Vista or XP?

[koen3950 0]

Currently the best warranty on any new hardware (stock or overclocked) is from BFG. Simply put, it's lifetime warranty...

Indeed, but they are not the only one. eg. EVGA also has lifetime warranty AND they allow you to change stock cooling...

How did you over-clock yours?

I will explain how I overclocked mine, but this will not be a step-by-step guide as Mathijs is allready preparing this. So if you don't feel too confident I would wait for this guide

The following I write applies to the Q6600 (stock at 2.4 ghz). I use DDR2 800mhz RAM. This ensures my ram will not get overclocked when overclocking the CPU.

First of all, there are 2 revisions of this processor. One with B3 stepping and a newer one with G0 stepping. The only practical difference is that the G0 is easier to overclock, as it runs cooler. You can tell if you have a B3 or G0 by looking at the revision number. SLACR revision means you have a G0.

A G0 can be clocked without troubles to 3.6GHZ, a b3 arround 3.4GHZ.

For getting those high speeds (more than 1ghz above stock speed!) it's only a matter of changing some parameters in the BIOS. If you want to go high (> 3.2 ghz or so) I would change the boxed cooler for a zalman or a scythe cooler, they run more silent and they provide better cooling.

Before you overclock make sure you have the following applications installed: coretemp (make sure you use version 0.95.4, otherwise you will have wrong readings), CPUz and Orthos.

Coretemp is used to monitor temperatures. Your CPU never should get warmer than 65°C when stressed!! CPUz is used to monitor CPU and memory speed details. Orthos is used to stress the CPU.

Now reboot the pc and enter BIOS. You should find some kind of advanced tab here. There are 4 settings that you will have to control in order to overclock: FSB speed, Multiplier, Core voltage and DRAM settings. You should set your DRAM settings so that it runs 1:1 with your FSB (you can check this on the memory tab of CPUz) Do this before you overclock anything else but ONLY in the case you have 800mhz memory. If you have slower memory I would change the proportion so your memory runs slower than the FSB.

Next step is to set the Multiplier of your CPU on 9x. Immediately after that you set your FSB a bit higher. Not more then 20mhz. Reboot your pc and inspect the results in CPUz and Coretemp. Run orthos for about 1/2 hour to make sure the temps don't get too high.

These steps you repeat (but as the speeds get higher, enlarge the FSB in steps of 10 or even 5 mhz at a time).

After a while you will notice that your CPU gets hotter, and at a certain speed (this will occur arround 3.2 ghz, but can be sooner or later) you will notice that your 1/2 hour running of orthos fails after a few minutes. This means your CPU has become unstable.

No panic . Reboot and enter BIOS. You do not change any speeds this time but you enlarge your core voltage (vcore) with about 2 steps. Only a minimal voltage increase but it should get the CPU stable again.

Reboot and rund orthos and coretemp. The temps will be higher then the previous run, because of the higher voltage. Orthos will have to run stabily for half an hour again. If not, slightly increase the voltage again but make sure you NEVER get higher then 65°C while running orthos!!

If the CPU runs stable again for half an hour, you can resume enlarging the FSB speed, untill it gets unstable again, then you enlarge the VCore.

Don't get your VCore too high. 1.6 volt is allready too much I think (but not sure)...

Loop through this cycle untill your CPU gets 62-65°C while being stressed by orthos.

If you think you are finished, you will have to run orthos for a longer duration (hours at least, 12 hours should be enough). If the CPU passes this test you can call it succesfully overclocked. If orthos fails, you will have to lower VCore or FSB a little bit at a time and re-run the test.

If you want to speed it up more now, you will need better cooling

I myself have a G0 stepping (SLACR revision) Q6600. The frontside bus is set at 385 and the voltage at 1.465 volt (but don't shoot me if you get more, I'm not at home right now so this is by heart ...). This gives me a clockspeed of 3.465 GHZ. My memory is running at 1:1, so at 385mhz too. As I have DDR2 800mhz memory it is even running a little bit below the speeds it was designed for (385*2=770 mhz). I did not get my CPU higher because I didn't install my cooling well. One of my cores runs at 65°C stressed, while the others run at 55°C... Will have to crack it open sometime

Hope this helps someone

[EDOT-TH 0]

Next possible good graphics card could be the HD3870 from AMD. Card will be released end of next week and though it seems to be slower than the 8800GT initial prices for the 512MB version will be around 220€. I think if they would drop to 200€ or below this could be an interesting alternative to nVidia since they support DirectX10.1.

