU's when you obviously don't have a clue.

Apples to Apples Non Overclocked and Overclocked AMD vs Intel

 

I would like to see how one of your non overclocked systems handles Manhattan X with FSDT-JFK and with what settings, but I dont have to I already know and I wont even mention NYC X, oh wait sorry I did. Hah :lol:

First, not all fly in big airports in big cities like New York or London with billions of buildings. Second, not all flyers care for airliners to fly and some prefer simple cessna 182 or p-51 ww2 bird using rudder and stick. Third, overclocking is not risk free even if intel warrenties and read forms here at other sites of people destroying 2k computers overclocking wrong or too much. Some here will make compromises to run fsx within its limits.

 

Ran fs2002, fs2004, fsx with add-ons majority of them do not require overclocks to run. Outside this form vast majority do not overclock fsx or even use intel ivy or haswell cpu to run it. All know fsx is single threaded and likes overclocks, but some of us know overclock are not risk free.

 

Overclocking for more frames is stupid reason as 3.4 speed to 4.8 about 30% more speed does not matter if you are at 7fps at 3.4 and 10 fps 4.8 neither is flyable the setting would need to be reduced to bring fps to 20fps or at least 15 fps.

 

Yet, think overclocking to reduce stuttering and reduce fps spikes is useful. Not bashing overclocking just not risk free need techincal knowledge to do it right, and benefit from overclocking is oversold not needed to run fsx with decent settings.