Whirlpool

This is my first overclocking experience
I bought myself a Q6600 G0 stepping, mounted on an asus blitz formula together with 2X1G OCZ reaper PC6400 and an 8800gtx.

I decided to overclock a bit and first thing i tried was left everything auto and set to 2.8Ghz through FSB (311). I noiticed the cpu voltage was quite high so I lowered it manually.

after this the system remained stable and to keep things short I finally arrived at a point where I set the FSB to 333, CPU voltage to 1.25V and northbridge voltage to 1.25V (auto setting was setting it to 1.4V)

I ran prime 95 25.4 (the one on all 4 cores) torture test with small FFTs for more than 30 minutes and 3dmark 06 where I saw the improvements. I did not get any errors on prime (round off checking is on)

img340.imageshack.us/img.../q6600at3oh4.jpg

My question is here - Isnt the voltage too low? - I was expecting the system to be unstable at the above settings. I also disabled C1E and speedstep and set the ram voltage to 2.1 (since OCZ's specs says so). Am I doing something wrong with the testing or I'm just lucky I got this cpu?

If I leave the voltage to the default - i.e. 1.25V (settings as above) this won't lower the lifetime of my cpu as usually happens when overclocking?

btw I'm uzing zalman CPS9700 and have a room temp of approx 28C

2.8 is a fairly modest overclock for a G0. There's heaps of threads here and on overclockers.com.au of people getting 3.0 just on 333 FSB X 9 and not touching voltage at all, and thats on a B3.

Why are you overclocking a brand new CPU that has 4 cores and has ample speeds for anything you throw at it for the next 12 months?

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

Why are you overclocking a brand new CPU that has 4 cores and has ample speeds for anything you throw at it for the next 12 months?

maybe because the op wants every last frame he can get from gaming?
edit: plus ocing is fun. nothing better than relatively free performance gains.

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

Why are you overclocking a brand new CPU that has 4 cores and has ample speeds for anything you throw at it for the next 12 months?

How can you say it has ample speed when you don't know what it'll be used for? Besides, anything can use extra speed - encoding will always benefit from speed / extra cores, better framerates in games is always nicer or allows better quality options to be on.

To the OP, 3GHz from the G0 core isn't unusual. In fact from what I've read it's pretty much expected.

StrykerG writes...

Isnt the voltage too low? - I was expecting the system to be unstable at the above settings.

It's fine.

My B3 Q6600 is stable at 3GHZ with 1.25v so the G0 should have no problems.

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

Why are you overclocking a brand new CPU

Why wouldn't you overclock a brand new CPU : P

Natronomonas writes...

hy wouldn't you overclock a brand new CPU : P

i don't. THere is no need to.

BillyBobbyP writes...

THere is no need to.

o.O more power is always needed...

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

Why are you overclocking a brand new CPU that has 4 cores and has ample speeds for anything you throw at it for the next 12 months?

oc my e6300 from 1.86ghz to 2.8ghz, windows xp startup time dropped from 25 sec to 19 sec. (from the moment i see win xp screen to first appearance of desktop).

only thing i'm not happy with is i'm having a bit of trouble going to 3ghz :)

MrJimmyC writes...

o.O more power is always needed...

depends what you need it for.
more power = more heat = possible instability issues

BillyBobbyP writes...

depends what you need it for.

for waiting less time for windos to boot up :)

more power = more heat = possible instability issues

price to pay for speed :(

seriously writes...

oc my e6300 from 1.86ghz to 2.8ghz, windows xp startup time dropped from 25 sec to 19 sec. (from the moment i see win xp screen to first appearance of desktop).

only thing i'm not happy with is i'm having a bit of trouble going to 3ghz :)

But that cost you an extra $80 - $100 in cooling which you could have added and bought a much better CPU then the E6300.

seriously writes...

for waiting less time for windos to boot up :)

you will find that defragging your hard disk or getting a faster hard disk will boot alot quicker than overclocking your cpu

BillyBobbyP writes...

more power = more heat = possible instability issues

thats why you overclock to the point where you dont get that... anyone with half a brain can overclock without getting instability...

eukaryote:) writes...

maybe because the op wants every last frame he can get from gaming?

You do know most monitors will not be able to show 150fps

MrJimmyC writes...

hats why you overclock to the point where you dont get that... anyone with half a brain can overclock without getting instability...

even if you run those stability programs to ensure maximum overclock without freezing / crashing, you will notice overtime the same clocks wont be stable anymore. THere is a reason why Intel has set it to that clock only, and hasnt rated the CPU higher.

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

But that cost you an extra $80 - $100 in cooling which you could have added and bought a much better CPU then the E6300.

i wished i've thought of that before spending on cooling :(

zalman 9500 led $71.50 on sale at pccg
nb 40mm fan $10
arctic silver 5 $10
total 91.50

where i could have bought a e2140 for $87 msy :(

and able to oc to 2.8ghz easy anyway with stock fan.........