I have to quote myself and it seems the answer to question is: no. Seems nVidia still is choice no.1 for FSX: http://www.tomshardware.com/de/HD3850-HD38...-239876-12.html

Hopefully the nVidia can solve the problem with availability of the card. By the way they anounced a 8800GT with 256MB for 149€.. only question is whether the FSX "needs" 512 MB?

[koen3950 0]

only question is whether the FSX "needs" 512 MB?

No game "needs" 512 MB as long as you play it on average resolutions. If you are getting higher than 1280*1024 you will start noticing the benefit of 512MB over 256MB.

[EDOT-TH 0]

No game "needs" 512 MB as long as you play it on average resolutions. If you are getting higher than 1280*1024 you will start noticing the benefit of 512MB over 256MB.

Ok, so due to my native resolution is 1440x900 it would be better. Thanks for answer!

[koen3950 0]

Ok, so due to my native resolution is 1440x900 it would be better. Thanks for answer!

Not necessarily. You can multiply the height and width of the resolution with each other to get the total amount of pixels.

1280*1024 = 1310720

1440*900 = 1296000

You are around 14000 pixels below the (imaginative) borderline. However, I would still recommend the 512MB version if you tend too keep your hardware for a long time. Future games will start to use larger and larger textures, and in that case the larger memory is also welcome

[EDOT-TH 0]

Good to know

Thanks again, Koen!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Good to know

Thanks again, Koen!

However not correct.

Using some rather obscure tools that allow you to see the memory use of the graphics card I do see large amounts of the available memory used. In FSX, certainly in DX10 mode, but also in DX9, it will keep textures of objects behind your aircraft in memory as long as possible (until the memory is needed again by new objects). This allows you to look back and not having to wait for textures to be swapped. If you start FSX on a busy airport you also notice that textures of objects out of view are preloaded.

This is rather normal behavior for modern games. just doing an X * Y = resolution = graphics memory used would have worked around 4 years ago. Right now it is really outdated. Many games and many OS's (Vista) will see the additional memory and will try to use it. It really makes a difference. If it would not, would there be any gamer stupid enough to consider 640 Mb graphics cards? Or even the 1 Gb versions that are getting out now? You can sell a lot of junk, but not 1Gb graphics memory that is not used.

Get the 640 Mb version of the 8800 series. You won't be sorry.

[koen3950 0]

Mathijs,

you are right, I am still using few year's old methods. Didn't follow the hardware scene very good untill recently.

Thanks for the info, will try to remember it and don't give other people wrong advice anymore

[mark_kam 0]

you dont need vista for DX10

im testing a beta version of DX10 compatiable with Xp and it runs great especially on fsx

just as long as you have a powerful computer

[skydvdan 2]

you dont need vista for DX10

im testing a beta version of DX10 compatiable with Xp and it runs great especially on fsx

just as long as you have a powerful computer

After that's released will there even be a reason to have Vista?

[Robert S 75]

After that's released will there even be a reason to have Vista?

I have read intel about the performance difference between XP SP3 (yes, MS is planning a SP3 for XP!) and Vista SP1 and Vista is seeing NO performance increase while XP is actually getting faster...

One last thing...there has been a LOT of rumors about various projects claiming to make DX10 games run on XP (Falling Leaf, WINE) but if you check the net and various sources very carefully, all of these have been debunked.

So, it seems there will be no DX10 on XP...(Even with the "secret" version of DX9.0L)

Mark_Kam - what beta version are you trying out?

[mark_kam 0]

Mark_Kam - what beta version are you trying out?

it is a beta program that allows me to play DX10 games on XP i am testing it out and yes it does work because i also have vista on another computer and has all the same features, looks the same etc

i cant really say any more about it but it does have a few minor bugs but should work for the new SP3 microsoft are bringing out. i cant tell you 100% that Dx10 will be released to work on XP but there is a high chance it will.

regards

mark

[Robert S 75]

So mark_kam,

Is there no website for information on this? I understand the beta may be closed but can you link us to a product information site?

Thanks!

[mark_kam 0]

So mark_kam,

Is there no website for information on this? I understand the beta may be closed but can you link us to a product information site?

Thanks!

sorry cant give you out that informtion...yet

hold in tight it might be available or everyone to get for xp