While im ok with 4.0 and never drop below 20 for frames would i notice a difference overclocked to 4.2 from 4.0, just curious cause it would require a quite a bit more in vcore to reach the 4.2 but my temps are not a factor so its just about power compsumption now?

My i7 920 is running at 4.2Ghz as contented as a very contented thing. I can't imagine that it would be any different at 4.0 Ghz. .2 is a P in the ocean. :smile:

Thanks for you input, i wish more would chime in though. I know that the bible for fsx says most users are running new gen processors at 4.5 for best results but just wanted to know. 

How does 1 fps sound. 

Thats all you will get,  maybe.

An old rule of thumb states that it takes a doubling in performance for 20% improvement visually. You're going to increase raw performance by a mere 5% - will not be noticable, so isn't worth the effort.

 

(Wish I could have worded that as eloquently as Ron.   :lol:)

Thanks for all your guys help!

Yes, it's pretty much linear. you get the same percentage increase in frame rate, as frequency increase.

 

I tested this a while ago, it was true for me.

 

I'll be switching to Haswell soon. I have a 3770k, but need to set my son up with a PC. I'll be quite happy with a reasonable overclock, and certainly wont be bothered about a couple of hundred megahertz here or there.

I switched from my 2600K at 4.5GHz to a new system (Z87 + 4770K) and i didn't even overclock this time. I have better performance than i had (smoother) and the CPU runs even cooler.

 

I did try overclocking to 4.4GHz and i didn't see a noticeable difference so i just let it sit on default with its turbo to 3.9GHz.

You would see an improvement, the Haswell architecture is much faster than your old CPU.

You would see an improvement, the Haswell architecture is much faster than your old CPU.

 

Well Martin, i did try (4.4) and didn't 'feel' anything different. There might be more fps or something but it didn't feel faster or smoother than what i gained from moving from the 2600K, so i defaulted it.

 

The CPU performance really is higher than the 2600K, i measured it with a set of benchmark tools from the 'old days' of overclocking, and i felt that when i reinstalled, but that's about it.

I did try overclocking to 4.4GHz and i didn't see a noticeable difference so i just let it sit on default with its turbo to 3.9GHz.

 

 

Yes, a 12.8 % gain for a typical Haswell OC not very much for all the bother.  If you are in a heavy duty scenario struggling with say 15 fps you would be lucky to get to 17 fps with 4.4 Ghz.

 

Bruceb

Well Martin, i did try (4.4) and didn't 'feel' anything different. There might be more fps or something but it didn't feel faster or smoother than what i gained from moving from the 2600K, so i defaulted it.

 

The CPU performance really is higher than the 2600K, i measured it with a set of benchmark tools from the 'old days' of overclocking, and i felt that when i reinstalled, but that's about it.

 

 

No, as I said previously, a few hundred megahertz increases performance by only a few percent.

 

I was referring to this....

 

I switched from my 2600K at 4.5GHz to a new system (Z87 + 4770K) and i didn't even overclock this time. I have better performance than i had (smoother) and the CPU runs even cooler.

 

 

 

I meant you would see an improvement jumping from a 2500K, to a 4700K. Should be 20+%. But a few hundred megahertz overclock is almost insignificant, as the scaling is linear.