fghdgdfdfgfgf

@ dazz and allainne:Doods! Those are some impressive temps! Until today I've had it in my head that the NH d14 was liquid. While I don't know how I came to believe the D14 was liquid I do know that I had dismissed it a while back due to its size .....maybe I'll reconsider it.@ Corey:That H100 looks cool, but I'm concerned about their new "light weight design". I mean, don't you need mass for effective surface cooling?

Yep. FSX, with moderate to high settings, at 5.0GHz uses less energy than a 4 core Prime test at 4.6ghz. In fact, a 4 core Prime test at 5.0 uses roughly the same amount of energy as FSX at 5.4GHz.BTW, for you haters out there ----I'm running at a new 5.0 volt setting: offset at -10. uh huh - under 1.40v. Been running the setting since yesterday. Did a Prime95 2 core test that rocked between 1.382 to 1.396 (FSX uses 'bout the same amount of energy as a Prime95 2 core test).For those that are interested: The .15 volts off my previous volt setting means about 2c.

Hi Howard-I had both the 560ti and the 580 in the house together for a few days. The 560ti won the contract. <g>

Thanx Howard!

I'm not doing Windows Live! That is unless they give me Flight for free and give me a cut of my personal information they sell to others.....Heck, I still haven't installed Windows Silverlight. Yeah, I've never seen a picture of Flight.Ken Carlin

More to the point:Is there anyone out there that can do Prime @ 5.0, or above, with 4 cores and temps below 85c? I don't think it can be done on air.

4.8 (48x100)/ bios using my 5.0 settings less the offset down from +.005 down to -.020Howard-If you wouldn't mind, I'd really like to see what your getting @ 4.7 with virtual cores turned off. Again, I just wanna see how much better your cooler is than mine with reasonable likeness in load demands.Thanx again

Thanx Howard ...I just wanted to verify that 26.6 was putting out an equivalent load...

Dood? I need you to get with the program, here. Please update to the latest version and report back. :-)

What version of Prim are you guys running -those temps are impressive! With Prim95(ver 26.6) running 4 "workers" at 5.0GHz my temps are are way over 80c and pushing 90 -heck, this all before having to up my voltages to run the test for even 15 minutes! Realtemp shows wattage consumption of OVER 120 watts! I wanna make sure I'm comparing apples to apples here, are there special Prim settings that you'all are using? Now for comparison: I can run FSX (at no compromise settings), FSDream's JFK (100% WOAI traffic -all major carriers) while capturing with FRAPS and never see my peak temps go above 72c/1.41v (RealTemp measured 90 -95w). BTW- Stephen, I love the cooler picture.-Ken

Yeah, I'll just pass on the liquid cooling idea. I just read an H70 review over at Maximum PC and they reported only a 6c degree difference between the H70 and the Hyper 212+ on the same test bed. That's not enough spread in performance to go hiking off the beaten path.Hi RaynHey, what temps do you get when you run Prime95 with 2 cores ....and 4 cores for that matter?

Mornin Corey-Yeah, the h70 would be overkill in the sense that I don't have a need for it. I'm also not looking to squeeze a few more MHzees out of it either. As I said last night, I believe my mobo and cpu are in perfect harmony with the settings I use now. However, I'm curious about a few things: what effect an h70 would have on the amount volts required drive the cpu at 5.2 and 5.4GHz -I have an air cooled base reading; and of course, the risky part, how hi can she go .

Water cooled doods-What kind of temps are you guys getting under 'max' load with your Sandy Bridges, so I can compare to my Hyper 212+. I'm thinking of picking up an H70 -$99 at Frys and Microcenter- to see what I can get at 1.6v -yeah, I know I should leave well enough alone, but what the heck! I really think 5.0 is the sweet spot with my cpu and I know she'll do 5.4 but I'm curious to see if I can go beyond 5.4 ...for exhibition purposes only, of course.It would be really helpful if someone who has upgraded from air to water with their current cpu could share their thoughts.Thanx

rofl

As you well know Dazz, I am the worlds most interesting man* -my bird bath has been known to attract bald eagles- ...Mass times acceleration (under typical PMDG MD11 loads) times GHz divided by the frame rate to the given resolution (1680x1050) gives the rate of watts. However, sometimes it's just more convenient for me to use a standard mobo monitoring utility like HWINFO32 and RealTemp (whats currently on my desktop), but they're all good---I've tried them all.*when the puter is on :(-Ken Carlin

Believe or not my cpu is within Intel spec and as such should last at least 3 years.My processor (at 5.0) runs a 100% cpu load @ 90 to 95 watts at no more than 72c (air cooled). According to Intel, the chip is designed/guaranteed to run 95w TDP @ 72.6c 24/7 for 3 years.You might be amazed at what I can get out of FSX with this Sandy running a 100% cpu load at 95w. Oh, the immersion factor is quite real. Sometime I smell jet fuel when I wake in the morning.-Ken Carlin

Yeah Jack, I can't answer that. Between the two, Dazz gives us the performance difference on paper, but I don't how much more headroom you gain with regards to turning up the "settings" dial. Is there something with your current level of performance that leaves you a bit disappointed with FSX? If so, what is it. Maybe a highly clocked Sandy can handle it. ....Oh what the heck --- build that Sandy machine! The 980x and Sandy would look nice next to each other, huh? :smile:Ken Carlin

With your kit, I wouldn't look over the fence - but, if you did ...you'd notice that the grass was greener. :biggrin:Ken Carlin

There's a link to a spread sheet in THIS post. Yeah, there's some questionable entries but I think you'll see a developing pattern.I'm not bashing the 980-990x, that is if you're running the latest and greatest in professional software. However, if one thinks the 990 is the latest and greatest for FSX then I'm here to tell you it's not... not by a long shot.-Ken Carlin

Well, I went from the e8400(3.6Ghz) to an I5 2500K and enjoyed a 100% frame rate increase, and that's before overclocking.

There's not a damn thing the 580 can do that my 560ti cannot do through my single 1680x1050 monitor. The 580 doesn't give any more headroom and doesn't make anything any smoother than the 560ti in FSX ...period! I'd challenge anyone to show me the difference between the two in a side-by-side comparison. Oh, and I like the Corsair 2x4GB config. :-)

Just playing with ya, here. <------- this video was captured with FRAPS (full screen) with FSX running at 1680x1050 and the FSX settings pretty much maxed out. But wait! There's more! I then played back the FRAPS .avi file with Windows 7 Media Player and recaptured it again with the mini DV camera (4:3 aspect ratio). Can you rell the difference? :Smug:

Yeah, NS!!! Ken Carlin

Dood, you need more memory (ram). Someone correct if i'm wrong, isn't the 460 going map more system memory -assuming the 460 has more video memory.And if it does, that could explain why you're seeing OOMs now?Get mo ram!

Yeah, I'm going to keep my B2. I have two drives (including the optical) on the SATA 3 ports. If push comes to shove I could move'em to the Marvell ports, the optical drive is fully functional on it.