O.C. Before FSX or After?

[simmerhead 885]

Well I guess I'll just have to let you all know what happens. Just watching paint dry right now, Pass-Pass-BSOD, Pass-Pass-Pass-BSOD, Pass-Pass.....................

 

Regards,

 

Good luck! I'm sure you'll do fine as long as you don't go into extremes.

[maximus92 0]

This is actually a pointless argument as neither party is right or wrong.  TBH it reads like a chicken or egg argument.  It truly makes no difference when you install programs in relation to the OC, because when Windows decides to take a dump, it's going to take a dump.  The mistake I'm seeing is people throwing around the word "stable" in relation to an OS.  In my 17 odd years of building PC's, "stable" quickly left my list of vocabulary words when it comes to system building.  OCing is such a touchy practice that I avoid it altogether any more.  One little piece of code that Windows doesn't agree with and it's BSoD, and that holds true for a system that isn't OC'ed.  Either way, it's "do it at your own risk" and really isn't worth the slight gain in performance you get with FSX.  If you're running a decent Quad core or better CPU built within, let's say, the last five years, you're good.

 

Gaming hardware is so far past FSX, that it has little effect on FSX.  It's why I chuckle when someone says, "You must have the latest Intel i7 to run FSX optimally!"  I often wonder if they work for Intel.  Fact is, the performance gain between Intel and AMD is negligible, admitting in Intel's favor.  What people have to face is this isn't Crysis, you're never going to see a constant 120 fps with max everything, even in vanilla FSX.  My AMD dual core, dual 8800 GTX, 8 gig ram system ran FSX at between 17 to 25 FPS at Heathrow with Aerosoft's EGLL and a custom AI package from my VA, with NickN's settings.  My current AMD 8 core, GTX 560, 16 gig ram system runs it at between 23 to 30+ (because I limit it to 30) FPS under the same conditions.  Not much gain in the four or five years between systems.