BillyBobbyP writes...

getting a faster hard disk will boot alot quicker than overclocking your cpu

already got a new sata 2 wd 160ghz single plate hd :)
running complete silent btw.

grech writes...

You do know most monitors will not be able to show 150fps

really?

hehehe, i'm very happy with my lg flattron 795ft plus 17" crt monitor then......running serene screen marine aquarium 2.6 with framerate controll switch off and at 1024x768x32 bit colour, 170 fps !

BillyBobbyP writes...

even if you run those stability programs to ensure maximum overclock without freezing / crashing, you will notice overtime the same clocks wont be stable anymore.

agreed.

THere is a reason why Intel has set it to that clock only, and hasnt rated the CPU higher.

disagreed. wrong reason imo.

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

But that cost you an extra $80 - $100 in cooling which you could have added and bought a much better CPU then the E6300.

My old E6300 sat on 2.8GHz 24/7 since the start of the year without any complaints - with the stock cooler. Still going strong today, albeit at stock as it's current motherboard doesn't agree with faster FSB than 266MHz.

Cost the same new as my current Q6600 that replaced it a few weeks ago! Eep. My wallet cries.

BillyBobbyP writes...

even if you run those stability programs to ensure maximum overclock without freezing / crashing, you will notice overtime the same clocks wont be stable anymore.

LOL this is bullcrap.. ive got a celeron 300a still running at 504mhz after almost 10 years... been overclocking for many years and never have problems with my systems dropping speed over time..

dunno where you pulled that bit of misinformation but you are VERY wrong.

seriously writes...

isagreed. wrong reason imo.
what other reason can there be?

MrJimmyC writes...

dunno where you pulled that bit of misinformation but you are VERY wrong.
you wear out the transistors inside the die alot quicker than normal, hence introduce stability problems. i guess you dont run that PC 24/7 for 10 yrs or else it would have been cactus by now.

BillyBobbyP writes...

you wear out the transistors inside the die alot quicker than normal, hence introduce stability problems. i guess you dont run that PC 24/7 for 10 yrs or else it would have been cactus by now.

it was 24/7 for about 6-7 years.. its my sisters now and still holds the overclock fine.. she runs it about 12 hours or more each day...

Also these CPU's are rated to handle heat loads a lot higher than what most people get to with overclocking. Sure you might be knocking a fraction off its overall lifespan but given most people will replace the CPU because its too slow WELL before you reach any point of failure due to overclocking or experience a slowdown in speeds.

You logic is correct, just your timeframes arent practical. Overclocking will not affect the CPU within its useful lifespan.

BillyBobbyP writes...

what other reason can there be?

marketing. it's a common practice for manufacturers to under spec a product just to fill in the gap for the lower end market. (instead of having another process line to produce a lower spec product).

why else would a 1.8ghz cpu able to oc to >3ghz ? not stable at/near 3 ghz maybe but certainly would be "extremely" or as stable at 2.4ghz as at 1.8ghz. so won't they at least sell it as 2.4ghz cpu ? are they all idiots? :D

seriously writes...

It's a common practice for manufacturers to under spec a product just to fill in the gap for the lower end market.

Eg. The 7300gt is a 7600 core with 4 pixel pipes disabled (forget how many vertices')
they would be either 7600chips with problems like a pipe not working or a 7600 chip with locked pipes.

seriously writes...

marketing. it's a common practice for manufacturers to under spec a product just to fill in the gap for the lower end market. (instead of having another process line to produce a lower spec product).

Exactly. They bin according to both market demand, and the cpu capabilities. So if the process isn't going well, there will be more lower-speed parts. However, if the process is yielding well, but most of the demand is on the lower-speed parts, they'll still brand/class most as low speed, even if they were capable of much faster speeds - it's these parts, obviously, that overclockers prefer.

BillyBobbyP writes...

you wear out the transistors inside the die alot quicker than normal, hence introduce stability problems.

This only occurs when you set the voltage too high.

I think going higher then 1.5v will give you problems in the long run. But lower then that should be safe.

I have a Q6600 G0 @ 3.6ghz, 1.425v. I'll be able to run this for a very long time.

Intel specify the max voltage in their datasheets; it varies by exact processor class, but is usually a fair bit higher than the actual voltage a CPU may ship with (around 1.55v for C2D, compared to the ~1.3 that most ship with).

So running an o/c at that voltage should still be within Intel spec, provided you can keep it within the temp guide also.

intel spec for Q6600 is 1.35v

For the life of a cpu at stock, running it at 1.45v will make little difference.

