MrMaestro

I don't have first-hand experience, but I've looked into G-SYNC and I'll share my thoughts. It works best on 60Hz monitors where the frame rates are <60 and >30. 30 is a hard lower limit with G-SYNC (at least in its current iteration); any lower than 30 and you will get stutters. Now if you're like me then you have a target frame rate set in P3D/FSX of around 25-30. i.e. G-SYNC is simply not going to do anything. PMDG NGX + Orbx airport + weather = sub-30 fps for me so G-SYNC isn't going to help at all. If you aren't running super-complex addons and therefore can set a higher/uncapped frame rate limit, but you still can't expect a solid 60 fps, then G-SYNC sounds pretty awesome. But yeah it comes down to your environment. Another problem at the moment is that G-SYNC monitors command a $200 premium, and FreeSync is vapourware. When mainstream G-SYNC/FreeSync monitors become available I'll definitely get one because the use case is appropriate at times, but at the moment I'm not willing to pay the premium.

Isn't it the case that lower texture resolutions can only be applied if the textures were created with those mips? I think I read that somewhere.

Load up the default 737 in game, then open up the EZCA control panel and select the Pilot Eyes view. In the menu there is an option to clone the view with effects which brings up a Save Dialog. Save it anywhere you like, then load up the NGX and you can import the camera. Off the top of my head you right-click a blank entry and there's an import option.

Just copy the default 737 pilot eyes cam. Turn off effects to set the eyepoint, and when you're happy save it and turn the effects on. If you're still losing view of the HUD from effects you probably don't have zoom set well.

Thanks for the tip off, Geoff. I've been eyeing the B55, I'll definitely get it now. Cheers, Mike

There's actually a French site that publishes return rates pulled from an unknown French store. They've recently put up their latest numbers - Last time I saw the list Intel had top spot by a nice margin, so they've slipped quite a bit. But as you can see, this explains why you see so many more complaints about OCZ drives than any other brand. Sure, odds are if you buy one it isn't going to have problems, and note that the Vertex/Agility 4s aren't in these calculations, but why would you take the chance when brands like Intel, Crucial and Samsung are known to be very reliable? Cheers, Mike

You don't want to do that, FSX will run considerably worse on only one core. Mike

I doubt it would be worth it. For everyday tasks the main benefit of SSDs comes from their ultra-low latency, not their stupidly fast read/write speeds, and this isn't going to see any benefit from RAID. RAIDing SSDs looks great in benchmarks but that's about all it's good for in a home-use scenario. Also, at the moment RAID doesn't allow TRIM commands through to the SSD so performance over time will suffer. Cheers, Mike

I went from an i7 860 (that's basically the same chip as yours but with HyperThreading) at 3.8GHz to a 3570K overclocked to 4.7GHz, and what a difference it made. I fly the NGX around Orbx sceneries and it's smooth now. At YMML in the NGX I would get about 10-12 FPS in the VC, now I get near 20. Your expectations for 25+ might be a little high, but it will definitely be a massive difference to your current system. Cheers, Mike

No, Vcore is the voltage the CPU is really receiving. Try CoreTemp for a program that will show you the VID. Well done on the manual OC though. Cheers, Mike

The VID is separate to the voltage the CPU is actually getting. As I said, it's a table of values programmed into CPU that list what voltage to ask for at different frequencies. The VRM on the motherboard reads these values but doesn't have to provide the voltages listed therein. If everything is at stock settings, the VID will be used to work out what voltage to send the CPU, but once overclocked the VID is no longer useful. Why? Because the CPU isn't specced to run at the higher frequency so there isn't a matching VID for it. The VID will be whatever the highest value that was programmed into the CPU was, which may not be enough. If a CPU tops out at a turbo of 3.8GHz at stock settings, with a VID of 1.2V, and you overclock it to 4.8GHz the VID is still going to be 1.2V, and obviously insufficient. You have to manually tell the motherboard to give it a higher voltage, either static or an offset from the VID. You can't. But you don't automagically know what the VID is going to be when your CPU is loaded, it might be 1.15V, or 1.21V, or 1.23V, who knows? So rather than guessing an offset to get 1.3V you can set a static voltage, I said 1.3 but any voltage you know is stable will do. Place a load on the CPU, then get the VID. Then find the difference. For example, if the VID is 1.19V then your offset is +0.11V to get 1.3V. Now that you have the offset you can go into the BIOS and configure it in the settings instead of the static voltage. Hopefully that answers your questions :Nerd: Cheers, Mike

Well if you used auto-overclock you shouldn't start messing with the voltages yourself. The ASUS utility has chosen 1.45V because that's what it reckons is the voltage the chip needs to be stable at load. If you try to change the voltages yourself it will probably lead to system instability. Blue screens and stuff. My advice would be to return the BIOS to factory defaults and the OC utility to stock settings, then overclock it manually through the BIOS. If you're set on using 1.3V my plan would be the following: set a static Vcore of 1.3V manually set the multiplier, I'd start around 4GHz, so 40 stress test it with Prime95 or something like it if it's stable, go back into the BIOS and raise the multiplier by one then retest when you get to an unstable overclock back off by one or two multiplier points, this is the fastest speed you can reliably get to at 1.3V load the CPU at this setting and get the VID, then find the difference between this and 1.3V. This is your offset go into the BIOS and set the offset. This will give you 1.3V at load, and ~1V or less at idle You can leave all other settings besides the Vcore on AUTO. It won't net you the best overclock for that voltage, but it makes things a lot simpler. I reckon you'd get to around 4.4-4.5GHz doing this, higher if you have a good chip. Cheers, Mike

Have you overclocked, and have you fiddled with any of the power-saving options? Run CoreTemp or CPU-Z to monitor the CPU clock speed and make sure it's throttling when idle. But my guess is that you've overclocked it and, with the option set to AUTO, the BIOS has decided on a rather large offset which, as I mentioned before, affects the idle as well as load voltages. Cheers, Mike

The Offset Mode Sign tells the computer whether you want a positive or negative offset. Basically, you can add or subtract to the voltage ID (VID) and you use the + or - to choose which one. The way VID works is there is essentially a table of values programmed into the CPU that lists what voltage to ask for at given frequencies. For example, at 1.6GHz ask for 0.9V, at 3.4GHz ask for 1.1V, at 3.8GHz ask for 1.2V. When you set an offset you're adding or subtracting from that value. For what you want to do, first work out the VID for your CPU under load, CoreTemp and I think RealTemp will tell you this value. Find the difference between the VID and 1.3V and that's your offset. The field below the Offset Mode Sign option, CPU offset voltage, is set to AUTO, which means the motherboard is deciding what offset to provide. You need to select this field and change it to your offset. Using the example in the OCN guide you've quoted you'd make the Mode Sign negative and type in 0.005 into the voltage field. Just another note - you can't control both idle and load voltages independently, setting the offset affects both. Myself, I use a +0.100 offset for my 3570K at 4.7GHz, which takes Vcore to about 1.35V when running at full speed, and about 1.0V when idling at 1.6GHz. Hope that helps. Cheers, Mike

I gotta disagree with you, Ben. Cowboy is going to play games other than FSX and run three screens. Two GTX 670s will eat a 680 for breakfast. However I do agree that the OP should spend a little more on the motherboard - the LX is quite low-end, and in fact only comes with one PCI-E 3 slot. The other full length slot is PCI-E 2 and runs at only 4x. It's a lot more, relatively, but the V comes with dual PCI-E 3 slots, and decent overclocking features like a bunch more phases and VRM heatsinks. Looks good to me, overall though. Cheers, Mike