jackcnd

Good luck, I edited my original post with more info.

That CPU was in my main FSX machine for years. Out of the box I set it to 1.3875 volts and 4GHz, worked great never had an issue. i read 1.3875v was the Intel recommended limit so that is what I used. That was a Intel Extreme cpu made to overclock. I used a 3rd party air cooler but as I recall it came with a big fan as well. FSX loves CPU speed... That machine is now a family pc so I run it stock to save power. I'll see if I can find my OC settings. Edit found them Cpu ratio 10.0 FSB 400 PCIE 100 Cpu voltage 1.3875 the cpu ratio x FSB (front side bus) that is key with the product being the cpu speed. Both can be adjusted on that CPU, I would set the cpu voltage at 1.3875 or less and try 10x330 , 10x360, ...

Al - love your posts here, and great suggestions.

I've been telling others and even loading it on their machines when ever possible about Flight. :) While it is usually met with interest when I mention it's free, I'm not seeing many new converts. Certainly not paying customers. Gamers that I know, involved with the typical shooters with intense graphics / sound, Flight was just didn't seem to hold interest for long. Non-gamers, gave it a go but seem just disinterested in spending time on the PC other than for work, internet, email, etc. A couple serious FSX'ers I fly online with tried it for a couple days but were very unimpressed. I wont repeat their comments Casual FSX'ers like myself are happy to switch between the two games, but as time passes Flight is seeing less use. I am looking forward to Alaska but really miss AI and ATC and flying closer to home. It's seems to be Fight's audience may be becoming just a subset of the original Flight Simulator user base which I think is not what MS hoped for. Anyone else try getting others on to Flight, reaction?

The Asus boards (maybe others) have a simple OC function in the bios, or a button on the MB, or even via software. It may not give the highest possible result but it is as simple as pushing a button. What ever method you decide on it's pretty much a must to get a upgraded CPU cooler .

Dont just plug those settings in, even Word Not Allowed recommended NOT to do that. A +0.16 offset is very extreme / risky... will put your CPU over 1.5v. Recent 2700s should be able to do 4.8 with voltage in the 1.32 range. Basically stock settings with a offset of 0.04 is where I hover around. If your having a hard time getting all 4 cores stable at 48, The overclock by core setting is something to consider as well, Say 48,48,47,46, to keep voltages tame. FSX seldom needs all 4 cores in my testing.

I went for the 2700K recently and it hits 4.8 with HT off, pretty easy and at low voltages 1.32 or less. Good video, but he suggests 5.0 and 5.2 like they are easy on the 2700. That is not my experience. I can run SuperPi at 5.0 but cpu voltage needed is over 1.4, too high for me. The difference between 4.8 and 5 or even 5.2 is pretty small in FSX, I decided its not worth pushing the chip so hard. Question is then if I had got a 3770 would it also be at 4.8 and giving a 10% boost over the 2700K?

I was just wondering if the Intel OC plan was worth it. Looks like it can be purchased anytime during the 1st year, but claims take 30 days after purchase. My 2700 is at 4.8 with 1.32 so I'm not too worried anyhow but it would be interesting to push it to 5+...

Thanks for the reply. Looks like its easiest just to install all as suggested and turn off FTX when desired.

Was a 300% boost in Flight not FSX. Wish it was in FSX too :) In FSX I can have more autogen with the 670, but in low frame rate places like Orbx PNW with Vancouver+ installed, frames still can drop to below 15. Wonder how much work it would be for MS to code FSX to use the GPU like Flight does. I'd be more than glad to pay for that!

Both installs would be on the same HD and the active one would always have the same path. My top level dir is called FSX and I'd have another called FSXInactive, and just swap names / rename as needed. So the registry entries would not need to be changed or am I missing something?

I'd like to have the choice between 2 installs ... An Orbx FSX install and a GEX/UTX/SceneryTech install. Why ... in some PNW areas I prefer the performance and appearance of one over the other. I did a fresh install of Acceleration, then backed up the full FSX directory. Then I installed Orbx and VancouverPlus3. Was thinking now to rename that top level directory of the Orbx install as FSXinactive, and restore my backed up original FSX directory then install GEX ,UTX on top of it. Then I would have 2 FSX installs and could hopefully switch by simply renaming top level of the active and inactive one. Will that work, or does FSX save key info outside of the main FSX directory that would cause issues?

Could be if running at 1T is in fact slowing things down due to error corrections in some cases? Be interested in hearing from others with knowledge or results from AIDA64 at different settings ...

If you have a minute, try the AIDA64 memory benchmark, be interested in hearing your latency results at 2T vs 1T.... Here: Running 1600 8-8-8-24 1T ... 51ns Running 1866 9-9-9-24 2T ... 41ns Is that logical ?

I have 2x4GB of similar ram and was getting 51ns latency using 1600 8-8-8-24 with 1T. Then I tried 2T and bumped the speed up a notch 1866 9-9-9-24 2t and suddenly it was 41ns ! Try 1866 9-9-9-24 2t and check your AIDA latency. If it will not work, try 2T with your current settings 1600 settings. Be interested to hear your results.... Could be a bug with AIDA or is it possible running at 1T can actualy slow latency if it results in numerous error corrections?