BillyBobbyP writes...

i don't. THere is no need to.

thats not the right attitude.

so you are saying that if i leave the cpu voltage to 1.25V and run it with an fsb of 333 the lifetime of the cpu won't be compromised? meaning I can go as high as I want (up to intels spec of 1.35V) without reducing the lifetime of the cpu??

is there anyway to test the stability except torture test with prime 95 (the only one I know), and if it wouldn't be stable, the computer would just crash/reboot, or other things may happen like corrupt data etc?

nice forum btw:)

seriously writes...

hy else would a 1.8ghz cpu able to oc to >3ghz ? not stable at/near 3 ghz maybe but certainly would be "extremely" or as stable at 2.4ghz as at 1.8ghz. so won't they at least sell it as 2.4ghz cpu ? are they all idiots? :D

No, they are not. THe main reason is that in order for a particular CPU to run at say near 3GHz stable, it has to run at 1.4V instead of 1.25V, therefore the power rating is going to increase to 80W, which is OUT-OF-SPEC, because all the dual-core CPUs are rated at 65W max!. So, therefore they have to see at what speed it can run at MAX 65W, and it turns out to be say, 1.8GHz!

This is the reason, not really marketing as such. Some parts of the die on the silicon wafer does not turn out to be perfect - so they do a "speed" bin to determine which CPU can run at which speed in the specified Power rating.

EDIT: I agree with Natronomonas - its more to do with yields (which i described above) - but marketing can sometimes be part of it as well...

bart5986 writes...

his only occurs when you set the voltage too high.
That is correct - it also depends how much you overclock it as well.

perfectdarth writes...

thats not the right attitude.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion ;)

BillyBobbyP writes...

No, they are not. THe main reason is that in order for a particular CPU to run at say near 3GHz stable, it has to run at 1.4V instead of 1.25V, therefore the power rating is going to increase to 80W, which is OUT-OF-SPEC, because all the dual-core CPUs are rated at 65W max!. So, therefore they have to see at what speed it can run at MAX 65W, and it turns out to be say, 1.8GHz!

With current CPU's nearly all lower speed cpu's will hit the same speed as the high end CPU's on stock volts. Eg: my E6400 runs faster at stock volts than the fastest stock CPU at the time of release, the E6800. It will hit 3.25ghz without needing a voltage increase. This is not uncommon on either Intel nor AMD ranges for the past few generations.

Marketing plays a huge amount in current speed binning. Yields on CPU's in the past few years have increased massively as manufacturing techniques are refined and perfected. There really isnt much different at all from a low-mid end CPU and a high end CPU and as such its not uncommon for two identical processors to end up "speed binned" into two seperate bins just simply due to volume requirements of lower end CPU's which obviously sell more than higher end CPU's due to retail price.

This is one of the main reasons why intel and AMD moved to upward multiplier locks. Low-mid end CPUs can quite easily be run at high end speeds with no voltage increase which means, if you could access the higher multipliers there would be no market for high end CPU's. By implimenting the multiplier locks they force bus speed overclocking which a lot of people are scared to do because of this false misconception that its dangerous and will shorten the life of your system.

I guess i'll be leaving my cpu to stock for the following reason:

I use this pc mainly for gaming therefore I did a couple of tests with 3dmark06...

@3Ghz with default settings firefly forest and deep freeze gave me 44.4 and 55.38 respectively average fps. and when I used a res of 1680×1050, AA4x and AF the results were 31.4 and 29.4 fps. (these settings are close to the ones I use in games).

@2.4Ghz The same 2 tests with default settings gave me 41.45 and 53.2 fps with 3dmark at default, and with the settings maxed out as above the results were the same 31.3 and 29.4.

I am guessing that the CPU doesn't take that much role in such games GPU is more important - I have a BFG 8800gtx oc (from manufacturer).

What do you ppl think?

Could there be any other real life advantages in overclocking the cpu apart from gaming (since it seems that for a 3fps increase it wouldn't be worthed)...

Hey man

I have overclocked my Q6600 g0 to 3.4ghz and i have left the Voltages on auto!

If you can actually drop them to 1.25v and be stable thats saving alot of heat!

i might give her a go.

overclocking is not a need to get more performance, its a hobby; to be able to squeeze more juices out of it and get it to reach its limits and brag on the internet on how high you got it clocked.

overclocking requires 2% skills and 98% luck, really nothing to it.

spb™ writes...

overclocking is not a need to get more performance, its a hobby; to be able to squeeze more juices out of it and get it to reach its limits and brag on the internet on how high you got it clocked.

ohh... I thought i'd see quite some difference between 2.4 and 3Ghz...

That's quite an expensive hobby and the results are not so big in real life (not benchmarks)...

ASTUS writes...

I have overclocked my Q6600 g0 to 3.4ghz and i have left the Voltages on auto!

