Hehe, no OOM here either, but that was w/ Vista 64...

Aaaahhhh... the good ol' days :lol:

Even if that OC happens to shave 3 years from a potential 10 years of CPU life (which I doubt),

 

It would be the voltage that does it in if your temps are ok. What did you end up at? I shaved most of the lifespan out of an X processor ($1K) by overvolting...in order to get 4.2Ghz out of my QX9650 I had to run it at the 'absolute maximum' voltage on the datasheet. It took very little of that to kill the thing unfortunately.

Please, i am in no way trying to start a FS9 vs FSX battle.

 

I am currently running FS9 and would love to upgrade and get FSX going.

 

But after reading this thread, why on earth would I?

Work your upgrade.

 

Get FSX going.

 

Adjust your sliders to fit your type of flying.

 

Fly without being concerned with about 99% of the stuff in this thread.

 

FYI, many of us use both FS9 and FSX and enjoy both sims,

FSX is running just fine right now, with very demanding add-ons but maybe the question should be when will developers stop escalating that demand for more power? (See NYC X and others)

 

Ok, but on with the CPU question..

 

There are already 5GHZ non overclocked CPU's (See AMD FX-9590) but it is still a weak processor for FSX, and Intel does keep getting a bit faster, but forget about simple CPU speed for a moment as that is only half the CPU story.

 

Just take Intel's CPU, we have been seeing a steady rise in execution strength, clock per clock over the last several years (well since forever), so that today's 3.5 non turbo speed is much more powerful than a 4.4 GHZ processor of just a few years ago and it does keep getting progressively better, but I think it will go back to the question about add--ons being developed in a better, refined way within the reasonable limitations of FSX being more of a single threaded 32bit application.

 

Great stuff out there running great on FSX with present hardware, Coronado, FTXG FlyTampa, FlightBeam etc etc

I agree with this entirely. My overclocked AMD Phenom 965 BE OC'd @ 4.0 Ghz comes nowhere close to My I7 3770K at even its stock settings (3.5-3.9 Ghz) Intel's pipeline architecture is just better suited for running single threaded apps like FSX. Unfortunately, Microsoft guessed incorrectly, that CPU evolution would yield higher and higher clock frequencies as opposed to what actually occurred, the development of multiple cores. regards

By 2020 3.5 ghz speed intel cpu will be equal to 4.7ghz haswell. That about 3% to 4% gain a year. Late 1990s the gains were massive like 15% to 30% a year. Mid 90s cpu getting 75 ghz was heaven then bump to 100 ghz then 125ghz and 200 ghz. Trickle down economics with desktops how got 300 mhz free with video card doing 1024 res for free as my bro hooked on warcraft lol.

By 2020 3.5 ghz speed intel cpu will be equal to 4.7ghz haswell. That about 3% to 4% gain a year. Late 1990s the gains were massive like 15% to 30% a year. Mid 90s cpu getting 75 ghz was heaven then bump to 100 ghz then 125ghz and 200 ghz. Trickle down economics with desktops how got 300 mhz free with video card doing 1024 res for free as my bro hooked on warcraft lol.

 

 

Great point and pretty close but this is off a bit me thinks, right now a Haswell @ 3.5GHZ is equal to a I7-930 @ 4.5GHZ  or = to a Sandy bridge @ 4GHZ etc So we are seeing  stronger performance by leaps of about 250 less clocks needed per year x 7 +/-

 

So IF we are going by resent results by 2020 a 3.5GHZ Intel could be = to a 5.5 Haswell but yet IF we could still count on resent results stock speed will be 4.5 or more...yet top overclock will be? We dont know what material will be used, hopefully we will have something new in the way of a sim and it wont matter so much but you have to love how far FSX has come - because it wasn't updated.....

 

Closer Mr.Gizmo?

Are we assuming that FSX will still be the most popular flightsim in 2020? That would be great as far as value for money is concerned (with respect to all of the addons that I have purchased for it), but we will hopefully have something much better seven years from now.