I would not set the voltages to auto. When I set the voltages to auto on my blitz formula and fsb 333x9 (3Ghz), the core voltage came up to more than 1.4V (measured with pc probe2).

I can only immagine at what voltage your cpu running

I would not set the voltages to auto. When I set the voltages to auto on my blitz formula and fsb 333x9 (3Ghz), the core voltage came up to more than 1.4V (measured with pc probe2).

I can only immagine at what voltage your cpu running

My Vcore is at 1.35V

CPU Temps 33 Idle 55 Load

ASTUS writes...

My Vcore is at 1.35V

CPU Temps 33 Idle 55 Load

That's good (I guess), but as I said before I won't be overclocking since between 3GHz and 2.4GHz there was only a 3fps increase at maximum...

Ah I see.

I'm Using my Quad for 3D Rendering so i need all the GHZ i can get :)

StrykerG writes...

That's quite an expensive hobby and the results are not so big in real life (not benchmarks)...

Depends what you do. Obviously games are limited by other factors than just CPU. GPU boundaries Are usually where games hit their limits.

For anything else that depends on the CPU more highly then the benefits of overclocking are huge. Video encoding is a prime example. You can knock significant chunks off the amount of time it takes to encode a video, which is very important if you are using pro video tools that can take anywhere up to 12 hours or more to encode a movie.

StrykerG writes...

That's good (I guess), but as I said before I won't be overclocking since between 3GHz and 2.4GHz there was only a 3fps increase at maximum...

sure. a 2ghz with top end gpu would beat a 3ghz with basic at fps.

try a simple dvd movie ripping job and you'll see a big diff (when it's encoding the video).

no? don't rip movie either?

spb™ writes...

overclocking is not a need to get more performance

for me it is. :)

I couldn't run Final Fantasy X or Flight Simulator X (ultra high) until I overclocked my Q6600 from 2.4ghz to 3.6ghz.

ffx probably would have been fine at 3ghz, but still :)

seriously writes...

and able to oc to 2.8ghz easy anyway with stock fan.........

I was on 3.2ghz on stock cooling and voltages, but I had to drop down to 30 (actually 333x9 so 2.9ghz) to keep it on stock voltage.

I had it up to 3.6 but cooling is a problem in my HTPC case. :)

I don't think I was lucky. I set out for the G0, bought it, and OC'ed just as I expected.
I think the choice of memory and board is more of a luck thing.

What is the max safe overclocking potential for a Q6600 on stock cooling?

The added need to pay $100 for a new CPU cooler and fans negate the extra performance but if a good overclock is possible on stock cooling than I think it is a great idea?

2.4GHZ to 2.8GHZ possible?

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

2.4GHZ to 2.8GHZ possible?

See my post above. FSP @ 333, multi set to 9.
Voltage on STOCK.

Cooling is STOCK.

So 2.997ghz. I'm sure my case cooling can give me 3.2ghz no worries.

Lei Ying Lo writes...

See my post above. FSP @ 333, multi set to 9.
Voltage on STOCK.

Cooling is STOCK.

So 2.997ghz. I'm sure my case cooling can give me 3.2ghz no worries.

Dude that's nice, especially on stock. Did you see any improvement in performance? So I don't touch any thing in bios, just the FSB? My setup is:

Q6600 G0, Antec P182 (3 x fans), OCZ Platinum 800mhz 2GB, 620W HX-620 and 7900GT video card.

I had another look at this last night.

Here's what I changed in BIOS

FSB is now 333

multiplier is 9 (333x9 = 2.972 ghz)

PCI bus speed is set to 100 (i've read that I can't leave this on auto)

mem spd multiplier is 2.4 (2.4 x 333 gives me the 799.2 for my memory stock speed of 800)

I've set my ram MANUALLY to 4-4-4-12 (also stock).
At AUTO, it always defaults to 5-5-5-15 for some reason.

cpu voltage is set to MANUAL and set to a stock (1.3) I'm told this is too low, but I've had no trouble with it at this setting. Maybe I'm just lucky, but a friend of mine is at a similar clock with his running 1.375. The result is that his runs a bit warmer than mine.

I've been advised NEVER to leave cpu voltage set to AUTO when oc'ing as this will increase as your system deems fit for your oc. Better to be in control of this yourself.

we both have gigabyte p35-ds3r boards.

Also, I can get 3.2ghz (360x9), but I need to up my voltage to at least 1.4v
On stock cooling, I wouldn't recommend going above 1.4.

I read that increase in FSB increases temps slowy.
But increasing voltage increases system and cpu temps EXPONENTIALLY.
(got that somewhere on tomshardware oc'ing guide)

*EDIT
The only performance gains I saw was from games like Flight Simulator X.
But It is noticable, especially comparing 2.4ghz to 3.x :)

Lei Ying Lo writes...

I read that increase in FSB increases temps slowy.
But increasing voltage increases system and cpu temps EXPONENTIALLY.
(got that somewhere on tomshardware oc'ing guide)

pretty much. That's why I usually only o/c on stock volts, or close to.

Lei Ying Lo writes...

The only performance gains I saw was from games like Flight Simulator X.

Q6600 @ 3.6ghz can run it on ultra high and smooth through all the high detailed areas.

bart5986 writes...

Q6600 @ 3.6ghz can run it on ultra high and smooth through all the high detailed areas.

True that! on 3ghz I'm getting 45fps average with ALL DETAILS MAXED OUT, but autogen on normal.

On the other hand, my card is only a 1900xt, so my res is 1280*1024 and AA is turned on. :)

But as far as realism, air, ground and sea traffic, advanced animations and that little cpu hog called "autogen" is concerned.....these run pretty well on an oc'd q6600.

What the, my Q6600 at stock with a 7900GT does max ultra everything on Flight Sim X, autogen included at 1900 x 1200.

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

What the, my Q6600 at stock with a 7900GT does max ultra everything on Flight Sim X

Impossible, maybe you haven't flown low across cities? Or some of your settings aren't high enough?

I know it needs lots of power, when flying in certain areas I get up to 100% usage on all four cores.

Plus you'll find that even with my setup it dips below the 20fps default sometimes. Simply impossible for you to do better then me :)

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

What the, my Q6600 at stock with a 7900GT does max ultra everything on Flight Sim X, autogen included at 1900 x 1200.

B and S. Total BS. :)

There is not a stock machine in the world that can do that. Not yet.

Unless you're spending more than a grand on your cpu's and cooling them with your swimming pool.

Lei Ying Lo writes...

cooling them with your swimming pool.

that has been done, you know. See here, for instance.

Just booted my g0 to 3ghz at stock... I'll try for more later : )

if new games dont use much cpu and overclocking doesnt help wouldnt it be a waste of money to buy a $250 cpu when you could buy a $90 e2160

Natronomonas writes...

that has been done, you know.

Yup thats a pretty well known story. I like it because at my last house my study was a couple of metres from the pool pump. :)

Nice OC. the 3ghz mark is pretty easy to reach with the G0's.
I'd like to know what volts ppl are running at the 3.2 mark and maybe 3.4

perfectdarth writes...

if new games dont use much cpu and overclocking doesnt help wouldnt it be a waste of money to buy a $250 cpu when you could buy a $90 e2160

Good point. For older games.

Newer games will offload a lot (ai, physics, etc) onto the multiple cores of newer cpu's, to the point where one core, will control AI and network comms, another will do physics and nothing else.

Why does everyone state different voltages for a stock Q6600 G0?

Not at home now, but I'm pretty sure mines 1.2750 or something? another guy here mentioned 1.3 was stock.. can someone determine the absolute and exact stock voltage for me? ta.

Grish writes...

can someone determine the absolute and exact stock voltage for me? ta.

You'll have to find your lowest voltage yourself.

bart5986 writes...

You'll have to find your lowest voltage yourself.

But isn't there a base stock voltage for this CPU? eg. 1.25 or 1.3 or something?

Lei Ying Lo writes...

B and S. Total BS. :)

There is not a stock machine in the world that can do that. Not yet.

Unless you're spending more than a grand on your cpu's and cooling them with your swimming pool.

Not BS. A stock Q6600 with a 7900GT video card can do max everything in FSX at 1900 x 1200, albeit at 20 - 25fps not 60+ like some of you guys are trying to achieve for minimum gameplay standards.

For this game 20 - 25fps is very reasonable due to the genre and type of gameplay involved. All Q6600 users with 8800GTS and the like, try it at max ultra and then customise manually to ultra high everything, you will be surprised. Oh by the way, make sure you have SP1 for FSX installed.

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

Why are you overclocking a brand new CPU that has 4 cores and has ample speeds for anything you throw at it for the next 12 months?

unless he's playe Supreme Commander... That needs everything it can get.. ;)

Natronomonas writes...

Just booted my g0 to 3ghz at stock... I'll try for more later : )

Try 400 x 8. It works extremely well - your RAM is at 800mhz with a 1:1 ratio

Bl00dFox writes...

Try 400 x 8. It works extremely well - your RAM is at 800mhz with a 1:1 ratio

It's priming at 400x6 at the moment with +0.1v to FSB.

I'd previously had some stability issues at >~360FSB with non-CPU voltages on default, so I need to make sure the FSB can hack it before I try pushing the CPU harder.

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

make sure you have SP1 for FSX installed.