Are we assuming that FSX will still be the most popular flightsim in 2020? That would be great as far as value for money is concerned (with respect to all of the addons that I have purchased for it), but we will hopefully have something much better seven years from now.

Think fsx it will still be used in 2020 even if Xplane surpasses fsx in every aspect. Fsx will be used long time from now

Think fsx it will still be used in 2020 even if Xplane surpasses fsx in every aspect. Fsx will be used long time from now

 

Well... Seven years have passed since FSX was released. Look at what has happened in those 7 years when it comes to hardware and software. Will FSX really survive yet another 7 years...? By that time FSX will be like a game from 1999 if you look at it now. Who still playes games from 1999...? Anyone...? Progress in hardware and software may have slowed down a little but we don't know what surprises are ahead. Seven years is a LONG time in computerland.

 

I personally think that IF we will still be using something that's related to FSX, it will be through something like P3D version 4.0...? However my hope is that we will be flying in a brand new sim by then (with Oculus Rift HD 3D version 3). But I have my doubts about a new sim. They would have to start working on it NOW in order to make the 2020 deadline.

 

 

It would be the voltage that does it in if your temps are ok. What did you end up at? I shaved most of the lifespan out of an X processor ($1K) by overvolting...

Bummer about that processor; I don't think I'll have that problem using 1.19v with my i7 4770k at 4.5Ghz (no HT).

 

Concerning the future of FSX consider:

"Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die".

Translated to a modern idiom: "Don't worry, be happy (and sim NOW), for tomorrow will take care of itself".

FSX DOES respond very, very well - yes, with even that extra 200MHz - run smoother, and with higher detail, greater LOD, better water, and so on. And it does it using DX10, too.

It responds at maximum to the relation to clock speed. That is exactly the 4.5% or so and in heavy scenery with 4.5GHz 20FPS it can give you that extra 1 FPS with that 200MHz, but most likely not, depending of the other hardware. FSX doesn't run in the CPU cache like PiFast which shows immediately the extra clocks by decreasing the time of calculation in the proportion. FSX, like other games too, uses heavily memory and graphics, which affect the overall performance. Of course, if you have for example over 60 FPS over less crowded area and we still assume FSX gaining FPS linearilly, you gain several FPS more in the upper area.

 

People seem to look at just the clock speed and forget completely the improvement of the IPC with different generations when they are upgrading. But if you put same Sandy/Ivy/Haswell in compariston with the difference of 200MHz without changing the rest of the configuration, you gain at maximum exactly in the relation of the processor speed, not more.

FSX doesn't run in the CPU cache like PiFast which shows immediately the extra clocks by decreasing the time of calculation in the proportion.

 

When you talk about CPU cache, you mean, more L3 cache doesn't really do much for FSX in terms of performance? Sorry if I misread what you were saying.

Me too, but my first and last X processor, QX9650, by running it at the absolute maximum Vcore for fairly short periods w/ excellent cooling.   If I recall I had the thing for about 14 months or so, overclocking to 4.2Ghz for maybe 10% of it's lifespan, and around 3.8 for the rest of it.  It died suddenly and I don't think there was an overclocking protection plan around at that time.  I replaced it w/ a Q9650 and kept that at 3.72Ghz just because I didn't want to risk killing another chip.

Your experience is more common than you might imagine. Those estimates of OCing cutting down the life of the CPU by 30 or 40% are quite generic. Some CPUs may die after a short period of max OCing and others may not be affected at all. The median loss of useful life might be 30 to 40 %, but it doesn't make you feel any better, if you own one of the CPUs on the wrong tail of the bell-shaped curve. I can get a stable 4 GHz OC on air, but after I initially achieved that goal, I've run my system at around 3.2 GHz, which is a hair above the stock 2.6 GHz clock speed for an X5650.

As others have mentioned, I too only run my PC overclocked when running FSX, maybe 5-10 hours a week, give or take. When I'm done, I reboot and leave it at stock speeds. I figure the impact on the life span of the CPU is negligible. And it's not like overclocking must be a complicated procedure, taking days, utilizing hidden knowledge obtained from Druid priests - relatively simple, and makes a huge difference in performance.