Yes of course your your multi-core will go to waste! :)

I'm not aiming for 60+ fps. I agree that 20 to 25fps is fine for fsx. But no good for landings, especially when you're flying over trees, some other type of complicated landscape (by buildings or other), 20fps at 10 thousand feet usually means half that at 100 feet. :)

Nah, mines perfectly smooth even on landings with chase view to boot. Some guy said there is no machine that can pull off the 1920 x 1200 res in FSX. I just did with a 2 generation old video card (7900GT). But I have to say this was due to probably my Q6600 quad core doing it's magic. I just hope game designers from now own start quadding their games to offload the GPU's so people without a $800 budget for video cards every 10 months can still play at high res. Pretty stoked at my 7900GT handling the res on a game that many proclaimed will destroy all PC's.

Whirlpooled your wrong, simple as that.

Q6600 3.6ghz, 2900 XT, 4gb ram can't run the game maxed out without lag.

I don't care what you have to say about it, your wrong.

You probably have your settings lower then max, flying in low detail areas, or something else. Don't try and act like your computer magically performs better then others.

bart5986 writes...

Whirlpooled your wrong, simple as that.

Q6600 3.6ghz, 2900 XT, 4gb ram can't run the game maxed out without lag.

Well, how can I be wrong if I have the game running at max everything at 1900 x 1200 res? I know it's only about 20 - 25fps but it can be done. I am sure on a GTX ultra this game will run 1900 x 1200 @ 100fps. So keep your trap shut and buy the game and try it yourself rather then read off forums from some new gamer that probably hasn't even installed SP1 for FSX update when benchmarking.

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

So keep your trap shut and buy the game and try it yourself rather then read off forums from some new gamer that probably hasn't even installed SP1 for FSX update when benchmarking.

LOL... if you read a bit yourself instead of being so rude you would know he has the game... you are the one who obviously has no idea and this has been exhibited by most of your 110 posts so far..

MrJimmyC writes...

know he has the game...

That, and i've played for over 115 hours, so I know what FSX needs for Ultra High.

Even the offical word from microsoft is that you need a 512mb video card for high settings. You can read this in the learning center in FSX.

And yes I have SP1, I got it the day it came out.

Also i would like to note that I can't get 20 fps stable throughout the game with my setup. It depends how detailed the area you are in is.

Why don't you post some screenshots so you can realise your wrong.

Run all your sliders at Ultra High, and at 1920x1200 with Antistropic Filtering and Anti-Aliasing.

Note that this isn't maxed out like you said you had ran it, but I thought I would ask for Ultra High first.

Press Shift Z three times until it shows FPS.

Take a screenshot without moving once you get in of the missions.
Yakutat Mail Run
Tokyo Executive Transport

And also Australia > QLD > Gold Coast airport.

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

Not BS. A stock Q6600 with a 7900GT video card can do max everything in FSX at 1900 x 1200, albeit at 20 - 25fps not 60+ like some of you guys are trying to achieve for minimum gameplay standards.

For someone that thinks a Q6600 is old tech Whirlpooled your certainly talking yours up now. :)

Rustyballs writes...

For someone that thinks a Q6600 is old tech Whirlpooled your certainly talking yours up now. :)

Yeah.. your "outdated" technology seems to be pretty in date Whirlpooled..

bart5986 writes...

Why don't you post some screenshots so you can realise your wrong.
Press Shift Z three times until it shows FPS.

Take a screenshot without moving once you get in of the missions.
Yakutat Mail Run
Tokyo Executive Transport

And also Australia > QLD > Gold Coast airport.

Will do. But only because I liked Rustyballs reply.

I too have just built a new computer and am overclocking my G0 Q6600.
First thing i tried was to make the FSB 1333(Qdr which effectively equals 3ghz, i saved and rebooted and it was going fine, my post showed that it was running at 3ghz and all, but when i get to just before or after the windows login my computer completly freezes were it is.

I don't think it is a temperature issue as i have checked the temperature in bios when it is set at 3ghz, and its around 40-45 degrees. I don't really know about voltages or ram timings but i have successfully overclocked just by changing the cpu speed before on another core 2 duo and i have also read posts where people say they can on stock voltages and ram timings.

Some explanations as to why this might be happening would be good. My specs r as follows -

Mobo- ASUS P5N32-E SLI PLUS (most recent bios update)
CPU - G0 Q6600 2.4ghz
RAM- 4gigs (4x1gig) of GEIL PC6400 800mhz
Video Card - Leadtek 8800GTX
650W powersupply

Thanks

forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?t=103676

forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?t=110267

Leque writes...

Some explanations as to why this might be happening would be good. My specs r as follows -

Mobo- ASUS P5N32-E SLI PLUS (most recent bios update)
CPU - G0 Q6600 2.4ghz

The fact that you automatically expect your CPU to jump to 3ghz without voltage tweaks. Remember this: Just because other people can, doesn't mean that yours can :).

Failure to boot to windows after posting can point to an underpowered overclock. Try bumping up the voltage a little, and if it loads windows, you know that your G0 requires a little extra juice to achieve 3ghz.

bart5986 writes...

Why don't you post some screenshots so you can realise your wrong.

Run all your sliders at Ultra High, and at 1920x1200 with Antistropic Filtering and Anti-Aliasing.

Note that this isn't maxed out like you said you had ran it, but I thought I would ask for Ultra High first.

Press Shift Z three times until it shows FPS.

Just to clarify, whirlpooled, you must be mistaken, because countless reviews, customers and microsoft cannot all be wrong about the requirements of FSX... Here's a tidbit of what you'll expect when you max out FSX on a 24" monitor.

Some people don't like TH due to that scandal, but you gotta admit, those are some nifty graphs :)

www23.tomshardware.com/g...l2=711&chart=293

seriously writes...

really?

hehehe, i'm very happy with my lg flattron 795ft plus 17" crt monitor then......running serene screen marine aquarium 2.6 with framerate controll switch off and at 1024x768x32 bit colour, 170 fps !

Its limited to the refresh rate of your monitor.
This is what VSYNCH is used for....it stops vertical tearing of the image when its moving on a screen whos FPS is higher than its refresh rate.

Bottom line, unless your refresh rate is @ 170Hz or higher, you wont see all of those 170fps.

Thanks for the reply, i thought it might have something do to with that. I just don't know by how much i should try increasing the voltage and if the only voltage i change is the vcore voltage.

BillyBobbyP writes...

more power = more heat = possible instability issues

get better cooling and ventalation and no problems overheating

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

Nah, mines perfectly smooth

Perfectly smooth does not happen at 20 to 25fps.

Please get fraps, start it up and let the benchmark create a log file of average fps for the next 180 seconds (3 minutes).

Load fsx and do the Getting Started > Learning Center demo.

The one that has the narrator starting with "Welcome to FSX, Why do you come to FSX? Some ppl come for the scenery, blah blah..." You know the one I mean.

It shows some in-game footage of some planes landing and taking off and an ultra light doing a fly-by. It's not a timedemo, but it will do for this exercise.

Start your benchmark as soon as the game mission starts (starting sooner will lower your average as when the level is still loading, fraps records an fps of about 0 to 7 and this affects your total score.)

Screenies will also be welcome :)

The Q6600 is not "magic". But its a great cpu. But pls forgive us if we're not able to swallow your story whole. :)

WHIRLPOOLED writes...

I just hope game designers from now own start quadding their games to offload the GPU's so people without a $800 budget for video cards every 10 months can still play at high res. Pretty stoked at my 7900GT handling the res on a game that many proclaimed will destroy all PC's.

There is only so much a dev can "offload" from a gpu to a cpu. And it wouldn't make sense to say a lower end video card and a quad core would be the same as a high end graphics card and a dual cored chip.

Lei Ying Lo writes...

Perfectly smooth does not happen at 20 to 25fps.

FSX is very smooth at that fps.

The issue is almost all setups are unable to stay above 20fps because of the high amount of scenery.

feddy writes...

get better cooling and ventalation and no problems overheating
I am comparing this to a "non-overclocked" CPU.

I have my vcore voltage set to 1.46, but when i check in hardware monitoring in bios it says its at 1.40. Is that normal?

Argh! Enough of FSX. ppl argue in CS that 60fps is enough and 30 isn't smooth.
But in FSX 20fps in smooth. Kids please.

The video standard for DVD in NTSC is 30fps, for PAL its 25fps, for imax its around 24, more so for cinema.

This rate is constant regardless of detail onscreen and therefore sufficient for video or fmv playback.

If you want to discuss your 7x00 graphics card and quad core playing fsx, go here.
flyawaysimulation.com/postlite30189-.html

Leque writes...

I have my vcore voltage set to 1.46, but when i check in hardware monitoring in bios it says its at 1.40. Is that normal?

Variation can be expected. But what are you using for "monitoring" within windows?
I had heaps of accuracy issues with cpu-z and speedfan.

Lei Ying Lo writes...

But in FSX 20fps in smooth. Kids please.

I'm not sure what your trying to say, are you saying its not smooth at 20fps?

Because of the slow movement of fsx compared to a fps, fsx at 20fps is as smooth as CSS at 40fps+

bart5986 writes...

Because of the slow movement of fsx compared to a fps, fsx at 20fps is as smooth as CSS at 40fps+

smooth and "playable" is not the same. Perhaps that is where the confusion is caused.

The game is playable at 20fps average. But landings are a royal pain. Average 20fps will drop during a landing. Maybe as much as half or a 3rd of that at a landing in a detailed airport.

I agree fsx will be playable at 10,000 ft at 20fps.
www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
Please read section on MINIMUM FPS.

My post above showed a couple of results users are getting with the q6600 on stock, then oc'ed. The test is to show CPU use and therefore the test resolution is 1024x768.

Unfortunately when the res is pumped to 1920x1200, you get no where near these results.

The conclusions is: As CPU intensive as FSX is, and as great as the Q6600 is, FSX still needs a decent graphics card as well, and that can't be ignored.

Which is why I believe whirlpooled's "smooth" gameplay on a 7900 to be a BS statement.
20 to 25fps??? Yeah I believe that, at 10,000 ft. But he goes on to make comments about smooth landings. Which just isn't possible with his setup. And definitely not at 1920x1200.

Lei Ying Lo writes...

The game is playable at 20fps average. But landings are a royal pain. Average 20fps will drop during a landing. Maybe as much as half or a 3rd of that at a landing in a detailed airport.

thats just stupid.

You get lower then 20fps because your system can't handle the buildings etc.

If you have a good system, it should stay at 20fps the whole time.

Increasing the max fps beyond 20 does basically nothing you'll notice, and leaving it at 20fps is good because it allows your computer to render higher detail scenery as it has free more free cpu.

Trust me, I have FSX I know what i'm talking about. Raising the max fps limit can actually give you worse minimum fps as your system is spending so much time trying to render as many frames as possible.

And the default limit for fps is 20, so Microsoft would know what they are talking about? Why would they ship a game out to so many people that forces people to get laggy gameplay? They wouldn't, 20fps is the perfect limit.

Lei Ying Lo writes...

Which is why I believe whirlpooled's "smooth" gameplay on a 7900 to be a BS statement.

Of course, don't use what he's saying as correct at all. Even at 10,000 ft I'm pretty sure he can't pull off "maxed out" and at 1920x1200

bart5986 writes...

If you have a good system, it should stay at 20fps the whole time.

I'm talking AVERAGES. If you pull off 25fps AVERAGE. Then at some point your fps drops below this average. If you stay above 20fps, then this is your MINIMUM. Basic statistics. But since I'm talking averages, and you're talking minimum's....

.....I believe you're talking about the FRAME RATE LOCK on the graphics setup screen. It doesn't ACTUALLY lock the fps to a minimum of whatever you set it to. Fps fluctuations will occur.

Ideally setting it to 20 means the resources of your pc will be working on other things rather than pushing the fps higher than 20.

For example, if autogen is enabled, then resources will be pooled to improving autogen.

But while this fsx task/resource management occurs your game still suffers, loading textures, new models, wind dynamics and other physics on the fly. Especially at low altitude flight. The lock is a great idea, but not perfect.

A lot of FSX regulars (like myself) push this fPS limit up to "Unlimited" which gives you freedom to set your own manual settings.

Trust me, I have FSX I know what i'm talking about.
I'm wondering at what point did I say I don't own fsx.
I'm not going to even comment on the "I know what I'm talking about" line. :)

Microsoft would know what they are talking about?
I have my doubts! :) Yes default could be 20. But since when does default=best?

Of course, don't use what he's saying as correct at all. Even at 10,000 ft I'm pretty sure he can't pull off "maxed out" and at 1920x1200
I'm glad we agree on this. Let's please drop the subject. :)

Lei Ying Lo writes...

But since I'm talking averages, and you're talking minimum's....

My average, minimum and maximum is 20fps. (besides the fact that it dips to 19.9 sometimes but thats completely normal and not related to computer power)

Fps fluctuations will occur.

My FSX has NEVER shown above 20fps.

FSX is different to normal games. Instead of limiting it to 20fps, it will only render 20fps. Which is why you never see it over 20fps. (from what I've read anyway)

But while this fsx task/resource management occurs your game still suffers, loading textures, new models, wind dynamics and other physics on the fly. Especially at low altitude flight. The lock is a great idea, but not perfect.

I don't know where your getting this from.

As long as my scenery slider is not too high, it always sits between 19.9-20fps.

As soon as I increase my scenery to Ultra High I get the same fps right until I get to a city or similar indicating my scenery is set too high and my video card can't keep up.

2 questions.

1) Is 30-35C(coretemp) with four instances of prime 95 on max heat torture test sound a bit low with a q6600(g0) stock? Intel Tat says the same.

2) should i start my own thread?

hankahanka writes...

2 questions.

Yes and no. Maybe No and No, if you're running a sub-zero cooling solution... :D

StrykerG writes...

My question is here - Isnt the voltage too low?
No... I'm at 3Ghz stock cooling also... vcore 1.16V, haven't yet tried lower but I could prob keep going

hankahanka writes...

1) Is 30-35C(coretemp) with four instances of prime 95 on max heat torture test sound a bit low with a q6600(g0) stock? Intel Tat says the same.


yes i think it does. what cooling?